Interesting article. Climate change is usually viewed in terms of sea level rise and changes in rainfall but of course there are other health costs of both climate change and dirty energy we need to think about. I wonder for example what the long-term health impacts are of a major oil spill, as well as highly polluting projects like tar sands and other "unconventional" oil resources like shale oil.

More to add to the list of culpability that falls on the deniers.
What are you going to say to all the people who die from increased tropical diseases and all the other things the author mentioned? How can you justify your evil denialism in the face of such warnings and the awful consequences if you are wrong?

Come on love, you can't have it both ways.

That air pollution driving your respiratory problems. It's those filthy Brisbane council buses causing that, & just who is pushing public transport? You lot of course.

Then your Dengue fever fear campaign. What do you expect when you ban the best insecticide ever developed. The one that had Malaria virtually eliminated, before damn stupid greenies started their misinformation campaign.

Yes, that's right, bring back DDT, & Dengue will be gone, it's that easy.

It may happen quite soon. We saw that the half baked greenies against damns disappeared when it was inner city water that was threatened. I have no doubt that the same will apply when the wealthy urban greenie is threatened with disease. Roll on equity, & the rejection of this corrupt ideology they call green.

(Oh that's right - I'm on Online Opinion - there's always a few kook deniers on here).

Thanks Sandra - I'd simply add:

The heat is on for change: coal [Doctors for the Environment Australia]
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/the-heat-is-on-for-change-coal/story-e6frg8y6-1225889568496

Tackle climate change now: AMA
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/tackle-climate-change-now-ama-20100729-10xv6.html

health is relating the fitness factor of every person...

environment is the physical and biological factors along with their chemical interactions that affect an organism...all the objects around us...

__________________________________________________________________
Want to get-on Google's first page and loads of traffic to your website? Hire a SEO Specialist from Ocean Groups [url=http://oceangroups.org/]seo pecialist [/url]

Hasbeen, the DDT ban claim is a myth. Insects develop resistance to a chemical used repeatedly. That is the real reason DDT fell into disuse. You can easily find that out e.g. here http://info-pollution.com/ddtban.htm

Pull the right one Phillip, that yodels. Yes resistance can happen, but it had not when the bull dust about thin birds eggs, & other such lies were in vogue.

They have been reintroducing DDT into some Pacific islands, & Africa, where they are using it to spray the inside walls pf buildings, with excellent results.

It is an irritant, as well as a killer of mossies. If we keep them out of homes we are half way there.

I spent a number of years living in malarial areas, & private spraying of living area walls with DDT was a must for comfort, if nothing else.

all aspects of the natural and built environment that may affect human health. Other terms that concern or refer to the discipline of environmental health include environmental public health and environmental health and protection.

__________________________________________________________________
Want to get-on Google's first page and loads of traffic to your website? Hire a SEO Specialist from Ocean Groups [url=http://oceangroups.org/]seo pecialist [/url]

Sea food?! What about the Greens' attitude to recreational fishing, which is not based on science but (as usual) is window dressing for the impractical 'green' militancy that wins votes from the Chardonnay set, guilty about their own excessive consumption and from environmentally concerned, but easily led youth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GjtrKg_eGhw&NR=1

The Greens are hopelessly impractical and we do not get sufficient value for money from their senators.

Seen the movie "The End of the Line" yet Cornflower?

Hasbeen, there are misinformed greenies but there are also many misinformed people on the other side. Anyway why is that an excuse to ignore the bigger picture: concentrated use of a single insecticide carries risks like breeding in resistance, and concentrating up the food chain. There's good science to support that. Try this: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=DDT+concentrate+up+food+chain+egg+shell&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2005&as_vis=0

Also here on insects developing resistance to DDT: http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&q=DDT+insect+resistance&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=2005&as_vis=0

What's your basis anyway for ridiculing egg shell thinning? Point me at a scientific source, not a blog, and I'll pay attention.

The central point of the article here is that failing to take care of the environment is deleterious to human health. Are you arguing against that? I would hardly think that's an ideological question. Are you just arguing against the main premise because the author is a Greens candidate?