European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. (2019, June 25). Air pollution found to affect marker of female fertility in real-life study: Decline in ovarian reserve related to particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide in atmosphere. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 25, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190625181939.htm

A study by the European Society of Human Reproduction has concluded that air pollution is linked to decreased fertility in females. More specifically, ovarian reserves, a marker for female fertility, “have found to be adversely affected by high levels of air pollution”. The study focused on the effect of environmental chemicals on the function of hormones in females, ultimately claiming that the pollution interferes with the female’s “hormones, signaling and metabolism” in regard to reproductive health. Notably, air pollution affects the anti- Mullerian hormone, or AMH, a hormone “widely recognized as a reliable marker of ovarian reserve”, decreasing its expression in females who have been exposed to high levels of air pollution. The study also notes that age is a factor in determining fertility, but their research shows that air pollution is a concrete cause for “increased risk of severely reduced ovarian reserve”. 

This article relates to environmental science, as it focuses on the correlation between environmental factors and humans who live in said environment. This article was disappointing but not surprising, because I was aware that pollution causes and influences many diseases, but I had not thought about the reproductive repercussions of air pollution. It is incredibly worrying that air pollution is decreasing fertility in females because without fertility the human race will not survive, and with the current rate of pollution and disregard for our environment, it is not unrealistic to value fertility more than we have in the past. What surprises me is that despite this article and many others showing obvious correlation between pollution and health issues, there has seemingly been no movement to tighten regulations regarding pollution. I am baffled by the selfish nature of money hungry people and politicians who are increasingly harmful to our civilization and environment without hesitation.

PLOS. (2019, August 20). Is pollution linked to psychiatric disorders?. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 25, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190820141604.htm

A new study by PLOS has found a relationship between exposure to “environmental pollution and an increase in the prevalence of psychiatric disorders”, notably bipolar disorder, depression and schizophrenia. The study focused on populations from many countries, such as Denmark and the United States, concluding that “poor air quality” was associated with higher risk for mental disorders. The research hypothesizes that the particulate matter travels through the nose and lungs to get to the brain and affects the brain by influencing its neuroinflammatory pathways. However, the research cites that simply because there is a relationship between pollution and mental disorders, this does not “necessarily mean causation”, as there could be other factors contributing to mental disorders. Nevertheless, the relationship between pollution and the increase in psychiatric disorders is clear and should be investigated further.

This article is related to environmental science because it studies an organism’s interaction with their environment, in this instance focusing on the health impacts of certain pollutants. This article shed light on the somewhat unseen disorders or diseases which could be linked to air pollution, as most of the diseases currently associated with air pollution are lung and heart related. I think it is especially important to study the mental health consequences with pollution may have on humans because I believe often times mental health is overlooked. I am also interested in how our environment affects our mental health in a less direct way than with particulate matter, for example, how our perception of our environmental health affects our mental health. For me, I think my perception of our environmental health affects my mental health, I worry about our current usage of natural resources and how that may affect my children’s lives or even the human race.

Washington University in St. Louis. (2019, June 30). Air pollution contributes significantly to diabetes globally: Even low pollution levels can pose health risk. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 25, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/06/180630153740.htm

A new study has found that exposure to outdoor air pollution, “even at levels deemed safe” by the WHO, have shown to cause an increased risk for diabetes. By showing the relationship between ‘deemed safe’ levels of air pollution and diabetes, the research supports the claim that “current levels are still not sufficiently safe”, and should be regulated even more. The study shows that when “dust, dirt, smoke, soot and liquid droplets” enter the bloodstream from the lungs, they “reduce insulin production and trigger inflammation”, preventing the body from turning blood glucose into energy which the body needs to sustain itself. According to the research, pollution accounted for “14 percent of all new diabetes cases globally” in 2016, illustrating that pollution is a major factor in the overall amount of diabetes cases. In short, the article explores the safety of currently deemed safe levels of pollution, concluding that they are in fact not safe and that they actually contribute greatly to diabetes cases globally.

This article is related to environmental science because it explores the relationship between an organism’s surrounding environment and its health. This article was very surprising to me, because I thought that the ‘deemed safe’ levels of pollution would actually be safe. To my dismay, they are actually unsafe and contribute heavily to diabetes cases globally. I am confused about the fact that the World Health Organization would deem these levels of pollution when they are clearly not, and I am worried by the fact that lobbyists are advocating for even less regulations for the ‘deemed safe’ amount of pollution in the environment. I think that before anything can be fully ‘deemed safe’ there must be extensive research behind it, as many people’s lives are at stake, millions in regard to diabetes. I hope that because of this research the World Health Organization and other health information providers recalibrate their ‘deemed safe’ levels, so that we can become more strict about pollution and its health consequences.

European Society of Cardiology. (2019, August 23). Pollution and winter linked with rise in heart attack treatment. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 24, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190823080021.htm

A study done by the European Society of Cardiology has found higher levels of a medical procedure used to treat arterial blockages, called angioplasty, in regions with polluted air than in regions with clean air. Additionally, the study touches on sensitivity and adaptation to pollution, for example, they found that when pollution increased in non-polluted environments, there was a greater increase in angioplasty procedures than when pollution increased in already polluted environments. They concluded that people from more polluted environments are able to “adapt to fluctuations” in pollution, while people from cleaner environments are “more sensitive to changes in pollution”. The study also explores the correlation between winter and higher amounts of pollution worldwide, defining winter as the “the most polluted time of year”. This could be due to artificial heating, which increases smog levels. 

This article is related to environmental science because it studies how humans react to changes and fluctuations in their environment. I thought this article was interesting because it underscored the different reactions one might have towards a certain environmental issue based on where they are from. For example, that prolonged exposure to pollution in your environment can influence you to be less susceptible to react to changes in pollution in your environment. This means that although people who live in highly polluted places are subject to much more pollution and in turn have more health issues, they may be more suited to react to a drastic change in pollution in the future. I am interested in how one might be able to combat pollution related issues by harnessing this adaptation to fluctuations in pollution. I wonder how and if one’s predisposition for health issues not relating to the heart might also be affected by these fluctuations in pollution.

Monash University. (2019, August 21). Air pollution linked to risk of premature death. ScienceDaily. Retrieved August 24, 2019 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/08/190821173711.htm

An international study based in China has found a correlation between air pollution and heightened respiratory and cardiovascular deaths and disease. The study was “conducted over a 30 year period” and focused on 24 countries and regions around the world. The study concluded that “inhalable particles and fine particles emitted from fires or formed through atmospheric chemical transformation” are linked to the increase in deaths from respiratory and cardiovascular issues. Additionally, the study showed that even limited exposure to this particulate matter can increase the risk of death, as due to their small size they are able to “penetrate deep into the lungs and absorb more toxic components”, leading to death. Ultimately, the article illustrated that air pollution is a serious health hazard which should be contained. 

This article is related to environmental science because it studies the relationship between an organism and their environment. In this instance, the relationship between humans and the pollutants in their environment is the focus. My reaction to this article was mixed, as I previously knew about some of the effects that air pollution have on respiratory health, but I did not know to what extent air pollution could be fatal. For example, when the article explained that “even low levels of air pollution can increase the risk of death” I was surprised because I was under the impression that only prolonged overexposure would increase the risk of death. Additionally, the article touched on the fact that although Australia has relatively low air pollution, Australians tend to be more sensitive to air pollution, and that could be due to Australins “having adapted to living in areas with low levels of particulate matter air pollution”. I had not thought about the connections between evolutionary adaptations and environmentally related diseases until reading this article.