It is a fact that fossil fuels from diesel cars and coal-powered fire stations cause dangerous tiny particulate pollution. Sooty air pollution in towns and cities increases the chances of women giving birth to small babies, new research has shown.
A study involving millions of births around the world found that higher pollution levels raised the risk of low birth-weight. Although small, the effect is said to be statistically significant. At national population scales it could have an important impact on child health, said the researchers. Babies are underweight at birth if they tip the scales at less than 2.5kgs, or 5lbs 8oz. They face an increased risk of dying in infancy, as well as chronic poor health and impaired mental development.
The new study, the largest of its kind ever conducted, focused on tiny sooty carbon particles called PM10s and even smaller PM2.5s which are known to be linked to heart and lung problems and early death. They originate from a number of sources, including diesel exhausts and the chimneys of coal-fired power stations and factories.
Professor Tanja Pless-Mulloli, who led the UK arm of the study at the Newcastle University, said: “As air pollution increases we can see that more babies are smaller at birth, which in turn puts them at risk of poor health later in life.
“These microscopic particles, five times smaller than the width of a human hair, are part of the air we breathe every day. What we have shown definitively is that these levels are already having an effect on pregnant mothers.”
The research, published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, examined the impact of a 10 microgram per cubic meter increase in average exposure to pollution particles over the course of a pregnancy. Furthermore, a continual trend of elevated low birth-weight risk with higher levels of air pollution also showed.
For PM10s, this raised the chances of having a low birth-weight baby by 0.03%, which was said to be statistically significant. In the case of PM2.5s, a much larger 10% risk increase was seen.
Pless-Mulloli added: “The particles which are affecting pregnant mothers mainly come from the burning of fossil fuels. In the past the culprit may have been coal fires, now it is primarily vehicle fumes.
“Currently in some parts of London we see around 40 units of particulate air pollution and in Newcastle it is around 20 units but going back to the 1960s we saw around 700 units of air pollution. While much has been done to improve air quality, this study shows we can’t be complacent as we’ve shown that clean air is really important for the health of our newborns.”
The scientists collected data on more than 3m births at 14 locations in the UK, north and South America, Asia and Australia.
They concluded: “The estimated combined associations, although relatively small, could be of major public health importance considering the ubiquitous nature of particulate air pollution exposure, and therefore the potential for considerable population attributable risk, particularly given evidence of perinatal (around the time of birth) and life-long effects of LBW (low birth weight) on health.”
“The study is of excellent quality and the conclusions are clear: while the average effect on each baby is small and so should not alarm individual prospective parents, for the whole population these small risks add up across millions of people. “
by Infinity20008 years ago
Will air pollution dampens the level of competition, and more record - breaking results over the previous Olympic Games at Athens (2004)? Seven days to the Games, let us begin the Competition between nations , the best...
by zeke21002 years ago
I am writing a hub but can't properly classify it. I don't feel that it should go under climate change, because it has to do with air pollution issues. I think we need a new subcategory for "air pollution...
by Stacie L5 years ago
The Surprising Link Between Air Pollution & DiabetesWhere you live may put you at risk.Air pollution is not just bad for your lungs; it may increase your chances of having diabetes. According to a new study by...
by Jackie Lynnley2 months ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.