[Hmmmm……what used to be the number generally considered needed for epidemiological significance?
Pretty sure it was 100%. ~charles]
World’s largest study of the impact of temperature changes and kidney disease reveals that 7.4 per cent of all hospitalisations for renal disease can be attributed to an increase in temperature
MONASH UNIVERSITY
CREDIT: MONASH UNIVERSITY
Today the world’s largest study of the impact of temperature changes and kidney disease reveals that 7.4 per cent of all hospitalisations for renal disease can be attributed to an increase in temperature. In Brazil – where the study was focused – this equated to more than 202,000 cases of kidney disease from 2000-2015.
The study, led by Professor Yuming Guo and Dr Shanshan Li, from Planetary Health at Monash University and published in The Lancet Regional Health – Americas journal, for the first time quantifies the risk and attributable burden for hospitalizations of renal diseases related to ambient temperature using daily hospital admission data from 1816 cities in Brazil.
The study comes as the world focuses on the impact of climate change at the COP26 conference in Glasgow from 31 October.
In 2017, a landmark article in The Lancet declared renal diseases a global public health concern, estimating that almost 2.6 million deaths were attributable to impaired kidney function that year. Importantly the incidence of death from kidney disease had risen 26.6 per cent compared to a decade previously, an increase that this study may indicate was, in part, caused by climate change.
The study looked at a total of 2,726,886 hospitalizations for renal diseases recorded during the study period. According to Professor Guo, for every 1°C increase in daily mean temperature, there is an almost 1 per cent increase in renal disease, with those most impacted being women, children under 4 years of age and those 80+ years of age.
The associations between temperature and renal diseases were largest on the day of the exposure to extreme temperatures but remained for 1–2 days post-exposure.
In the paper the authors – who are also from the University of Sao Paulo – argue that the study “provides robust evidence that more policies should be developed to prevent heat-related hospitalisations and mitigate climate change.”
“In the context of global warming, more strategies and policies should be developed to prevent heat-related hospitalizations.”
The authors advise interventions should be urgently incorporated into government policy on climate change, including particularly targeting specific individuals, including females, children, adolescents, and the elderly, as they are more vulnerable to heat with regard to renal diseases.
“Moreover, attention should be paid to low- and middle-income countries like Brazil, where reliable heat warning systems and preventive measures are still in need,” Professor Guo added.
JOURNAL
The Lancet Regional Health – Americas
DOI
METHOD OF RESEARCH
Meta-analysis
SUBJECT OF RESEARCH
People
ARTICLE TITLE
Association between Ambient Temperature and Hospitalization for Renal Diseases in Brazil during 2000–2015: A Nationwide Case-Crossover Study
ARTICLE PUBLICATION DATE
31-Oct-2021
COI STATEMENT
None
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I figure electric blankets and car seat heaters will be banned in California and Massachusetts soon.
New Jersey seems to be most in lock step with California
In the hands of a biasman statistics is the art of telling lies. And this is no exception.
Basically, their regression equation between temp and renal disease had an r2 of 0.074, and p<0.05.
If there was any real Climate Connection, it is because (and I do so love this)…
…you ready……
it’s a killer…..(literally)
….promise….
(no, not you personally unless your waist is over 37 inches around)
cross my ‘art an ‘ope 2 dye.. (watch that waist measurement)
yo’ll luvvit…. who doesn’t
…
you will, get those smile muscles ready…..
(Nooooooo, you wicked norty person, NOT another glamour-shoot picture of Naomi)
It’s a bit Pythonesque but not much and you will not ‘die laughing’)
It is because they, Brazilians and billions of other peeps, are drinking Coal
(the dirty black stuff that comes out of Coal Mines and sparkling guest appearances at Australian Parliamentary sessions where it adds vitality, wit and humour to an otherwise desert)
yup. that’s the one. Coal.
Also as used to be used in Coal Fired Power stations, certainly in the UK until a bunch of hyper (in every sense) bunch of children smashed them all down. (Yes Boris, ‘m talking ’bout you. Now, grow up and brush your hair)
Kinda surprising them Brazilian poppets ain’t dying in even greater droves than they are. poor saps.
(I am being really really serious there)
Nomore suspenders, What Am I Like…..
A nugget concerning Monsanto (and boy-oh-boy have they got some explaining to do when ‘they’ meet my namesake (up) at The Pearly Gates)
Elmore, a historian at Ohio State University and author of “Seed Money: Monsanto’s Past and Our Food Future,” said the Monsanto-Coca-Cola relationship can be traced back to the companies’ beginnings.
“If not for Coke, there would be no Monsanto,” Elmore told Rogan. “In the early 1900s, Monsanto was nothing. They were on the verge of going out of business. One giant contract saved them, and eventually allowed them to grow into the giant they are today.”
What was that contract? “Monsanto supplied Coca-Cola with their artificial sweetener, and their caffeine,” said Elmore.
Elmore explained:
“To make enough caffeine for Coca-Cola, Monsanto bought the damaged tea leaves from the global tea trade and processed out the caffeine and sold it to the soft drink giant. Then Coca-Cola needed so much caffeine that excess tea leaves wouldn’t cut it — so Monsanto began developing a synthetic caffeine from coal tar, a byproduct of coal.”
So maybe not ‘coal’ directly directly – it’s all the refined sugar that comes with the coal derivative that’s taking them down.
Someone in this thread alluded to that and is what reminded me…
(Wonders if Carrie chowed down on coal when she was preggers, do girls still do that?)
Oh no, not Real Sugar but ‘Artificial Sweetener‘ = even worse as now generally now regarded as perfectly hideous stuff.
Tiz because its attempts to fool the brain perfectly backfire and when ‘the brain’ next gets a chance of eating real sugar, it noms down 3 or 4 times more than it otherwise would have done..
It’s a Rat Trap baby, and we’ve been caught..
and we have
What the hell are you on about?
Let the Peta run free.
Mike
I think you meant what the hell are you ON and where can we all get some?
MCEA
It’s autumn, a time for fruiting fungi (many have ‘magical’ properties).
Peta is a country girl & knows about their uses.
Regards from Angry of Anglesey (my other pen name)
I actually like reading Peta’s posts. If nothing else he gets me to smiling.
Hell, that alone is worth the time they take to read.
Meta Analysis they say is their methodolgy
The computer models again. May not have even been to Brazil, just done a data dredge
Let’s see!
Renal failure is caused by diabetes, high blood pressure, obesity and smoking; among others! So even if the rates of those are rising around the world, we’re going to attribute it to a rise in temperature so mild that no one noticed!
This would be like blaming the meteoric rise in obesity and diabetes rates on too much fat! Oh wait, they already tried that! Mixing climate alarmism into medicine will only serve to discredit both, and the medical profession can ill afford it after the way they have so grossly mishandled the Chinese virus!
Attribution
Works every time.
From the paper we have “Heat-induced sweating and following dehydration are believed to play a vital role in the development of temperature-related renal diseases.”
It sounds like this one can be mitigated by drinking more when its hot.
Also single events dont bring it on, its an over time thing.
https://www.kidneyfund.org/kidney-disease/kidney-failure/#what_causes_kidney_failure
“In most cases, kidney failure is caused by other health problems that have done permanent damage (harm) to your kidneys little by little, over time.”
This is correlation, not causation. The causation is that people aren’t looking after themselves properly over the long term. Arguably primarily an education issue not a climate one.
Increase temperature didn’t lead to higher rates of kidney disease.
Short term increases in temperature [“heat wave” if you are an eco-warrior] lead to higher hospital admission rates. Makes sense, if you’ve got dodgy kidneys higher temperatures will put them under stress.
Not “new” news…https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6893879/
This comment…”According to Professor Guo, for every 1°C increase in daily mean temperature, there is an almost 1 per cent increase in renal disease, with those most impacted being women, children under 4 years of age and those 80+ years of age”… is garbage.
There is no way on this little round planet that an increase in temperature over a few days is going to cause kidney disease. It might lead to an increase in hospital admissions. A crap diet full of sugar and feijoada [mostly salt with beans and whatever else is left around the house] over years certainly will.
Teach the people to drink more when it’s hot.
End of story.
Absolute numbers or per million of population? Population growth is a confounding factor.
The blurb contains the word ‘robust’ which gives me pause for thought as my alarms are ringing.
‘Robust’ = ‘The gentleman doth protest too much’?
“for every 1°C increase in daily mean temperature, there is an almost 1 per cent increase in renal disease, with those most impacted being women, children under 4 years of age and those 80+ years of age.” Correlation isnt causation.
Pesticides and heavy metals have been attributed as the cause of kidney disease elsewhere in the world.
Of course thirst, dehydration is one cause, but dont you think these people know how to drink when they are thirsty?
There is no reason to attribute this to temperature then.
Old people often have problems to realise to be thirsty.
Further they often fear to be obliged more often to go to WC.
“Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake.”
For pithiness, you can’t go wrong with W.C.
I take it that they didn’t select Brazil for any special reason and that they will now carry out studies in a whole lot of other countries, just to confirm that the link they claim tio have found in Brazil can be found anywhere else in the world.
Define kidney disease. Is it renal failure or kidney stones or cancer?
Renal failure has five stages https://kidneyresearchuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Stages-of-kidney-disease.pdf the latter stages require dialysis or transplant. Diabetes and other conditions can cause renal impairment.
I call complete BS on this. When the “scientists” are proved wrong I will endeavour to ensure one way or another that their careers are destroyed and their names are crap as should every reasonable scientists out there. And I’ll dump on the Lancet in every way possible. Utter nonsense that these conclusions are correct given that we have had only just over 1 degC warming since 1900. Meta analysis hey? “In the context of global warming, more strategies and policies should be developed to prevent heat-related hospitalizations.” And who should make more $ out of the strategies and policies? Perhaps the authors of the meta analysis report. THis study encapsulates everything wrong with climate change science.
Is this a fair summary? Are they really saying that hospital admissions for renal disease go up when it’s hotter, therefore heat causes renal disease? This is what climate science has been reduced to?
I’ve traveled to Brazil regularly since 1992. My many trips to popular beaches tell me for certain that obesity in the population has become much more common in Brazil since 1992. It is likely that type 2 diabetes is the biggest cause for greater kidney disease. Brazilians now spend much more time under air conditioning than in 1992, so the suggestion that people (and kidneys!) are now more heat stressed than 25 year ago is simply silly. The paper is garbage.
JEESH! all the calamities they attribute to a tenth of a degree, utter rubbish!
“for every 1°C increase in daily mean temperature, there is an almost 1 per cent increase in renal disease”
So Miami and Los Angeles have significantly higher rates than NYC? Or is it only “climate change” degrees that matter?
You don’t have clean drinking water and the temperature goes up. Hence, you drink more water and get renal failure ending up in the hospital. Let’s try to stop temperature rise instead of getting people clean drinking water.
Joseph,
Access to inexpensive, clean drinking water would do more to increase human health than almost any other endeavor imaginable! But the portion of the climate catastrophe funding needed to address it might put a crimp is some activist’s funding for their latest paper on the sins of CO2; can’t have that!
Just remember, the people who suffer most from poor water quality are Third Worlders of color; they are of no concern to alarmists, except when they can be utilized for political gain!
Maybe I read this wrong but from the OP it seems like 200,000 people were hospitalized with heat-related symptoms from unusually hot days (weather).
And while in the hospital it was discovered they had renal issues.
So unusually hot days allowed 200,000 to learn they had some form of renal problems that may otherwise not have been discovered prior to causing symptoms.
Or maybe I missed something.
There is no way that a 0.5 deg C warming could be linked to kidney problems. Attribution is impossible, particularly as there is such a seasonal variability even in the Amazon. Just cannot be done.
Add to this that we are not warming and the whole claim crashes. More likely, many people have moved into the cities and they are suffering from various forms of pollution, which does not include warming or CO2.
Let’s get real! The average global temperature is increasing about 0.1 deg C per decade. Most of the increase is in the daily lows, meaning at night and in the Winter when temperatures are lowest. The Arctic is apparently the fastest warming region on Earth, biasing the global increase upwards. In other words, there is little reason to believe that those living in Brazil are being heat-stressed significantly more than 15 years ago. I present evidence here that there is little basis for the claim that heat waves in the US, and by extension, elsewhere, are increasing:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/09/06/the-gestalt-of-heat-waves/
I suspect that these researchers are being misled by spurious correlations. By being quick to blame global warming, it deters research into what might actually be responsible for an increase in renal disease, such as diabetes.
The link to the article is invalid, so I can’t see what the authors actually said.
These knuckleheads. They can never get it through their thick heads that CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.
How the hell can these “scientists” measure the effect on renal disease due to a temperature that has only increased about 1 degree C in the last 170 years? Pretty sure that in Brazil in 1850 physicians weren’t even diagnosing renal problems, because most people died there and then due to communicable diseases and accidents in the Amazonian frontier 170 years ago.
Well, since a whole raft of other things in Brazil and the world have increased during the same timeframe, but at vastly greater rates than did temperature, then we must be able to conclude that renal disease is correlated with:
On and on and on.
Really … like shooting fish in a barrel.
I heard it causes warts. But only in the under served. It;s difficult to know for sure.
It also correlates to the increase in movies based on Marvel Comics superheroes. Should we consider that to be causation, too? Just asking for a friend who likes to see hard evidence of cause.
And is it really heat, or just access to potable clean water?