5 ms·

Global pollution kills 9M a year, according to new study

Retric 9y ago
For comparison ~55.3 million people die each year so ~16% of deaths are linked to pollution.
- TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
  I didn't know this, guess I'd never thought to look it up. If 16% of deaths can be attributed to pollution, and some percentage are vehicle related, accidents in general, preventable disease / infections, etc etc... How many deaths per year should we expect if all of those things could be reduced / minimised / eliminated?
  - xapata 9y ago
    We might find other causes increase. For example, decreasing violent deaths increases mortality from heart disease. After some lag time, of course.
    - YokoZar 9y ago
      We surely would. But the gains may be more (or less) than you think. I remember a gerontologist showing some math where if you prevented all heart disease you'd only gain about 4 years of human lifespan (since most of those people would soon get cancer); similarly if you prevented all cancer you'd only get about 4 years as well (since most of those people would get heart disease). But if you prevented both, you'd get something north of 10 years of average lifespan.
curiousgeorgio 9y ago
No, sorry - this isn't science. > air pollution was the biggest killer, leading to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and other illnesses There's absolutely no way you can definitively link deaths from heart disease to air pollution with any substantial degree of confidence, at least not in 99.99% of the cases. I guarantee that within a short amount of time, this whole "study" will be invalidated as baseless political-motivated pseudoscience.
- hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
  > There's absolutely no way you can definitively link deaths from heart disease to air pollution with any substantial degree of confidence, at least not in 99.99% of the cases. I have not read the detail of the report in question, but your assertion is not really true, because it assumes that each individual case needs to be definitively linked as "yes-or-no" as being caused by air pollution. That is just not how population studies like this work. On the other hand, (and, again, it could be in the source of the report, not sure) but a more accurate/effective measure is years of life lost because of pollution. One of the most tragic consequences of heavy pollution is it's effect on the young. Pollution in some cities like New Delhi is so horrendous that it's like smoking a pack or two a day - imagine that effect on a young child.
  - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
    > That is just not how population studies like this work. I agree (that's not how these studies work), and that's kind of my point. If you're going to throw around phrases like "caused by" (or "responsible for", as claimed by the study), then you really should be able to definitively link the two.
    - Retric 9y ago
      Not really, if you look at lung cancer rates among non smokers they are not zero. So, you can't say a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking but by comparing populations you can find changes in rates.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
        Are you really comparing the relationship between smoking and lung cancer with a relationship between air pollution (especially outdoor) and heart disease? Seriously, they're not even in the same ballpark in terms of objective statistical significance. Not even close. You may not be able to say with absolute 100% certainty that "a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking", but you can often be >95% certain. Can you (or anyone) say the same for outdoor air pollution and heart disease?
tomxor 9y ago
STOP trying to ascribe an arbitrary death toll!!! Pollution kills everyone by shortening or reducing quality of life, it's near impossible to quantify, but what makes no sense at all is picking some arbitrary threshold, everyone is affected not 9M not 1B, but 7B.
- mlinksva 9y ago
  It says premature deaths. I'm not sure it makes no sense at all, but it is an unfortunate thing to focus on. DALYs seem better, and are discussed throughout the article (which I've only skimmed so far), eg: > The GBD study also estimates that disease caused by all forms of pollution was responsible for 268 million DALYs—254 million years of life lost and 14 million years lived with disability. This information is available by country and region and is presented in the appendix.
Proven 9y ago
Only 9 million
valuearb 9y ago
This would be far more useful if it’s measured in life years, than lives. There is big difference between pollution killing an healthy infant then killing a 86 year old suffering from a terminal illness.

For comparison ~55.3 million people die each year so ~16% of deaths are linked to pollution.

TheSpiceIsLife 9y ago
I didn't know this, guess I'd never thought to look it up. If 16% of deaths can be attributed to pollution, and some percentage are vehicle related, accidents in general, preventable disease / infections, etc etc... How many deaths per year should we expect if all of those things could be reduced / minimised / eliminated?
- xapata 9y ago
  We might find other causes increase. For example, decreasing violent deaths increases mortality from heart disease. After some lag time, of course.
  - YokoZar 9y ago
    We surely would. But the gains may be more (or less) than you think. I remember a gerontologist showing some math where if you prevented all heart disease you'd only gain about 4 years of human lifespan (since most of those people would soon get cancer); similarly if you prevented all cancer you'd only get about 4 years as well (since most of those people would get heart disease). But if you prevented both, you'd get something north of 10 years of average lifespan.

No, sorry - this isn't science. > air pollution was the biggest killer, leading to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer and other illnesses There's absolutely no way you can definitively link deaths from heart disease to air pollution with any substantial degree of confidence, at least not in 99.99% of the cases. I guarantee that within a short amount of time, this whole "study" will be invalidated as baseless political-motivated pseudoscience.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
> There's absolutely no way you can definitively link deaths from heart disease to air pollution with any substantial degree of confidence, at least not in 99.99% of the cases. I have not read the detail of the report in question, but your assertion is not really true, because it assumes that each individual case needs to be definitively linked as "yes-or-no" as being caused by air pollution. That is just not how population studies like this work. On the other hand, (and, again, it could be in the source of the report, not sure) but a more accurate/effective measure is years of life lost because of pollution. One of the most tragic consequences of heavy pollution is it's effect on the young. Pollution in some cities like New Delhi is so horrendous that it's like smoking a pack or two a day - imagine that effect on a young child.
- curiousgeorgio 9y ago
  > That is just not how population studies like this work. I agree (that's not how these studies work), and that's kind of my point. If you're going to throw around phrases like "caused by" (or "responsible for", as claimed by the study), then you really should be able to definitively link the two.
  - Retric 9y ago
    Not really, if you look at lung cancer rates among non smokers they are not zero. So, you can't say a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking but by comparing populations you can find changes in rates.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - curiousgeorgio 9y ago
      Are you really comparing the relationship between smoking and lung cancer with a relationship between air pollution (especially outdoor) and heart disease? Seriously, they're not even in the same ballpark in terms of objective statistical significance. Not even close. You may not be able to say with absolute 100% certainty that "a specific smoker got long cancer from smoking", but you can often be >95% certain. Can you (or anyone) say the same for outdoor air pollution and heart disease?

tomxor 9y ago

STOP trying to ascribe an arbitrary death toll!!! Pollution kills everyone by shortening or reducing quality of life, it's near impossible to quantify, but what makes no sense at all is picking some arbitrary threshold, everyone is affected not 9M not 1B, but 7B.

mlinksva 9y ago
It says premature deaths. I'm not sure it makes no sense at all, but it is an unfortunate thing to focus on. DALYs seem better, and are discussed throughout the article (which I've only skimmed so far), eg: > The GBD study also estimates that disease caused by all forms of pollution was responsible for 268 million DALYs—254 million years of life lost and 14 million years lived with disability. This information is available by country and region and is presented in the appendix.

Proven 9y ago

Only 9 million

valuearb 9y ago

This would be far more useful if it’s measured in life years, than lives. There is big difference between pollution killing an healthy infant then killing a 86 year old suffering from a terminal illness.