[HN Gopher] UBC study links living near highways to risk of neur...
___________________________________________________________________
UBC study links living near highways to risk of neurological
disorders
Author : ingve
Score : 190 points
Date : 2020-01-26 08:17 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (vancouversun.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (vancouversun.com)
| ekianjo wrote:
| > Living near a major road or highway was associated with a
| 14-per-cent risk for dementia, and seven per cent for Parkinson's
| disease.
|
| I love how the article completely misses the important data
| point: what are the actual risks for other categories not living
| next to highways? Without this information, an "increased risk"
| is meaningless speculation.
| unlinked_dll wrote:
| I'm guessing that's just ambiguous grammar. "associated with a
| 14% risk for dementia" as in "14 percent higher than expected."
|
| I say that because the risk of dementia is a lot higher than
| 14%.
| ekianjo wrote:
| dementia risk is a function of age. you dont have many people
| with dementia in their 20s.
| [deleted]
| belligeront wrote:
| It is insane that given the destruction that cars cause we don't
| do more to reduce their use.
| pg_is_a_butt wrote:
| Hitler thought the same thing about the Jews.
| hatmatrix wrote:
| The automobile lobby is incredibly strong.
| rdtsc wrote:
| Once I was talking to a retired real estate agent and they said
| they had noticed a disproportionate number clients who lived by
| the highway had lung cancer in their family.
| ranDOMscripts wrote:
| Mesothelioma, perhaps? Asbestos is still used in aftermarket
| brake pads.[0]
|
| [0]https://www.epa.gov/asbestos/current-best-practices-
| preventi...
| derefr wrote:
| I wonder if they controlled for... why people choose to live
| where they live. I.e., this wasn't an RCT; they could just
| _assign_ people to live near highways or not. So the people who
| are living near highways are there for a reason.
|
| Are residences near highways, perhaps _farther_ from certain
| other things, like city centres? Such that a certain type of
| person (people with pre-existing [perhaps subclinical] mental
| issues of the type that might make them want to avoid people)
| would be drawn to live in these residences more than others?
|
| To me, "living near a highway" sounds a lot like a euphemism for
| "living in the middle of nowhere", since by definition all
| arterial roads connecting "somewhere" to "somewhere" through
| "nowhere" are highways. If you live somewhere isolated that's
| accessible at all by road, and you don't have the budget to build
| your own long stretch of lane out from the highway, then
| presumably you live on a highway.
| iguy wrote:
| Or just that being close to a highway is often unpleasant, so
| those who can afford more pleasant parts of town have already
| done so. Surely they tried to control for wealth but it's easy
| to do so imperfectly. (Haven't read the paper, though!)
| esotericn wrote:
| > To me, "living near a highway" sounds a lot like a euphemism
| for "living in the middle of nowhere"
|
| I would have thought the opposite. Essentially no-one lives
| directly adjacent to a rural highway in the sense of
| overlooking it in the UK, even say the M25 doesn't have flats
| lining it, generally arterial roads have setbacks so you might
| be able to hear the cars etc but you've probably got a buffer
| zone measured in the tens of meters.
|
| The actual roads I'd be thinking of are things like the A406
| (North Circular Road), A40, A4, etc, which do have houses and
| flats immediately next to it. The sort of 'inner-city' 40-50mph
| urban clearways. There are also a ton of 30mph roads which
| serve a similar purpose. Basically what one would call a 'main
| road' as opposed to a side street.
|
| Example of a sort of middling neighbourhood:
| https://goo.gl/maps/o6oSRW84dx147TK48 (this bit of the A40 is
| either 40mph or 30mph but has an absolute ton of traffic almost
| all of the time).
|
| Example of a higher end neighbourhood in Central London:
| https://goo.gl/maps/am8ppgvNDGPcuxoB6 (5-star hotel)
| elchief wrote:
| There are multiple major highways in urban greater Vancouver.
| The Trans Canada is the big one, and Oak street is essentially
| highway 99 (which becomes the I5)
| adrianmonk wrote:
| > _"living near a highway" sounds a lot like a euphemism for
| "living in the middle of nowhere", since by definition all
| arterial roads connecting "somewhere" to "somewhere" through
| "nowhere" are highways._
|
| The study uses a definition based on average vehicles per day
| that travel the road. I think you're interpreting "highway"
| like a road that connects two cities, which is one of the
| word's many meanings, but they are using a different
| definition.
|
| By using a traffic-based definition, this study is roughly
| counting the number of (running) cars that you're near.
|
| Also, with their definition, people in urban or rural areas can
| be either near or not near a highway. If you live in the middle
| of a city but you're removed from high-traffic roads by
| neighborhood streets with low traffic, you're not near a
| highway.
| dehrmann wrote:
| > To me, "living near a highway" sounds a lot like a euphemism
| for "living in the middle of nowhere"
|
| In more (sub)urban settings, I read it as "poor." But either
| way, it does seem hard to properly control for, and my gut
| tells me socioeconomic factors drive this more than pollution.
| [deleted]
| jungletime wrote:
| With the way the Corona Virus is spreading we might all be
| wearing Face masks pretty soon.
|
| This may seem like common sense after Flint, but at this point I
| think a home water filter is needed for most parts of the
| country. Can't blindly trust the municipalities.
|
| A Home Air filter is probably needed too.
|
| Here's a growing list of things Youtube told me things one should
| invest:
|
| 1. Home Water Purifier
|
| 2. Air Filter
|
| 3. Good Mattress / Pillow
|
| 4. Blackout Blinds for Windows (sleep)
|
| 5. Gym Membership
|
| 6. Standing Desk
|
| 7. Travel
|
| 8. Vegan/Plant Based Diet
|
| Oh and Washing Hands regularly.
|
| Yeah its a growing list, and getting kind of expensive. I'm
| surprised how much it starts resembling living in a 4 star hotel.
| Woberto wrote:
| Not sure why you're getting downvoted, I would agree that most
| of these make a lot of sense if you can afford them. I wonder
| what the order of importance is - I had a doctor tell me it was
| sleep > diet > exercise, but where do e.g. air and water
| quality fit in?
|
| I would modify vegan/plant based diet slightly - either add
| supplements for B12, or eat eggs. Also, I hadn't considered
| travel to be as important as the rest of the items. Do you know
| what need this fulfills?
| victor9000 wrote:
| I would incorporate a cashier's standing mat to your standing
| desk setup to avoid the health hazards associated with standing
| for too long.
| hatmatrix wrote:
| But is it actually the air in the homes or just high amounts of
| exposure while they are outside?
| cs702 wrote:
| Direct link to study:
| https://ehjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12940-...
|
| The researchers found the link between living near highways and
| future neurological disorders to be independent of income,
| education, ethnicity, comorbidity, and coexisting medical
| conditions associated with future neurological disorders
| (traumatic brain injury, diabetes, hypertension, stroke, coronary
| heart disease, congestive heart failure, and arrhythmia).
| chiefalchemist wrote:
| Re: Independent of income
|
| Living near a noisy highway is rarely prime real estate. How do
| we account forincome when there are so few in that subset?
|
| I also wouldn't discount the effect of endless stress. That is,
| the drone of noise. I recently moved from to a street that's
| fairly busy. Only in the middle of the night is it quite. I
| don't like it.
| hhsuey wrote:
| Also, the neighborhoods tend to be safer and more inviting
| than those right next to the major freeways.
|
| I was originally thinking air quality is the major reason,
| but Vancouver has really good air quality overall compared to
| where I live in Los Angeles. I would be interested in seeing
| this type of study be done across cities with different air
| quality.
| cowsandmilk wrote:
| > Living near a noisy highway is rarely prime real estate.
| How do we account forincome when there are so few in that
| subset?
|
| By comparing to those with low incomes who don't live near
| the highway?
| novok wrote:
| It really depends on your building too. I live near a highway
| and getting around by car is really convenient as a result.
| Highway noise is not very audible due to the construction of
| the windows and the walls. My air quality meter says the
| PM1.0, PM2.5 & PM10 counts are 3-1 ug/m^3 inside and I don't
| have air filters on.
| danieltillett wrote:
| If is very, very, very difficult to control for all these
| factors. Apart from the data dredging problem, the difficulty
| of controlling for all confounding factors is what make so few
| association studies hold up when prospectively tested.
|
| As a rough rule of thumb if the hazard ratio is not 3 or
| greater in an association study then it almost certainly won't
| be replicated prospectively.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| And Vancouver is notable for its lack of freeways through the
| city. Just lots of big roads.
| Brakenshire wrote:
| Anyone living near a busy road is swimming in particulate matter
| on the micrometre and nanometre scale, and particles on that
| scale bypass the normal defences, get into the blood stream and
| saturate the body. Small particles can even move down nerves,
| it's really not surprising that long term exposure causes
| neurological problems.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I live in a side street about 100 yards from a major avenue in
| my city. You can see on our front porch the impact of
| particulates... it's covered in gross sticky dust once we do
| our spring cleaning.
| wkearney99 wrote:
| Likewise being under a flight path to a major airport. The
| white deck on our boat at a marina on the approach to BWI
| gets all kinds of particulates on it from the exhaust of
| planes passing overhead.
| graeme wrote:
| If the pm 2.5 is low, are the nanoparticles also low?
|
| I live near a semi busy urban road, but there's a wall of
| buildings + an alley between me and it. Pm 2.5 is very low at
| my place, and so is noise.
|
| Never thought about the nanoparticles pm 2.5 doesn't measure,
| but am assuming it's similar.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| And what many overlook is many of these particles have nothing
| to do with emissions. Brake pads and tires turn to dust. So too
| bits of the road surface are slowly converted to fine
| particulates. Converting everyone to autodrive teslas powered
| by fusion reactors wont stop rubber from meeting asphalt.
|
| (Switching to manual transmissions would probably reduce the
| brake dust. Id like to see if european roads suffer as much.
| Between automatic transmissions, weight, and some traction
| control schemes, NA cars chew through brake pads.)
| derefr wrote:
| Tangential question: do trains produce fine particulates
| where their wheels meet the rail? I.e. is it bad to live near
| a train (or subway!) line?
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Yes but far fewer. The metal turns to dust, but orders of
| magnitude less quickly than rubber/pads/road surface. The
| stuff carried by the trains is probably more dangerous than
| the train itself.
| johnwalkr wrote:
| Trains do use brake shoes on the wheels, and in some cases
| disc brakes. All trains have mechanical braking capability,
| as far as I know. Many also have electric braking,
| especially passenger trains with frequent stops, which is
| either regenerative or dissipated as heat via resistors.
| Freight trains tend to use mechanical breaking, but have
| infrequent stops and can plan a long slow-down. In any
| case, the braking force has to be transmitted somehow to
| the wheels before it is transmitted to the rails. There is
| only rarely wheel on rail sliding outside of emergency
| situations. But, particulates of steel on steel sliding
| should be relatively benign. A good train system is better
| utilized compared to cars as well.
|
| All this is to say that yes, there are fine particulates
| from trains, but it should normally be much less than from
| living near a highway.
| Nasrudith wrote:
| Dumb question - how well would an attempt to suck in the
| particles work putting aside the obvious impracticality?
| There are currently tons of reasons not to do it today but
| could it theoretically be solved via clean and cheap energy
| to make the efficiency loss not a foregone self defeating
| act.
| mrob wrote:
| Switching to electric vehicles would reduce brake dust even
| more, because they use regenerative breaking to avoid using
| the break pads when possible.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| A set of pads typically lasts about as long as a set of
| tires (at the very least they're within a factor of two of
| each other). Compare relative volumes of materials. Brake
| dust is always going to be a much smaller source of
| particulate matter in the air than tire dust.
|
| FWIW if the fumes/particulate from burning them are any
| indication tires are probably way nastier than brakes.
| samatman wrote:
| First paragraph is perfectly reasonable.
|
| Second paragraph, though: I've never been around a brake
| pad fire, but I'd rather breathe vulcanized rubber than
| "metal shavings of copper, steel, graphite, and brass
| bonded with resin":
|
| https://www.yourmechanic.com/article/what-are-brake-pads-
| mad...
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| In my non-chemist, non-doctor opinion the circumstantial
| evidence points to brake dust being way less bad than
| tire dust.
|
| Being inert in the presence of most common substances
| tends to correlate well with low toxicity. It's the stuff
| that chemically reacts to all sorts of things that tends
| to be the most poisonous.
|
| Tires break down over time under "normal earthly
| conditions" which includes a lot of the same temperatures
| and molecules that are found inside the human body. To me
| this is a massive red flag for toxicity.
|
| High temperature tends to make things react more readily.
| Most of the stuff in brakes has to be really stable at
| high temperatures and being stable at high temperatures
| tends to correlate well with being chemically inert.
|
| The most reactive stuff in brakes are the long complex
| molecules used to bind it all together. These sorts of
| molecules are similiar to the molecules used in tires and
| all sorts of other plastic like things. So all else being
| equal tires probably have more of the chemically
| interesting things that cause problems in the human body.
|
| Burning brakes smells way better than burning tires which
| seems to confirm this (remember, your nose has millions
| of years of incremental improvement when it comes to
| indicating what is and isn't suitable to ingest).
|
| And before anyone thinks they're gonna get some easy
| internet points by saying "but asbestos", the amount of
| asbestos in brake pads is nonzero (to account for the
| sketchy unbranded stuff that may or may not use it) but
| still tiny enough that people working in proximity to it
| have mostly stopped dropping dead at 60 thanks to lung
| cancer so I think that however much asbestos is in brake
| pads it's low enough to not be an issue from a public
| health POV.
|
| TL;DR I'll take my chances with brakes over tires.
| iguy wrote:
| Would have guessed the opposite, FWIW, on the grounds
| that the bad stuff is hard materials (like mine dust).
| But if anyone actually knows that would be interesting.
| How good a measure is total PM2.5 or whatever, without
| asking about what it's made of?
|
| That said, as was pointed out below, changing the car's
| design to vacuum up brake dust would be much easier than
| getting away from rubber.
| dsfyu404ed wrote:
| Yeah, you generally shouldn't be inhaling dust but inert
| dust (silica -> silicosis) is better than reactive dust
| (asbestos -> cancer).
|
| I'm not well versed enough on the specifics to tell you
| whether or not PM2.5 is a good measure of pollution. The
| experts in the subject of air pollution routinely use it
| so it can't be thaaaat bad.
| brownbat wrote:
| > Compare relative volumes of materials. Brake dust is
| always going to be a much smaller source of particulate
| matter in the air than tire dust.
|
| It's not a fair comparison, because you don't wear
| through the entire tire material as extensively as a
| brake pad. Fortunately we don't have to back of the
| napkin this one, there's lots of research showing brakes
| are near peers or exceed tires in contribution to PM 2.5.
|
| As to your second point that brake material might be less
| harmful -- there is some initial research on how
| composition mediates impact.
|
| Aluminum, sulfate, nickel, arsenic, and silicon seem to
| have the strongest relations. Aluminum is a frequent
| abrasive in brake pads, they aren't merely contributing
| some form of benign 2.5.
|
| I can't do a comparison, you might be right it's "less
| bad" than tires, which contain other heavy metals. But I
| do not think the research is powerful enough to precisely
| settle that question beyond the overwhelming academic
| consensus that both are bad and we should definitely try
| to reduce both.
|
| https://www.greencarcongress.com/2019/07/20190714-nee.htm
| l
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3755878/
|
| https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-
| innov...
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4315878/#Sec
| 6ti...
|
| https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15337346
| woodpanel wrote:
| while switching to electric vehicles likely reduces break
| dust, such switch would simultaneously increase dust from
| tires, since increased acceleration. The latter being
| already 80% of urban "particulate matter" pollution.
| Reason077 wrote:
| Tyre wear does release particulate matter, but it's
| mostly heavy, large particles that end up on the road and
| get washed away by weather.
|
| With the exception of tunnels, where heavy particles are
| constantly being churned up from the road surface and re-
| circulated into the air, tyre and brake wear is a
| relatively minor contributor to urban air pollution.
| brownbat wrote:
| > tyre and brake wear is a relatively minor contributor
| to urban air pollution
|
| Why do you say that? Would love to know more, but all the
| research I've read lists them as significant
| contributors, second only to resuspension, each now
| exceeding tailpipe emissions on both PM 10 and PM 2.5.
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13
| 522...
|
| https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/research-
| innov...
|
| As an aside, we'd probably agree that vehicle weight is
| the mediating factor across all of these sources,
| regardless of the ratios from one type to the other.
| Massive load hauling trucks are generating a
| disproportionate share of emissions of all types, this is
| not really about making sedans a little more efficient.
| DenisM wrote:
| I don't think Nissan Leaf is particularly good at neck-
| breaking acceleration, and it probably outnumbers the
| drag-racing Teslas. Even then, a Tesla isn't particularly
| speedy in traffic.
| Geeflow wrote:
| I often drive a Renault Zoe which also isn't a sports
| car. I frequently leave sports cars behind at the traffic
| light. From 0-30 kph even the small/cheap electric cars
| are sport cars. And it is terribly tempting to develop a
| pedal-to-the-metal habit. So I assume tire dust will
| increase significantly in the cities.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Rate of acceleration isnt the issue. You may make more
| dust _per second_ but so long as you are getting to the
| same end speed, and not spinning tires, the total amount
| of acceleration is the same.
|
| In my experience, over braking is the greater problem.
| Front tires degrade more quickly than rears. The average
| driver brakes far harder than they accelerate.
| iguy wrote:
| And weight, presumably heavy vehicles wear through more
| rubber, and batteries are heavy.
| brownbat wrote:
| Weight. This is so much about vehicle weight.
|
| I think the heavier EVs hit a crossover point because of
| regenerative braking, but weight does set them back,
| that's one of the whole points of this study:
|
| https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13
| 522...
|
| This is a curve though. We could almost simplify the
| problem and only look at what heavy trucks generate and
| ignore all the cars completely, it'd be a non-crazy
| approximation.
| murkt wrote:
| Additionally, roads can be designed in a way that calms
| vehicle movement instead of accelerate-brake cycle. For
| example, narrower roads with curves instead of wide
| straight roads with speed bumps near pedestrian crossings.
| thrwaway69 wrote:
| Wouldn't that cause friction too? I feel like it might
| even increase braking more if it's a busy road and people
| want to move faster.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| Curves are just accelleration in a different direction.
| Tires would degrade just as quickly.
| Scoundreller wrote:
| At least newer automatics _finally_ do engine braking as
| well.
| Jamwinner wrote:
| As well as all cars with manual transmissions.
| sandworm101 wrote:
| "Engine braking" isn't just letting the engine spin down
| at 0 throttle. Propper engine braking, aka "Jake brake",
| is letting the engine spin at 100% throttle but zero fuel
| input (and some valve trickery). This lets air in to be
| compressed, releasing it before the down stroke of the
| piston. No car does that. It is a separate installed
| system on trucks. It can be almost as powerful as the
| engine. In a car, it could handle all but emergency
| braking.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engin
| e_b...
|
| When you hear a truck making popping noises like a
| machine gun, that's the Jake brake in action.
| saiya-jin wrote:
| I have on my manual 15-year old diesel bmw very much an
| engine brake. It breaks quite well compared to neutral
| which seems to like to go on forever, and actually
| indicates proper consumption.
|
| On highways and motorways, I rarely need to use brake at
| all. Of course, being a sensible driver helps (in
| contrary to what many people expect from me when they see
| the car and expect yet another immature aggressive
| driver)
| hamandcheese wrote:
| > Engine braking occurs when the retarding forces within
| an engine are used to slow down a motor vehicle, as
| opposed to using additional external braking mechanisms
| such as friction brakes or magnetic brakes.
|
| > The term is often confused with several other types of
| braking, most notably compression-release braking or
| "jake braking" which uses a different mechanism.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engine_braking
| sandworm101 wrote:
| But when you see a sign saying "no engine braking" it
| refers to the jake brake, not down-shifting in a car.
| (It's a long trademark story over the use of "jake")
| ironmagma wrote:
| Is this (jake brake) what the parent comment was
| referring to that newer automatics finally do?
| scythe wrote:
| From slide 17 here you can see that the switch from fuelled
| to electric vehicles is expected to decrease particulates by
| 60-80% from 2000 to 2040:
|
| https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/documents.
| ..
|
| This doesn't seem like a trivial improvement. Particulates
| are not the only toxic component of exhaust either; electric
| cars should produce no NOx, CO or O3 which is a big
| improvement. It's also worth noting that brake wear
| particulates haven't been a target because historically
| exhaust-related emissions were so much larger.
|
| If we haven't really tried to fix it, who's to say we can't?
| iguy wrote:
| Thanks, and good point. It might not be very hard to reduce
| brake dust dramatically, just put a vacuum cleaner in your
| frunk right?
| KallDrexx wrote:
| I'm curious how different living next to a highway is to living
| in a dense urban city though (like NYC) and if it's different
| why? In either case you have a lot of car traffic (probably
| closer to your place of residence than people that live close
| to a highway) Not to mention if you live in a dense urban city
| then you will spend more time walking directly next to traffic.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| I'm sure the underground trains also cause plenty of
| particulates each time they brake to stop at a station.
| [deleted]
| pkulak wrote:
| Whatever the effect, it's at least getting better. As someone
| who rides a bike to work every day on urban roads that are
| usually congested, the recent rise of hybrids, and even just
| cars with auto start-stop systems, has been a blessing. It
| used to be that driving next to a line of stopped cars was a
| nightmare, but now at least half of them have their engines
| off, if they have an engine at all.
|
| Moving an automobile a couple miles in a dense urban
| environment at very slow speeds shouldn't require much
| energy, at least from a pure physics standpoint.
| zzzeek wrote:
| the one thing that strikes me as different, having lived in
| manhattan / queens / brooklyn for 25 years, is that by a
| highway there is high speed traffic, which is extremely loud
| and sudden, and a lot of it is heavy commercial traffic,
| heavier than what is feasible within an urban environment.
| the next time you're at a rest stop off of I95 just stand
| outside and listen to the noise of huge trucks blowing by at
| 80mph. I think those sudden blasts of sound and vibration are
| well above and beyond the stress when you're in a dense urban
| environment. City traffic, especially if you're on a side
| street as is more common for residential, you're looking at
| 10-20mph traffic for the most part and without 18-wheelers
| going by most of the time.
|
| There is also the issue of subway noise, which is more like a
| constant stream of periodic vibrations. that is probably not
| good for one's nerves either but it is fairly subtle.
|
| The most stressful thing about urban living for me was the
| constant light, ugly sodium colored light at all times,
| flashing lights, emergency lights, etc. I now live in a rural
| area and I will bundle up and sit outside on my deck at 1 am
| in 20 degree weather just to enjoy the darkness. There was
| never total or near total darkness in the city at any time,
| not even indoors unless you have blackout shades which we did
| not.
|
| the worst of all worlds are those folks living in those
| apartments that overlook the BQE and stuff like that. They
| look like expensive places and I think whoever is choosing to
| live there is completely crazy, they get the most particulate
| matter (except that their windows are probably sealed shut,
| which is bad in itself), the most noise, the most light, etc.
| Reason077 wrote:
| I agree about light being an issue in cities, too. And it's
| gotten worse with the advent of LED streetlights.
|
| But it's usually pretty easy to install blackout curtains
| if you want them. Or even just to buy a comfortable eye-
| mask for sleeping. Effective sound-proofing is much more
| difficult and expensive.
| papito wrote:
| Quality of air definitely matters, but I wonder what actually
| has more negative effect - poor ppm levels or the stress from
| the noise.
|
| People think that's not a big deal and you just get used to it,
| but the truth is, your brain is ALWAYS processing that noise in
| the background as a source of potential danger, taking a long-
| term tall on your mental state.
|
| I work in an office with poor CO2 PPM levels, and constant
| noise. I've started enjoying working from home, even though I
| used to absolutely hate doing that.
| drcross wrote:
| The depth and breadth of neurological issues could not
| possibly be explained simply by noise. Humans lived in close
| quarters for most of our existence which would have included
| a lot of elevated noise levels.
| mmhsieh wrote:
| there might be a different set of neurological effects
| caused difference between the noise spectra of natural
| sources, to include human generated noise, and the
| unnatural sources like car traffic. the color spectrum of
| natural scenes has been found to have different impacts
| than that of manmade urban scenes.
| [deleted]
| Reason077 wrote:
| Yes, I wonder about the noise issue too. In my personal
| experience, living near a busy road had a huge effect on
| sleep quality which in turn increases stress levels and
| reduces wellbeing.
| archsurface wrote:
| This isn't a new connection. A quick web search for example
| https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
| dghughes wrote:
| I live near a four lane road which is quite busy. I'm only about
| 50m away but there are two blocks of houses between me and lots
| of trees. The road speed is 60km/h but most vehicles travel
| 80km/h. I wonder if speed has some effect of whipping up the
| pollutants more?
|
| The road is near the main hospital. My town is not a very big
| maybe 70,000 total spread out over a large area. But ambulances
| go by once or twice per hour more frequently in the summer. The
| noise from them bother me more than fumes although I can't smell
| fumes or see nano-scale sized particulates.
|
| So if I start to act crazy...well, crazier, here in the comments
| you'll all know why. And before I do.
| [deleted]
| ggm wrote:
| Is it not also likely proximity to green plants reduces stress,
| and blood pressure? And mood improvement might shave years off
| exposure of risk to Parkinson's insidious side effects on mood
| leading to later or post death (postmortem exam) diagnosis.
| derefr wrote:
| Interstate highways are included in the category of "highways",
| and are often just a road running through the middle of green
| space like forest. It wouldn't really make sense to claim that
| "living near highways" does X unless it was still true even for
| living near such a forested interstate highway.
| ulrikrasmussen wrote:
| While green plants may reduce stress, I don't think their
| absence can explain the effect observed here. Exposure to
| aircraft noise during sleep has been documented to cause
| endothelial dysfunction [0], which increases oxidative stress
| [1]. I think it sounds very plausible that increased oxidative
| stress over a prolonged period can cause neurological problems.
|
| [0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3844151/
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endothelial_dysfunction
| ggm wrote:
| Rught, but thats not no2 or pm10 inhalation.
| airstrike wrote:
| I should probably just read the study but I wonder if it controls
| for varying levels of income
| savagedata wrote:
| They approximated income, education, and ethnicity at the
| neighborhood-level (400-600 people) based on census data. That
| doesn't seem granular enough to me if the poorest families in
| each neighborhood live closest to the major roads.
| madaxe_again wrote:
| I've seen similar studies done in the U.K., where in cities
| plenty of relatively affluent people live directly on very
| congested, polluted roads, and the findings were identical.
| IIRC they found the worst effects were on people who had been
| living there for 40+ years - and speculated that that was
| down to lead exposure until TEL was banned - however the
| impacts of contemporary pollutants was still significant.
| randyrand wrote:
| did they control for poverty?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-01-26 23:00 UTC)