Climate and emerging diseases: dangerous connections found

Climate and emerging diseases: dangerous connections found
Swampy habitats are conducive to the bacteria responsible for Buruli ulcer, here in French Guiana. Credit: IRD / R. Gozlan

Climate change may affect human health directly or indirectly. In addition to increased threats of storms, flooding, droughts, and heat waves, other health risks are being identified. In particular, new diseases are appearing, caused by infectious agents (viruses, bacteria, parasites) heretofore unknown or that are changing, especially under the effect of changes in the climate (change of host, vector, pathogenicity, or strain). These are so-called "emerging" or "re-emerging" infectious diseases, such as leishmaniasis, West Nile fever, etc. According to the WHO, these diseases are causing one third of deaths around the world, and developing countries are on the front line.

A difficult relationship to establish

Several parameters may be behind this increased spread of pathogens and their hosts (vectors, reservoirs, etc.). Climate change modifies temperature and humidity conditions in natural environments, and therefore alters the transmission dynamics for the . It also affects the range, abundance, behaviour, biological cycles, and life history traits of the microbes or related host species, changing balances between pathogens, vectors, and reservoirs. However, these effects remain poorly explained, in particular because they require an understanding of the long-term spatial or temporal changes to the phenomena. Therefore, it is difficult to establish a direct link between and the overall evolution of infectious pathologies.

Decreased rainfall rhymes with epidemic

Providing some clarification on this question for the first time, a study by IRD researchers and their partners has shown the relationship over a 40-year period between climate change and epidemics of a disease emerging in Latin America: Buruli ulcer. Rising surface temperatures in the Pacific Ocean tend to increase the frequency of El Niño events, which especially affect Central and South America approximately every five to seven years, causing waves of droughts. The research team compared changes in rainfall in the region with changes in the number of cases of Buruli ulcer recorded in French Guyana since 1969 and observed the statistical correlations.

In fact, the decrease in rainfall and runoff led to an increase in areas of residual stagnant water, where the bacteria responsible, Mycobacterium ulcerans, proliferates. The greater access to swampy habitats that results from this facilitates frequentation by humans (fishing, hunting, etc.) and thus intensifies human exposure to the microorganism living in this type of aquatic environment. This result, published in Emerging Microbes and Infections - Nature, was made possible through long-term time series data.

In light of the rainfall conditions in recent years, the researchers fear a potential new outbreak of Buruli ulcer in the region. Beyond an improvement in forecasting the risk of an epidemic, this study highlights the need to consider a set of parameters and their interactions. Contrary to the accepted idea, less rainfall does not mean a certain decrease in the prevalence of , as shown by this example. Similarly, the expected warming of the atmosphere could provide temperature conditions unsuitable to the development cycle of some pathogenic agents, such as for malaria in Africa.


Explore further

Climate change could drive rise in debilitating disease

More information: A. Morris, R.E. Gozlan, H. Hassani, D. Andreou, P. Couppié, J-F Guégan. "Complex temporal climate signals drive the emergence of human water-borne disease." Emerging Microbes & Infections - Nature, 2014, 3, e56. DOI: 10.1038/emi.2014.56
Journal information: Nature

Provided by Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD)
Citation: Climate and emerging diseases: dangerous connections found (2014, November 5) retrieved 18 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2014-11-climate-emerging-diseases-dangerous.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 05, 2014
My Bush-voting friends told me this is all a big conspiracy to discredit the Bible for science facts. Think of how the Bible saved us, . . in the Inquisitions, the witch-burnings, the agony at the Stake, . .

Sorry, but that seems to be the level of education in much of our nation.


Nov 05, 2014
You may bitch and moan about general public failing to buy into catastrophic global warming nonsense, but scientists already started hitting delete buttons to remove references to "climate change" in their research proposals.

Nov 05, 2014
catastrophic global warming nonsense
@tegiri
1- conspiratorial denial of evidence http://phys.org/n...firstCmt
2- global warming and AGW are real, and there is plenty of evidence supporting this
3- one reason you are never taken seriously here on PO is your overwhelming stupidity and refusal to accept empirical evidence from reputable sources

PROTIP: blogs/fringe pseudoscience websites/forums/conjectures are NOT equivalent to studies published in peer reviewed reputable journals

feel free to refute any studies i have linked in the past
you can start here:http://marine.rut..._pub.pdf

http://www.scienc...abstract

http://iopscience.../article

http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

Nov 05, 2014
It's truly a desperate AGW Cult that must sink this low to exploit human suffering and fear, just to propagate their CO2 lies.

Nov 06, 2014
It's truly a desperate AGW Cult that must sink this low to exploit human suffering and fear, just to propagate their CO2 lies.
@antiG
i noticed you like to talk a whole lot but you seldom provide empirical evidence of your claims... and when you do, it is usually a only a link to a blog/forum/whatever that provides no science

this is a science site... why not use science to prove your comments?

in fact, there is a few studies right there above your post in my reply to tegiritard

why not refute those studies with equivalent studies, if it is a "lie" or "exploitation" instead of just trolling

BTW- your comment was trolling/baiting/flaming/blatant lie


Nov 06, 2014
OK, Captain, here is an extract from the last paper you referenced:

"Do scientists believe that earth is getting warmer because of human activity?"

What kind of question is that? Sure there is wasted heat, so the answer is yes no matter if responder agrees with CAGW. And then paper goes on analyzing the funding admitting that they can no longer trace Exxon and Koch support? Did it ever occurred to the author that oil companies provide a product that is in demand? As opposed to wind industry which offers service of questionable quality that nobody really wants?
http://judithcurr...k-curve/
I wonder what kind of studies those wind profiteers support.

Nov 06, 2014
The only way one could see this as a serious scientific paper is if you are totally blinded by the religious fervor of the movement. None of the prerequisites mentioned by the article can be proven to be linked to warming let alone AGW.

To think that these natural weather patterns are in the least bit unusual is lunacy!

Nov 06, 2014
The only way one could see this as a serious scientific paper is if you are totally blinded by the religious fervor of the movement. None of the prerequisites mentioned by the article can be proven to be linked to warming let alone AGW.

To think that these natural weather patterns are in the least bit unusual is lunacy!


Your denialism is getting shriller.

Nov 06, 2014
What kind of question is that? Sure there is wasted heat, so the answer is yes no matter if responder agrees with CAGW
@Tegiri
not sure where you are going with this, so i will leave it for now
perhaps you would like to clarify what you mean? explain the relevance of the argument, especially with regard to the quoted question. Thanks
And then paper goes on analyzing the funding admitting that they can no longer trace Exxon and Koch support?
this was the point, actually
what it shows is that big oil/money is hiding funds with various methods in order to support the anti-science movement, as noted in the first line of the abstract
This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM)
this is to prevent backlash over the eventual crash in the face of legitimate science

the backlash will cause financial damage, so they minimize it with obfuscation
cont'd

Nov 06, 2014
Tegiri cont'd
it is a very smart business move with regard to protecting from public backlash
Did it ever occurred to the author that oil companies provide a product that is in demand?
that is NOT the point of the study, so this is irrelevant
we already know that the product is in demand
the study was to show how they were hiding funds to fund the CCCM as noted in the very first line of the abstract and proven within the study
keep it on topic, Tegiri
As opposed to wind industry which offers service of questionable quality that nobody really wants?
and this is relevant how?
FYI - i use wind and solar, so the "nobody really wants" is conjecture without evidence
Also... judithcurry link is not empirical evidence unless you are proving curry specifically "said"/printed something

stick to the science and stick to proving your argument with science, thank you
cont'd

Nov 06, 2014
Tegiri cont'd
I wonder what kind of studies those wind profiteers support
this is a very good question, and also will likely be investigated sooner or later... and a study done
the study you referenced, which was my last linked one, per your statement
here is an extract from the last paper you referenced
comes from an article you can read here on PO

the article is here: http://phys.org/n...ate.html

please note that the article also states
This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate
so it is not just the CCCM being studied
you should be aware of that

Nov 06, 2014
OK, Captain, here is an extract
@Tegiri
lastly, i voted you low because this argument seemed distracted and lacked any real point... but i will add that i appreciate your attempt to be logical and use science (at least my references) in the argument
please forget about the political stuff like curry and concentrate on the science when we talk, and things will likely improve

The only way one could see this as a serious scientific paper is if you are totally blinded by the religious fervor of the movement
@mr
spoken like a true denier with NO evidence of anything

you keep posting denialist comments but no empirical evidence
this is the basis of your argument: your personal conjecture

hate to tell you but your conjecture is not equivalent to empirical evidence
the scientific method trumps you again

troll elsewhere

Nov 06, 2014
@antigoracle
Where is the evidence showing that C02 is not linked to global temperature? If you claim something like that, shouldn't you have some kind of actual reason based in reality?

Nov 06, 2014
Feyn I think that you might have the scientific process backwards. It is sciences job to prove that the warming we have encountered is caused by CO2 and not some natural cycles.

Nov 06, 2014
Feyn I think that you might have the scientific process backwards. It is sciences job to prove that the warming we have encountered is caused by CO2 and not some natural cycles.
@mr
nope... he doesn't have it backwards

likely he already actually READ the studies that i've posted (and may even have more that i am not aware of... there are SO many out there, after all)

and like myself, is requesting the equivalent type of evidence from antiG supporting his conjecture

and again, this only proves that you are very willing to ignore the science for the sake of your own delusions


Nov 07, 2014

BTW- your comment was trolling/baiting/flaming/blatant lie


Was it Capt?
I didn't notice.....
And why the Troll is now on my ignore list.

Nov 07, 2014

BTW- your comment was trolling/baiting/flaming/blatant lie


Was it Capt?
I didn't notice.....
And why the Troll is now on my ignore list.


And the troll (along with a lot of others) is on my ignore list also.

I have to give kudos to Captin' for answering the idiocy while I take some time off to cool off from the deniers. I am just sick of the lack of science in those who deny. It is very similar to the tobacco companies. They just pull out their paid consultants and those who wanted to deny that tobacco caused medical problems rallied behind them. Luckily, Captain' is there to rebuke the lack of science while many of use relish the "ignore" button.

Nov 07, 2014
And then paper goes on analyzing the funding admitting that they can no longer trace Exxon and Koch support?

this was the point, actually
what it shows is that big oil/money is hiding funds with various methods in order to support the anti-science movement, as noted in the first line of the abstract


One more time: they can no longer trace the funds and speculate that they [the evil oil industry] find a way to hide its support. So the allegation without evidence; how is that is not a conspiracy theory?

Nov 07, 2014
Luckily, Captain' is there to rebuke the lack of science while many of use relish the "ignore" button.
@Thermodynamics
@Runrig
and i have no doubt that, in the future, i will have to use this feature for a while to cool off while you take over the reins and patiently (or not) provide the evidence to the idiots who cannot comprehend science

THANKS you guys, for all the great information that you have provided already which allows us to see through the con-men who post here as deniers

Nov 07, 2014
So the allegation without evidence
@Tegiri
one more time: if you would just read the study!
for starters: in the abstract, it spells out sources (IRS etc)
the papers spells out resources
Based on the IRS legal classification, the vast majority—65 % (59/91) of CCCM organizations are classified as 501 C3 organizations, 13 % (12/91) are 501 C4 organizations, and 22 % (20/91) are designated as 501 C5 or C6 organizations
knowledge of things like 501 C3/C4/C5/C6 laws would help you comprehend how funding is/can be tracked
then it goes on to discuss the funding analysis

and here i feel is where i will stop... it is obvious that you did not read the study and likely only the Conclusions and maybe looked at a graph or two


Nov 07, 2014
Why are you (and other alarmists) are so paranoid about money supposedly flowing some way? Does it somehow invalidates the hiatus? Does it refute the global sea ice anomaly being close to 0 for several years already? You are not suggesting those evil oil funds have skewed Argo sensors whose readings dispel the myth of missing heat hiding in the oceans?

Yes, this article as interesting as an accounting report, this is why I only glanced over it. If you want a detailed debunking somebody else already did it:
http://www.forbes...esearch/
When you start following somebody else paycheck [instead of doing science] you are done as researcher.

Nov 08, 2014
Why are you (and other alarmists) are so paranoid about money supposedly flowing some way?
@tegiri
personally, i don;t care where anyone spends their money... but you and your denier followers continually like to say there is a conspiracy and that the only reason there is no much overwhelming science supporting AGW is because it is gov't funded, conspiracy, etc

there is empirical evidence:
-that the public (you) are being conned into believing a lie
-(a sh*t load of evidence) proving AGW is real
-proving the effects of CO2
-showing how the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger
etc
(not just some articles, but scientific studies)

there is nothing proving any of that false
and your attempt here: http://www.forbes...esearch/ is just more distraction from reality
it is NOT a scientific paper
it is even labeled "opinion" so that idiots who CAN read can show it to people who cannot read!

Nov 08, 2014
this is why I only glanced over it
@tegiri
i KNOW you didn't read it... already proved that
but the problem with you is that you do exactly the same thing to anything that proves your "worldview/faith/religious belief in no warming" wrong

you are not even considering the evidence provided
you simply denounce based upon a couple words and your conjecture which is NOT
i repeat, it is NOT
empirical evidence NOR is it scientific

conjecture =/= studies
When you start following somebody else paycheck [instead of doing science] you are done as researcher.
strawman
obfuscation
redirection
red herring
that study IS science as it shows where there is a movement dedicated to undermining science with "dark funds" to protect themselves from public backlash

you really need to learn more about science and quit thinking high school Physical Science is enough to make you intelligent
try here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm
maybe you will learn something

Nov 08, 2014
You are not suggesting those evil oil funds have skewed
@tegiri
obfuscation and strawman
intentional misrepresentation based upon fear and stupidity
i specifically said what was happening based upon the science and links posted
if you want to misrepresent words, stick to someone more likely to be nicer

your post only shows and proves that you are NOT interested in the science
you are only interested in denying what is blatantly obvious
you have NO science supporting your conjectures
you deny the science that IS presented
you don't even READ the studies linked, but somehow you believe that this gives you some credibility on the subject?
you think this means you should be "heard"?

another fallacy supported by the equal time shared on the media

there is no evidence refuting AGW so you can only cry about that and TROLL science sites
nice to see your true colors back

Nov 10, 2014
The article isn't about evidence supporting climate change,...blah..blah.. AGW denier trolls.

Were you born that stupid, or dropped as a baby?

Nov 10, 2014
"AGW denier trolls" That phrase epitomizes the AGW movement. If you are not a true believer you are a troll.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more