Jump to content


- - - - -

Do Fewer Trees Mean More Death?


  • Please log in to reply
2 replies to this topic

#1    Render

Render

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,862 posts
  • Joined:23 Nov 2009
  • Gender:Not Selected

Posted 22 January 2013 - 10:21 AM

Quote

When a forest service researcher realized that the loss of 100 million trees infested by the emerald ash borer could present a unique opportunity to learn more about the value of trees, he probably didn’t expect to find such dramatic effects of treeless streets.
But in the neighborhoods hit by the beetle that kills ash trees, researchers noticed a stark rise in human mortality from cardiovascular and lower respiratory disease: there were 15,000 more deaths from cardiovascular disease, or 16.7 additional deaths per year per 100,000 adults, and 6,000 more deaths from lower respiratory disease than in unaffected areas, or 6.8 additional deaths per year per 100,000 adults.

http://news.discover...eath-130118.htm

#2    Darkwind

Darkwind

    Bio-Electric sentient being.

  • Member
  • 7,996 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Hurricane State

  • Don't Be an Idiot.

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:32 PM

It just shows how much we need to protect our environment.
Posted Image

#3    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Telekinetic

  • Member
  • 7,188 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 22 January 2013 - 12:36 PM

This is an example of what is called ecosystem services and it amounts to billions of pounds worth of benefits we recieve each year.
Unfortunately most people are blissfully unaware of how much we depend on the Environment for our general health and wellbeing.

Br Cornelius
I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users