As [Kaiser’s Environmental Stewardship Officer Kathy] Gerwig put it, “there’s credible evidence of significant climate change that will impact our ability to provide quality health care.”
She laid out four broad categories of the health effects:
Severe weather: Hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and heat waves all injure and kill people. Hospitals — and all businesses for that matter — need to prepare for these extremes.
The US is experiencing the quietest hurricane period on record.
Respiratory diseases: Air quality in general deeply affects health. This is, as Gerwig says, mainly about the short-term consequences of not dealing with burning fossil fuels and the changing climate.
Air quality in the US is vastly improved from 40 years ago.
Infectious diseases: As the planet warms, bugs like mosquitos can survive and thrive further north, spreading diseases to new areas. According to the UN, previously untouched areas like the southern U.S. and Mexico will face malaria, yellow fever, and dengue by 2050.
Malaria used to be a common disease in the US. In fact, it used to be a serious problem even in the Arctic.
When I think of Finland, malaria just doesn’t normally come to mind. Although northern climes often have swarms of mosquitoes, its hard to imagine mosquito-borne infections gaining much traction in the short summer season. Yet defying imagination, malaria has thrived in northern Finland, Sweden and Russia near the arctic circle in the past. In the late 19th and early 20th century, Plasmodium falciparum and Plasmodium vivax caused outbreaks in northern Europe. Despite the outbreak of P. falciparium at Archangelsk in the 1930s, P. vivax is believed to be the primary malarial species in northern Europe.
Interesting that the environmental officer for a health care company is incompetent about both environment and health. She is the perfect Obamacare officer.
h/t to Marc Morano
She’s just paving the way for a premium increase based on “climate change related costs”
“Kaiser Permanente is the biggest non-profit health care company.” Non-profit or not, we don’t need anymore corporate shills for leftist politics. Who runs their Dept of Politics? Why don’t they stick to business, not politics. When are we going to be able to think of a way to organize an effective antidote against these corporate rats?
Kaiser was a major shill for Clinton healthcare reform as well as Obamacare. They are attempting to position themselves to be the leader (profiter) in whatever market shakes out from healthcare reform. Kaiser has “found it’s motivation” and it’s all about money and power.
The incidence and prevalence of asthma have increased over the past few decades despite cleaner air and fewer smokers per capita. Obviously there is a different causal mechanism at work here. Personally, I think it has to do with the hygiene hypothesis (and modulation of the human immune system in early childhood) and/or the consumption of highly processed foods (the GI tract contains like 90% of our immune defenses; processing involves both modification of food molecules and various chemicals additives which can bind to cell surface receptors and through signal cascading alter cellular function).
Furthermore, looking at the PM2.5 map of the U.S. shows only partial correlation with the prevalence of asthma.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/health-sapping.html
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=prevalence+of+asthma+by+state&view=detail&id=9A1F6BB68C4B59BFACF2BD13F5D75698B6AFDF24&first=0&FORM=IDFRIR
I know you’ll say this junk science, but there is also a close correlation starting around 1980 between the increase in nonfat / lowfat milk usage and asthma. Just as nonfat milk became all the rage, asthma started rising with it in an uncanny correlation.
How could this be? While I’m not a doctor, I understand that milk protein causes the formation of excess mucous, and aggravates (inflames) the bronchial passages. Sugar and protein is concentrated In reduced fat milk products (apparent on the ingredients label of milks), and the speculation is that the processing of nonfat milk denatures the protein. Further evidence? Try yourself consuming nonfat milk products and see if you notice that aggravated mucous effect (often including coughing).
I am unaware of any such link.
Correlation or association do not prove causation.
http://www.jacn.org/content/24/suppl_6/547S.full
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra054308
The same increase in asthma can be seen in Europe where nonfat milk is not offered for sale.
@John. I’m not going to wade in too deep in this side issue, as I myself am speculating, but without full knowledge I could say that the first link looks like it’s dairy industry supported (not to sound like a warmist, but the source is: “Agroscope Liebefeld-Posieux, Swiss Federal Research Station for Animal Production and Dairy Products” though I see there are other sources [though many contrary to your link, suggesting dairy does increase mucous production]). It’s common sense and common experience that dairy causes mucous production, despite some “science” showing otherwise. On the other hand, I reserve the right to take cover under the “I really don’t know everything about this” statement.
@Kaboom. That actually struck me as a solid point you could have, until I started thinking about it, and realized, how is possible that Europe doesn’t offer nonfat milk products for sale (as in 2% milk, cheese, yogurt, sour cream, salami, ice cream, on and on). My google of the topic didn’t lead to any sign of a prohibition, but if you’ve got a link on that, great!
You are wading into an alternative medicine area. Suggest you read up on the pathophysiology of asthma, which is far more complicated than just mucus production. There simply is no scientific literature to support your argument. Some people are allergic to milk, but this is a separate issue. No offense, but this is junk science. The burden of proof is on you to support your argument, not me to refute it with a negative study.
Please note that my tone is not meant to be negative, but rather to be matter-of-fact.
The NEJM article I linked should provide some nice info.
John, you are supposed to be an expert in your feild, so don’t link stuff explain it yourself if your an expert.
John, I actually grant you expertise in the field. And this is a side issue here, and obviously less important as far as the politics goes, then agw. You are probably right, but, perhaps what constitutes “allergic” is a matter of debate, and with most people that I know reporting mucous production with milk consumption, maybe a majority is allergic. Yes, you could argue that it just “feels” like mucous has been produced, but when you cough up actual phlegm then.. Certainly, in my case, and I don’t consider myself allergic, I used to get periodic bronchitis that would last for often a month and I would be sick as a dog, coughing up tons of mucous. But when I finally came to realize that I shouldn’t drink milk when I get bronchitis, it has never been so bad, relatively mild lasting a week and half or so.
And Me, you have a point, though I appreciate John’s positive informative tone, and links are always part of the equation, though a concise explanation of what a link has to offer is called for.
The NEJM link has a lot of background info about the causes and triggers of asthma, so I’m really not sure what concise explanation I could give.
And no, I’m not an expert – I’m Family Practice, not an allergist or pulmonary doc. I do enjoy commenting on medical topics that overlap with “climate change.” A lot of the stuff I read in the lay press about medicine and science in general is either misinformation, or correct facts but in the wrong context. My opinion is that the vast majority of journalists have liberal arts educational backgrounds and little to no scientific training or critical thinking skills, and frequently confuse association/correlation/link with causation.
John, All I’m saying is explain it your self in your own words if you understand it and support it. You are a expert in the medical feild, now there are allot of different feilds in the medical realm, if you don’t understand it then don’t comment on it just because you are in a medical feild. It does you no good this day and age.
Well, I consider you expert enough for our purposes here, and Family Practice then gives you good breadth. To make a segway off this topic, speaking of confusing (or misrepresenting, in this case) correlation & causation, and excerpt of my comment from hotair earlier:
The warmists want to rework industrial civilization based on the flimsiest of contentions about CO2. The ipcc tried to make the case that CO2 affecting climate temps is “settled science” by positing a causal correlation between CO2 and temps… but this is a specious false correlation (not causal). Indeed, the very foundation of the ipcc’s claim for CO2 driven climate warming has been repudiated. Yet, see algor repeat this monstrous deception in this must see 3 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK_WyvfcJyg&feature=player_embedded
One reason I’m an AGW skeptic is that I really don’t see how all confounding variables have been accounted for by the climate researchers.
Another reason is lack of accurate PROSPECTIVE climate models.
Retroactively adjusting data is frowned upon, especially when the numbers conflict with the written historical record. Doctors should not alter the medical records of patients.
The internet and 24 hr news cycle, and rapid communications and commonality of cell phone video has created a “reporting bias” as far as extreme weather events are concerned.
I do have lots of general science background, including engineering training in control systems and feedback loops, plus personal hobbies of planetary geology, astronomy, etc. which give me the big picture. The more I learn, the more I realize don’t know. Same reason I don’t like nurse practitioners or physicians assistants – lack of training, very narrow perspective, very closed-minded, poor judgment, errors of premature closure when making dx, algorithm-driven protocols rather than common sense (garbage in, garbage out). I see AGW alarmists making the same mistakes.
I also have been fooled enough by drug company research data and “standard of care” changes over the years. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Dr. Andrew Wakefield falsified his research and blamed the rise of autism on the MMR vaccine, which at least 8 subsequent reasearch studies have failed to confirm, and his article then was retracted by the medical journal, yet the damage caused by millions of undervaccinated children (including preventable deaths) was done and still continues. I’m a skeptic at heart when it comes to science, especially when the people pushing the science have a conflict of interest. Few things are settled in science.
In a nutshell, that’s where I’m coming from in general.
They seem agenda driven, not science driven. And, though science and engineering are often considered practical opposites, I like the potentially powerful combination of the two that you talk of.
Worst of all, it seems like most of the warmist scientists are at heart, in training or inclination, propagandists. Climategate has shown that they themselves speak of their “cause.” So, any additional light that could be shed on exposing what is propaganda and not science, especially in the mainstream media, is a big plus.
John, I think the increase of incidence is threefold. It’s my two cents so take it for what it’s worth.
First of all, the treatment of asthma has advanced several fold in a very short period of time. It wasn’t long ago that asthma sufferers had a much shorter life expectancy, and their ability to appear strong and viral was severely limited. For both exercised induce asthma and the immune response asthma. So, they didn’t breed as much and didn’t have the rate of survival or life expectancy. Much of that has been overcome. So, not only do asthma sufferers stick around long, they breed. I don’t know about any definitive genetic research, but, my feelings are that at least the propensity for this ailment may be handed down.
Secondly, as I’m sure you’re aware, there’s a strong relationship between asthma and allergies. In times past, the remedy prescribed was to move to an arid location. Arizona, for instance. Well, they did. But, they brought their flora with them. Those who suffered from trees, grasses and weeds induced asthma are nearly out of safe havens.
Lastly, as a commentator had stated earlier, that damnable dust mite triggers an asthmatic response for a bit of the population. We’ve become such a sedentary population, we’d have to have an increase in the incidence. In the past, young children used to run and play outside, now, they lay on their beds or sit on the couch and play video games. Dust mites (or their feces to be more specific) have a field day.
Just my thoughts.
Of course asthma and allergies are related. That is not new. The cause of the increase is the issue. Look up “hygiene hypothesis.”
Your paragraphs 1 and 3 (treatments and dust mites) really don’t shed any light on the issue. Nice try, though.
Thanks, I’ll look it up.
You don’t think 1&3 are related to the increase of incidence? I’d be really surprised if they weren’t.
The “hygiene hypothesis”…… sure. I hadn’t heard it termed in that manner, but, yes. This is demonstrated by going to Mexico. Most Americans can’t tolerate the water there, but, the Mexicans do. It’s because we’ve no response for the critters….. or a poor response.
That said, I’m not sure that the mechanism is the same. Allergic responses and non-exercised induced asthma are caused by overactive, yet, inappropriate immune responses. Indeed, it is only through exposure can one have a true allergic response. So, it would be a paradoxical explanation to say lack of exposure causes such responses which require exposure.
I think traveller’s diarrhea is more due to the different intestinal flora we have. The immune system is involved, though when I think of the hygiene hypothesis I’m thinking other mechanisms. I could be wrong. In early childhood, when the immune system is immature, exposure to more infections modifies the immune system away from inducing allergic and autoimmune illnesses. A little dirt is a good thing. Overprescribing antibiotics for viral infections (ineffective) or self-limited bacterial infections (i.e. they’ll resolve on their own, but you kill normal “good” bacteria) are bad things.
John, perhaps I didn’t properly articulate what I was trying to state, my fault. Let me try this way…….
As to my paragraph one….. in the past, the survival rate of asthmatics was significantly less than today. Their life expectancy was significantly less. When people die, the incidences decrease. Further, because they were stigmatized, any genetic predisposition towards asthma would be significantly decreased compared to today. Our treatments allow for life, longer life, and increased reproduction. This in and of itself mandates an increase in the incidence of asthma.
I invoked the asthma/allergy relation in part because of the 3rd paragraph. Yes, I know it isn’t knew, I just wanted you to be able to follow the thinking….. dust-mites are on beds and couches. People spend more time on our beds and couches. Dust mites are known to cause allergic/asthmatic responses.
Of course, going back to my second paragraph, I only mentioned the asthma/allergy relation so you could follow my thinking. I see I wasn’t clear…. it happens when I have too much beer. But, the arid places of our country didn’t have the flora conducive to asthma attacks. Today it does. In the U.S., anyway, this has caused an increase in the incidence of asthma attacks and asthma sufferers.
Asthma “incidence” has little to do with deaths from asthma. “Prevalence” decreases if asthma patients die compared to if they survive. Incidence is the number of new cases per unit time (i.e. per year). Prevalence is percent of people with a disease per capita, which can further be broken down into gender, age, socioeconomic status, location, etc.
Fewer deaths (now, compared to decades ago) from asthma prior to reproductive age doesn’t account for the increasing incidence or prevalence.
That treatments for asthma are better now doesn’t fully account for the increasing asthma prevalence either.
I don’t think dust mites explains things either. We used to think mattress covers helped reduce asthma, but no, so they are no longer routinely recommended. We also don’t assume dust mites didn’t exist decades ago. They were probably there and we didn’t know it.
Physical inactivity and obesity may be “linked” to asthma, but I’m not sure we know causality (i.e. does the same thing that causes obesity also cause asthma, or does obesity cause asthma, or is it diet of obese patients, …). See NEJM article I linked to for proper context.
Interesting discussion, albeit off the topic of AGW. I don’t see evidence of global warming causing asthma, nor the burning of fossil fuels (air cleaner now than decades ago, but asthma more prevalent). PM2.5 might contribute, but if it does, it is only a partial explanation.
Dust? Agricultural chemicals? Eating more processed foods? High-fructose corn syrup (55% fructose-45% glucose) or sugar (sucrose) in general (50%-50%)? Deep fried fast foods (cooking in fat at high temps alters the molecular composition and conformations of proteins/carbs/fats, some of which may be more or less immunogenic)? Microwave cooking?
Childood vaccines? Doubt. The most common childhood infections (common colds, gastroenteritis) are not prevented by vaccines.
Day care? The answer is likely multifactorial, and likely related to things we have or do now compared to decades ago. I do like the “hygiene hypothesis” as at least a partial explanation – lots of basic science and observational or retrospective data on this, no prospective randomized data that I am aware of.
Yes I agree with “there’s credible evidence of significant climate change that will impact our ability to provide quality health care.”
As fuel charges skyrocket maintaining a credible health care system with become less affordable for more people, overall standards of living will fall and the weak, poor, and elderly will feel it first. As the country get poorer more of the population will feel these effects.
oops – ‘care system with’ should be ‘care system will’
“Kaiser Permanente : Global Warming To Destroy Humanity”
Oh, no. not more tripe.
Global Cooling is a bigger destroyer to Humanity.
That includes Cold related respiratory problems.
As for asthma. They conveniently forgot. Your common dust mite which frequents your humble home is one of the leading causes of asthma attacks!
Humans can’s survive a 0.5C increase in temperature. That is why everyone in Florida is migrating to Winnipeg.
LOL:
Yeah. That’s why Arizona is now nearly deserted. All that warm dry air there. Is no longer good for all those people who’ve moved there and found a big improvement in their asthmatic problems. 🙂
GA has had high numbers of out of towners the last 12-15 years. They seem to love the warmth.
I should also mention.
Here in New Zealand. We have a big problem with Cold, Damp, Mouldy Houses causing alot of respiratory related health problems. Due partly to the fact the building standards of a large number of dwellings, etc are lacking proper insulation and ventilation issues.
They claim inside temperature of a livable building should be a minimum of 16C. Well, err during the winter months without heating many of the various homes I’ve lived in can get 10C or less. The coldest house I lived in was my previous place and wow on some occasions during the winter without heating it got as cold as 2-3C!
——————————————————————————————————–
http://www.sciencemediacentre.co.nz/2008/06/18/cold-houses-and-impact-on-health/
Cold houses and impact on health:
We spend more than 90% of our time indoors, and for that reason, the indoor environment and its effect on our health are more important than is often assumed.
Many New Zealand homes share a number of features that can lead to health issues. One of the biggest problems is that our houses are simply too cold. This can lead to dampness, mould and respiratory illness. This is a particular issue with older homes, but not all new ones are exempt.
Recent research has shown that insulation and effective heating can make a significant difference.
How does the temperature of our houses compare with world standards?
The World Health Organization recommends a minimum indoor temperature of 18°C, and ideally 21°C if babies or elderly people live in the house. The average daily indoor temperature in the winter for most New Zealand houses is just 16°C.
How do cold houses affect health?
If house temperatures fall below 16°C, the risk of respiratory illness increases. This is because cold houses are also usually damp, which can lead to respiratory symptoms.
House occupants produce a significant amount of moisture in their day-to-day activities, for example, cooking, showering and drying laundry. Even breathing has an effect – each person produces one litre of moisture per day this way. Moisture condenses on cold surfaces, such as uninsulated walls.
As well as dampness being a health risk in itself, it can lead to mould growth, which may also contribute to respiratory problems. Mould growth is worse when there is also poor ventilation, such as when a house has well-sealed aluminium windows that are kept shut, or doesn’t have an extractor fan in the bathroom.
Living in a cold environment is also physiologically stressful for people who are old, sick or very young.
A new tag line for the medical/pharmaceutical industry:
The Medical/Pharmaceutical industry: out to make money off global warming!
Malaria, and it’s associated mosquito borne diseases are cured by the application of the harmless (except for insects) preventative agent, DDT. The Eugenists/Environazis/Depopulation creeps have declared DDT off limits. So, the poor 3rd world worlders die by the millions.