Yahoo News had a video clip from Fox News. Fox interviewed a cardiologist on things that age the heart. This is the list and the years that can be lost from them.

Cholesterol 5-10
Weight 5-10
Smoking 20
Drinking 10-20
Stress 15-20

As you can see, if you have all these problems you'll die up to 80 years prematurely. I guess you die shortly after birth, which doesn't give you a whole lot of time to drink, smoke, eat, and worry.

I'm sure the interview was edited, but smoking was the one most highlighted. The doctor said that's why you see so many smokers having coronary heart disease and heart attacks in their 40s and 50s. I think it's kind of odd picking smoking seeing how I've heard they're now seeing heart disease showing up in children....from eating, not smoking.

If smoking ages the heart only 20 years then clearly other factors must be contributing to a 40 year old having a heart attack. They didn't mention emergency rooms being filled with 40 year old overweight people with high cholesterol with the same 20 year aging on their hearts. Or the high stressed people who drink too much. Their hearts can be 40 years older than normal. Twice that of a smoker.

I just thought I'd give a heads up to those of you with all those risk factors who are over twenty. You're probably dead.

LOL

Hi, guys,
thought I'd toss this in...

Dublin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2337025.stm

'Cutting pollution reduces deaths from heart and lung disease, two studies have shown.
Both looked at how the environment affected people's health.
An Irish study found death rates in Dublin from heart and lung diseases fell dramatically after the 1990 coal ban.

And a Dutch study found people were twice as likely to die from such illnesses if they lived near a main road.

Environmental campaigners said the research supported their calls to cut pollution from all sources.
In the Dublin study, researchers looked at death rates in the six years prior to the coal ban, and the six years following it.
They found the average concentrations of black smoke decreased by 70% after the ban on coal sales.

Deaths from respiratory diseases decreased by around 15%, and by cardiovascular diseases by around 10% - equivalent to 116 fewer respiratory deaths and 243 fewer cardiovascular deaths every year after the ban.

'Immediate reduction'

Other studies have shown that increased air-pollution concentrations increase mortality.

The researchers said this study showed that decreasing air pollution was associated with a marked reduction in mortality.

Writing in the Lancet, the researchers led by Professor Luke Clancy of St James Hospital, Dublin, said: "Our findings suggest that control of particulate air pollution in Dublin led to an immediate reduction in cardiovascular and respiratory deaths.

"These data lend support to a relation between cause and the reported increase in acute mortality associated with daily particulate air pollution."

He said other studies could have under-estimated the benefits of cleaner air.

Main road link

In the Netherlands study, 5,000 people participating a national study on diet and cancer.

The people, aged 55-69, were studied from 1986 to 1994.

Their long-term exposure to the traffic-related air pollutants black smoke and nitrogen dioxide was estimated for each person's home address in 1986.
Eleven per cent died during the next eight years.
People who lived near a main road were around twice as likely to die from heart and lung disease, and 1.4 times more likely to die from any cause.

However, apart from lung cancer, no other direct link was found between exposure to pollution and mortality.

The researchers, led by Dr Gerard Hoek from the Environmental and Occupational Health Unit at Utrecht University, added: "The association we recorded between living near a major road and mortality was stronger than those for the urban or rural background concentration."

Other factors

In an editorial in the Lancet, Annette Peters of the National Research Centre for Environment and Health, Neuherberg, Germany, said further research was needed.

But she said: "The research reported today has direct relevance to public-health policy, since both coal-burning and traffic emissions continue to be major sources of particulate exposure worldwide.

"Emission control and effective local interventions are needed to lighten the health burden of particulate air-pollution everywhere."

Belinda Linden of the British Heart Foundation said: "There are a variety of factors that may have influenced reduced risk for cardiovascular disease in Dublin including reduced levels of smoking and improved diet.

"The same is true of increased risk of cardiovascular disease for people living near main roads in the Netherlands.

"Although pollution from the road could be one influencing factor, it is possible that those people may have poorer health as a result of several other lifestyle factors."

Mike Childs, environment campaigner for Friends of the Earth told BBC News Online: "There's no doubt that cleaner air, whether from traffic, from factories or from homes, has to be good news for health."

Funny how results published in the media are continually qualified by speculation that something indicated either to be irrelevent or already taken into account must be a greater cause of disease as long as that something amounts to victim blame...

Observations:

The Netherlands are credited with many innovative ideas on sealing homes from the elements, doors and windows that seal like a refrigerator for one.

Most people do NOT choose to live adjacent to highly traveled roads. Most roads are not routed thru the best parts of an urban area. I deduce from this that people living adjacent to highly traveled roads are living in a less than fashionable area. That they are not considered the most valued members of their society. That the structures they live in have existed since the WWI and enjoyed little maintenance and none of the features the Netherlands are noted for.

I also deduce they are only known to the health care providers or health departments at all because of nationwide provided health care.

Instead of reducing pollution, a step that could take a generation, why don't these professionals do something about the living conditions of these patients, like sealing their homes from the elements and pollution.

Another option, good around the world, would be to issue every person on the planet a space suit.

In terms of Ireland - all I can attest to is the citizens are now able to be gainfully employed once the education of the citizens became a government priority. I also wonder how many natives are still in Ireland compared to immigrants?

What form of energy is now in use in Ireland?

quote:

Originally posted by Bruce:
What form of energy is now in use in Ireland?

Really. What did they do, retrofit the coal-fired plants into nukes? LOL

I was curious so I looked it up. A company called Electricity Supply Board, which states it's "Ireland's premier electrical utility" has these for its power plants and lists their fuels:

Station Capacity (in Megawatts) Fuel Type

West Offaly Power 150 Peat
Lough Ree Power 100 Peat
Turlough Hill 292 Hydro (Pump Storage)
Liffey 38 Hydro
Ardnacrusha 86 Hydro
Erne 65 Hydro
Clady 4 hydro
Lee 27 Hydro
Moneypoint 915 Coal
Tarbert 620 Oil
Great Island 240 Oil
Aghada 525 Gas
Poolbeg 1,020 Oil and Gas
North Wall 266 Oil and Gas
Marina 115 Gas

Looks like they're still burning a lot of dirty **** to me.

BTW, The ALA says for every increase in 10ug of particulate matter, deaths go up x%. I don't feel like looking it up right now, but I wonder how that compares to "Deaths from respiratory diseases decreased by around 15%, and by cardiovascular diseases by around 10%" from a 70% reduction in pollution, which I'm guessing was from measuring particulate matter. I don't think the ALA and this study are in the same ballpark in their estimates. Could be wrong though.