Health directors see global warming as looming health threat
A new study from George Mason University reveals that while a majority of U.S. health department directors believe their city or county will have serious public health problems as a result of climate change within the next 20 years, very few of them have planned or implemented activities to detect, prevent or adapt to these health threats.
Edward Maibach, professor and director of the Center for Climate Change Communication and lead author of the study, wanted to understand how directors of local public health departments view, and are responding to, climate change as a public health issue.
"Relatively few Americans, businesses and policymakers are aware of the consequences that climate change is likely to have on the health of our communities, families and children," says Maibach. "Our research shows that most, if not all, local health departments are going to require assistance in making climate change adaptation and prevention a priority and must take action now to ensure climate change does not become an increasing global threat."
The study "Climate Change and Local Public Health in the United States: Preparedness, Programs and Perceptions of Local Public Health Department Directors," which will be published this week in the journal Public Library of Science ONE, reveals that the majority of health department directors believed that threats such as heat waves or heat-related illnesses, reduced air quality and reduced water quality or quantity were most likely to become more common or severe as a result of climate change.
The study also suggests that several key factors may contribute to local health departments' lack of preparedness. Most survey respondents felt that the personnel in their health department – and other key stakeholders in their community – had a lack of knowledge about climate change, that little help was currently available from state and federal public health officials, and that they needed additional funding, staff and staff training to respond effectively to climate change.
"The reason why so many Americans view climate change as a threat to other species rather than as a threat to people may be in part because health professionals have been largely silent on the issue," says Maibach. "By using the opportunities available to them, public health and health care professionals can educate people on the threats of climate change to their health and wellbeing."
Permalink
July 30, 2008
Printer-friendly versionAbout us
Science Blog was started in August 2002. It lives, breathes and eats press releases from research organizations around the globe. Most of what you read here are press releases from the outfits named in the stories themselves. Got a news story you think belongs here? Let's talk. The other half of the equation is blog posts from readers like you. So if you have an interest in science, please register and join others like you in an ongoing, vibrant dialog about what makes the world tick. Meantime, please take a minute to read our Privacy Policy and Site Disclaimer.Recommended
Andrew Sullivan Dan Sullivan Doug Arellanes Emmanuelle Richard Faith Sullivan Fred Bortz Heather Havrilesky Henry Copeland Kate Sullivan Ken Layne lagreenbean.com LAist.com Maggie Sullivan Matt Welch NewYorkology Opinion L.A. Ron Kaye Slashdot Sploid Steve Elzer & Family TheNewsroom.org Thor Garcia Tony Pierce Wonkette OlderThanks CNET for naming Science Blog one of your Blog 100!
Comments
There can be no debate, part two.
July 31, 2008 by Anonymous, 48 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 31309
So Eric we agree. We are both skeptics. I don't really think I have an agenda, other than requiring more proof and positing that maybe all the work isn't done yet. I really think that Galileo and Copernicus would be right with me. Don't ever accept a theory as fact without rigorous proof. I'm sorry but I haven't seen it. Yes, I can cite lots of studies disputing the causes of warming, or showing that it hasn't warmed in the last 8-10 years, or that it was warmer in the 1930's or much warmer in the different periods of the past. Would it make any difference in this discussion. Of course not. It's not possible for you or I to convince the other in these short messages. When I hear global warming scientists saying things like the last x number of years are just a pause in the global warming it makes me wonder about the science behind it. When I hear them blame everything bad that happens or could happen on it, it makes me wonder about the agenda behind it. When I read the above story and see that the true reason for it is to get more funding and staff for themselves I am skeptical about it. Quote from 2nd to last paragraph "and that they needed additional funding, staff and staff training to respond effectively to climate change."
It may surprise you to learn, I'm not against changes to reduce oil or coal usage. I am very much into conservation and minimizing my "footprint". Much more so than Al Gore, that's for sure. I believe in it to prevent pollution, reduce costs and reduce our dependence on other countries. I just don't believe that the case for CO2 caused global warming has been proven and in fact that there is more proof saying it isn't happening. The only group trying to prevent more study, trying stifle public discussion are the group of people who say climate change is caused by man made CO2. If that isn't an agenda, I don't know what it is.
It's not that the jury is still out...
July 31, 2008 by Anonymous, 48 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 31308
It's that the jury came back and reached a verdict. Sure, you can appeal it all you want but the fact remains that - in several courts of science, global warming is happening and it is largely because of humans. Guilty.
Now when you say "there is plenty of evidence" yet cite none, it says to me you haven't bothered structuring your rebuttle to be iron clad. Nor have your invested the time to research these pieces of evidence - else one would assume they would be right there at your fingertips, ready to be hauled out as shinning, gleaming examples of "proof".
Additionally, when a prestigious science prize goes to someone for their work and you say it is political, that seems like sour grapes - or worse - a walk down conspiracy lane.
You can be a skeptic, or a person not persuaded - I would gladly count myself among those - but you shouldn't push your agenda under the guise of "scientific doubt" - it is kinda insulting to the likes of Galileo and Copernicus.
When every new weather/sea ice/temperature metric comes out it adds another brick to the theroy of global warming. That is a lot of data to be against - one should have more than just innuendo and sarcasm when trying to tear it down.
Eric
There can be no debate!
July 31, 2008 by Anonymous, 48 weeks 1 day ago
Comment id: 31307
Since I doubt Gadfly is your real name, you might as well post anonymously also. There is plenty of evidence out there that shows global warming isn't happening or isn't caused by CO2. However, we've been told over and over that the science part is done. There can be no debate. That my friend, is not science. Scientific theories are always open to debate. Especially as new data and theories come to light. I think it is time you respect the "science" and do some more research. The Nobel prize was an obvious political move, not a prize for Nobel type science.
Yes, I am a "denier" which is your semi clever phrasing for someone who doesn't believe that all the science has been done yet with regards to climate change.
The usual suspects with their usual tactics
July 30, 2008 by Gadfly, 48 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 31296
The deniers are at it again.
They post anonymously with semi-clever phrasing such as "spin doctor" and "gullible warming."
They use ad hominem attack language like "you geniuses" and claim that the source is unreliable without any evidence to support that claim.
And on that basis, they dispute not only the conclusion of this particular peer reviewed study but also the body of evidence (best summarized by the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) supporting that the climate is changing in potentially dangerous ways due to human activity.
So who should we believe? Gimme a break, guys. This is Science Blog. Respect the science.
This bite of realism brought to you by "Gadfly."
Spin Doctor
July 30, 2008 by Anonymous, 48 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 31294
You are quoting a marketing man that had to quit the National Cancer Institute because he would not reveal his other sources of income (conflicts of interest).
Now he is pushing this study that has not seen the light of day.
Is it a real study? I doubt it. This thing does not stand up to common sense.
Gullible warming
July 30, 2008 by Anonymous, 48 weeks 2 days ago
Comment id: 31292
My study of gullible warming indicates the manipulators are now calling it climate change because global warming just doesn't fit when things like the truth and reality are considered. The truth being that temps are going down. The reality being three of four organizations keeping track of temperatures say temps are going down and the one remaining clearly having a vested interest in keeping up the gullible warming mantra. Strange how that only seems to be the truth for people other than the gullible warming crowd. They still insist temps are going up but a little thing I like to call reality does not agree with their view. Can any of you geniuses point out a single model (since you seem to value models over reality and observable and verifyable fact) that predicted cooling would be happening even though what is supposedly driving temps up continued to go up? Is anybody swift enought to catch the lunacy of statements I have seen like "the cooling trend just means we are warming slower?"
Post new comment