Jump to content

Create a Free Account or Sign In to connect and share in green living and alternative energy forum discussions.

is this true?


 
13 replies to this topic

#1 greenking

greenking

    Regular

  • Shifter
  • 60 posts 2 rep

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:35 AM

is this true? In China about 300,000 people die yearly from lung cancer and heart disease directly
related to air pollution? That's a lot!

#2 Hayden

Hayden

    Admin

  • Global Moderator
  • 1,489 posts 72 rep

Posted 03 February 2012 - 09:48 AM

Did that statistic have a source?

#3 MakingCents

MakingCents

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 335 posts 23 rep

Posted 03 February 2012 - 10:24 AM

While I do think people develop lung cancer from air pollution this seams like a really high number of year deaths.  I would love to see the article that references this.

#4 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Global Moderator
  • 7,183 posts 556 rep

Posted 03 February 2012 - 02:31 PM

You've posted a few topics seeking opinions I suppose, but your questions don't have links to
substantiate the facts. What gives? Just asking questions is fine but where are the links?

#5 Ansem

Ansem

    Regular

  • Shifter
  • 91 posts 5 rep

Posted 20 February 2012 - 03:57 AM

Seeing as cities like Shanghai are literally flooded with smug you can't even see the end of the street due to a brown walm.
I say it's completely plausible.

#6 still learning

still learning

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 686 posts 71 rep

Posted 20 February 2012 - 08:55 AM

View Postgreenking, on 03 February 2012 - 09:35 AM, said:

is this true? In China about 300,000 people die yearly from lung cancer and heart disease directly
related to air pollution? That's a lot!


Lets see....
Accepting the 300,000 number (I didn't check it)....
From Wikipedia 1.3 billion peple live in China  http://en.wikipedia....nese_population
From Wikipedia  7.03 deaths per 1000,
So 9.13 million deaths per year in China and 300,000 is about 3.3% of total deaths.
3.3% sounds high until you look at articles like this: http://www.scienceda...70813162438.htm
(Which I'm taking with a grain of salt, kind of remembering that " there are  lies, there are damn lies and there are statistics')

#7 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 February 2012 - 04:10 AM

"We documented 20,033 deaths in 1,239,191 person-years of follow-up. The mortality from all causes was 1480.1 per 100,000 person-years among men and 1190.2 per 100,000 person-years among women. The five leading causes of death were malignant neoplasms (mortality, 374.1 per 100,000 person-years), diseases of the heart (319.1), cerebrovascular disease (310.5), accidents (54.0), and infectious diseases (50.5) among men and diseases of the heart (268.5), cerebrovascular disease (242.3), malignant neoplasms (214.1), pneumonia and influenza (45.9), and infectious diseases (35.3) among women. The multivariate-adjusted relative risk of death and the population attributable risk for preventable risk factors were as follows: hypertension, 1.48 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.44 to 1.53) and 11.7 percent, respectively; cigarette smoking, 1.23 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.18 to 1.27) and 7.9 percent; physical inactivity, 1.20 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.16 to 1.24) and 6.8 percent; and underweight (body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters] below 18.5), 1.47 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.42 to 1.53) and 5.2 percent."

#8 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Global Moderator
  • 7,183 posts 556 rep

Posted 22 February 2012 - 04:22 AM

View Postarboramans, on 21 February 2012 - 04:10 AM, said:

"We documented 20,033 deaths in 1,239,191 person-years of follow-up. The mortality from all causes was 1480.1 per 100,000 person-years among men and 1190.2 per 100,000 person-years among women. The five leading causes of death were malignant neoplasms (mortality, 374.1 per 100,000 person-years), diseases of the heart (319.1), cerebrovascular disease (310.5), accidents (54.0), and infectious diseases (50.5) among men and diseases of the heart (268.5), cerebrovascular disease (242.3), malignant neoplasms (214.1), pneumonia and influenza (45.9), and infectious diseases (35.3) among women. The multivariate-adjusted relative risk of death and the population attributable risk for preventable risk factors were as follows: hypertension, 1.48 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.44 to 1.53) and 11.7 percent, respectively; cigarette smoking, 1.23 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.18 to 1.27) and 7.9 percent; physical inactivity, 1.20 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.16 to 1.24) and 6.8 percent; and underweight (body-mass index [the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters] below 18.5), 1.47 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.42 to 1.53) and 5.2 percent."
Link?

#9 artistry

artistry

    Activist

  • Veteran Shifter
  • 852 posts 61 rep

Posted 22 February 2012 - 05:21 PM

This is not specifically related to China, but air pollution can lead to certain diseases, such as diabetes. So it is not that far fetched to learn that air pollution has lead to so many deaths there, if true. A lot of the people in China, wear face masks on a daily basis. http://www.scienceda...0929105654.html  This relates to an epidemiologic study on the air pollution, diabetes connection.

#10 Shortpoet-GTD

Shortpoet-GTD

    Shifted

  • Global Moderator
  • 7,183 posts 556 rep

Posted 23 February 2012 - 04:12 AM

View Postartistry, on 22 February 2012 - 05:21 PM, said:

This is not specifically related to China, but air pollution can lead to certain diseases, such as diabetes. So it is not that far fetched to learn that air pollution has lead to so many deaths there, if true. A lot of the people in China, wear face masks on a daily basis. http://www.scienceda...0929105654.html  This relates to an epidemiologic study on the air pollution, diabetes connection.
I remember seeing (years ago) people in China getting oxygen from stations installed on light poles.

#11 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 February 2012 - 04:44 PM

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/16162883

The source I quoted is peer reviewed* and has been cited 559 times.


*lol

#12 jasserEnv

jasserEnv

    Activist

  • Pro Shifter
  • 406 posts 44 rep

Posted 26 February 2012 - 10:03 PM

Air pollution is responsible for a lot of deaths worldwide. That is why both left and right leaning politicians seem to agree on fighting air pollution even if they don't agree on how to do it. The missing link from the first post was likely related to the following story from 2007 in which China was hiding the truth about air pollution deaths. Really, China hiding the truth, I am shocked... :wink:

http://news.bbc.co.u...fic/6265098.stm

#13 Guest_arboramans_*

Guest_arboramans_*
  • Guests

Posted 27 February 2012 - 04:57 PM

This is why most people are against Carbon particulates but not against Carbon Dioxide. One causes smog and health problems, the other feeds our crops and flowers.

#14 Ansem

Ansem

    Regular

  • Shifter
  • 91 posts 5 rep

Posted 03 March 2012 - 10:09 AM

View Postarboramans, on 27 February 2012 - 04:57 PM, said:

This is why most people are against Carbon particulates but not against Carbon Dioxide. One causes smog and health problems, the other feeds our crops and flowers.
You get some, you lose some.
It's what priorities you make that decide the final answer.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users