The BBC has reported on a Canadian study published in the Lancet that suggests that people living within fifty meters of a major road have higher rates of dementia.“The researchers, who followed nearly 2m people in Canada over 11 years, say air pollution or noisy traffic could be contributing to the brain’s decline.UK dementia experts said the findings needed probing but were “plausible”.”
“The study in the Lancet followed nearly two million people in the Canadian province of Ontario, between 2001 and 2012. There were 243,611 cases of dementia diagnosed during that time, but the risk was greatest in those living closest to major roads.Compared with those living 300m away from a major road the risk was:
- 7% higher within 50m
- 4% higher between 50-100m
- 2% higher between 101-200m
The analysis suggests 7-11% of dementia cases within 50m of a major road could be caused by traffic.”
This study is suggesting that living near heavy traffic can cause a public health impact, and more research is required to examine particular aspects such as air pollutants, noise, nitrogen oxides and rubber tire particulates.
“This is an important paper,” says Prof Martin Rossor, the UK’s National Institute for Health Research director for dementia research.He added: “The effects are small, but with a disorder with a high population prevalence, such effects can have important public health implications.”
Don’t know if they cause dementia but I do know it’s crazy Vancouver seems hell bent on forcing all density onto arterials everywhere outside of downtown.
There was a study done at UBC a few years ago that linked increased risk of heart disease for those living close to highways. I suspect that those doing long commutes by car may be similarly affected. Why don’t we place the higher density starting 1/2 block from the arterials? That way we would have improved health and more open streetscapes.
Interesting that the local Ministry of Transportation is at probably the worst location for health effects, being sandwiched between Lougheed and Hwy 1. I hope they have good filters on the air intake for the air conditioning system.
I wonder if and/or how they isolated other factors. It could be that other socioeconomic determiners more closely associated with dementia are also associated with the affordability of less desirable, high-trafficked areas.
Author
Reblogged this on Sandy James Planner and commented:
A troubling study just published in the Lancet may demand a rethinking of higher density development adjacent to major arterials. More here.
Cheaper housing is usually located close to busy roads. And, cheaper housing usually means lower income. And, lower income means lower health.
It’d be great if the study could isolate things better. After reading so many news articles about how something causes something else, and then hearing later that it’s all BS makes me skeptical. I’m really skeptical of this because it seems to have SOUGHT a relationship. Instead of taking a mass of dementia patients and then coincidentally noticing there was a location pattern, it sounds like the researchers tried intentionally to establish a relationship.
Editors note: Articles in the Medical Periodical LANCET do follow a rigourous peer review process. Only five per cent of all submissions pass the review. Article above is from the BBC precis of the Lancet article. Please refer to Lancet article for complete review.
What’s the dementia rate in China?
BTW, did you intentionally remove my link to the John Oliver show? Did you watch it? It’s a good skeptical look at news reporting on scientific studies, regardless of the quality of the original research.
https://youtu.be/0Rnq1NpHdmw
The study’s noted Interpretation is: “…living close to heavy traffic was associated with a higher incidence of dementia, but not with Parkinson’s disease or multiple sclerosis.” This is a sound basis for further study to investigate whether proximity to high traffic roads is a cause of increased rates of dementia. However, this study just neutrally notes that two things are happening at the same time.
You’re correct. The BBC reposting of the report (and its reposting in PT) do not take appropriate care to note the limitations of the findings. Readers are invited to assume (and have) that there is a causative relationship. The problem is often not with the studies themselves, but popular (and sometimes partisan) interpretation of their significance, as is discussed in the John Oliver video.
That’s a good link to the John Oliver piece.
Further studies show that having a passel of PhD’s waste time and money to publish drivel gives credibilty to the painfully obvious – that living on a busy street drives you crazy. Further studies show that said drivel will be reiterated by media bobble heads desperate to fill “news” slots.