4.8 Article

Health and Climate Change 5 Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions: health implications of short-lived greenhouse pollutants

期刊

LANCET
卷 374, 期 9707, 页码 2091-2103

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(09)61716-5

关键词

-

资金

  1. Wellcome Trust
  2. UK Department of Health
  3. National Institute for Health Research
  4. Royal College of Physicians
  5. Academy of Medical Sciences
  6. Economic and Social Research Council
  7. US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences
  8. WHO
  9. Pfizer
  10. California Air Resources Board
  11. US National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Center [ES00260]
  12. Health Effects Institute
  13. Clean Air Task Force
  14. Medical Research Council [G0801056] Funding Source: researchfish
  15. MRC [G0801056] Funding Source: UKRI

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this report we review the health effects of three short-lived greenhouse pollutants-black carbon, ozone, and sulphates. We under-took new meta-analyses of existing time-series studies and an analysis of a cohort of 352000 people in 66 US cities during 18 years of follow-up. This cohort study provides estimates of mortality effects from long-term exposure to elemental carbon, an indicator of black carbon mass, and evidence that ozone exerts an independent risk of mortality. Associations among these pollutants make drawing conclusions about their individual health effects difficult at present, but sulphate seems to have the most robust effects in multiple-pollutant models. Generally, the toxicology of the pure compounds and their epidemiology diverge because atmospheric black carbon, ozone, and sulphate are associated and could interact with related toxic species. Although sulphate is a cooling agent, black carbon and ozone could together exert nearly half as much global warming as carbon dioxide. The complexity of these health and climate effects needs to be recognised in mitigation policies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据