Extreme Temperatures In Major Latin American Cities Could Be Linked To Nearly 1 Million Deaths 55
Rodrigo Perez Ortega writes via Science Magazine: With climate change, heat waves and cold fronts are worsening and taking lives worldwide: about 5 million in the past 20 years, according to at least one study. In a new study published today in Nature Medicine, an international team of researchers estimates that almost 900,000 deaths in the years between 2002 and 2015 could be attributable to extreme temperatures alone in major Latin American cities. This is the most detailed estimate in Latin America, and the first ever for some cities.
To estimate how many people died from intense heat or cold, researchers with the Urban Health in Latin America project -- which studies how urban environments and policies impact the health of city residents in Latin America -- looked at mortality data between 2002 and 2015 from registries of 326 cities with more than 100,000 residents, in nine countries throughout Latin America. They calculated the average daily temperatures and estimated the temperature range for each city from a public data set of atmospheric conditions. If a death occurred either on the 18 hottest or the 18 coldest days that each city experienced in a typical year, they linked it to extreme temperatures. Using a statistical model, the researchers compared the risk of dying on very hot and cold days, and this risk with the risk of dying on temperate days. They found that in Latin American metropolises, nearly 6% -- almost 1 million -- of all deaths between those years happened on days of extreme heat and cold. They also created an interactive map with the data for individual cities.
When the team analyzed the specific cause of these deaths in the registries, they found -- consistent with previous studies -- that extreme temperatures are often linked to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Extreme heat makes the heart pump more blood and causes dehydration and pulmonary stress. Extreme cold, on the other hand, can make the heart pump less blood and cause hypotension and, in some cases, organ failure. The team also found older adults are especially vulnerable to extreme temperatures, with 7.5% of deaths among them correlated to extreme heat and cold during the study period. Although the numbers varied from year to year, in 2015, for instance, more than 16,000 deaths -- out of nearly 855,000 -- among people ages 65 or older were attributable to extreme temperatures. Latin America's aging population is projected to rise more quickly than other parts of the world -- from 9% in 2020 to 19% in 2050, by some estimates (PDF). [...] Although deaths on extremely cold days -- about 785,000 -- were much higher than those on extremely hot days -- about 103,000 -- overall there were more days with intense cold, which could explain this difference. But for some cities, such as Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, and Merida, heat is more deadly than cold: The researchers estimated that on very hot days, the chance of dying increases by 5.7% for every 1C increase in temperature.
To estimate how many people died from intense heat or cold, researchers with the Urban Health in Latin America project -- which studies how urban environments and policies impact the health of city residents in Latin America -- looked at mortality data between 2002 and 2015 from registries of 326 cities with more than 100,000 residents, in nine countries throughout Latin America. They calculated the average daily temperatures and estimated the temperature range for each city from a public data set of atmospheric conditions. If a death occurred either on the 18 hottest or the 18 coldest days that each city experienced in a typical year, they linked it to extreme temperatures. Using a statistical model, the researchers compared the risk of dying on very hot and cold days, and this risk with the risk of dying on temperate days. They found that in Latin American metropolises, nearly 6% -- almost 1 million -- of all deaths between those years happened on days of extreme heat and cold. They also created an interactive map with the data for individual cities.
When the team analyzed the specific cause of these deaths in the registries, they found -- consistent with previous studies -- that extreme temperatures are often linked to deaths from cardiovascular and respiratory diseases. Extreme heat makes the heart pump more blood and causes dehydration and pulmonary stress. Extreme cold, on the other hand, can make the heart pump less blood and cause hypotension and, in some cases, organ failure. The team also found older adults are especially vulnerable to extreme temperatures, with 7.5% of deaths among them correlated to extreme heat and cold during the study period. Although the numbers varied from year to year, in 2015, for instance, more than 16,000 deaths -- out of nearly 855,000 -- among people ages 65 or older were attributable to extreme temperatures. Latin America's aging population is projected to rise more quickly than other parts of the world -- from 9% in 2020 to 19% in 2050, by some estimates (PDF). [...] Although deaths on extremely cold days -- about 785,000 -- were much higher than those on extremely hot days -- about 103,000 -- overall there were more days with intense cold, which could explain this difference. But for some cities, such as Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, and Merida, heat is more deadly than cold: The researchers estimated that on very hot days, the chance of dying increases by 5.7% for every 1C increase in temperature.
Yep, we're all screwed. (Score:1)
Time to build that giant dome in Alaska, before the Great Heat Waves of 2023 do us in!
Re: (Score:1)
Globally many more people die from cold than heat.
https://www.thelancet.com/jour... [thelancet.com]
If we are moving closer to equilibrium that is not intrinsically bad.
Re:Yep, we're all screwed. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we are moving closer to equilibrium that is not intrinsically bad.
The problem is the climate is moving further to the extremes, both hot and cold.
From the article you linked:
In the USA, the risk of mortality increased by 5–12% due to cold exposure and 5–10% due to heat exposure between 2000 and 2006.
So there was more risk of BOTH death from cold AND death from heat. Taking the medium of extremes doesn't benefit those exposed to those extremes.
Re: (Score:2)
So there was more risk of BOTH death from cold AND death from heat. Taking the medium of extremes doesn't benefit those exposed to those extremes.
That idea is too complicated for the nil-whits...
Re: (Score:2)
If we are moving closer to equilibrium that is not intrinsically bad.
The problem is the climate is moving further to the extremes, both hot and cold. From the article you linked:
In the USA, the risk of mortality increased by 5–12% due to cold exposure and 5–10% due to heat exposure between 2000 and 2006.
So there was more risk of BOTH death from cold AND death from heat. Taking the medium of extremes doesn't benefit those exposed to those extremes.
The USA is not the world (though I know many Americans think it is).
"From 2000–03 to 2016–19, the global excess death ratio changed by negative 0.51 percentage points (95% eCI 061 to 042) for cold temperatures and increased by 0.21 percentage points (013–031) for hot temperatures, resulting in a net decline of 0.30 percentage points (–044 to 013; appendix pp 7–9)." (sorry, Slashdot mangles the numbers in this quote)
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, replied to the wrong person. Also from the article;
From 2000–03 to 2016–19, the global excess death ratio changed by negative 0.51 percentage points (95% eCI 061 to 042) for cold temperatures and increased by 0.21 percentage points (013–031) for hot temperatures, resulting in a net decline of 0.30 percentage points (–044 to 013; appendix pp 7–9).
Just sayin.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Yep, we're all screwed. (Score:4, Insightful)
Globally many more people die from cold than heat.
That's cold comfort for those that live in hot places and die of extreme heat. How about we try to ensure a reasonable overall climate and access to heat or cooling for people as appropriate?
Re: (Score:2)
That's cold comfort for those that live in hot places
Perfecto.
Re: (Score:2)
"total deaths in 13 countries or territories were attributable to non-optimal temperatures between 1985 and 2012", so they didn't take the past very warm 10 years into account.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a CLIMATE study you moron.
Relevant ? (Score:1)
How is this article remotely relevant for Slashdot ? Editors asleep as the wheel as usual.
Re:Relevant ? (Score:5, Informative)
eh, it's a science article. Body count from extreme heat and cold is certainly relevant to slashdot topics of interest, for example number of extreme heat days per year now than say a century ago.
Re: (Score:2)
For this to even start to be interesting they should have done it for earlier years as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Relevant ? (Score:4, Insightful)
It's relevant if you happen to live in a South American city, know someone who lives in a South American city, care about the suffering of others, or would like a peek into what's coming for many of the rest of us.
Other than that, it's not relevant.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world... [bbc.com]
https://www.newscientist.com/a... [newscientist.com]
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
A climate study is Communist? Last we heard the U.S. Military was focused on Ukraine, Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran, and that dirty little squit, Erdogan in Turkey.
Why science writers aren't believed.... (Score:4, Interesting)
First, the caption wants to point out that correlation is causation, and that's not true. Then round numbers are thrown against the wall to see who might believe them, because actual causes of deaths are unknown, and likely not the result of a competent medical autopsy-- very expensive.
But it makes for good headlines, while the actual data in the studies might actually point to extreme weather causing a lot of deaths. The problem is, faulty writing, faulty correlation, and seeming scare tactics when hard data would be REALLY useful.
Re:Why science writers aren't believed.... (Score:4, Interesting)
The study itself is quite reasonable. Obviously not every death is subject to an extensive autopsy and they have to do some estimating based on what data they do have. Given that the effects of high temperatures are well understood and we have accurate weather data for the period in question, the number is likely a good indication. That's also why it is rounded.
There is a risk of creating a feedback loop here. The hotter it gets, the more people need air conditioning, and the more energy they use. It can be mitigated somewhat with better buildings that don't require so much cooling, but buildings usually last for many decades, if not centuries, and upgrades are often expensive.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes correlation is causation. If I punch you in the eye, I bet that you would jump to the conclusion that the pain in your eye was caused by my punch rather then wondering why your eye hurts.
Here in BC, we had record temperatures last year. The Coroner spent quite a bit of time looking at the heat caused deaths and ended up with over 600 unexplained deaths that were blamed on the heat. Now maybe the 40C+ temperatures in a city with little air conditioning and 600+ extra deaths was coincidence but the
Re: (Score:2)
Causation is causation. The cause was your fist, my eye.
I realize that temps are high. But read closely what I wrote. My fondness for BC is huge, and it's OK to say heat-related. Problem is that medical taxonomy isn't evenly applied.
Heart attack is the cause of death, but the blood loss from a stab-wound patient was another cause. Death certificates and data stored don't say that. Yes, its implied, but without facts surrounding it, a heart attack could be an infarction, stenosis, arrhythmia, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone in a 45C-50C room has a heart attack, there is a very good chance it is heat related, especially if there no other obvious causes of the heart attack.
But really it comes down to statistics, usually X many people die over a weekend. If the number of deaths is suddenly X+700 during a heat wave and a hundred deaths can be explained, Covid, opioid poisoning, major traffic accident etc, there's a very good chance the other 600 were caused by the heat, especially if most are vulnable due to age or such
Re: (Score:2)
There is no empirical evidence to support your contention.
There is no chain of authorities to support your contention.
Real statistics have a quantifiable sample size which, given the test of truth and factual integrity, can be extrapolated, but this is an extrapolation. This is why science writing fails as presented this way!
You can't just make a bucket and say: It was the heat at the end of verifiable mortality information. It doesn't work that way.
A reasonable person wants to believe that heat was a facto
Re: (Score:2)
It's a fact that old people die when stuck in a 45+C room. Amongst other things, their thirst reflex doesn't work very well.
statistics (Score:2, Funny)
"If only one man dies of climate change, that is a tragedy. If millions die, that's only statistics." - a famous man said something like this.
Someone determined to prove a point can fiddle with numbers and might get the result he wants. The calculation in this overlong summary looks suspicious. Some other person said "Lies, damn lies, and statistics." But it took effort which indicates that someone is trying to prove something. Which arouses suspicion in some quarters.
I refuse to repeat the contention that
Re:statistics "trying to prove something" (Score:1)
"trying to prove something" - This is always a suspicious activity. In 3rd grade, we learn that the louder and harder someone argues a point, the less truth is probably in it. That person may not believe it himself. People often confuse religious dogma with truth. Some people take the word of a persuasive person or organization to be true. Some people want to believe something so badly that they hear only that which supports their belief.
Science has rightfully turned that on its head. The effort goes into /
Re: (Score:2)
" it took effort which indicates that someone is trying to prove something. Which arouses suspicion in some quarters."
Trying to prove something is suspicious? Should people just assert things without trying to prove them?
Still not beating air pollution deaths (Score:2)
Same cause, much more devastating results but not as popular in marketing, probably because you can't "carbon offset" the annual millions of deaths caused by it
Re: Then build more nuclear power plants. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Don't worry, we will get more people with an anti-nuke agenda to jump on and do their best to keep nuke research from happening. Ever wonder why Russia makes anti-nuke propaganda? That sure isn't to help the US out. Their goal is to get the US and Europe to keep dependent on fuels with shitty logistics that are easily disturbed. Look how delicate the gas supply chain is. A glitch in a refinery on the US Gulf Coast can land into panic buying.
But, the Russian shills just love it when the US opens new coa
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
Ever wonder why Russia makes anti-nuke propaganda?
No, not really. I wondered why it took so long to trace the anti-nuclear propaganda back to Russia.
Russia clearly needs the world to keep buying fossil fuels and so put a lot of effort into selling dependence on it. They were without a doubt helped by similarly interested parties around the world, people that needed to keep everyone burning natural gas. How do you get people to burn more natural gas? By getting them to put up more windmills and solar PV panels, and then needing natural gas for backup po
Re: Then build more nuclear power plants. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Then build more nuclear power plants. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Nice straw man. How about a real argument next time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Then build more nuclear power plants. (Score:4, Informative)
"Nearly every nation on Earth has a government office tasked with seeking out solutions to the problem of global warming"
Among the countries that do not are China, India, Russia... Because they don't believe there is such a problem.
The belief that there is a problem of global warming is much less universal than people think. Its largely confined to the political and academic classes in the US, UK and Australia.
This was very obvious during COP26, and its becoming increasingly obvious after it. The biggest and fastest growing emitters boycotted the conference, or when they did attend, they blocked it from reaching agreement on any reductions in emissions.
People need to wake up to what this is telling us. Its been true since Paris, no-one outside a few Western countries will sign up to any reductions. They don't believe it.
Re: (Score:2)
Well. They probably believe it. But they believe their billions of citizens want and deserve a better, higher energy-consumption lifestyle more. And more importantly any serious attempt to get in the way would mean their demise.
Our populations are so far removed from reality they believe we can "transition" to "renewables" seamlessly, without exhorbitant cost, and maintain our lifestyles in the process. None of that is true and once they realize that we won't be changing either.
Global Warming and Local Warming (Score:1)
"With climate change, heat waves and cold fronts are worsening"
Don't think there is any evidence for this. No evidence they are worsening locally, and no evidence that the small amount of recent global warming would cause worsening.
Re: (Score:3)
You are in denial. Nothing else needs to be said at this time.
very healthy (Score:5, Interesting)
> 18 hottest or the 18 coldest days
That's 10% of the Year.
> nearly 6% -- almost 1 million -- of all deaths between those years happened on days of extreme heat and cold.
During 10% of the year only 6% of the yearly deaths? The extreme temperatures seem to be very healthy.
Not good enough (Score:2)
Look at excess death fraction, both hot and cold (Score:4, Informative)
You need to look at the excess death fraction for deaths attributed to both extreme heat and extreme cold, and you will see more clearly that the excess cold fraction is much bigger than excess heat by over 5X, suggesting that cold weather kills more than hot weather, in Latin America at least. So should we not welcome a warmer climate in these places?
"The excess death fraction of total deaths was 0.67% (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58–0.74%) for heat-related deaths and 5.09% (95% CI 4.64–5.47%) for cold-related deaths. The relative risk of death was 1.057 (95% CI 1.046–1.067%) per 1 C higher temperature during extreme heat and 1.034 (95% CI 1.028–1.040%) per 1 C lower temperature during extreme cold.
Kephart et al., “City-level impact of extreme temperatures and mortality in Latin America”,
https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com], [Nature Medicine, 2022]
Their mistake (Score:2)
The big mistake that the Latin Americans made in locating their cities was in placing them too close to the equator. They would have been much wiser to put them in North America. ...And, they have now realized their error and are indeed moving their populations to North America.