Air pollution and noise might make men and women less fertile

A study has suggested that noisy neighbourhoods can make women less fertile while pollution can make men less fertile. Air pollution over five years was found to be associated with a 24% increased risk of infertility in men aged 32-45. For women, noisy neighbourhoods might be linked to a nearly 15% increased risk of infertility for those over 35.

It's been suggested that buildings should be better insulated against noise. This is a Danish study published in the British Medical Journal. They analysed the Danish National Patient Register data for 526,000 men and 377,850 women aged between 30-45 over the period 2000-2017.

The participants already had fewer than two children and were trying to have more children. The researchers were from the Danish Cancer Institute. They measured small particles in the air called PM 2.5 (particulate matter being a measure of air pollution) and noise pollution. They then cross-reference that with diagnoses of infertility as listed on the National register.

Noise

Women over 35 exposed to noise over 10.2 dB over five years experienced a 14% increased risk of fertility. This did not apply to women in their early 30s.

For men, there was a slightly increased risk of infertility due to road traffic noise among those in the 35-45 age bracket but it didn't affect men in their early 30s.

Globally

Globally, fertility rates have been decreasing. The researchers hope that their research might help in understanding this. The report says: "Political implementation of air pollution and noise mitigations may be important tools for improving birth rates in the Western world."

Mechanism

It's possible that noise pollution may increase infertility due to increased stress according to Professor Jill Belch, an expert in vascular medicine and air pollution from the University of Dundee's School of Medicine. She was not part of this research.

She said: 

"Noise pollution does not get enough attention in terms of ameliorating [fertility]; we know it has effects on mental health, hearing and sleep-even when asleep, noise is perceived as a danger signal causing the fight or flight response to occur, resulting in poor sleep quality."

She added that:

"The mechanism of decreased fertility in women could be related to these, or to a completely unknown mechanism, but the implications of this study, if validated, should require a soundproofing standard for all new bills."

She believes that the findings might have a "very profound" impact on future generations.

The mentioned links between noise and air pollution and infertility was found in those living in rural, suburban and urban areas and across different income and social class levels.

Professor Allison Campbell, the chief scientific officer of Care Fertility, said: 

"People trying to conceive should not be unduly concerned by this research and are advised to take proactive, proven steps such as avoiding smoking, limiting alcohol consumption and maintaining a healthy weight."

Allan Pacey, Professor of andrology at the University of Manchester said it was a good study that:

"It is possible that the real cause of this association lies with something that is not possible to measure. For example, the authors are clear that they did not have information on lifestyle factors such as alcohol use smoking or body mass index."

Cat context

There is always a cat context in terms of research about human health. It's obvious I know but I'll restate it. Cats live in our world. They live in the same environment in which we live. Their anatomy is very similar to ours. Their physiology is very similar to ours. It is likely that health issues generated from air pollution and noise can affect our companion animals in a similar way. There is no research on this as far as I know but we must always think of our companion animals when concluding that environmental factors can damage our health.

----------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins. Also: sources for news articles are carefully selected but the news is often not independently verified. Also, I rely on scientific studies but they are not 100% reliable.

India pollutes the oceans with plastic more than all other nations

Regarding the disposal of plastic into the oceans, India has been identified as one of the leading contributors. The nation faces significant challenges in managing plastic pollution. The accompanying image was generated by artificial intelligence, drawing inspiration from a sculpture titled 'The Giant Plastic Tap' by Canadian artist Benjamin Von Wong, which was exhibited outside the Ottawa talks building.

Click on the image to see it larger - important for smartphones.

India plays a significant role to say the least in plastic pollution in our oceans. Here are some key facts:

1. Annual Plastic Waste Dumping: In 2020, India was the worst country for plastic waste in the oceans, dumping approximately 126.5 million kg of plastic each year. To put this into perspective, that weight is equivalent to over 250 thousand bottlenose dolphins, one of the most commonly found dolphin species in the ocean.

2. Comparison with the United States: Despite the United States producing double the amount of plastic waste annually compared to India (42 billion kg), only 2.4 million kg of it ends up in our oceans. This discrepancy could be due to the fact that the U.S. exports a significant portion of its waste to countries like India, which may have less effective waste management systems.

3. Exporting Plastic Waste: In 2018, the United States exported 157 thousand shipping containers filled with plastic waste, equivalent to approximately 1.07 million kg of plastic. While some of this waste went to countries with good waste management systems, a substantial amount was shipped to countries like India, which struggle with plastic waste management.

4. Collective Impact: The top five plastic waste dumpers globally contribute an astonishing 314 million kg of plastic into the ocean each year. India’s contribution remains a critical environmental challenge.

Here’s the list of the top 10 countries based on plastic waste dumped into the oceans:

1. India: 126.5 million kg
2. China: 70.7 million kg
3. Indonesia: 56.3 million kg
4. Brazil: 38 million kg
5. Thailand: 22.8 million kg
6. Mexico: 3.5 million kg
7. Egypt: 2.5 million kg
8. United States: 2.4 million kg
9. Japan: 1.8 million kg
10. United Kingdom: 703 thousand kg¹1

Efforts to address plastic pollution are crucial to safeguard marine life and ocean ecosystems. 🌊🐬

How bad is plastic pollution in India?

India faces a significant challenge when it comes to plastic pollution. Here are some key facts:

1. Annual Plastic Waste Generation: India generates approximately 3.5 million tonnes of plastic waste each year. This staggering amount has almost doubled over the last five years, highlighting the severity of the issue.

2. Per Capita Plastic Consumption: While the per-capita plastic consumption in India is relatively low at 13.6 kg, compared to countries like the U.S. (108 kg) and China (56 kg), the impact is still substantial. Plastic pollution adversely affects our ecosystems and is also linked to air pollution.

3. Recycling and Collection: India collects only 60% of its plastic waste, with the remaining 40% directly entering the environment. This lack of proper collection exacerbates the problem.

4. Single-Use Plastics: To address this issue, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced India’s pledge to phase out single-use plastics by 2022. These single-use plastics include items like straws, cutlery, earbuds, and packaging films.

5. Recycling Challenges: Despite efforts, a large fraction of plastic waste in India still ends up in landfills or waterways, posing a significant environmental threat.

Efforts are being made through initiatives like the National Dashboard on Elimination of Single Use Plastic, Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) Portal, and more to manage plastic waste effectively and create a better future.

Sources: extensive search of the internet. India Today is one source. Another is Euro News. Many more. 

 
P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Cat flea treatment insecticides are poisoning aquatic life in rivers

It may surprise people to know that spot-on cat flea treatments used in the home in the ordinary way can poison aquatic life in rivers and watercourses miles away. It's the insecticides used in these treatments such as fipronil and imidacloprid which do the damage. 

This is what happens: you apply the treatment to your cat at the back of the neck and some of the treatment gets on your hands so you wash your hands afterwards. The water goes down into the drainage system and then to rivers. In fact we are advised to wash our hands afterwards as the chemicals are dangerous to us! 🤢

Or after you apply the treatment your cat goes on to their bedding and some of the chemical is deposited on the bedding. You wash the bedding in due course and the chemical is then washed into the wastewater system and thence into watercourses miles away.

The research was carried out by a PhD student and veterinary surgeon at the University of Sussex in the UK, Rosemary Perkins. She says the following:

This research confirms that fipronil and imidacloprid used in spot-on flea products are important surface water pollutants. With around 22 million cats and dogs in the UK, we urgently need to rethink how these products are regulated and used.

Of the methods mentioned above, the most common is washing your hands. The research by Perkins builds on earlier research which found that the insecticide fipronil was found in 98% of freshwater samples. The other insecticide, imidacloprid was found in 66% of freshwater samples. Both are in concentrations at which they can harm aquatic animals.

The scientists are asking for a review of regulations concerning these cat flea treatments. Professor David Goulson also of Sussex University, who supervised the research said that these two chemicals are extremely potent neurotoxic insecticides. 

He added that it is deeply concerning they are routinely found on the hands of dog and cat owners and that people should be concerned and will be concerned that they pollute rivers and kill aquatic life.

He implies a third way the chemicals get into watercourses. After applying the treatment, the dog owner or cat owner handles their pet and some of the chemical is still in the fur and that gets onto their hands.

I've mention this many times but these insecticides are very toxic to cats as well as people.

The solution?

There appears to be two obvious solutions. The first is not the use the spot-on treatments (I don't) and find other ways, holistic ways, to keep your home and your cat flea-free. 

It can be done. For example it means no carpets or if you have a carpet to vacuum your carpet regularly as this is an effective way to get rid of larvae and pupae and adult fees in the carpet. 

Ideally it should be a beater type vacuum cleaner which disturbs the particles and flea larvae at the base of the carpet.

Another way is to use surgical gloves would you can buy very cheaply on Amazon when you apply this treatment. Use the gloves repeatedly and then when they are finally worn out placed them in the rubbish in the usual way. That would be a very effective way of preventing the insecticides getting into the water system.

The bottom line is to focus on keeping your home totally flea free which means applying a lot of vigilance such as flea combing your cat once or twice a day to keep tabs on what is going on. 

Minimise the number of cats that you keep in your home. That won't be that popular with some people but the more cats you have the more chance of fleas jumping from one cat to the other and the more treatments you use.

I just want people to think about this problem and try and find their own way to remove it because we don't want to put wildlife under further pressure. Wildlife across the globe is already under immense pressure from human activity in a myriad of ways.

---------

P.S. please forgive the occasional typo. These articles are written at breakneck speed using Dragon Dictate. I have to prepare them in around 20 mins.

Cat-loving Taylor Swift tops a table of celebrity private aircraft polluters

Although Taylor Swift has defended herself by saying that she loans out her aircraft to others, she has been found to be top of a table of celebrity private aircraft polluters with 170 flights on her jet in 2022 to July 29 according to a digital sustainability company, Yard, and as reported in The Times newspaper today.

Image: Pinterest.

Taylor Swift's Falcon 7X clocked up nearly 16 days in the air to July 29. The average flight time was 80 minutes covering a distance of 139.36 miles. The calculated emissions were almost 8,300 tons of carbon dioxide. This is 1184.8 times the average person's.

You will find pictures on the Internet of Taylor Swift in her Falcon 7X jet with one of her cats on her lap. She does like to travel with her cats as I understand it. But she does tend to relate to her cats as babies in my view which I don't think it's helpful because it is better to relate to your cat companion as a cat as it is more respectful and it leads to better caregiving. But it not a big deal. The important thing is that she loves cats and is good caregiver.

Taylor Swift's Falcon 7X. Image: Christopher Peterson/Splash News.

Taylor Swift tops the league of polluters through the use of private jets but, as mentioned, she does defend herself and I am an admirer of hers by the way. The information apparently comes from Yard who use the Twitter account of @CelebJets, which tracks the movements of the jet-owning celebrities of the world using GPS and detailed maps. I don't know whether this is an unacceptable invasion of privacy but they are able to do it in great detail and therefore calculate the carbon dioxide pollution. I guess the information on their travel arrangements is in the public domain in the first place.

Floyd Mayweather the retired boxer is a close second behind Swift. Allegedly his jet emitted more than 7,000 tons of carbon dioxide in the same period. Jay-Z is third on the list but a spokesperson for the rapper said that he no longer owns the plane.

Fourth on the list is Alex Rodriguez, a retired baseball player. This comes Blake Shelton and sixth is Stephen Spielberg with Kim Kardashian coming seventh. Mark Wahlberg comes eight and Oprah Winfrey comes ninth. 10th on the list is Travis Scott.

Polluting the environment with carbon dioxide has become a serious issue as it affects the planet and therefore us all going forward, including our cats.  We all have a responsibility to do our bit. Although I fully appreciate how hard that can be when governments are doing nowhere near enough.

Are you and your cat companion damaging your health by breathing 7,000 tiny particles of plastic daily?

We don't know, is the answer to the question in terms of health. However, it seems pretty clear from recent research that both humans, cats and dogs are inhaling 7,000 tiny particles of plastic daily. It also seems clear a lot of this plastic comes from fleece clothing. Another source would be the plastic in an almost countless number of household products and fabrics containing plastic nowadays such as carpets.

Cat and plush toy. Photo in public domain.

Plush toys are nearly always made of fleece and plastics. And of course what's wrong about that is parents put fleece cuddly toys next to their kids in bed. Kids cuddle the toys. So they could be a problem because thousands of micro plastic particles are being inhaled by toddlers.

Carpets are also a potential problem. Years ago I wrote about chemicals and carpets which leach out into the atmosphere causing potential hidden problems. These chemicals might cause mysterious diseases; what veterinarians call 'idiopathic' diseases because they don't know the cause. A lot of illnesses are rather mysterious even to doctors and veterinarians. Perhaps it is the environment in which we place ourselves?

One expert in this area is Dr. Fay Couceiro. She is a reader in environmental pollution at the University of Portsmouth and an expert on micro-plastics. She knows what they are and where they are and what they might do to us. She conducted an experiment recently which showed just how much plastic people and pets are inhaling inside the home.

ASSOCIATED PAGE: Phthalates in vinyl flooring poisoning domestic cats?

As mentioned, it could be as many as 7,000 micro-plastic particles. The highest concentrations are normally in the bedroom where there's lots of soft toys, bedding and carpeting made of synthetic materials.

But the doctor doesn't know always uncertain about the damage they might cause. She has reduced the number of teddy bears on beds in her home and her children's bedrooms have a laminate floor that is plastic but less likely to produce micro-plastic particles than a synthetic or synthetic coated carpet.

She wants people to think about the potential for negative health consequences of plastic products in the home including clothing. I think perhaps the biggest steps one could make to get rid of my microplastics is to buy natural fibre clothing if that is practical nowadays.

One possibility, provided you live in an area where the air not polluted, is to open windows to allow plastic particles to be blown out of the home to the exterior. I'm not sure how practical this is.

You can buy second hand clothes made entirely of natural-based fibres. This may help. But even natural products can be dyed and treated which can undermine any health benefits in buying wool clothing, for example.

ASSOCIATED: Feline Diabetes caused by fire-retardants in carpets, curtains and upholstery

Dr Fay Couciero believes that it is almost impossible to reduce exposure because people have "infected every corner of our planet with this toxic and indestructible material". She wants to turn off the plastic tap but she is hopeful that these micro-plastic particles don't cause health problems. 

In the meantime I think it is wise to make a presumption that they do cause health problems but what kind of problem? More research is needed but if these particles affect us they affect our cat in exactly the same way. We cannot leave them out of the equation or our thinking.

More than one tonne of plastic produced per person since 1950

The amount of plastic sloshing around the planet is equivalent to one tonne of plastic being produced by every person alive on the planet since 1950 (8.3 billion tonnes produced over the past 70 years). And clearly not enough is being done to rectify the problem. It's getting worse and worse annually. The problem is exponential. Dame Ellen MacArthur's foundation has called for an international treaty. Such a treaty would obtain the agreement of signatories to commit to doing something substantive about plastic production. Others say that it is too late to mess around with treaties. It can take years to get countries to agree to treaties and when they are signed they don't stick to the agreement. This happens all the time.

Of the 8.3 billion tons of plastic produced in the past 70 years, three quarters has become waste and a third of that has been mismanaged which includes being dumped or dropped as litter. There is 150 million tonnes of it in the oceans already and every year another 11 million tonnes ends up in the oceans. You'll find plastic in all parts of all the oceans.

Plastic pollution of the oceans. Picture in the public domain.

Urgent action is needed. It is believed that the amount of plastic in the oceans will treble over the next 20 years. The foundation's report refers to the 1987 Montréal protocol which has helped to protect the ozone layer. There is, therefore, some history in the success of treaties such as this. Germany, the Philippines and Vietnam are three countries who have called for a treaty but other countries such as Britain, the US, Japan, Australia and Canada don't support it, including the WWF.

A treaty (to be clear this is an international agreement) would place limitations on certain single-use plastic products such as straws and set targets on recycling and how to stop the products getting into the oceans.

The problem, as reported, is that although 115 countries have set up regulations regarding single-use plastic and how to limit its damage on the environment it's having little impact. Most of the restrictions concern plastic bag usage and disposal. It's a small part of the overall problem. Beach clean ups report that only 7% of items found are plastic bags.

Some major companies support the initiative such as Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Mars, Tesco, Unilever and Nestlé. It is not enough. There needs to be a high level of commitment by governments. A campaign group, Changing Markets Foundation, said that calls for a global treaty were "just another delaying tactic by the plastic industry". They argue that the world needs "proven legislative solutions, like deposit systems and reuse targets".

Comment: I shop at Sainsbury's in the UK. I see little, very little commitment by this large company to limiting plastic usage. They still sell bottled water when it could be dispensed in a machine and the customer brings a non-plastic container to the shop and buys it by the litre. That's just my idea but the point I'm making is that I see almost no change in the attitude of Sainsbury's with respect to limiting plastic usage over the many years that this has been discussed. 

Other supermarkets have a similar attitude in my view. The big problem with humankind is that unless individuals are personally impacted by pollution of this kind and only if it affects their health and welfare do they lobby for change. If people can't see it they don't react to it even if it is killing them or harming them in some way or other.

Plastics are certainly killing wildlife but then again people don't see wildlife so in general people don't care about it. It's like trying to turn a juggernaut around. It just doesn't happen or it takes tens of years and which point it is too late.

What has this got to do with cats? A hell of a lot because micro-plastic particles find their way into all areas of our lives. They are in the food chain. They are in marine wildlife which humans and cats eat. Cat food I'm sure contains micro-plastic particles. It affects the health of us all both the human-animal, the domestic animal and the wild species particularly marine wildlife. It is all pervasive and you cannot dissociate the domestic cat from the problem.