Consumer Directed Healthcare

Now before you read into the title, listen to what I have to say.  I read an article in the New Times dated: August 17, 2000 called: “Global Warming Could Worsen Allergies, Study Finds”   (http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/science/081700sci-environ-climate.html)

First of all, the article basically states the theory that as carbon dioxide increases; pollen should increase as a result of Global Warming.

Here are some excerpts from the article I found interesting…

“The ubiquitous weed makes nearly twice as much pollen now as it did 100 years ago and will likely double its production again over the coming century with predicted increases in carbon dioxide levels, the Agriculture Department study suggests.”

“A laboratory study done by USDA in 1998 and 1999 found that ragweed pollen counts went from 5.5 grams per plant at carbon-dioxide levels that existed in 1900 to 10 grams at current levels. At predicted CO2 levels in the year 2100, the pollen count would reach 20 grams per plant.”

“The USDA researchers expanded their ragweed study this summer by planting the weed in controlled conditions outdoors in Maryland.”

Plants that were set out in Baltimore, where it is hotter and carbon-dioxide levels are higher than outside the city, are growing significantly faster than at a rural site, said Lewis Ziska, a plant physiologist who is leading the research.  “The ones that are growing in the city are bigger and have more pollen, on the order of a third bigger,” Ziska said.

As you can see, according to the research of the Agriculture Department, ragweed makes more pollen today than it did 100 years ago.

The problem I have with this research is who was counting particulates in the air from pollen 100 years ago.  We are talking about 1907.  We just started flying airplanes within the past 60 years.  So how can they base this evidence as factual, when the data is going to be skewed based upon the change in technology.  This is not proof of a ragweed problem or of Global Warming.

The assumption for the increase is said to be caused by Global Warming.  The assumption is based upon research done in the laboratory.  How can a lab truly represent a “GLOBAL” event?  How can this be replicated? 

I realize that plants were set in Baltimore and found that they grew bigger than in the rural areas.  There are many factors that could contribute to their growth than just because there was more carbon dioxide.  Some of those factors can be related to elevation, average temperature, average moisture, precipitation distributions, average wind affects, location to direct sunlight, soil conditions, etc.  None of these things were talked about in the article, so you wonder if they were considered in laboratory.  I also wonder how the plants were cared for during this period of time.  The study states that it was conducted in a “Controlled Environment”, but I thought the environment was anything but controlled.

Now I realize that this is just a news article and we probably only got part of the truth - being that this is the News!!  But as soon as someone mentions key words such as “Global Warming” it becomes BIG NEWS and fact.

My point is that we should not take everything as fact.  There is not sufficient proof here for a growing health issue with allergies contributed by Global Warming.  I wonder if they considered conditions such as the fact that there is more wind generated in a city by passing traffic, wind tunnel effects from buildings, people walking on sidewalks, etc than in rural areas.  Thus, pollen may be naturally forced to increase into the atmosphere because of these daily events rather than Global Warming.