News digest – lifetime cancer risk now 1 in 2, naked mole rat, another ‘simple blood test’ and more

• Big news: based on some new calculations from our scientists, the latest figures show that 1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives (previously the figure was more than 1 in 3). Our announcement on World Cancer Day attracted a huge amount of media attention, we blogged about why these rates are increasing and the animation below explores the numbers in more detail.

• Our 1 in 2 story highlighted the fact that 40 per cent of cancers could be avoided by healthier lifestyles. And Britons are increasingly aware of this, according to a survey from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) – they just don’t seem to be translating their knowledge into action. Our news report has the details, and here’s a WCRF blog post that digs a bit deeper.


• Early diagnosis is important too: The Mail Online featured 10 ‘red flag’ symptoms that could be a sign of cancer.


• Also on World Cancer Day – boosting funding for global cancer services could save millions of lives each year, according to a global cancer organisation. We covered this on our news feed.


• Back in the labs, US scientists identified a molecule inside cells that, if targeted with drugs, could help slow the growth of tumour cells carrying certain genetic faults. Read our news report for more info.


• New early stage research on the cancer-resistant naked mole rat revealed that the rodent’s cells may be producing a ‘hybrid’ protein that could help protect them from tumours. The Mail Online explores (and we’ve blogged about this weird little rodent before).


• New clinical research found that the prostate cancer drug abiraterone – developed with help from our researchers – has benefits when given before chemo. Here’s the BBC report for more details.


• Earlier in the week, so-called ‘three-parent babies’ (a rather misleading phrase) were in the news because MPs were voting on whether to introduce an alternative method of IVF that could help prevent a hereditary disease – more context here (and they voted ‘yes’). But some media outlets ran claims that these children would have a ‘greater risk of cancer.’ This is highly speculative because the technique hasn’t yet been routinely used.


• The minister for life sciences, George Freeman MP, unveiled £13.7 million of funding for ‘stratified medicine’ research through the Medical Research Council. Our news report has the details – including a new bowel cancer study we’re helping support.


• The Government’s NHS reforms came under scrutiny in a new report from The King’s Fund, a healthcare think tank. The BBC had this to say, and here’s a blog post from The King’s Fund themselves.


• Another ‘simple blood test’ for cancer? The BBC thinks so, this time reporting on a new bowel cancer test. It sounds like it’s a long way off to us, and it was hard to find full details of the research.


• European scientists found that overweight children may be at higher risk of oesophageal cancer when they grow up than their slimmer friends. Here’s the press release for more info.


• Scientists from the Institute of Cancer Research in London discovered two genetic variants linked with a particular type of breast cancer. The Telegraph covered this (with a bit of added hype).


• Our scientists in Cambridge are teaming up with astronomers and developing new software that could help spot cancer cells in biopsy samples. The Huffington Post has more on this, and we’ve blogged about the project before.


• A trial of two smoke-free zones in Bristol was announced this week. The BBC has more.


• Some overblown headlines emerged about the potential harms of e-cigarettes. But the study in question only found that a small number of mice exposed to e-cigarette vapour were more susceptible to infections, making it questionable how far the response to a machine-generated dose of vapour in mice could be applied to human e-cigarette use – as the NHS Choices website points out.


• The Longitude Prize blog had this personal story of the important role antibiotics play in tackling infections during cancer treatment.


• The American Cancer Society’s Dr Len Lichtenfeld wrote this excellent blog post about the future of ‘personalised’ cancer treatment.

And finally

• Some people are never satisfied. The ‘1 in 2 people will get cancer’ story – driven by a rigorous, peer-reviewed statistical analysis by our researchers – was big news this week, but not everyone wanted to believe the stats. For example, here’s the BBC’s Jeremy Vine struggling to comprehend things, even in the face of some heroic explanation from our spokesperson (skip to 8 minutes 40 seconds in). And if, like Jeremy, you want to see some data to back up our calculations, this blog post about preventable cancers and this one about ‘1 in 2’ are a must read. You can even read the Open Access research paper, or access our prevention data here.

Nick

Image

• Naked mole rat from Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1A08pXv

• Big news: based on some new calculations from our scientists, the latest figures show that 1 in 2 people will be diagnosed with cancer at some point in their lives (previously the figure was more than 1 in 3). Our announcement on World Cancer Day attracted a huge amount of media attention, we blogged about why these rates are increasing and the animation below explores the numbers in more detail.

• Our 1 in 2 story highlighted the fact that 40 per cent of cancers could be avoided by healthier lifestyles. And Britons are increasingly aware of this, according to a survey from the World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF) – they just don’t seem to be translating their knowledge into action. Our news report has the details, and here’s a WCRF blog post that digs a bit deeper.


• Early diagnosis is important too: The Mail Online featured 10 ‘red flag’ symptoms that could be a sign of cancer.


• Also on World Cancer Day – boosting funding for global cancer services could save millions of lives each year, according to a global cancer organisation. We covered this on our news feed.


• Back in the labs, US scientists identified a molecule inside cells that, if targeted with drugs, could help slow the growth of tumour cells carrying certain genetic faults. Read our news report for more info.


• New early stage research on the cancer-resistant naked mole rat revealed that the rodent’s cells may be producing a ‘hybrid’ protein that could help protect them from tumours. The Mail Online explores (and we’ve blogged about this weird little rodent before).


• New clinical research found that the prostate cancer drug abiraterone – developed with help from our researchers – has benefits when given before chemo. Here’s the BBC report for more details.


• Earlier in the week, so-called ‘three-parent babies’ (a rather misleading phrase) were in the news because MPs were voting on whether to introduce an alternative method of IVF that could help prevent a hereditary disease – more context here (and they voted ‘yes’). But some media outlets ran claims that these children would have a ‘greater risk of cancer.’ This is highly speculative because the technique hasn’t yet been routinely used.


• The minister for life sciences, George Freeman MP, unveiled £13.7 million of funding for ‘stratified medicine’ research through the Medical Research Council. Our news report has the details – including a new bowel cancer study we’re helping support.


• The Government’s NHS reforms came under scrutiny in a new report from The King’s Fund, a healthcare think tank. The BBC had this to say, and here’s a blog post from The King’s Fund themselves.


• Another ‘simple blood test’ for cancer? The BBC thinks so, this time reporting on a new bowel cancer test. It sounds like it’s a long way off to us, and it was hard to find full details of the research.


• European scientists found that overweight children may be at higher risk of oesophageal cancer when they grow up than their slimmer friends. Here’s the press release for more info.


• Scientists from the Institute of Cancer Research in London discovered two genetic variants linked with a particular type of breast cancer. The Telegraph covered this (with a bit of added hype).


• Our scientists in Cambridge are teaming up with astronomers and developing new software that could help spot cancer cells in biopsy samples. The Huffington Post has more on this, and we’ve blogged about the project before.


• A trial of two smoke-free zones in Bristol was announced this week. The BBC has more.


• Some overblown headlines emerged about the potential harms of e-cigarettes. But the study in question only found that a small number of mice exposed to e-cigarette vapour were more susceptible to infections, making it questionable how far the response to a machine-generated dose of vapour in mice could be applied to human e-cigarette use – as the NHS Choices website points out.


• The Longitude Prize blog had this personal story of the important role antibiotics play in tackling infections during cancer treatment.


• The American Cancer Society’s Dr Len Lichtenfeld wrote this excellent blog post about the future of ‘personalised’ cancer treatment.

And finally

• Some people are never satisfied. The ‘1 in 2 people will get cancer’ story – driven by a rigorous, peer-reviewed statistical analysis by our researchers – was big news this week, but not everyone wanted to believe the stats. For example, here’s the BBC’s Jeremy Vine struggling to comprehend things, even in the face of some heroic explanation from our spokesperson (skip to 8 minutes 40 seconds in). And if, like Jeremy, you want to see some data to back up our calculations, this blog post about preventable cancers and this one about ‘1 in 2’ are a must read. You can even read the Open Access research paper, or access our prevention data here.

Nick

Image

• Naked mole rat from Flickr, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

from Cancer Research UK - Science blog http://ift.tt/1A08pXv

Use Big Dipper’s pointers to find Polaris, the North Star

Tonight, if you can find the Big Dipper in the northern sky in mid to late evening, you can find the North Star, Polaris. The Big Dipper is low in the northeast sky in the evening on February evenings, but it’ll climb upward during the evening hours, to reach its high point for the night in the wee hours after midnight. A well-known trick for finding Polaris, the legendary North Star, is that the two outermost stars in the bowl of the Big Dipper point to it. Those stars are Dubhe and Merak. They are well known among amateur astronomers as The Pointers.

Can’t find the Big Dipper? Yes, you can!

It really does look like a dipper, and it’s pretty bright. You just have to look for it at a time when it’s visible. And that’ll be tonight, and for many nights to come over the coming weeks and months … in the north in mid-evening. Once you find the Big Dipper, use the pointer stars to find Polaris, the North Star.

The Big Dipper isn’t a constellation, by the way. Instead, it’s an asterism, just a recognizable pattern of stars on the sky’s dome. It’s part of the constellation Ursa Major, the Greater Bear.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

View larger. | Time of year doesn’t matter. If you can see the Big Dipper, you can find Polaris, the North Star. EarthSky Facebook friend Tom Wildoner shared this shot with us. He captured it around 3:30 a.m. in the month of July. Thanks, Tom!

The two outer stars in the bowl of the Big Dipper always point to Polaris, the North Star. Image by EarthSky Facebook friend Abhijit Juvekar in India.

Bottom line: Use the Big Dipper to find Polaris, the North Star. Plus, early in the morning on February 24, look for the moon to be edging toward Venus in the eastern sky.

February 2015 guide to the five visible planets

A planisphere is virtually indispensable for beginning stargazers. Order your EarthSky Planisphere today.

Live by the moon with your 2015 EarthSky lunar calendar!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/16QNgUt

Tonight, if you can find the Big Dipper in the northern sky in mid to late evening, you can find the North Star, Polaris. The Big Dipper is low in the northeast sky in the evening on February evenings, but it’ll climb upward during the evening hours, to reach its high point for the night in the wee hours after midnight. A well-known trick for finding Polaris, the legendary North Star, is that the two outermost stars in the bowl of the Big Dipper point to it. Those stars are Dubhe and Merak. They are well known among amateur astronomers as The Pointers.

Can’t find the Big Dipper? Yes, you can!

It really does look like a dipper, and it’s pretty bright. You just have to look for it at a time when it’s visible. And that’ll be tonight, and for many nights to come over the coming weeks and months … in the north in mid-evening. Once you find the Big Dipper, use the pointer stars to find Polaris, the North Star.

The Big Dipper isn’t a constellation, by the way. Instead, it’s an asterism, just a recognizable pattern of stars on the sky’s dome. It’s part of the constellation Ursa Major, the Greater Bear.

Enjoying EarthSky so far? Sign up for our free daily newsletter today!

View larger. | Time of year doesn’t matter. If you can see the Big Dipper, you can find Polaris, the North Star. EarthSky Facebook friend Tom Wildoner shared this shot with us. He captured it around 3:30 a.m. in the month of July. Thanks, Tom!

The two outer stars in the bowl of the Big Dipper always point to Polaris, the North Star. Image by EarthSky Facebook friend Abhijit Juvekar in India.

Bottom line: Use the Big Dipper to find Polaris, the North Star. Plus, early in the morning on February 24, look for the moon to be edging toward Venus in the eastern sky.

February 2015 guide to the five visible planets

A planisphere is virtually indispensable for beginning stargazers. Order your EarthSky Planisphere today.

Live by the moon with your 2015 EarthSky lunar calendar!

from EarthSky http://ift.tt/16QNgUt

Ask Ethan #74: Gravitational Waves (Synopsis) [Starts With A Bang]

“Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” -Hermann Minkowski

When you think of waves, chances are you think of some type of pressure wave moving through a medium, like sound or water waves, or you think of light, which is an electromagnetic wave that requires no medium to move through. But there’s another type of wave that exists, that no one expected before Einstein came along: gravitational waves.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user MOBle.

It’s very counterintuitive how these waves come to exist, and yet, this week — at the behest of Starts With A Bang reader Adam Rabung — we do our best to explain just what the heck a gravitational wave is, how we know they exist, and how we plan on finding them.

Image credit: NASA (L), Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy / Michael Kramer, viahttp://www.mpg.de/7644757/W002_Physics-Astronomy_048-055.pdf.

Don’t miss this week’s Ask Ethan, only on Starts With A Bang at Medium!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/18VP4MD

“Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality.” -Hermann Minkowski

When you think of waves, chances are you think of some type of pressure wave moving through a medium, like sound or water waves, or you think of light, which is an electromagnetic wave that requires no medium to move through. But there’s another type of wave that exists, that no one expected before Einstein came along: gravitational waves.

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons user MOBle.

It’s very counterintuitive how these waves come to exist, and yet, this week — at the behest of Starts With A Bang reader Adam Rabung — we do our best to explain just what the heck a gravitational wave is, how we know they exist, and how we plan on finding them.

Image credit: NASA (L), Max Planck Institute for Radio Astronomy / Michael Kramer, viahttp://www.mpg.de/7644757/W002_Physics-Astronomy_048-055.pdf.

Don’t miss this week’s Ask Ethan, only on Starts With A Bang at Medium!

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/18VP4MD

Study: Self-affirmation targets the brain in way that makes us receptive to health messaging [The Pump Handle]

It’s a persistent conundrum in the field of public health — how can we open people’s minds to positively receiving and acting on health information? Previous research has found that combining health tips with messages of self-affirmation may be a particularly effective strategy, but researchers weren’t entirely sure how self-affirmation worked at the neurological level. Now, a new study has found that self-affirmation’s effects on a particular region of the brain may be a major key to behavior change.

In even simpler terms, researchers involved this new study — which examined how self-affirmation alters the brain’s response to health messaging — found that precisely activating a certain region of the brain could be a central pathway toward positive behavior changes. The findings could point to a relatively low-cost way to yield behavioral changes that could impact some of the nation’s costliest conditions and risk factors, from obesity to tobacco use. Plus, the findings illustrate one way to deliver health messages in a fashion that allows those most at risk to see value in what might otherwise be viewed as judgmental and threatening.

“It seems like we can change neural activity using this simple intervention and it does relate to behavior change down the road,” said study lead author Emily Falk, an assistance professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School for Communication. “Self-affirmation is a cheap, scalable intervention…and it turns out to have huge effects for a relatively low investment.”

To conduct the study, which was published in February in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Falk and her fellow researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study a region of the brain involved in processing self-relevance known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC). To begin, sedentary study participants were first given a list of values — such as family and friends, religion or politics — and asked to rank them in order of meaningfulness. The study sample was then broken into two groups — both groups received the same behavioral health information, but only one group was first primed with a self-affirmation message based on their values ranking. The control group received similar self-affirmation messages, but they were based on values unimportant to them.

Study participants were also fitted with a device that measured their activity levels for a week prior to the study and for a month after the initial intervention. In addition, participants continued to receive text message reminders for a month following the initial intervention. The text reminders would include one self-affirmation message and one health tip. For example, Falk told me a self-affirmation text might prompt the person to think about a time in the future when friends and family might need advice; while the health tip would explain that inactivity puts a person’s health at risk or that the best parking spots are those furthest away from the store. Falk and study co-authors Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Christopher Cascio, Francis Tinney, Yoona Kang, Matthew Lieberman, Shelley Taylor, Lawrence An, Kenneth Resnicow and Victor Strecher write:

VMPFC has been consistently associated with behavior change in response to health messages in prior work. This prior research has suggested that the link between VMPFC activity during health message exposure and behavior change may stem from a recipient’s ability to process a health message as self-relevant or as having value to oneself. Thus, we hypothesized that if affirmation allows people to see otherwise-threatening information as more self-relevant and valuable, delivering self-affirmation before health messages should increase neural activity in VMPFC during message exposure.

And that’s exactly what researchers found. According to the study, people who received relevant self-affirmation messages before getting the health advice showed higher levels of activity in the VMPFC region of the brain at the time of receiving the health messages. However, study participants who were prompted to think about values not ranked as important to them, showed lower levels of activity in that particular part of the brain. And not only did the relevant self-affirmation messages light up the region of the brain associated with positive valuation, it also resulted in actual behavior change. Those who received relevant self-affirmation showed a steeper decline in sedentary behavior in the month following the initial intervention, while those who didn’t receive relevant self-affirmation maintained their baseline levels of sedentary behavior.

Falk told me that previous research has found that brain activity in the VMPFC region tends to be a complimentary predictor of behavior change — in other words, brain activity seems to provide additional information that goes above and beyond what researchers gain from simply asking people questions. However, researchers were somewhat stumped as to why that was the case. At the same time, self-affirmation was emerging as an effective health messaging strategy, but researchers didn’t really know how self-affirmation worked at the neurological level. Falk said this study helps bring all those pieces together.

“We wanted to find a way to precisely engage that region of the brain and self-affirmation is a good tool to do that,” she told me. “The next step in the research is figuring out how to do this at scale, and I do think that’s a possibility.”

To request a full copy of the study, visit the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zgDNeN

It’s a persistent conundrum in the field of public health — how can we open people’s minds to positively receiving and acting on health information? Previous research has found that combining health tips with messages of self-affirmation may be a particularly effective strategy, but researchers weren’t entirely sure how self-affirmation worked at the neurological level. Now, a new study has found that self-affirmation’s effects on a particular region of the brain may be a major key to behavior change.

In even simpler terms, researchers involved this new study — which examined how self-affirmation alters the brain’s response to health messaging — found that precisely activating a certain region of the brain could be a central pathway toward positive behavior changes. The findings could point to a relatively low-cost way to yield behavioral changes that could impact some of the nation’s costliest conditions and risk factors, from obesity to tobacco use. Plus, the findings illustrate one way to deliver health messages in a fashion that allows those most at risk to see value in what might otherwise be viewed as judgmental and threatening.

“It seems like we can change neural activity using this simple intervention and it does relate to behavior change down the road,” said study lead author Emily Falk, an assistance professor of communication at the University of Pennsylvania Annenberg School for Communication. “Self-affirmation is a cheap, scalable intervention…and it turns out to have huge effects for a relatively low investment.”

To conduct the study, which was published in February in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Falk and her fellow researchers used functional magnetic resonance imaging to study a region of the brain involved in processing self-relevance known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VMPFC). To begin, sedentary study participants were first given a list of values — such as family and friends, religion or politics — and asked to rank them in order of meaningfulness. The study sample was then broken into two groups — both groups received the same behavioral health information, but only one group was first primed with a self-affirmation message based on their values ranking. The control group received similar self-affirmation messages, but they were based on values unimportant to them.

Study participants were also fitted with a device that measured their activity levels for a week prior to the study and for a month after the initial intervention. In addition, participants continued to receive text message reminders for a month following the initial intervention. The text reminders would include one self-affirmation message and one health tip. For example, Falk told me a self-affirmation text might prompt the person to think about a time in the future when friends and family might need advice; while the health tip would explain that inactivity puts a person’s health at risk or that the best parking spots are those furthest away from the store. Falk and study co-authors Matthew Brook O’Donnell, Christopher Cascio, Francis Tinney, Yoona Kang, Matthew Lieberman, Shelley Taylor, Lawrence An, Kenneth Resnicow and Victor Strecher write:

VMPFC has been consistently associated with behavior change in response to health messages in prior work. This prior research has suggested that the link between VMPFC activity during health message exposure and behavior change may stem from a recipient’s ability to process a health message as self-relevant or as having value to oneself. Thus, we hypothesized that if affirmation allows people to see otherwise-threatening information as more self-relevant and valuable, delivering self-affirmation before health messages should increase neural activity in VMPFC during message exposure.

And that’s exactly what researchers found. According to the study, people who received relevant self-affirmation messages before getting the health advice showed higher levels of activity in the VMPFC region of the brain at the time of receiving the health messages. However, study participants who were prompted to think about values not ranked as important to them, showed lower levels of activity in that particular part of the brain. And not only did the relevant self-affirmation messages light up the region of the brain associated with positive valuation, it also resulted in actual behavior change. Those who received relevant self-affirmation showed a steeper decline in sedentary behavior in the month following the initial intervention, while those who didn’t receive relevant self-affirmation maintained their baseline levels of sedentary behavior.

Falk told me that previous research has found that brain activity in the VMPFC region tends to be a complimentary predictor of behavior change — in other words, brain activity seems to provide additional information that goes above and beyond what researchers gain from simply asking people questions. However, researchers were somewhat stumped as to why that was the case. At the same time, self-affirmation was emerging as an effective health messaging strategy, but researchers didn’t really know how self-affirmation worked at the neurological level. Falk said this study helps bring all those pieces together.

“We wanted to find a way to precisely engage that region of the brain and self-affirmation is a good tool to do that,” she told me. “The next step in the research is figuring out how to do this at scale, and I do think that’s a possibility.”

To request a full copy of the study, visit the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for more than a decade.

from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1zgDNeN

Ocean Currents: Weekly Science Activity

In this week's spotlight: an ocean sciences activity that helps families better visualize how ocean currents move. What does temperature have to do with the speed and direction of ocean currents? Make your own mini ocean model and find out!

• Ocean Currents: Modeling the 'Global Conveyor Belt' in Your Kitchen (full Science Buddies project idea)


• Seawater Science: Model Ocean Currents in Your Kitchen (science activity at Scientific American)

from Science Buddies Blog http://ift.tt/1IiS0CT

In this week's spotlight: an ocean sciences activity that helps families better visualize how ocean currents move. What does temperature have to do with the speed and direction of ocean currents? Make your own mini ocean model and find out!

• Ocean Currents: Modeling the 'Global Conveyor Belt' in Your Kitchen (full Science Buddies project idea)


• Seawater Science: Model Ocean Currents in Your Kitchen (science activity at Scientific American)

from Science Buddies Blog http://ift.tt/1IiS0CT

Update at 18:59 CET

Report from Flight Operations Director Gerhard Billig on today's simulation for next week's IXV mission>

We are simulating the full mission until end of splashdown today; so far TM [Telemetry] has been received from Libreville and Malindi [tracking stations in Africa], everything is perfectly nominal. Awaiting naval AOS [acquisition of signal – from the Nos Aries tracking & recovery ship in the Pacific].

We also have the video streaming active from the ship, as we will have on the launch day.

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1zXlrFa

v

Report from Flight Operations Director Gerhard Billig on today's simulation for next week's IXV mission>

We are simulating the full mission until end of splashdown today; so far TM [Telemetry] has been received from Libreville and Malindi [tracking stations in Africa], everything is perfectly nominal. Awaiting naval AOS [acquisition of signal – from the Nos Aries tracking & recovery ship in the Pacific].

We also have the video streaming active from the ship, as we will have on the launch day.

from Rocket Science » Rocket Science http://ift.tt/1zXlrFa

v

China’s Toxic Air Could Kill a Population the Size of Orlando

The country’s pollution could contribute to 257,000 deaths over the next decade.

If nothing is done to slash the levels of toxic smog in China’s air, some 257,000 Chinese people could die over the next decade from pollution-related diseases, according to a new study released this week by Peking University and Greenpeace. That really is a lot of people; it’s roughly equal to the population of Orlando, Fla., or Buffalo, N.Y.

The researchers analyzed the 2013 levels of what’s known as PM2.5 pollutants—tiny airborne particles billowing from China’s coal production and industry. They projected the number of “premature deaths”—from diseases like heart disease and lung cancer—that could occur over the next 10 years if 2013′s level of pollution persists over the long term.

At the top of the list of China’s most polluted cities, toxic air in the industrial hub of Shijiazhuang could be responsible for as many as 137 premature deaths per 100,000 people. The team found the average across the country’s 31 populous provincial capitals was staggering:

The report comes amid renewed attention on China’s smog crisis. Another Greenpeace study released earlier this month revealed that 90 percent of Chinese cities that report their air pollution levels are failing to meet China’s own national standards, despite the government’s self-declared “war on pollution,” which includes measures to curtail coal use in big cities like Beijing, and to limit heavy industries.

If China met those standards, says Greenpeace in this latest report, nearly half of the premature deaths could be avoided.

The research is also notable because it was conducted jointly by China’s best known and most prestigious university, Peking University (known locally as Beida), and Greenpeace, the international environmental advocacy group that has had a long and complicated relationship with China’s authoritarian officials. The study was widely reported by state-run media, in another sign China’s censors are loosening some restrictions around environmental reporting in the country in the face of intense public pressure for transparency.

The report adds to the growing amount of literature about the deadly impacts of the country’s smog. An article that appeared in the The Lancet last year said that air pollution caused 350,000 to 500,000 premature deaths a year. An earlier Lancet study reported that air pollution caused 1.2 million premature deaths in 2010 alone.

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1LUK0ar

The country’s pollution could contribute to 257,000 deaths over the next decade.

If nothing is done to slash the levels of toxic smog in China’s air, some 257,000 Chinese people could die over the next decade from pollution-related diseases, according to a new study released this week by Peking University and Greenpeace. That really is a lot of people; it’s roughly equal to the population of Orlando, Fla., or Buffalo, N.Y.

The researchers analyzed the 2013 levels of what’s known as PM2.5 pollutants—tiny airborne particles billowing from China’s coal production and industry. They projected the number of “premature deaths”—from diseases like heart disease and lung cancer—that could occur over the next 10 years if 2013′s level of pollution persists over the long term.

At the top of the list of China’s most polluted cities, toxic air in the industrial hub of Shijiazhuang could be responsible for as many as 137 premature deaths per 100,000 people. The team found the average across the country’s 31 populous provincial capitals was staggering:

The report comes amid renewed attention on China’s smog crisis. Another Greenpeace study released earlier this month revealed that 90 percent of Chinese cities that report their air pollution levels are failing to meet China’s own national standards, despite the government’s self-declared “war on pollution,” which includes measures to curtail coal use in big cities like Beijing, and to limit heavy industries.

If China met those standards, says Greenpeace in this latest report, nearly half of the premature deaths could be avoided.

The research is also notable because it was conducted jointly by China’s best known and most prestigious university, Peking University (known locally as Beida), and Greenpeace, the international environmental advocacy group that has had a long and complicated relationship with China’s authoritarian officials. The study was widely reported by state-run media, in another sign China’s censors are loosening some restrictions around environmental reporting in the country in the face of intense public pressure for transparency.

The report adds to the growing amount of literature about the deadly impacts of the country’s smog. An article that appeared in the The Lancet last year said that air pollution caused 350,000 to 500,000 premature deaths a year. An earlier Lancet study reported that air pollution caused 1.2 million premature deaths in 2010 alone.

from Climate Desk http://ift.tt/1LUK0ar