When did mankind forget the link between pollution and disease?
- Thread starter Turn2
- Start date
I would post something, but this thread is not in the political forum... so I best not.
Thank you! As a family rich in Die Casting, I found this both enlightening and disturbing. I fear we're only scratching the surface of pollutants' affect on our health. And these pollutants come in forms yet perceived by the masses and are proliferating at an alarming rate.
I see what you're saying. But, I believe we can focus on the health angle without making it too political. Or, at the very least I hope so.
How can you separate legislation (which protects or fails to protect our health) from politics? They are irrevocably intertwined.
LOL, I think you already have your answer on "can we talk about science without talking about politics"
(It's "no")
Even if 90% of us wanted to just talk science, 10% would ride in and destroy the thread.
Follow the money, it always tells the story. Lot cheaper to pollute than doing it the right way and then let the people that get sick sue you down the road. Tried and true business way of working for decade.
How can you separate the two? Physical science alone...
Federal Science Agencies
FYI covers U.S. federal agencies that oversee research in the physical sciences. Our agency-specific reporting focuses on the annual appropriations process, changes in agency leadership, and legislative initiatives.
ww2.aip.org
And biological science...
Research Guides: Biological Sciences: Organizations and Government Agencies
Research Guides: Biological Sciences: Organizations and Government Agencies
And technology...
Information Technology and Computer Science
gogovernment.org
You can absolutely talk about the science, the causes, the strength of the data, biological processes, the pros/cons and potential effectiveness of different potential mitigations... without turning it into what passes for political "debate".
Maybe I am arguing semantics, but what I see as discussing "policy" ie what really is the problem and what would be a good solution is totally different than "politics" ie shouting and blaming evil guys on the other side in order to acquire power.
But even saying we should pollute less draws a response that is political.
Some can, some can’t. That’s why it will be caved if you talk about it at all.
PM2.5 is increasingly linked to dementia.
www.hsph.harvard.edu
Air pollution may increase risk for dementia | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Exposure to fine particulate air pollutants (PM2.5) may increase the risk of developing dementia, according to a new meta-analysis from Harvard Chan School.
www.hsph.harvard.edu
There have been a lot of studies over the past 10 years showing how bad air pollution is for people. In the short term it reduces cognitive abilities on top of all the physical maladies. In the long term it can have major mental and psychological impacts.PM2.5 is increasingly linked to dementia.
Air pollution may increase risk for dementia | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Exposure to fine particulate air pollutants (PM2.5) may increase the risk of developing dementia, according to a new meta-analysis from Harvard Chan School.
Regarding politics, we can discuss cause-effect, risk, and technical solutions without getting political. But at some point the science has to be implemented to see wide-ranging benefits, and there are certainly cases where science can't be implemented without legislation.
Agreed. In addition to the interesting nature of the article I found it astounding that it was presented as if this is some new and controversial finding. C'mon NBC.
But how do you get that knowledge? It doesn't come down from the sky on a cloud. Especially without funding.
There's no way to reach a solution without legislating one. You and I might recycle, give up our carbon footprints and eat what is labeled "organic" and not make even a teeny tiny dent in the problem.
Another example: science has repeatedly shown us that the earth is overpopulated, but guess how many inhabitants will willingly make the decision to curtail population growth...
"Science" has said the earth is overpopulated for about 100 years. Opinions such as this are not actually science.
What resources are in short supply? There is plenty of food, but it's not equally distributed. There is plenty of space for people - drive across the country and note how much of it is empty.
Equally distributing food, allowing people to move to better locations, providing clean air and water - all have technical solutions. It's a breakdown of politics (as well as the "free market") that results in suffering. That's as far as I'll go to prevent getting it Caved.
