SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by tftp on Monday July 20 2015, @11:47PM
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.