Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency

[ScienceRocks]

Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency

(Reuters) - The air we breathe is laced with cancer-causing substances and is being officially classified as carcinogenic to humans, the World Health Organization's cancer agency said on Thursday.

The International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) cited data indicating that in 2010, 223,000 deaths from lung cancer worldwide resulted from air pollution, and said there was also convincing evidence it increases the risk of bladder cancer.

Depending on the level of exposure in different parts of the world, the risk was found to be similar to that of breathing in second-hand tobacco smoke, Kurt Straif, head of the agency's section that ranks carcinogens, told reporters in Geneva.

"Our task was to evaluate the air everyone breathes rather than focus on specific air pollutants," deputy head Dana Loomis said in a statement. "The results from the reviewed studies point in the same direction: the risk of developing lung cancer is significantly increased in people exposed to air pollution."

Air pollution a leading cause of cancer - U.N. agency | Reuters

This is probably the number one reason to go over to wind, solar, fusion, etc....

 

[Mr. H.]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

 

[Nosmo King]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

 

[Old Rocks]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

When mankind first domesticated horses, he began a path that led to the present civilization. When we started using the immense energy stored in hydrocarbons, we further freed mankind to develop the technological society of today. But both the uses of horses and fossil fuels have limitatations and costs.

At present, we are moving from a fossil fuel based economy to one far less damaging to the environment and our own health. Just as there were many that mourned the move to a machine based society from that of a horse based society, there are those that are going to mourn and oppose the move to renewables from a fossil fuel based society. For about one generation.

After that, when reviewing the history, people will wonder about the resistance to the change, just as we veiw the resistance to the change from horse power to machine power.
The environmental damage from 'green' power is many orders of magnitude less than that from fossil fuels. And the profits and benefits will be far greater to the individual as that power becomes increasingly less costly. Even at present, for about what the average person makes in one year, one can become completely self sufficient for power. In a decade, the cost will be less than a quarter, and the cost of EV's will be more than competative with ICE's. No tears for the manufactures of buggy whips.

 

[Mr. H.]

The movement to a machine-based society was not preceded by the mass execution of the equine population.

 

[flacaltenn]

This is another prime example of deconstructions of science from the UN..

The thesis is that we don't need to assess WHICH COMPONENTS of air pollution cause cancer. Or even talk about the relevent levels. But we simply assert that "air pollution" is bad..

This happens for a couple reasons..

1) Because the facts that tie various kinds of cancer to SPECIFIC pollutants with a carbon source are weak or have already been reduced below meaningful toxicology evidence.

OR

2) They want to remove the entire discussion of specific toxic components from the discussion to avoid JUSTIFYING further heinous reductions in levels.

There LITERALLY is nothing new here except an attempt to substitute fluff for numbers..

 

[flacaltenn]

223K lung cancer cases/yr divided by 7Bill people === 32 cases/million/yr.
In the US by it's lonesome ---- probably 1/2 that rate.
NOT confirmed mind you.. But assumed..

And they TELL US --- we don't need to analyze WHAT or HOW the individual pollutants act on this number..

Anti-Science from the SOURCE of anti-science --- the UN...

 

[Nosmo King]

Things we know:

BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl-benzene) are carcinogens.

BTEX compounds are carbon based chemicals and are produced through the refinement and combustion of oil.

More oil is refined and burned today than ever before.

Particulates such as lead, asbestos, coal ash, electric arc furnace dust cause diseases and serious health conditions. Such particulates are easily captured at stacks and other point sources. But that capture involves a capital outlay on the part of the producer.

The question is: should we try to abate the rate of air pollution in order to save the exposed population from death and disease, or should we simply throw up our hands and let polluters pollute because their profits are more important than public health.

 

[martybegan]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

The RISK of getting cancer is part of 1) being alive and 2)part of being in a modern technological society. Consdering that all this technology has reduced alot of the other things that used to kill us, infectious diseases, infected wounds, large predatory mammals, cancer risk is the result of longer lives and less other ways of becoming dead.

 

[martybegan]

The movement to a machine-based society was not preceded by the mass execution of the equine population.

Also the machine based society came in of its own due to its superiority to animal based traction in almost every way. Right now you are proposing killing technologies and replacing them with LESS efficient and/or productive replacements via governmental fiat.

It didnt take the government to kill the horse drawn plow, the tractor salesman did it.

 

[flacaltenn]

Things we know:

BTEX compounds (benzene, toluene, xylene, ethyl-benzene) are carcinogens.

BTEX compounds are carbon based chemicals and are produced through the refinement and combustion of oil.

More oil is refined and burned today than ever before.

Particulates such as lead, asbestos, coal ash, electric arc furnace dust cause diseases and serious health conditions. Such particulates are easily captured at stacks and other point sources. But that capture involves a capital outlay on the part of the producer.

The question is: should we try to abate the rate of air pollution in order to save the exposed population from death and disease, or should we simply throw up our hands and let polluters pollute because their profits are more important than public health.

No hand-throwing-up required.. Stick to the plan.. Prioritize, Analyze, Prescribe..

The hand-throwing is on the part of the jerks REMOVING the scientific method from the discussion..

 

[Nosmo King]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

The RISK of getting cancer is part of 1) being alive and 2)part of being in a modern technological society. Consdering that all this technology has reduced alot of the other things that used to kill us, infectious diseases, infected wounds, large predatory mammals, cancer risk is the result of longer lives and less other ways of becoming dead.

So, by your logic, as we no longer have to worry about tiger attacks, we should let polluters pump carcinogens into the atmosphere because abating those carcinogens at the source is too expensive?

 

[martybegan]

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

The RISK of getting cancer is part of 1) being alive and 2)part of being in a modern technological society. Consdering that all this technology has reduced alot of the other things that used to kill us, infectious diseases, infected wounds, large predatory mammals, cancer risk is the result of longer lives and less other ways of becoming dead.

So, by your logic, as we no longer have to worry about tiger attacks, we should let polluters pump carcinogens into the atmosphere because abating those carcinogens at the source is too expensive?

No, what I'm saying is that pollution does not automatically equal cancer, it may increase the risk, but the increased risk is probably not worth completely retooling our society to allow the other old reasons a chance to come back.

 

[Nosmo King]

The RISK of getting cancer is part of 1) being alive and 2)part of being in a modern technological society. Consdering that all this technology has reduced alot of the other things that used to kill us, infectious diseases, infected wounds, large predatory mammals, cancer risk is the result of longer lives and less other ways of becoming dead.

So, by your logic, as we no longer have to worry about tiger attacks, we should let polluters pump carcinogens into the atmosphere because abating those carcinogens at the source is too expensive?

No, what I'm saying is that pollution does not automatically equal cancer, it may increase the risk, but the increased risk is probably not worth completely retooling our society to allow the other old reasons a chance to come back.

But the risk is certainly worth the effort to abate the pollutants at the source. Ignorance of the problem does not provide cover and no one advocates retooling society. But there are effective means of capturing and sequestering dangerous pollutants. And those means don't involve reverse engineering of society. Quite the contrary. Making things safer always brings more benefits than ignoring the problem or rejecting solutions out of hand or in a fit of political pique.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

Poverty is the number one cause of death - direct and indirect,

 

[Nosmo King]

...more like ammunition to kill and bury hydrocarbons. And jobs. And commerce. And GDP. And balance of payments. U.S. emissions are near a 20-year low thanks primarily to the increased use of natural gas. "Green" technologies are not without environmental consequences and you know it.

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

Poverty is the number one cause of death - direct and indirect,

Granted. And there are those trying to abate poverty. But creating more wealth through pollution is not an option anyone could support, right?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

So cancer is merely the cost of doing business? People should accept getting sick and dying because profits are more important?

Poverty is the number one cause of death - direct and indirect,

Granted. And there are those trying to abate poverty. But creating more wealth through pollution is not an option anyone could support, right?

Every time you buy a product made in China you increase pollution.

 

[Nosmo King]

Poverty is the number one cause of death - direct and indirect,

Granted. And there are those trying to abate poverty. But creating more wealth through pollution is not an option anyone could support, right?

Every time you buy a product made in China you increase pollution.

Granted. Not only the manufacture, but the shipping of that product pumps carcinogens into the air.

And the Chinese are acutely feeling the effects of that pollution. I wonder if it will take a disaster like the Cuyahoga River burning or a Love Canal crisis to awaken the Chinese policy makers to their problem. Or, could an organization like the United Nations make a real difference?

 

[Politico]

I agree. Everyone at the UN should stop breathing immediately!

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Granted. And there are those trying to abate poverty. But creating more wealth through pollution is not an option anyone could support, right?

Every time you buy a product made in China you increase pollution.

Granted. Not only the manufacture, but the shipping of that product pumps carcinogens into the air.

And the Chinese are acutely feeling the effects of that pollution. I wonder if it will take a disaster like the Cuyahoga River burning or a Love Canal crisis to awaken the Chinese policy makers to their problem. Or, could an organization like the United Nations make a real difference?

The UN hasn't made a difference in anything except to add to problems for over 30 years.
China does not care about their population as individuals. Our western culture greatly values individual life, China instead highly values the "health" of the nation as a whole and of course the government sees themselves of greater importance than the populations as well....and we support this insane attitude and governance more than we support our own country.