Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Wagamaga OP t1_iylwf4c wrote

Researchers analysed data from UK Biobank – a large-scale biomedical database and research resource containing anonymised genetic, lifestyle and health information from half a million UK participants aged between 40 and 69 years. Participants were assessed for 36 physical and five mental health chronic conditions. Multimorbidity was defined as having two or more of these conditions.

Physical and mental health data from UK Biobank in 2010 were linked with the estimated concentration of air pollution at the residential address of the participants.

The study found that those participants exposed to higher concentrations (above 10µg/m3) of fine particulate matter had a 21 per cent increased risk of two or more co-occurring conditions compared to those exposed to concentrations below 10µg/m3.

For participants exposed to above 30µg/m3 of NO2, the research showed a 20 per cent increased risk of having two or more co-occurring conditions compared to those participants that were exposed to concentrations of NO2 below 20µg/m3.

Amongst those with multiple conditions, increased exposure to both PM2.5 and NO2 was linked to a greater severity of the co-occurring conditions.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2022.1035415/full

4

BradTProse t1_iyoqkn4 wrote

No no its vaccines and 5g. Funny how the obvious with millions of vehicles spewing tons of toxins into the air we breath doesn't matter.

3

Ok-Significance2027 t1_iyoriv7 wrote

r/fuckcars

We can build better infrastructure specifically adapted to different locations everywhere, especially where there's high population density. Give the streets back to people, build more bikeways and train tracks.

3

SILIC0N_SAINT t1_iyqfe6h wrote

This is the equivalent of saying shooting yourself in the head is associated with "a bit of a draughty feeling between the ears"

2

AutoModerator t1_iylwdaw wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

Diamond4Hands4Ever t1_iym1kq8 wrote

Sorry if this is a dumb question, but for studies like this, how do you account for positive selection bias? Like people who choose to live in certain areas with higher concentration of air pollution might also have some kind of unobserved characteristic correlated to long-term physical and mental health conditions. I don’t know what one pathway would be, but maybe it could be job related. For example, a miner might choose to live in an area with worse air condition due to their job. That job also then causes physical problems. So the causal pathway is the job, not the actual air pollution.

1

hepakrese t1_iym4h9e wrote

The exploits of mining specifically are far more broadly reaching than the interior of a mine or quarry where the worker is. It pollutes the land, air, and water in the community and that affects everyone in the area regardless of whether they work in the mine. Further, the guise of choice does a lot of heavy lifting in your query, when one may not be able to afford to live anywhere else; the community may not have other jobs, and saying nothing of underage children who don't have the luxury of 'choice.'

As such, you cannot limit the study simply to the people who 'choose' to work and live there, and the very premise of choice itself is flawed.

The same can be said for traffic congested areas.

6