It's long been suspected, but a new European survey confirms it: Children living near areas of heavy traffic are more at risk of asthma.
Previously, it was thought that pollution from traffic might only be a trigger for the condition, but the Los Angeles Times reports on a European study that it can also be a cause.
The study, covered in the European Respiratory Journal, examined the health of children in ten cities.
14 percent of chronic asthma cases in children were attributed to near-road traffic pollution. It's the first time such a study has made a direct link between vehicular pollution and asthma cases, despite it being suspected for many years.
Dr. Laura Perez of the Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute was the report's lead author.
"This is the first time we have estimated the percentage of cases that might not have occurred if Europeans had not been exposed to road traffic pollution," she said.
"In light of all the existing epidemiological studies showing that road-traffic contributes to the onset of the disease in children, we must consider these results to improve policy making and urban planning."
It's another string to the bow of electric vehicles, which produce zero local emissions--though it's also worth pointing out that in recent years, automakers have made huge strides in cleaning up their combustion engines.
Legislation in the U.S, Europe and elsewhere is stricter than ever with regards to air pollution, and the cars made today are a far cry from those that roamed the smog-choked streets of Los Angeles and other cities in the 1970s and 1980s.
But for families bringing up children, the best option for your kids' health is to avoid living in an area too heavily populated by traffic--it really can be bad for their health.
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Have an opinion?
The cause was suspected to be the diesel emission, especially the particulates and soot emission. The study didn't find similar increase in less commercial area where the diesel uses is less. They also contributes most of that to the trucking and heavy industrial usage of diesel fuels where the emission standards are lower.
I wonder if the popular diesel usage affects European City emission even more.
Makes me glad I live in a smaller, less-trafficked town...
For a century and a half (until it was largely banned in 1964), coal was the dominant heating fuel in London--and burning it in open-grate fireplaces produced a phenomenal amount of soot, far worse than anything today produced by diesel particulates.
My mum recalls coming home from even short trips to the shops in the High Street with a visible "V" of soot on her shirt where her coat had been open ... and it's taken half a century to wash most of that off the buildings in London!
Visible soot is bad, but large particles are easily filtered by efficient mechanisms of the respiratory system and removed. hats is why smokers suffer more: cig smoke inactivates the cilia which move the mucus up the trachea to be swallowed and eliminated. Catalytic converters however break the carbon particles into nano-particles and those float right by the mucus and cilia to reach the lungs, blood and then the brain
Y Brandstetter MD
Y Brandstetter MD
It's time for a moratorium on diesel fuels, and to track back various health expenses directly to the combustion of products such as oil.
We now have the technology to determine exactly what particles come from exactly where, and to thereby name and shame the companies who are responsible.
Make 'em pay.
.
PM2.5 emissions from diesel engines have been addressed (DPF). Why is there not as much concern about the other 98% of anthropogenic PM2.5?
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!