Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Monday July 20 2015, @12:38PM   Printer-friendly
from the or-not dept.

New research suggests that U.S. climate change, and the unpredictable temperature swings it can bring, may boost death rates in seniors.

"Temperature variability emerges as a key feature in the potential impacts of climate change. The take-home message: Unusual temperature is bad for people's health," said study author Liuhua Shi, a graduate student in the department of environmental health at Harvard's School of Public Health in Boston.

Scientists have long been debating the health effects of climate change, and the general assumption is that it will make people sicker through more extreme heat, more flooding and more polluted air.

Shi and colleagues launched their study in the New England area to better understand how weather affects death rates. "Many studies have reported associations between short-term temperature changes and increased daily deaths," Shi said. "However, there is little evidence to date on the long-term effect of temperature."

The researchers looked at Medicare statistics regarding 2.7 million people over the age of 65 in New England from 2000 to 2008. Of those, Shi said, 30 percent died during the study.

The researchers found death rates rose when the average summer temperature rose significantly, and death rates dropped when the average winter temperature rose significantly.

The researchers believe the increased risk in the summer is due to an increase in the variability of temperatures. According to Shi, "climate change may affect mortality rates by making seasonal weather more unpredictable, creating temperature conditions significantly different to those to which people have become acclimatized."

On the other hand, warmer winter temperatures caused by climate change could actually reduce deaths, the researchers added.

The study appears in the July 13 issue of Nature Climate Change.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by srobert on Monday July 20 2015, @02:35PM

    by srobert (4803) on Monday July 20 2015, @02:35PM (#211437)

    A LOT of people die all the time. We (politicians and all of us who elect them) don't really care about those people, unless there is a real chance that we will be among them.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 2) by Gravis on Monday July 20 2015, @02:56PM

    by Gravis (4596) on Monday July 20 2015, @02:56PM (#211447)

    A LOT of people die all the time. We (politicians and all of us who elect them) don't really care about those people,

    a) that isn't true
    b) the job of a politician is to care for their people.

    • (Score: 1) by tftp on Monday July 20 2015, @06:51PM

      by tftp (806) on Monday July 20 2015, @06:51PM (#211511) Homepage

      a) that isn't true

      6,000,000,000 / 80 years / 365.25 days = 205,339 humans dying each day merely from old age. I'd say it's a lot.

      b) the job of a politician is to care for their people.

      Even if that's true (which is rare,) you are facing the dillemma of Teela Brown. As a ruler, how many people are you willing to kill today (by redirecting their food and healthcare monies to fight against AGW) so that in future some other number of people would be (or maybe wouldn't) alive and well?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @09:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @09:03PM (#211576)

        by redirecting their food and healthcare monies to fight against AGW

        Because those are the only possible places where the money could come from, right? Its not like we could reduce corporate welfare or reduce military spending, nope, those two can never be decreased.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @09:06PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @09:06PM (#211580)

        6,000,000,000

        That number is from the last century.
        The number has been over 7 billion since 2011.

        how many people are you willing to kill today (by redirecting their food and healthcare monies to fight against AGW)

        Riiight. More austerity. Typical Reactionary.

        How about instead of that we dial back the $trillions pissed away on wars of aggression?
        How about not buying so damned many weapons that the excess gets passed out like party favors to militarized police forces?
        Start with the weapons that don't work at all--like the F-35 that gets outflown in the air-to-air role by a 40 year old F-16 and gets outflown in the air-to-ground role by a 40 year old A-10.
        What about those NINETEEN aircraft carrier task forces that are WAY more than is necessary for "defense"?

        How about we tax the uber-rich in the way we did during the Eisenhower administration?
        Y'know, the time when the country was booming and there was an -expanding- "Middle Class".

        How about we just stop doing things the old, dirty, damaging way and stop burning stuff to produce energy?
        Stop subsidizing dinosaurs (dead and otherwise).
        Instead, capture some of the petawatts that are available gratis and pollution-free from that big yellow thing.

        -- gewg_

        • (Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Monday July 20 2015, @11:47PM

          by tftp (806) on Monday July 20 2015, @11:47PM (#211661) Homepage

          How about instead of that we dial back the $trillions pissed away on wars of aggression? How about not buying so damned many weapons that the excess gets passed out like party favors to militarized police forces?

          I don't disagree. However I don't see a socially acceptable method to make that happen. Will you vote for Hillary (who is for wars) or for Cruz (who is for wars?) Does it matter, in the end, who you vote for?

          In this situation the money to fight AGW will be coming - and are coming - from pockets of customers like you and me. There is a new expense - carbon credits - on the balance sheet of that coal-fired power plant? Raise the price of energy. The end user will pay; as result, he may be unable to pay for healthcare that he needs (as an example.) The government could help him out by reducing taxes (because of reduction of military expenses) - but it's not all that likely that we will live long enough to see the taxes lowered. What we may see, though, is taxes dropping to zero. But I am unsure that it would be an otherwise happy occasion.

    • (Score: 1) by dboz87 on Wednesday July 22 2015, @01:40PM

      by dboz87 (1285) on Wednesday July 22 2015, @01:40PM (#212313)

      No, the job of a politician is to get elected and dead people don't vote (Unless you live in Chicago).

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @05:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 20 2015, @05:02PM (#211482)

    The politician will care about them if there is a real chance that doing so will get him re-elected.