Guest essay by Eric Worrall
A new study claims exposure to heat stress increases the risk of congenital heart defects.
Climate change may increase congenital heart defects
Journal of the American Heart Association Report
January 30, 2019 Categories: Heart News
Study Highlights:
- The rise in temperatures stemming from climate change may increase the number of U.S. infants born with congenital heart defects between 2025 and 2035.
- The greatest percentage increases in the number of congenital heart defects are predicted in the Midwest, followed by the Northeast and the South.
- Pregnant women need to be aware of the dangers of extreme heat exposure, especially during early pregnancy.
Embargoed until 4 a.m. CT / 5 a.m. ET Wednesday, January 30, 2019
DALLAS, January 30, 2019 — Rising temperatures stemming from global climate change may increase the number of infants born with congenital heart defects (CHD) in the United States over the next two decades and may result in as many as 7,000 additional cases over an 11 year-period in eight representative states (Arkansas, Texas, California, Iowa, North Caroline, Georgia, New York and Utah), according to new research in the Journal of the American Heart Association, the Open Access Journal of the American Heart Association/American Stroke Association.
“Our findings underscore the alarming impact of climate change on human health and highlight the need for improved preparedness to deal the anticipated rise in a complex condition that often requires lifelong care and follow-up,” said study senior author Shao Lin, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., professor in the School of Public Health at University of Albany, New York. “It is important for clinicians to counsel pregnant women and those planning to become pregnant on the importance of avoiding extreme heat, particularly 3-8 weeks post conception, the critical period of pregnancy.”
Congenital heart defects are the most common birth defect in the United States affecting some 40,000 newborns each year, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
“Our results highlight the dramatic ways in which climate change can affect human health and suggest that pediatric heart disease stemming from structural heart malformations may become an important consequence of rising temperatures,” said the leading author Wangjian Zhang, M.D., Ph.D., a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Albany.
The projected increase in children with congenital heart disease will pose greater demand on the medical community caring for newborns with heart disease in their infancy and well beyond.
While previous research has found a link between maternal heat exposure and the risk for heart defects in the offspring, the precise mechanisms remain unclear. Studies in animals suggest that heat may cause fetal cell death or interfere with several heat-sensitive proteins that play a critical role in fetal development, the researchers say.
The estimates in the current study are based on projections of the number of births between 2025 and 2035 in the United States and the anticipated rise in average maternal heat exposure across different regions as a result of global climate change. The greatest percentage increases in the number of newborns with CHD will occur in the Midwest, followed by the Northeast and South.
In their analysis, the researchers used climate change forecasts obtained from NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. They improved the spatial and temporal resolutions of the forecasts, simulated changes in daily maximum temperatures by geographic region and then calculated the anticipated maternal heat exposure per region for spring and summer. For each pregnancy and region, they defined three exposure indicators: 1) the count of excessively hot days (EHD) as the number of days exceeding the 90th (EHD90) or 95th (EHD95) percentile for the same season of the baseline period at the same region; 2) the frequency of extreme heat events (EHE) as the number of occurrences of at least three consecutive EHD 90 days or two consecutive EHD 95 days; and 3) the duration of EHE as the number of days for the longest EHE within the 42-day period.
To obtain a parameter for congenital heart defect (CHD) burden projections, the investigators used data from an earlier study, also led by Lin, which gauged the risk of congenital heart defects based on maternal heat exposure for births occurring between 1997 and 2007. The researchers then integrated the heat-CHD associations identified during the baseline period with the projected increases in maternal heat exposure over a period between 2025 and 2035 to estimate the potential changes in CHD burden.
“Although this study is preliminary, it would be prudent for women in the early weeks of pregnancy to avoid heat extremes similar to the advice given to persons with cardiovascular and pulmonary disease during heart spells,” said Shao Lin, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., associate director of environmental health services, University at Albany, State University of New York.
Other investigators included Tanya Spero, M.S.; Christopher Nolte, Ph.D.; Valerie Garcia, Ph.D.; Ziqiang Lin, Ph.D.; Paul Romitti, Ph.D.; Gary Shaw, Ph.D.; Scott Sheridan, Ph.D.; Marcia Feldkamp, Ph.D.; Alison Woomert, Ph.D.; Syni-An Hwang, Ph.D.; Sarah Fisher, M.P.H.; Marilyn Browne, Ph.D.; and Yuantao Hao, M.D., Ph.D. There were no author disclosures.
This study was supported by the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with partial support by the National Natural Science Foundation of China.
Additional Resources:
- Available multimedia located on the right column of the release link: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/climate-change-may-increase-congenital-heart-defects?preview=f9d168ef92d192dbb1155b3bad30ac8f
- After January 30, view the manuscript online.
- For more information visit: https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/congenital-heart-defects
- Follow AHA/ASA news on Twitter @HeartNews
###
Statements and conclusions of study authors that are presented at American Heart Association scientific meetings are solely those of the study authors and do not necessarily reflect association policy or position. The association makes no representation or warranty as to their accuracy or reliability. The association receives funding primarily from individuals; foundations and corporations (including pharmaceutical, device manufacturers and other companies) also make donations and fund specific association programs and events. The association has strict policies to prevent these relationships from influencing the science content. Revenues from pharmaceutical and device corporations are available at https://www.heart.org/en/about-us/aha-financial-information.
About the American Heart Association
The American Heart Association is a leading force for a world of longer, healthier lives. With nearly a century of lifesaving work, the Dallas-based association is dedicated to ensuring equitable health for all. We are a trustworthy source empowering people to improve their heart health, brain health and well-being. We collaborate with numerous organizations and millions of volunteers to fund innovative research, advocate for stronger public health policies, and share lifesaving resources and information. Connect with us on heart.org, Facebook, Twitter or by calling 1-800-AHA-USA1.
For Media Inquiries and AHA/ASA Expert Perspective: 214-706-1173
Carrie Thacker: 214-706-1665; c.thacker@heart.org
For Public Inquiries: 1-800-AHA-USA1 (242-8721)
Source: https://newsroom.heart.org/news/climate-change-may-increase-congenital-heart-defects
The full study is available here.
Even if we accept at face value the predictions of the “high-resolution climate projections” described in the full study, and the claimed correlation between heat exposure and heart defects, there is a simple solution to reducing the risk during hot weather; stay indoors and turn up the air conditioner.
Of course, expectant mothers on low incomes require reliable, affordable electricity to be able to run their air conditioner continuously during a heatwave.
“The estimates in the current study are based on projections of the number of births between 2025 and 2035 in the United States.” It looks like authors expect to retire by 2025.
A slightly warmer climate does not in any way mean more heat waves. It means slightly longer summers, which mean linger growing seasons for crops (a real plus) and shorter, possibly more mild winters. That is all it takes to have 1.5 deg F of warming. All claims of horrible futures that, if we did warm (which we are not) the world would be destroyed, is just stupid and idiotic. How stupid do they think most people are? Clearly, they either believe their own BS or they know it is BS and assume the public is truly stupid.
Good response. Most of the “Global Warming” in the U.S. occurs in urban areas due to the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect. This is tied to higher populations, NOT CO2. If it is a real problem (which is doubtful), they need to move out of the cities to smaller towns or rural areas.
Joe d’Aleo and I co-authored the following paper on Excess Winter Mortality in 2015. The title states the reality that cold weather kills much more than warm weather.
COLD WEATHER KILLS 20 TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE AS HOT WEATHER
by Joseph d’Aleo and Allan MacRae, September 4, 2015
https://friendsofsciencecalgary.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/cold-weather-kills-macrae-daleo-4sept2015-final.pdf
Excess Winter Mortality is the number of deaths that occur in the four winter months (December through March in the NH) minus the number of deaths that occur in equivalent non-winter periods.
About 100,000 Excess Winter Deaths occur annually in the USA, equivalent to about two-9-11’s per week for 17 weeks every year.
Colder Canada typically experiences about 5000 to 10,000 Excess Winter Deaths per year.
More than 50,000 Excess Winter Deaths occurred in England and Wales last winter (2017-2018) – an Excess Winter Death rate more than 2.5 times the per-capita average rate of the USA, and 2.5 to 5 times the per capita rate in Canada.
Even in warm climates like Thailand and Brazil, there is a significant Excess Winter Death rate, but it is typically lower than in colder countries.
The data suggests that Earth is significantly colder-than-optimum for human longevity. Other factors, such as energy pricing and the quality of housing insulation and heating systems are also important to reduce winter mortality.
Do kids born in Florida have a higher rate of congenital heart defects than the kids born in Wisconsin?
…these scientists are insane
and a whole lot of people believe this crap
Brought to you by the AHA, the same people exhorting us to eat “6 to 11 servings” of starch a day, also known as a great way to fatten hogs.
Way to go, AHA!
The word “believe” is the operative crap-word indeed. No facts required!
Yes and yes 🤨
How ’bout in India or sub-Saharan Africa?
Total codswallop. But I have to admit, they’re creative.
And how many of the authors have stopped driving cars/SUVs and stopped flying in airplanes.
I trust all these doctors have set their air-conditioning to 80F.
I know I’m dreaming.
But I’lol consider believing we should do something about CO2 emissions when all Dem politicians, all Dem billionaires, all Hollywood and media types all stop flying and all stop driving internal combustion vehicles, stop flying, and set their air conditioning to 80F.
All they have to do is go to any country along the equator or africa central Australia etc and see if this is a problem now. Compare babies born i hot regions to babies born in cooler climates and see if there are any difference. They may find statistics that back them up. Not.
It’s worse than you think, because, ….. only the pregnant females that reside at or above 35N and/or 35S Latitude, ….. in the years 2025 thru 2035, ……. have to worry about their infants being born with congenital heart defects.
That’s an AMAZING discovery. Musta been figured out via use of the Zodiac and the Mayan Short Count.
Good question. The data is sparse. link The linked study looks at the rate of CHD in Quebec and extrapolates for the whole US.
Given the sparseness of the data, a study that extrapolates on that is useless. How can we know what we will have in the future if we don’t even know what we’ve got now?
And possibly worse; we know they use Linear No Threshold (LMT) extrapolations for premature asthma and heart deaths due to Global Warming and it wouldn’t surprise me if some form of that tool was used here.
LNT of course.
Yes! We need these stats!
I am seriously considering doing a paper along the same lines number of hot days and the frequency of people going the toilet. What I am guessing will happen is more females will go than men because they tend to go with at least two (a wingwoman for backup) so I should get a nice statistical variation.
Then I will be able to make the claim that global warming adversely affects woman more than men in that they have to go the toilet more often 🙂
Just be sure you keep “track” of the beer drinkers because I’m sure their “trip” frequency will be exacerbated. 😊
Exactly this is one article I am qualified to speak on because I have done fetal echocardiography a long time. I have done it in both Texas and Colorado and have seen no statistical difference. It comes and goes you see a lot in a short period and then it ebbs. Consider most babies in the Northern Hemisphere are conceived in the fall and early winter. The further north you go the larger this effect is. As you get into Canada and Alaska most people are born in March.
Diabetes, obesity and maternal family history are the main reasons. Since doctors are getting better at maintaining hormones for diabetics and morbidly obese women to get and maintain pregnancy you will see more congenital heart defects. If this study had any merit the highest months with cardiac defects would be January through March deliveries.
Excellent, rhetorical question!
The number one rated Super Bowl commercial of all time was the heart strings ad featuring a puppy and a Clydesdale for selling more beer. The climate psychologists are never far from climate science messaging.
OMG. This alarmism is really is getting out-of-hand. Has the word gone out to the entire mainstream community to come up with anything — anything! — possible to get people concerned about “climate change”? Must be due to the record cold spell going on now… polar vertex, anyone?
In regards to the assertions in this ridiculous article, I agree wholeheartedly with the assertions here: has anyone heard of air conditioning?! How did people survive in the past? Was there an epidemic of congenital heart issues in newborns? I grew up in Fresno with no air conditioning — just a lousy swamp cooler. No a/c in the car, either. And my mother had eight healthy babies.
Oops… typo. Make that “vortex.”
If you’re working outside in very cold conditions, you can get really stupid. While I was looking for links to support that, this turned up.
Cold weather increases the risk of mortality in Texas residents.
It’s called attribution statistics and it isn’t science it is marketing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_(marketing)
Read the original study and what they did
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29886237
They got a group of babies who had defects and a group who did not and simply looked at the daily maximum temperature and its frequency in the 9 months before the babies birth and then attribute an increased rate to that fact.
Nick Stoke would be proud of that sort of statistics but please don’t remotely call it science because at no stage did they ever remotely establish a link between a few hot days and congenital heart defects.
Obviously, the author of this study have never heard of the expression „spurious correlations”.
As the number of excessively hot days in the US has been decreasing since the 1930’s, the actual rate of heat related effects should also be decreasing. Unless one only uses the fictions, excuse me, models of GISS, which predict the opposite trend.
…. and believing this endless stream of drivel will case brain damage!
Does this mean that CHD is rampant in the tropics?
…we evolved in the tropics
Wait there are people in the tropics I thought they all left as climate refugees?
Nobody lives in the tropics anymore. Didn’t you hear that they can no longer grow anything due to Climate Change TM? The only ones left are the evil rich who have air conditioning and import all their food from Nunavut and Siberia.
It appears that most people in the US who live in regions that have a hot summer have air conditioning.
For the study they must assume the cult of CAGW have successfully shutdown our electrical grid.
https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2015/07/13/good-question-how-many-homes-have-air-conditioning/
“In the South, 97 percent of homes have some cooling system, whether it’s central air or window units. In the western United States, it’s less common at 65 percent….
…Of the Twin Cities metro homes that have air conditioning, the Census Bureau reports 74 percent of people use central air while 22 percent have window units. Houses are more likely than apartments to have air conditioning.
…According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, 95 percent of the homes built in the 2000s have central air compared to 30 percent of homes built before 1940.””
After the global carbon tax fund is passed there will be total silence and you may resume normal thinking and real science process. Until then there will be no peace at any turn.
Are dead babies bad or good, this week? I forget.
They’re “good”, even worthy, when they are politically congruent (e.g. profit, convenience). They’re “bad” when they are a “burden” to the pursuit of wealth, pleasure, leisure, taxation, and democratic leverage. Thus the progression from one-child to selective/recycled/sequestered-child.
Don’t be silly … they aren’t “dead babies” … they’re aborted full tern tissue. Keep up with the “science”.
good one!…..I have a neighbor that firmly believes it should be legal until the age of 21
should only be legal through the term of 153 to 189 months.
261 months is way too long; if you haven’t figured it out by 189 months then you probably don’t have the mental capacity to make such an important decision and it shouldn’t be up to you..
Here’s a compromise that Nancy and Chuck could get behind. Ban abortion of viable fetuses but have Lebensborn style orphanages where the babies are raised at government expense to believe all the socialist nonsense and vote for Democrats.
This approach eliminates the need to import peasants from third world countries. All produce should be raised locally you know.
Of course we already have something similar in place, called the public school system.
Well there is a thing to consider. If a dog is ill with no liver or joints, we’ll kill it so it doesn’t suffer horribly only to die soon. The same with elderly. We give up at some point. We run out of resources and decide to save them for those who benefit more of them. In a way, this is not much different. We let sick and elderly die to an infection. We didn’t inject poison, but killed anyway.
When a fetus doesn’t develop fully and the skull crushed the brain, we think about holy life and leave it to the institution to see the suffering happens as long as possible.
pro-life, pro-choice. ffs.
I’m not saying I’m pro-fatality or pro-fate, I’m saying people genuinely don’t know a thing about what suffering sometimes happens without the life it belongs to.
I think Ivan was arguing it’s good this week as we need to keep the population numbers down. After Ivan gets us to pay for their birth control it should not be a problem. However I am pretty sure Ivan will be back for more money from us because we will have to educate them and air condition them and so on.
UnPlanned colorful clumps of cells, fetuses… babies.
They guesstimate a 1.6% (7000 extra cases/ in 11 years/40000 per year currently). Can that even be detected over the noise in the data?
In short – NO. Like most modern medical studies this one will be IMPOSSIBLE TO REPLICATE.
I am getting to the point that I don’t trust ANY medical study that has any bearing on lifestyle choices, as they almost all have a self-selection bias (the population studied came in with the problem) or a small population sample with unscreened for genetic biases. Then there are the ones that are pure wishful thinking for undocumented clinical experience.
Granted, doing ethical medical studies is hard, as the possibility of negative results for the subjects of the study is high for almost any candidate treatment (and even some diagnostics).
No the original study doesn’t have any controls at all it’s typical medicine junk. At no point did they even remotely establish a basis for the link they just assume it and all the statistical variation is from that link. As I said it’s not really science it’s a marketing and it’s actually worse than many conflict of interest pharma publications.
No
What’s the problem? I just heard a DOCTOR testify that he would simply “discuss” the newborns birth defect with the “mother”, and would then make the baby “comfortable” before “aborting” “it” … post-birth. In our Brave New World, no child need be born with a heart defect. What a WONDERFUL future the Godless left have planned for us. A world where MURDER is redefined as PROGRESS. Better get those Commandments chiseled off the frieze of the Supreme Court
Didn’t the Germans try something like that “For the good of the Race”
The Americans were pretty keen on it too, but that seems to be conveniently forgotten by many.
Though that was mostly through forced sterilization. Ain’t eugenics wonderful?
That doctor is the governor of Virginia, and his career is being aborted live right in front of our eyes. Someone found a picture of him in his medical school yearbook dressed in either blackface or a KKK outfit. Democrats calling for him to resign.
[appreciate the sentiment given current events, but just a little over the top for this site at this time~mod]
Yep, and Eric should be a little more discerning as to what He posts.
Not every piece of crap study deserves to see the light of day, especially not here.
Just my thought.
There is probably far less exposure to heat stress today with air conditioning than there was 100 years ago.
Congenital heart defects are currently reported as being 40,000.
This study tells us that by increasing global temperatures at their current rate for that decade, around .13 Deg. C/decade there will be an additional 7,000 congenital heart defects.
Yeah, that makes sense, an 18% increase in congenital defects for babies because of just over a tenth of a degree of global warming. Makes sense if I was the scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz before he got a brain!
Makes sense if the southern states today had a 10 times higher rate of congenital heart defects vs the northern states.
Or if people born in hot climates had a 10 times higher rate of congenital heart defects vs those born in cold climates.
Now a brand new powerful climate change correlation has been found and with just the slightest increase in temperature it has a massive effect.
Well, I guess we won’t have to worry as much about the old correlation:
“Winter Cardiovascular Diseases Phenomenon”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3662093/
“There is a clear seasonal trend of cardiovascular diseases, with the highest incidence occurring during the colder winter months, which have been described in many countries. This phenomenon likely contributes to the numbers of deaths occurring in winter.”
But wait……………global warming also causes extreme Winter cold from Polar Vortex’s that are different than the ones in the 1970’s and previous to that. We know for sure that those Polar Vortexes were from natural cycles. Natural cycles can’t work anymore since man made climate change took over.
I’m curious, did the statistical increase in heart defects bear any correlation to the massive influx/colonization from third world countries?
Over 60,000 anchor babies are born in TX each year.
These researchers whine about a temperature deviation that is less than the temperature difference between air temperature measurement at one’s toes and one’s forehead.
Obviously no cultural or genetic differences at all by this huge demographic transition.
There is no way to know they never establish any link in the original study they have some correlation which could just be random luck or some other factor.
Who down-scaled the UN IPCC climate models to specific regional results for these guys/gals? It is my understanding that regional down-scaling has not been successfully accomplished as yet, after years of trying.
Calling Dr. Modeler! Calling Dr. Modeler! Please report to the IT room.
“Just another brick in the wall” Pink Floyd
Add this obvious crapper paper to the 97%. Only idiots would fall for something this obviously roached. Oh yeah. Our opponents.
Was ist das jetzt wieder für eine gequirlte Scheisse.
Jeder weiss doch “Säuglings Herz Schaden” ist einfach stinknormal:
https://www.google.com/search?q=baby+heart+defects+normal&oq=baby+heart+defects+normal&aqs=chrome.
I read your comment and thought I understood all but the last word, “stinknormal”, so I put it in Google translate to see if they could do any better, and it didn’t know what stinknormal was either but confirmed the rest for me. My guessing for German is something like the normal smell, but I have a feeling it has other colloquial meanings that I am missing, because that doesn’t quite scan.
stinknormal: boringly ordinary
Johann says it a piece of excrement 🙂
troe,
troe,
if there had not been a “piece of excrement” during the birth process
spended by your mother
then you would not have today a functioning
intestinal flora.
Say “thank you Mama. The best and only one I ever could get!”
My list of issues caused by Global Warming is becoming embarrassingly long.
I now have to add heart attacks, re-colonisation of South America and extreme cold weather.
I can’t wait to hear what they have saved up for us to read on April 1st.
Never forget the right handed sharks those sucker sneak up on you from around corners.
Especially dangerous with the predicted higher incidence of sharknadoes!
Do the writer’s of this drivel realize that when climate scientists argue about global warming the deniers say the rate of temperature increase is <0.01 deg C/yr. realists say 0.03, not “1 degree by 2025”?
Dennis, without reading the study I can’t vouch for the provenance of heat indexes that would so exceed normal (historical and current) heat waves such as to cause statistically measurable increased fetal abnormalities. I can tell you, though, that UN IPCC climate models have no (meaning absolutely none) predictive ability at the global level, much less regional. All attempts to model the regional variation of ANY climate metric have failed, miserably.
Read some of Bob Tisdale’s stuff at his blog “Climate Observations.”
I note that this particular medical lobby appears to accept that the Planet is getting warmer. . Does that mean that they accept the .7 C increase since 1880 as this figure.
Sounds like they want a government grant.
MJE
It’s all virtue signalling and self-interested research funding. A good friend had a baby last week which was touch-and-go medically. All good now thanks to medical science. Real science doing real things to improve our lives.
Those doing that kind of work deserve our support and thanks. Those churning out garbage like this deserve humiliation in the public square. We will yet give them what they have earned.
aka
https://www.google.com/search?q=pl%C3%B6tzlicher+kindstod&oq=pl%C3%B6tzlicher+kindstod&aqs=chrome.
Clearly, all pregnant women should be re-located to a milder climate. I suggest San Francisco. They are determined to host the entire world.
It appears all types of lunatic fringe researchers are trying to jump on the climate change bandwagon in hopes of scamming more grant money. Actually this may be a good sign. I liken it to a bull stock market. When do you know the bull run is coming to a close? You know it when greeter at Walmart (no disrespect to the greeters), who knows nothing about the stock market, starts buying stocks.
I call this total BS. Anybody with a blood pressure monitor and a hot-tub knows about blood pressure drops after you get out of the hot-tub. Yes, pulse rate does rise for a short time however, the pressure drop for the next 6-8 hours afterwards is exceptionally beneficial. The authors of this study qualify as absolute evil.
The key piece of evidence for this paper is another paper by the same first author that provided a link between heat exposure and CHD (cited as #7 in the current paper). Paper #7 appeared in a Environment International that almost no-one reads in the medical community. I presume the manuscript was rejected by premier medical journals, The authors have found this unrelated rack to hang their piece, because nowadays there is a journal that will publish every piece of crap.
It would be quite premature to assume that the findings of paper #7 is valid until they are confirmed by others. Building a case over such a dubious foundation does not provide confidence in their science.
It is also a shame that a premier AHA journal publishes this crap that is based on pure speculation and conjecture.
But no doubt it was “Peer Reviewed:, Hi. so it must be true.
MJE
Climate change causes not only heart defects in infants, it causes brain damage in adults.
Only in the believers as other have junk filters that immediately ignore stuff like this.
[appreciate the sentiment given current events, but just a little over the top for this site at this time~mod]
Nigerian ( a relatively hot climate to be born in) reported data discusses how congenital heart disease (quote): “…incidence … tropics … not different from …rest of world ….” While also noting that ” … defects … vary in … races ….” See free full (2007) text available on-line of “Spectrum of congenital heart disease in a tropical environment: an echocardiography study.”
Study looks at factors that are recognized as “defects”; such as ventricular septal defect (VSD), patent ductus arteriosus (PDA), atrial septal defect (ASD) & several others. They found the “defect” co-arctation of the aorta (CoA) uncommon in Nigeria & mention that this, as well as congenital aortic stenosis (which I believe -?- may be now popularly called aortic valve stenosis, AVS) are (quote): ” … rarer in … black races than in … caucasian.”
Original Post seems far fetched to me based on this Nigerian study using laboratory equipment to
get data; I haven’t looked for more recent research however.
What a shame to “science” it is, that all these Phds put their names to “stuff” like this. No wonder more and more people do not believe in even real science, which suffers because of all the chaff contaminating the wheat.
It isn’t science it was published in a medical journal which have a history of publishing junk marketing papers and misinformation.
But all the PhDs that put their names to the study – did they get their doctorates via mail order, or what? That’s the point. PhDs in the medical field, or any other field, are rightly seen as representing science. Junk science in this case, but most people will think it is grounded in reality.
Almost all of the warming (the tiny 1/3 degree C on land since 2002) has been in the arctic and overnight over land masses when daytime highs are long gone.
There is no way any study could sift out heat stress heart effects with such a small amount of stress that is likely to be seen any time soon. Not believable.
If there is ANY truth to this study’s assertions, THE MUCH HIGHER COSTS OF ELECTRICITY CAUSED BY ALL THE “AGW DO GOODERS” WILL PUT THE BABIES OF THE POOR AT HIGHER RISK since the expecting poor parents can’t afford to run their air conditioners.
The AHA just sold their last ounce of credibility on this one. Total crap.
NASA’s credibility is long dead and gone. Except for interplanetary expeditions, NASA has lost purpose and its soul. It’s time to defund most of NASA’s activities.
Beginning when they overlapped NOAA and NASA responsibilities, there has been a race to the bottom. The latest National Climate Assessment reads like the novel Catch 22; you want to laugh and cry at the same time.
Always in full propaganda mode, the CBC delivers this “opinion” piece:
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/opinion-manitoba-youth-climate-change-1.4984144
“The wisdom of youth: On climate change, adults should listen to young voices”
Indeed, knowledgeable, critically thinking adults should listen to gullible, barely educated and brainwashed by David Suzuki youth!
The ridiculous act of the Swede pimpled blond lecturing UN bureaucrats duly orchestrated by the COP and Davos system themselves in order to make these gullible youth believe they know more is used by the writer “Susan Huebert is a Winnipeg writer with published articles for children and adults, on topics ranging from science to current events and social justice”.
Perhaps we should ask these youth’s opinion before attempting critical surgery: they must know better right Susan?
Obviously, everybody here is misrepresenting this study.
The authors don’t asserting that the observed increase in number of congenital heart defects is caused by climate change. Instead, according to them, the real reason is some kind of magic, heart spell.
Quote (literally):
“Although this study is preliminary, it would be prudent for women in the early weeks of pregnancy to avoid heat extremes similar to the advice given to persons with cardiovascular and pulmonary disease during heart spells,” said Shao Lin, M.D., Ph.D., M.P.H., associate director of environmental health services, University at Albany, State University of New York.
I am not native speaker of English, so I am not sure, but it is funny in Hungarian to recommend women in the early weeks of pregnancy to avoid heart spell.
Or use cars with automatic transmissions, or ball-point pens (Prof. Biro), or try solving the Rubik’s Cube. All Hungarian inventions.
They could not spell heat.
I don’t quite believe this result, it smells spurious. I don’t think hot sownah bathing causes CHD, but you never know, maybe CHD is unknown in Nunavut.
So the cover-up begins, This IS the truth about why in 2025/30 there will be a spike in birth defects it will be worse then thalidomide
“Thalidomide causes birth defects.[8][7][14] The FDA and other regulatory agencies have approved marketing of the drug only with an auditable risk evaluation and mitigation strategy that ensures that people using the drug are aware of the risks and avoid pregnancy; this applies to men and women both, as the drug can be transmitted in sperm.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide
“Imagine you are five years old, in school and sitting with a wi-fi laptop near your abdomen.
Theoretically, your ovaries can become irradiated until you leave school at aged 16-18 years
old. When you become pregnant, every one of your follicles (to become eggs) will have
been microwaved. Hence, you may or may not deliver a healthy child.
Should you become a pregnant as a student, your embryo (for its first 100 days – if it is
female) is producing approximately 400,000 follicles (within its ovaries) for future childbirth.
The problem is that these developing follicle cells do not have the cellular protection of
mature adult cells. Consequently your ‘Grandchild’ may have had every single follicle cell
irradiated and damaged prior to its conception. Therefore when your child becomes an
adult (with its irradiated follicles) there is a greater likelihood of its child (your Granddaughter) suffering the ailments previously mentioned, during conception / embryonic and
foetal development stages.”
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientific_committees/emerging/docs/emf_117.pdf
not even worth printing that study to use as toilet paper
What infuriating deceptive rent seeking anti-scientific crap the slimeball authors have produced.
Congenital heart defects are not correlated to weather.
The gall of these pos fear mongers is beyond acceptability.
The climate consensus, at it’s core, is irrational fear mongering claptrap.
The article should be withdrawn, and the authors and “peer reviewers” should be sanctioned.
From the study that they used:
RESULTS:
“Overall, we observed no significant relationships between maternal EHE exposure and CHDs in most regions during summer. However, we found that 3-11 days of EHE90 during summer and spring was significantly associated with ventricular septal defects (VSDs) study-wide (ORs ranged: 2.17-3.24). EHE95 in spring was significantly associated with conotruncal defects and VSDs in the South (ORs: 1.23-1.78). Most EHE indicators in spring were significantly associated with increased septal defects (both VSDs and atrial septal defects (ASDs)) in the Northeast.”
CONCLUSION:
“While generally null results were found, long duration of unseasonable heat was associated with the increased risks for VSDs and ASDs, mainly in South and Northeast of the US. Further research to confirm our findings is needed.”
metmike: They use one study that finds “generally null results” and spin it into a catastrophic climate change congenital heart defect study based on what appears to be some numbers that don’t correlate well to support the theory. No additional research to support it.
Why would heat only correlate with a higher incidence of a certain condition in the South and Northeast?
Heat is heat. It doesn’t know where you live. If heat and humidity combined was a factor………and it is during heat waves, why only use temperature?
The study they used, identified 5848 CHD cases and 5742 controls
I’ll bet that most of them spent 95-98% of their time in air conditioning during these high heat events……………..aha, there’s the real culprit!!!
Women who spend extended periods of time with the air conditioner cranked up because of heat waves, 3 to 9 weeks after conception, increase the risk of their babies having a congenital heart defect. …………but only in the South and Northeast.
That makes more sense than to say that women, who spend 2% of their time in heat, 3 to 9 weeks after conception have an increased risk of having a congenital heart defect…..but only in the South and Northeast.
Actually, neither one makes sense
With all this laughably junk “science”, all this pathetic bunch of BS submerging the mainstream,
telling us that CAGW caused, causes and will cause everything, its opposite and any other kind of rubbish,
I wonder when ordinary people (i.e., honnest, with some common sense) will rise the red flag and put all this garbage in the trash.
Oy Vey! Another “May” study published with great authority and precision
If you really want a correlation with heat, you don’t bother with all kinds of nonsense about supposed annual high temperatures and heart defects by year, you simply do a correlation by birth date which will show more birth defects for babies carried to term during the spring-summer-autumn than for those carried during autumn-winter-spring. If the supposition is true you might even get information about when the fetus is most vulnerable to heat.