Health impact of global warming

I would respectfully disagree with OSU Emeritus Professor Nebert  (GT Dec 29) about his conclusion that global warming is beneficial to human health, as he observed that cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses are more common during colder months, and that somehow population growth and vineyard expansion are historically associated with global warming.

Medical experts are still debating the multiple factors in the apparent seasonality of influenza illness in temperate climate, but most agree that the common denominator of morbidity and mortality of diseases is stress - and not thermal temperature.  Stress to our immune system, stress to our mental health, stress to our families not being able to afford healthcare when needed. There is no question that particulate matters from fossil burning contribute to the rise in cardio-pulmonary diseases, as reported globally in many respectable medical and public health peer-reviewed journals. Regional global warming trends in temperate zones have also been reported to enable the spread of disease-carrying mosquitoes and ticks, such as Dengue fever and equine encephalitis, outside of their native habitats.

The term “global warming” falls short at defining what science is describing. What is happening and most damaging is the extreme variation in regional temperatures, floods and drought, arctic vortex, hurricanes and wild fires, feast here and famine there, and the new ecology of zoonotic infectious diseases. These cataclysmic changes can cause population upheavals and geo-political insecurity. They are the universal stressors that can adversely affect our health, and even the most economically privileged individuals will feel them. There is nothing hysterical about acknowledging these problems and trying to work on solving them. Now.

(A shorter version of this letter was published on Jan 16, 2020 - Gazette Times, Corvallis)

Citing a multinational study reported in a 2015 Lancet journal that found an association (not causation) between colder temperatures and increased mortality, Mr Burreson (Jan 19), concluded that global warming is beneficial to human health. Conversely, should I link the recent increased mortality in US young adults to warmer weather? Obviously not!

I am weary of population studies that single out one variable (in this case, ambient temperatures) to correlate with one outcome measurement (mortality), while ignoring many important and complex co-determinants of health. The fact that this study also found substantial variations in mortality in different countries, yet tried to make a simple, over-reaching conclusion does not speak well for the quality of the data. Other studies cited in the Lancet suggest that specific periods of extreme temperatures are associated with increased mortality (by 12.1% for heat waves, 12.8% during cold spells), supporting my earlier remark that it is the extreme swings in weather that is stressful to human health.

Any clinic or hospital can tell us there are more sick patients and pneumonia deaths during winter, and yes, we should heed grand-ma's advice to bundle up when we go out in the cold. But to jump from there and ignore the negative effects of "global warming" on planetary and human health is beyond my humble reasoning.

Fro those seriously concerned with this issue, I recommend the Lancet Countdown on Health and Climate Change, published Nov 16, 2019; it uses 41 outcome indicators and lists 212 supporting scientific publications.

(Submitted Jan 20; published in the Gazette Times, Corvallis, Jan 29, 2020)

The title of Mr Petersen's letter (Feb 23) – "climate change science not settled" - definitely hit the right note. The virtue of science is to recognize that there is always data and dogmas to challenge, new observations to analyze, better models to reassess predictions, and therefore any scientific conclusion is but preliminary. That said, I know there are many cosmic forces of "nature" we can't control, but I am not ready to deny that human activities have accelerated our climate problem.

With more than 90% of world scientists agreeing with reports from many respectable institutions, where is the proof that they all collude "for money or power"? Even if only 4% of climate warming is anthropogenically driven, should we be paralyzed by cynically rejecting their warnings and proposals as "irrelevant"? Economists jump when the inflation rate rises over 2%, public health officials when influenza or COVID-19 mortality is 2%, and politicians when un-employment rate is above 4 or 6% (or pick a number). So what is so wrong about a global accord to prevent planetary warming rising 2% over pre-industrial level? What should our threshold be before calls for action get labeled as "hysterical?"

For myself, to combat climate warming is more about changing my own behavior: be less wasteful in my consumption of earthly goods; support resources that don't pollute or harm our health; and be mindful of other living creatures we share our planet with. Humanly possible and relevant things I can do, regardless of scientific controversies.

(A slightly different version was submitted on Feb 24 to the Gazette Times, and published on Mar 15, 2020)

Impeachment proceedings

This past week of impeachment hearings was certainly a trying time for me, as I listened to official testimonies, partisan bickering and analyses by media commentators.  That facts are seen through different filters we choose to wear over our eyes is a well-known cliché, and that the proceeding will not change the partisan divide in our country is an unfortunate but viable conclusion for now. 

Yet the week did not end in despair for me. It actually renewed my faith in America: that sooner or later, corrupt power can be challenged, constitutional checks and balances mean something, and most of all, that we can count on brilliant, dedicated and courageous civil servants in our government to carry out their duties in times of political turmoil. Personified in the dignity of Dr Hill and other officials, they are truly the under-recognized heroes of our democracy and represent the impeccable image that projects American power and values in the world.

(Published in the Gazette Times, Corvallis, OR, Nov 25, 2019)

On immigration policies

"You suggested that anti-migrant mood can be lowered by admitting potential newcomers on a merit, point-based system (Leaders/Immigration Policy, Nov 16th), but failed to notice that anti-immigrant feelings, especially toward non-whites, are still quite prevalent in Australia . You proposed to have visas auctioned to the well-heeled, and to impose surtaxes on immigrants, ignoring or easily dismissing the refugees who are poor and flee their homelands to protect themselves and their families from war and violence. It seems to me that you are treating human lives as purely economic commodities, to be acquired or dumped in a "market-based system", and in doing so, you chose to say nothing about what made us humans: compassion."

(Letter to the Economist magazine, November 18, 2019)

Medicare for All and Private insurance

Clarifications on Medicare for All

In response to Al Haunold’s concerns about Medicare for All (Sept. 26), I would like to offer the following clarifications.

 1. Our current insurance system practices exactly what he fears. We already pay for non- and under-insured people who end up in emergency rooms and intensive care units because of delayed access to health care. Under Medicare For All, everyone will be insured, resources will come from everyone contributing into public funding through fair and progressive taxes — instead of facing annual premium hikes dictated by insurance companies with high administrative costs and profit margins, higher out-of-pocket expenses passed on to us by employers who can no longer keep up with rising health care costs, and “surprise bills” that are not covered by insurance companies.

 2. I am not sure where Mr. Haunold got the information that “in some foreign countries” highly skilled and specialized doctors as a rule demand pre-payment for their services. All industrialized countries (except the United States) have a dual system of universal coverage for essential health care that is publicly funded — like our current Medicare, and private insurance where patients can buy “extra.” usually for supplementary coverage or faster service for elective procedures. But primary and specialty care, and services for urgent and life-threatening conditions are never denied. These countries have quality primary and specialty care at well below the U.S. costs — mainly by regulating private insurance companies and drug costs, and limiting the use of expensive tests and technologies that offer marginal medical benefits.

 (Submitted October 1, published in the Gazette Times, Oct 15, 2019)

On gun regulations

I would like to offer a rebuttal to Mr. Hall’s letter about gun control (Sept 3). 

1. 1.    “Nothing about firearms themselves has changed”.I beg Mr. Hall to reconsider or clarify that statement. Modern weapons with large magazines, rapid firing capacity and armor-piercing bullets, all designed to make killing easier, were not available to private citizens in the 1950’s. 
2. 2.    “The states with the most restrictive gun laws still lead the country in gun violence.”There is actually a strong body of literature published in respectable medical, public health and law journals reporting that stricter state gun policies were associated with a 10-35% decrease rate of firearm homicides, mass shootings, and suicides, even after adjusting for demographic and sociological factors. Specifically, these laws include strengthening universal background check and permit-to-purchase gun and ammunition, and enhancing gun safety design and storage. Conversely, allowing people to carry weapons, and “stand-your-ground” laws are associated with a substantial rise in the incidence of assault with a firearm. Missouri experienced a 25% increase in homicide rate after it repealed laws requiring permits to purchase gun, even as the rate fell nationwide.

We should recognize that no gun laws can guarantee complete safety, but each small step would reduce injuries and deaths. As for missing Norman Rockwell’s idyllic era, let’s remind ourselves that the National Rifle Association then supported the 1934 National Firearms Act that regulated gun ownership with background check and mandatory registration, and gave us more than half a century of shelter from gun violence.

(Submitted Sept 6, published Sept 17, 2019, in the Gazette Times, Corvallis)