 29 January 20
Today as of 10:am: 9,507 visitors - 5 donations, totaling $85.
You know that can’t work. What will you do?
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News PO Box 2043 Citrus Hts CA 95611 |
29 January 20
Mitch McConnell Doesn't Have the Votes to Block Witnesses
Erica Werner, Seung Min Kim and Rachael Bade, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "White House lawyers pleaded with senators Tuesday to acquit President Trump based on 'the Constitution and your common sense,' concluding their defense even as Senate GOP leaders struggled to block demands for new witnesses that could throw the trial into turmoil."
Erica Werner, Seung Min Kim and Rachael Bade, The Washington Post
Excerpt: "White House lawyers pleaded with senators Tuesday to acquit President Trump based on 'the Constitution and your common sense,' concluding their defense even as Senate GOP leaders struggled to block demands for new witnesses that could throw the trial into turmoil."
In a closed-door meeting after closing remarks, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told colleagues he doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses, according to people familiar with his remarks who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe them. Just four GOP senators would have to join with Democrats to produce the majority needed to call witnesses — an outcome McConnell has sought to avoid since it could invite new controversy and draw out the divisive proceedings.
An initial vote to allow witnesses, expected Friday, does not ensure witnesses would actually be called, since the Senate would have to subsequently hold separate votes on summoning each individual witness. And Trump’s ultimate acquittal still remains all but assured, since a two-thirds vote in the GOP-run Senate would be required to remove him.
But the debate over witnesses has roiled the Senate since the emergence of revelations Sunday in an unpublished book manuscript written by former national security adviser John Bolton. In the book, Bolton recounts a conversation with Trump in which the president described wanting to withhold military assistance from Ukraine until Kyiv announced investigations into some of Trump’s political rivals.
That would make Bolton the first official to provide a firsthand account of the alleged quid pro quo at the heart of House Democrats’ abuse-of-power charge against the president, one of the two articles of impeachment the House approved in December. The other charged Trump with obstruction of Congress.
Amid the debate over witnesses, White House lead attorney Pat Cipollone on Tuesday urged senators to bring the proceedings swiftly to a close on the final day of the defense’s opening arguments.
“Overturning the last election and massively interfering with the upcoming one would cause serious and lasting damage to the people of the United States and to our great country. The Senate cannot allow this to happen,” Cipollone said. “This should end now, as quickly as possible.”
Since the Bolton revelations emerged, a handful of Senate GOP moderates have indicated a desire to hear from him. But foreshadowing disputes to come, many other Republican lawmakers disagree or say that they would allow testimony from Bolton only if they could also call witnesses they favor, such as Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden, who served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company when his father was President Barack Obama’s vice president.
“All I can say, is I don’t need any more evidence, but if we do call witnesses, we’re not just gonna call one witness. We’re gonna call a bunch of witnesses,” said Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.).
Democrats strongly oppose calling either of the Bidens or agreeing to any witness “trade,” as suggested by some Republicans. Other plans floated by GOP senators have drawn similar Democratic resistance, including the idea of getting the White House to release Bolton’s manuscript for senators to review. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) called that proposal “absurd.”
Even before the vote on witnesses occurs, the Senate will spend 16 hours over Wednesday and Thursday engaged in what could be a revealing question-and-answer period, modeled on a procedure followed during the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton. The senators, who have been forced to remain silently in their seats throughout the eight-day trial, will be able to ask questions of the White House defense team or the House impeachment managers. The questions will have to be submitted in writing and will be read aloud by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who is presiding over the trial.
The questions are likely to run the gamut from factual queries to potentially direct challenges aimed at lawyers on either side.
Democrats intend to ask questions about the revelations from Bolton, which White House attorney Jay Sekulow attacked on the Senate floor Tuesday. Without directly disputing Bolton’s claims, Sekulow read statements from Trump, the Justice Department, and a top aide to Vice President Pence denying or disputing them.
“That was the response, responding to an unpublished manuscript that maybe some reporters have an idea of maybe what it says,” Sekulow said. “If you want to call that evidence — I don’t know what you’d call that. I call it inadmissible.”
Sekulow also repeatedly cautioned the Senate against removing the president on what he termed flimsy grounds, arguing that it would set a dangerous precedent. “Danger! Danger! Danger!” Sekulow repeatedly intoned.
Trump’s team wrapped up its opening arguments, having used about 11 of its allotted 24 hours. House Democrats used about 23 hours in presenting their case last week. As Trump’s lawyers were completing their remarks Tuesday, Trump was at the White House with Israeli leaders unveiling a plan for Middle East peace, which critics and Palestinian leaders immediately predicted was doomed to fail.
Immediately after the White House team wrapped up in the Senate, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.), the lead House impeachment manager, held a news conference to denounce their presentation and blast the White House for refusing to allow witnesses such as Bolton to testify.
Schiff scoffed at some of the White House arguments, including the claim that Trump had held up the Ukraine military assistance because of legitimate concerns about corruption in that country and released it when those worries had been addressed.
“Okay, no one believes that. No one believes that,” Schiff said. “I’m confident there isn’t anyone in that chamber, or anyone in the country, who will buy that explanation.”
As Schiff was railing against the White House case, Senate Republicans huddled in a meeting room debating the issue of witnesses. Although McConnell told colleagues he didn’t yet have the votes to defeat the initial witness vote, leaders feel they’re making progress toward that goal, according to officials familiar with the discussion.
Several Republican senators up for reelection this November and facing tough campaigns — including Sens. Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) — indicated during the meeting that they were ready to vote against witnesses and proceed to the final vote, according to two people familiar with the discussion who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe a private meeting.
But in a sign of the turmoil and internal dissent produced by the issue, Republicans floated a variety of ideas, including a suggestion from Graham and Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) that the White House turn over the unpublished manuscript of Bolton’s book so senators can read it and assess the need to hear from the former Trump official.
One Republican encouraged Bolton to tell his story publicly, either in a congressional hearing or a media interview. “ ‘John, if you’ve got something to say, I’d rather have you say it sooner rather than later,’ ” Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) said Tuesday, recalling what he said to Bolton in a discussion several weeks ago. Bolton answered by saying he would respond only to a Senate subpoena, Johnson said.
The witness debate and the Trump team’s closing arguments came as some Senate Republicans were embracing a new talking point: that Trump’s actions are not impeachable even if they’re proved. Trump’s attorneys and GOP allies have argued for months that there was no quid pro quo, echoing the president’s own impeachment mantra in arguing that Democrats have no “firsthand” witness who can testify that Trump directed such a scheme.
But the Bolton revelations forced GOP lawmakers to scramble for another defense, and by Tuesday they appeared to have coalesced around a point made by defense attorney Alan Dershowitz: that Trump’s actions do not rise to the level of impeachment, even if they occurred as House Democrats allege.
The finale to Tuesday’s proceedings came so quickly that it took some senators by surprise. After a short break in the early afternoon, Cipollone announced he would be brief, but some senators missed the announcement as they were still returning from their restroom breaks, and many huddled in their respective cloakrooms, grabbing one last glimpse of their cellphones or a quick drink of coffee.
Less than 10 minutes later, as Cipollone closed his binder and announced the defense complete, senators gasped. “Oh my,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) could be heard saying.
The defense rested at 2:54 p.m.
But a few senators lingered, and those huddles showed the tension still left in the room. In chairs in the back, reserved for staffers, Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) sat with freshman Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), a moderate not prone to listening to leadership. Joe Manchin III (W.Va.), a Democrat always in the mix, first huddled with moderate Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) before moving on to a long one-on-one discussion with Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), another key moderate who had previously been talking with Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.).
And, finally, Collins walked over to join a Republican scrum led by Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), whose back-row desk has long been seen as a pivotal place, given his Bush-era political lineage.
Palestinian protesters gathered in the city of Ramallah in the West Bank after Mr. Trump's announcement. (photo: AFP)
President Trump Unveils Middle East Peace Plan Embraced by Israel, Rejected by Palestinians
Ben Gittleson, ABC News
Gittleson writes: "President Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled his plan for Middle East peace, proposing a Palestinian state, but also allowing Israel to take control of a significant portion of the West Bank without any Palestinian input."
READ MORE
Ben Gittleson, ABC News
Gittleson writes: "President Donald Trump on Tuesday unveiled his plan for Middle East peace, proposing a Palestinian state, but also allowing Israel to take control of a significant portion of the West Bank without any Palestinian input."
Standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House, Trump said that Palestinians could achieve a state once they rejected terrorism and made major political and territorial concessions.
Netanyahu said that he accepted the U.S. proposal and that "regardless of the Palestinian decision," Israel planned to carry out the plan's proposed division of land in the disputed West Bank.
Over the next four years, Netanyahu said, Israel would apply its laws to Jewish settlements in the West Bank and to a hotly contested strip of land in the Jordan Valley, while maintaining the status quo in areas envisioned for a Palestinian state. Doing so would allow Israel to completely encircle Palestinians in the West Bank and, in its view, strengthen its security.
Trump rolled out the proposal -- several years in the making and closely guarded -- at a politically precipitous time for both him and his ally Netanyahu. Following the announcement, Trump's lawyers continued their defense in his Senate impeachment trial and Netanyahu was formally indicted on Tuesday for fraud, bribery and breach of trust -- five weeks before Israeli parliamentary elections.
Notably absent from the White House announcement were any Palestinian officials, who had cut off ties with the Trump administration in 2017 after the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel's capital.
They had preemptively rejected the peace initiative, accusing Trump and his administration of decisions blatantly biased in favor of Israel. The president on Monday acknowledged that Palestinians would likely initially reject it, but he expressed hope they would eventually accept it.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas blasted the proposal late Tuesday.
"After the nonsense that we heard today we say a thousand no's to the ‘deal of the century,’” he said at a press conference in Ramallah.
After regional news reports this week said that Abbas refused to speak with Trump on the phone, Trump addressed Abbas directly during his remarks at the White House, saying he had sent the Palestinian leader a letter that day.
"President Abbas, I want you to know that if you choose the path to peace," Trump said, "America and many other countries will -- we will be there we will be there to help you in so many different ways and we will be there every step of the way."
In Ramallah, Abbas spoke on the phone with the leader of Hamas's political wing, Ismail Haniyeh. It was a sign of rare Palestinian unity amid anger there.
The Palestinian president also spoke on the phone with the leader of the political wing of the Palestinian militant group Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh, who pledged his solidarity in rejecting the U.S. proposal, the official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, reported. It was a sign of rare Palestinian unity amid anger there.
Palestinian negotiators aligned with Abbas rejected the plan, too.
"Achieving peace requires first and foremost respect and adherence to the fundamental (principles) of international law," the Palestine Liberation Organization wrote in a tweet. "The U.S. plan recognizes Israel's illegal colonization and annexation of occupied lands belonging to the State of Palestine."
While ambassadors from Oman, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates attended the White House event -- and received standing ovations when lauded by Trump and Netanyahu -- the plan was widely rejected across the Muslim world.
Jordan told Israel not to annex territory. Its foreign minister, Ayman Safadi, "warned against the dangerous consequences of unilateral Israeli measures, such as annexation of Palestinian lands, the building and expansion of illegal Israeli settlements on Palestinian occupied lands and encroachments on the Holy Sites in Jerusalem, that aim at imposing new realities on the ground," the Jordanian embassy in Washington said in a statement.
Safadi "stressed" that "Jordan condemns such measures as a violation of international law and provocative actions that will push the area towards more conflict and tension," the statement read.
The Turkish foreign ministry, meanwhile, called the proposal "stillborn" and "an annexation plan aiming at usurping Palestinian lands and killing two-state solution," according to Turkey's official Anadolu Agency.
Under the Trump administration's plan, which was posted on the White House's website, the Palestinians would agree to a number of political concessions over the next several years in order to gain autonomy and economic prosperity.
A major point of contention remains the future of Jerusalem, which both Israel and Palestinians claim as their capital. Under the Trump administration plan, an existing security barrier -- built by Israel in territory disputed by the Palestinians -- would serve as the border between Israeli and Palestinian parts of the Jerusalem area.
That vision clashes with previous proposals to make all of "East Jerusalem" -- the predominantly Arab eastern part of the city -- the capital of a Palestinian state, ceding more of Jerusalem to Israel.
The plan included what it referred to as a "conceptual map" showing proposed borders of that Palestinian state -- and changes to Israel's contours. The White House said that while the plan avoided any forced population transfers, 3% of each population would end up in the other's territory, with the option to move or to gain citizenship to their respective nations.
Under the plan, roads, tunnels and other transportation links would connect different parts of the Palestinian state physically split up by Israel.
The Gaza Strip would expand to include industrial, residential and agricultural zones -- but Palestinian leadership would have to agree to the territory's demilitarization.
The plan calls for Hamas, which controls Gaza, and other Palestinian militant groups to commit to nonviolence.
While the plan had been three years in the making, only last week -- as Trump faced an impeachment trial in the Senate -- did the president announce that he would finally roll it out.
One of the president’s lawyers, Harvard professor Alan Dershowitz, attended the peace plan roll out, while at least one U.S. senator in attendance, Ted Cruz of Texas, departed early to catch the start of proceedings.
On Monday, Trump hosted Netanyahu and his chief political rival, Benny Gantz, for separate meetings at the White House. Gantz did not attend the Tuesday announcement.
The president's son-in-law and senior adviser Jared Kushner oversaw the formulation of the peace plan. The administration unveiled an economic component last summer but delayed sharing the rest amid political turmoil in Israel. Two parliamentary elections in under seven months there failed to result in a stable government, with another round scheduled for March 2.
Netanyahu faces a tough re-election bid as Gantz mounts a strong challenge. The formal indictment in Jerusalem came Tuesday, a day after he dropped his bid for immunity from charges stemming from several corruption cases.
Bernie Sanders. (photo: Antonella Crescimbeni)
Bernie Sanders Can Exploit Donald Trump's Weaknesses
Meagan Day, Jacobin
Excerpt: "Donald Trump has broken promises to leave Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone. This basic dishonesty leaves him vulnerable to attack - but only by Bernie Sanders."
Meagan Day, Jacobin
Excerpt: "Donald Trump has broken promises to leave Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid alone. This basic dishonesty leaves him vulnerable to attack - but only by Bernie Sanders."
n May 2015, when Donald Trump was polling at 5 percent in the Republican presidential primary, he told a reporter in Des Moines, Iowa, “I’m not going to cut Social Security like every other Republican, and I’m not going to cut Medicare or Medicaid.”
It’s easy to forget, but promising to leave benefits for seniors alone was part of Trump’s campaign message from the beginning. Things have changed. At the annual ruling-class summit in Davos, Switzerland, last week, a reporter asked Trump if “entitlement cuts” would “ever be on your plate.” Trump answered that “at some point they will be,” adding, “At the right time, we will take a look at that.”
Some of the mainstream press is treating these remarks like a brand new development. That’s not quite accurate. As Eric Levitz points out in New York magazine, Trump’s about-face on entitlements occurred very early in his presidency. His administration has made several attempts in the last three years to cut spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, in direct violation of his campaign promises.
The newsworthy turn of events here is that Trump, who has previously expressed concern that voters will catch onto his administration’s aggressive austerity agenda, seems to have slipped up and admitted it.
Compared to European social democracies, the United States has an underdeveloped (and underappreciated) welfare state. In part, this is because so many of our programs are obscure, complicated, and narrow — hard to see, hard to use, hard to defend. But guaranteed benefits for the elderly are exceptions to this rule, eliciting strong popular support.
This, of course, refers to Social Security and Medicare, the most universal and most popular social programs in the country. But it also extends to Medicaid, because despite some of its design flaws, Medicaid is a huge program that covers massive numbers of people, including millions of seniors who rely on both Medicare and Medicaid.
Because large numbers of Americans need, like, and care about these programs, Trump’s betrayal of them is an electoral weak spot — one that his opponent should ruthlessly exploit in the upcoming general election. But not all contenders will be equally capable of credibly attacking Trump on entitlements. If we want to hit Trump where it hurts, Bernie Sanders is the candidate to deliver the blow.
Of all the candidates, Bernie has the longest and strongest record of defending and fighting to expand vital public programs for seniors. Throughout his congressional career, he has voted against every effort, no matter how sneaky or nearly imperceptible, to cut or privatize Social Security and Medicare.
And he has long insisted that not only must these programs be protected, they should be expanded.
Famously, he has popularized the demand to improve Medicare and expand it to every American — the exact opposite of Trump’s under-the-radar austerity agenda. Similarly, he founded the Defend Social Security Caucus, co-founded the Expand Social Security Caucus, and has introduced legislation to improve and strengthen Social Security.
In 2006, as President George W. Bush attempted to privatize social security, Sanders spoke out, saying, “Social Security is the most successful anti-poverty program in history. We must strengthen it, not destroy it.” He said much the same thing in 2010, when it was not President Bush attempting to implement cuts to Social Security but a bipartisan deficit-reduction commission appointed by President Barack Obama.
Sanders stood on his feet for eight hours and filibustered against the legislation that resulted from the bipartisan negotiations. He repeatedly warned of its implications for Social Security, saying:
Social Security has been an enormous success. It has done exactly what those people who created it have wanted it to do — nothing more, nothing less. It has succeeded. It has taken millions of seniors out of poverty and given them an element of security. It has also helped people with disabilities maintain their dignity. Widows and orphans are also getting help. For 75 years it has worked well.
Sanders added:
The Republicans will tell you: “Oh, we have a great plan to deal with [the deficit]. We are giving tax breaks to millionaires. But now what we are going to have to do is start making deep cuts in Social Security” — and that deficit reduction commission started paving the way for that, very substantial cuts in Social Security — “Maybe we will have to raise the retirement age in Social Security to 69 or 70. Maybe we will have to make cuts in Medicare. Maybe we will have to make cuts in Medicaid.” . . . I certainly will do everything I can to prevent that.
Elsewhere in the speech, Sanders criticized not only the president but also the vice president for compromising on Social Security and Medicare to appease Republicans. The vice president, of course, was Joe Biden — and it was Biden who had been especially eager to put Social Security and Medicare on the table in negotiations with Republicans.
In the past few weeks, Biden has forcefully denied ever trying to cut Social Security. This is dishonest. In contrast to Sanders, Biden has attempted to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid many times throughout his career. He tried it the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, and 2010s. Take it from Biden himself:
When I argued that we should freeze federal spending, I meant Social Security as well. I meant Medicare and Medicaid. I meant veterans benefits. I meant every single solitary thing in the Government. And I not only tried it once, I tried it twice, I tried it a third time, and I tried it a fourth time. Somebody has to tell me in here how we are going to do this hard work without dealing with any of those sacred cows.
Right now, Sanders and Biden are each other’s main competition for the party’s nomination. But if Biden wins, Trump will have an opponent who is guilty of putting entitlements on the chopping block, just as he is. Given how popular these programs are, nominating Biden would be a waste of potential ammunition against Trump. Nominating any of the other candidates, too, would be a lost opportunity, since none of them have the decades of experience fighting to defend these popular social programs that Sanders has.
No matter their political ideology or party affiliation, hundreds of millions of people rely on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When Trump ran in 2016, promising not to undermine these programs was a huge selling point. Pointing out in 2020 that he has attempted to undermine them, and that he plans to continue to do so, will be hugely advantageous in the effort to defeat him. Bernie Sanders is far and away the best candidate to deliver this message; failing to nominate him would be a giveaway to Donald Trump.
Activists in front of the U.S. Supreme Court. (photo: Getty Images)
"Public Charge" Ruling Shows the Supreme Court Won't Save Us From Trump's Anti-Immigrant Agenda
Natasha Lennard, The Intercept
Lennard writes: "Expanding the 'public charge' rule, rightly described as a 'wealth test' for immigrants, has long been on the Trump administration's fascistic agenda wish list."
Natasha Lennard, The Intercept
Lennard writes: "Expanding the 'public charge' rule, rightly described as a 'wealth test' for immigrants, has long been on the Trump administration's fascistic agenda wish list."
EXCERPT:
It should come as no surprise that on Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4, along predictable political lines, that the injunction be lifted and that the new “public charge” policy could be enforced. The ruling is just the latest reminder that righteous appeals to judicial checks and balances, and to a constitutional bulwark against Trumpian policy excess, come to a dead end in the nation’s highest court. As in the case of the so-called Muslim ban, and the decision to allow billions of dollars in Pentagon funds to go toward building the border wall, the Supreme Court has once again made painfully clear the limits of legal challenges to Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.
As I wrote when changes to the public charge rule were first announced last year, the proposal is one of the most radical overhauls in immigration standards in decades. It makes clear that, for this administration, immigration policy is a matter of white supremacist social engineering aimed at excluding and decimating poor, predominantly nonwhite immigrants. Even those who have followed every U.S. law — people in the country with full legal authorization, abiding by all criminal statutes — now risk ineligibility to permanent resident status for having used social services, to which they are entitled.
Jessica Rebeschini, 26, and her husband Ron, 34, with her sons Chase, Karter and Brody, at a park near their home in Boundurant, Iowa, on 22 December 2019. (photo: Kathryn Gamble/Guardian UK)
'I Was Risking My Life': Why One in Four US Women Return to Work Two Weeks After Childbirth
Miranda Bryant, Guardian UK
Bryant writes: "Jessica Rebeschini was advised to take at least six weeks off work to recover from an emergency C-section surgery and bond with her newborn child. Within two weeks, she was working 45-hour weeks as a waitress doing nightshifts."
Miranda Bryant, Guardian UK
Bryant writes: "Jessica Rebeschini was advised to take at least six weeks off work to recover from an emergency C-section surgery and bond with her newborn child. Within two weeks, she was working 45-hour weeks as a waitress doing nightshifts."
The US is one of only three countries in the world not to offer statutory paid maternity leave, according to analysis by the International Labour Organisation, and only 17% have access to paid leave, according to US Department of Labour statistics.
A placard reads 'Not one more death' in a protest against the killing of social activists in Bogota, Colombia. (photo: Reuters)
Colombia: 27 Social Leaders Killed in 27 Days of 2020
teleSUR
Excerpt: "The Colombian Institute for Development and Peace Studies (Indepaz) revealed Monday that in the first 27 days of 2020, 27 social leaders and four former combatants and signatories of the 2016 Peace Agreement have been killed."
READ MORE
teleSUR
Excerpt: "The Colombian Institute for Development and Peace Studies (Indepaz) revealed Monday that in the first 27 days of 2020, 27 social leaders and four former combatants and signatories of the 2016 Peace Agreement have been killed."
READ MORE
Researchers noticed that the risk of cardiac arrest grew by up to 4 percent for every increase of 10 units in the PM2.5 levels. (photo: Peter Parks/Getty Images)
'No Safe Level of Air Pollution': Major Study Links Cardiac Arrests With Fine Particulate Matter Exposure
Jordan Davidson, EcoWatch
Davidson writes: "Researchers now say there is 'no safe level' of air pollution exposure after a large-scale study found a correlation between exposure to fine particle matter, known as PM2.5, and cardiac arrests, according to the The Sydney Morning Herald."
Jordan Davidson, EcoWatch
Davidson writes: "Researchers now say there is 'no safe level' of air pollution exposure after a large-scale study found a correlation between exposure to fine particle matter, known as PM2.5, and cardiac arrests, according to the The Sydney Morning Herald."
The researchers found that exposure to PM2.5 that even fell below global standards was hazardous, suggesting that tighter regulations and cleaner energy is required, according to the study, which was published in the journal Lancet Planetary Health.
Scientists from the University of Sydney led the study, which analyzed air quality in Japan against 249,372 cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests. They concluded that even low-level exposure was associated with an increased risk of cardiac arrest for people over 65, as The Sydney Morning Herald reported.
The researchers noticed that the risk of cardiac arrest grew by up to 4 percent for every increase of 10 units in the PM2.5 levels.
"Our study supports recent evidence that there is no safe level of air pollution — finding an increased risk of cardiac arrest despite air quality generally meeting the standards," said report author professor Kazuaki Negishi from the University of Sydney School of Medicine, as The Canberra Times reported.
Negishi pointed out that previous research into air pollution and acute cardiac events had been inconsistent, particularly at PM2.5 levels that met the World Health Organization guidelines. However, the large scale of this study meant that past inconsistencies could be addressed.
"Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is a major medical emergency – with less than one in 10 people worldwide surviving these events – and there has been increasing evidence of an association with the more acute air pollution, or fine particulate matter such as PM2.5," said Negishi in a University of Sydney statement. "We analyzed almost a quarter of a million cases of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests and found a clear link with acute air pollution levels."
The findings are troubling for Australia, which has seen its usually pristine air plummet in quality due to the recent bushfires. In the study, more than 90 per cent of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests occurred at levels below the Australian standard of 25 micrograms per cubic meter. Put another way, the air quality levels ranked as "fair," "good" or "very good" under Australian standards, as the The Sydney Morning Herald reported. The U.S. and Japanese standard is less strict at 35 micrograms per cubic meter.
Australia had a particularly awful year, with air quality in Canberra ranking as the worst in the world on Dec. 31. Sydney had 81 days of hazardous, very poor or poor air quality in 2019, which was more days of bad air than the last decade combined, according to The Sydney Morning Herald.
The researchers expect the worsening air quality will lead to more heart attack fatalities in Australia, especially among older people.
"Given the fact that there is a tendency towards worsening air pollution – from increasing numbers of cars as well as disasters such as bushfires – the impacts on cardiovascular events, in addition to respiratory diseases and lung cancer – must be taken into account in health care responses," said Negishi in a university statement.
Unfortunately, the researchers did not identify a threshold that is safe for exposure to PM2.5. Instead, Negishi said that existing standards should be reevaluated.
"It might not be a good idea to continue to seek [a new] threshold, but try to continuously improve our air quality. If a threshold exists, it should be very, very close to zero," Negishi said, as The Sydney Morning Herald reported.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.