3 ms·
From the article: "If the elements in the soil and water of a region work their way into the plants grown there, they also work their way into our bodies when w
by rapjr9 5y ago
From the article: "If the elements in the soil and water of a region work their way into the plants grown there, they also work their way into our bodies when we eat the produce of those plants, or when we eat the meat of animals fed on those plants. We ingest these elements, process them, and use them to build flesh, teeth and bones. So the elements making up our bodies can tell us something about the food we’ve eaten and the land that supports us."
Seems like the same idea would apply to regional differences in health including mental health. An obvious one would be if the land is high in lead, the people living on it might be more violent. Areas with oil wells are likely affecting air and food quality. Maybe areas with a lot of lithium result in happier people. Western medicine has largely ignored environmental effects. A map of background radiation levels across the world might have an interesting health story to tell as could multi-spectral satellite imagery. Oritain might be sitting on a wealth of very useful health data, unaware of it.
- kiklion 5y ago> Western medicine has largely ignored environmental effects. I wouldn’t say they ignored it, instead environmental effects aren’t in scope to medicine. If your doctor said ‘you live on Long Island so you have a higher chance of breast cancer, combined with your family history, I advise you to sell everything and move your family.’ The vast majority of people are going yo ignore that. Even if you have the means to move, your doctor can’t quantify your local ties and relationships in a meaningful way to determine if increased risks from the environment are worth it.
- aomobile 5y agoInteresting thought.. and the data is surely available, someone must just find it and use it to connect the dots
- TeMPOraL 5y agoI think a sanity check heuristic applies: if the environmental effects on health were big enough to matter, the local government would turn the whole area into an exclusion zone (if effects were negative) or a vacation place (if they were positive). Since those things don't seem to happen, we can tentatively assume those effects don't rise above the noise floor. (Same thing applies to dietary disinformation: if some foodstuffs were to actually increase your chance of cancer meaningfully, they'd be classified as hazardous substances. If they were to visibly improve your health, they'd be regulated as drugs.)