MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2995816983 · doi:10.1213/ane.0000000000004607

Choked: Life and Breath in the Age of Pollution

2019· article· en· W2995816983 on OpenAlexaffabout
Peter G. Brindley

Bibliographic record

VenueAnesthesia & Analgesia · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCOVID-19 impact on air quality
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineGuardianHyperboleSkepticismLawPolitical scienceEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the spirit of disclosure, I was asked to review this book; I did not select it myself. In the spirit of fuller disclosure, I am now recommending it widely and commend those who persuaded me to read it. I mention this because it mirrors the topic and my task. In short, I now know precisely why air pollution matters greatly, and even if it is often out of sight it should not be out of mind. Readers of this Journal may be skeptical, as I initially was, as to whether Gardiners’s 2019 book Choked: Life and Breath in the Age of Pollution deserves their finite attention. But, as Gardiner makes abundantly clear, the act of breathing matters more than anything else. Hyperbole notwithstanding, it should concern anyone who cares about health: whether practitioner, patient, parent, or politician. Beth Gardiner is an environmental journalist, rather than a scientist, clinician, or politician. She has written for the New York Times, the Guardian, and National Geographic. This 312-page, 12-chapter book is buttressed by an impressive 20-page bibliography. It is divided into 2 parts. Part 1 is essentially “the problem” or what she calls “holding our breath.” Part 2 is essentially “the solution” or what she calls “coming up for air.” She uses chapter 1 to persuasively outline how over 7-million annual deaths can be attributed to air pollution (more recent data suggests 9 million, or roughly 1-in-9 of all world deaths). Whatever the exact toll, air pollution—principally nitrogen oxides and tiny particles called PM2.5—is associated with more human deaths than smoking, AIDS, diabetes, and vehicle crashes combined. In short, by page 34, this clinician and parent was in no doubt that I needed to read on. Next, in chapter 2, Gardiner exposes the so-called "ground zero of pollution: Delhi. Chapter 3 is London (her home town); chapter 4, the coal belts of Poland; chapter 5, the megafarms of California, and chapter 6 covers low-income countries and the damage from indoor fires. You are left in little doubt that pollution is a profound silent killer. It takes years off lives and is especially cruel to low-middle-income countries. Over 40% of Americans breathe polluted air daily, but over 80% of people worldwide do. Hundreds of millions struggle with its myriad consequences, whether to our lungs, hearts, or brains. It is also linked to poor learning and mental illness. Part 2 starts with the seemingly prosaic Clean Air Act of 1970. However, it is why North Americans breathe air that, while more dangerous than I previously realized, is cleaner than that in most of Europe. This act is also one of the planet’s most impressive pieces of environmental legislation. It shows that change is possible and launches her argument that the way ahead includes going back. Gardiner then uses the next chapters to outline reluctant but praiseworthy innovators, such as the automakers, the city of Los Angeles, and even the Chinese. In her epilogue, it is made clear that, without vigilance, all of these precious gains could disappear in a (literal) puff of smoke. Typically, a book review includes criticisms. This is difficult given that Gardiner took this reader from idiot to relative savant and did so using engaging prose. Perhaps some readers would like practical advice regarding how they can affect change in their homes and communities. Perhaps some of this Journal’s subscribers want to know more about specific organ pathology or the pollution associated with anesthetic gas. Perhaps others will not care for Gardiner’s criticism of the current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. However, in my humble opinion, she avoids ad hominem attacks and maintains a logical linear narrative throughout. It may be clichéd to compare environmental books to Rachel Carson’s 1962 Silent Spring. However, just as Carson alerted a sleeping world to the unseen dangers of pesticides, Gardiner has issued a powerful, rational, wake-up call regarding the worldwide “plague of dirty air.” Her take-home messages are tough to challenge, namely that health matters as much as profits, clean air should not be a partisan issue, and inaction or the wrong action is dangerous. She persuaded this doctor that I have a duty to engage with this mighty societal issue. I henceforth even hope to be a converter of others (a catalytic converter, perhaps). Much like when I work clinically, I do not want to wait until it is too late. Peter G. Brindley, MD, FRCPC, FRCP (Edin), FRCP (Lond)Departments of Critical Care Medicine and Anesthesiology and Pain MedicineDossetor Ethics CentreUniversity of AlbertaEdmonton, Alberta, Canada[email protected]

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.549

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.015
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnesthesia & AnalgesiaSame topicCOVID-19 impact on air qualityFrench-language works237,207