The paper also states that more than half a million infants (out of how many?) are born prematurely each year in the U.S., but the researchers don’t break this down into pop. percentages for the three stages of “preterm” that they use in the study, so we don’t really know how likely each one is to occur in populations not living within major emissions danger zones. I think any health researcher reading this paper would want to know that, and they shouldn’t have to go to the CDC to find that out.

Obviously, no matter what, these percentages are horrifying - especially to a pregnant woman living in a city like Houston - but I think these obviously significant results make it even more important to be clear just how common these birth disorders/outcomes are in less affected populations, so we know what this really means for those of us who are in danger.

his doesn’t mean the results of one study are accurate or not: it just means that, when taken along with numerous other studies, they can be a powerful tool for actual social and policy changes.

And there’s nothing more scientifically valid than change.

Anecdotal evidence about NYC aside, I think this study clearly shows associated risk with a particular factor. Feel free to draw your own conclusions, of course.

And now your examples. Awful areas of NYC that are nowhere near highways but still have lousy health outcomes? I’d like to know what area of NYC is “nowhere near” significant amounts of auto traffic. In addition, you have to take into consideration the quality of the tap water in the area, as well as a myriad of other factors. Again, the study isn’t calling highway pollution the leading cause of all health issues.

As for your comment about “happy healthy kids” in Upper East Side, well of course they’re happy and healthy, because they’re rich! But that doesn’t mean they haven’t been affected by pollution. Unless you’re an infant, pollution doesn’t always have a noticeable effect on you right away. It’s more of a “death by a thousand cuts” problem. Auto pollution is a compliment to the many other things that harm us.

This is a “epidemiological” study, sociology rather than biology. Sociologists like to think of themselves as scientific, but most of them seem to be engaged in popular mythology.

For those of you who think this study proves something, please pause for a moment and consider if perhaps there might be other factors that lead to the poorer health of the people living near freeways. Everyone knows property near busy freeways is old and dilapidated. And most of the people who live in these areas are poor. Might, for instance, the fact that these buildings and homes contain high levels of asbestos, lead paint, decades of rat and cockroach dander be a factor? Or the fact that people in these poorer neighborhoods typically eat a lot more fast food and exercise a lot less than those in the leafier suburbs? Or the fact that smoking, alchohol and drug use is much more prevalent in these types of neighborhoods? Or that these people have less access to health care and are much less likely to seek out prenatal care than people in other parts of the city? Don’t ‘cha just think that maybe some of these factors also play a role?

Also,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation

There are some awful areas of NYc with grinding poverty and lousy health outcomes that are nowhere near any highways, then there is the Upper East Side, Northeast Queens, etc. with lots of highways, and happy healthy kids.

Although I’m already pretty certain that the effects would be negligible (even for a non-electrified line), it’d be nice to see it formally written up.

The actual paper is here, for all you stats geeks.

Yeah, the UCLA study was particularly focusing on the plume of a major Interstate — but clearly the effect is not contained to freeways.

On the practical side, the effect is more pronounced in winter than summer. So dark winter mornings might be a time to exercise indoors.

-Jebediah

I would be curious to see how the study defines a freeway/highway, as the soot and ozone levels coming off of the interstate are bound to be vastly higher than those from an automobiles-only parkway. And conversely, there are probably of plenty of congested two or four lane arterials that are exposing residents to tons of nasty pollution.