Bill Davenhall: Your health depends on where you live


Can geographic information make you healthy? In 2001 I got hit by a train. My train was a heart attack. I found myself in a hospital in an intensive-care ward, recuperating from emergency surgery. And I suddenly realized something: that I was completely in the dark. I started asking my questions, “Well, why me?” “Why now?” “Why here?” “Could my doctor have warned me?” So, what I want to do here in the few minutes I have with you is really talk about what is the formula for life and good health. Genetics, lifestyle and environment. That’s going to sort of contain our risks, and if we manage those risks we’re going to live a good life and a good healthy life. Well, I understand the genetics and lifestyle part. And you know why I understand that? Because my physicians constantly ask me questions about this. Have you ever had to fill out those long, legal-size forms in your doctor’s office? I mean, if you’re lucky enough you get to do it more than once, right? (Laughter) Do it over and over again. And they ask you questions about your lifestyle and your family history, your medication history, your surgical history, your allergy history … did I forget any history? But this part of the equation I didn’t really get, and I don’t think my physicians really get this part of the equation. What does that mean, my environment? Well, it can mean a lot of things. This is my life. These are my life places. We all have these. While I’m talking I’d like you to also be thinking about: How many places have you lived? Just think about that, you know, wander through your life thinking about this. And you realize that you spend it in a variety of different places. You spend it at rest and you spend it at work. And if you’re like me, you’re in an airplane a good portion of your time traveling some place. So, it’s not really simple when somebody asks you, “Where do you live, where do you work, and where do you spend all your time? And where do you expose yourselves to risks that maybe perhaps you don’t even see?” Well, when I have done this on myself, I always come to the conclusion that I spend about 75 percent of my time relatively in a small number of places. And I don’t wander far from that place for a majority of my time, even though I’m an extensive global trekker. Now, I’m going to take you on a little journey here. I started off in Scranton, Pennsylvania. I don’t know if anybody might hail from northeastern Pennsylvania, but this is where I spent my first 19 years with my little young lungs. You know, breathing high concentrations here of sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and methane gas, in unequal quantities — 19 years of this. And if you’ve been in that part of the country, this is what those piles of burning, smoldering coal waste look like. So then I decided to leave that part of the world, and I was going to go to the mid-west. OK, so I ended up in Louisville, Kentucky. Well, I decided to be neighbors to a place called Rubbertown. They manufacture plastics. They use large quantities chloroprene and benzene. Okay, I spent 25 years, in my middle-age lungs now, breathing various concentrations of that. And on a clear day it always looked like this, so you never saw it. It was insidious and it was really happening. Then I decided I had to get really smart, I would take this job in the West Coast. And I moved to Redlands California. Very nice, and there my older, senior lungs, as I like to call them, I filled with particulate matter, carbon dioxide and very high doses of ozone. Okay? Almost like the highest in the nation. Alright, this is what it looks like on a good day. If you’ve been there, you know what I’m talking about. So, what’s wrong with this picture? Well, the picture is, there is a huge gap here. The one thing that never happens in my doctor’s office: They never ask me about my place history. No doctor, can I remember, ever asking me, “Where have you lived?” They haven’t asked me what kind of the quality of the drinking water that I put in my mouth or the food that I ingest into my stomach. They really don’t do that. It’s missing. Look at the kind of data that’s available. This data’s from all over the world — countries spend billions of dollars investing in this kind of research. Now, I’ve circled the places where I’ve been. Well, by design, if I wanted to have a heart attack I’d been in the right places. Right? So, how many people are in the white? How many people in the room have spent the majority of their life in the white space? Anybody? Boy you’re lucky. How many have spent it in the red places? Oh, not so lucky. There are thousands of these kinds of maps that are displayed in atlases all over the world. They give us some sense of what’s going to be our train wreck. But none of that’s in my medical record. And it’s not in yours either. So, here’s my friend Paul. He’s a colleague. He allowed his cell phone to be tracked every two hours, 24/7, 365 days out of the year for the last two years, everywhere he went. And you can see he’s been to a few places around the United States. And this is where he has spent most of his time. If you really studied that you might have some clues as to what Paul likes to do. Anybody got any clues? Ski. Right. We can zoom in here, and we suddenly see that now we see where Paul has really spent a majority of his time. And all of those black dots are all of the toxic release inventories that are monitored by the EPA. Did you know that data existed? For every community in the United States, you could have your own personalized map of that. So, our cell phones can now build a place history. This is how Paul did it. He did it with his iPhone. This might be what we end up with. This is what the physician would have in front of him and her when we enter that exam room instead of just the pink slip that said I paid at the counter. Right? This could be my little assessment. And he looks at that and he says, “Whoa Bill, I suggest that maybe you not decide, just because you’re out here in beautiful California, and it’s warm every day, that you get out and run at six o’clock at night. I’d suggest that that’s a bad idea Bill, because of this report.” What I’d like to leave you for are two prescriptions. Okay, number one is, we must teach physicians about the value of geographical information. It’s called geomedicine. There are about a half a dozen programs in the world right now that are focused on this. And they’re in the early stages of development. These programs need to be supported, and we need to teach our future doctors of the world the importance of some of the information I’ve shared here with you today. The second thing we need to do is while we’re spending billions and billions of dollars all over the world building an electronic health record, we make sure we put a place history inside that medical record. It not only will be important for the physician; it will be important for the researchers that now will have huge samples to draw upon. But it will also be useful for us. I could have made the decision, if I had this information, not to move to the ozone capital of the United States, couldn’t I? I could make that decision. Or I could negotiate with my employer to make that decision in the best interest of myself and my company. With that, I would like to just say that Jack Lord said this almost 10 years ago. Just look at that for a minute. That was what the conclusion of the Dartmouth Atlas of Healthcare was about, was saying that we can explain the geographic variations that occur in disease, in illness, in wellness, and how our healthcare system actually operates. That was what he was talking about on that quote. And I would say he got it right almost a decade ago. So, I’d very much like to see us begin to really seize this as an opportunity to get this into our medical records. So with that, I’ll leave you that in my particular view of view of health: Geography always matters. And I believe that geographic information can make both you and me very healthy. Thank you. (Applause)

100 Comments

  1. Oh yeah it would be great if we where followed in every step we take and doctors tell us where and when should move that would be a very nice an healthy situation………

  2. I don't think big business would allow government to disperse that information readily, the clusters of disease would be so apparent, and they might have to own up to some responsibility for it. Also forgive me if I am wrong but i just read recently that gas and oil companies are exempt from most of the clean air , clean water acts and monitoring, so how can the data even be accurate?

  3. In the 1800's they used to send patients to get "sea air" they found that if people got near the sea it would benefit them greatly.

  4. I love the idea but would hate to see location history take precedence over lifestyle history. I want to see a cross correlation of lifestyle in relation to location. TN, KY, PA, VA and WV have the nations highest number of cigarette smokers. They also have high rates of alcohol usage. These two alone account for a significant number of health related issues. I like his thinking but would not put it's priority higher than lifestyle. He is correct that location history does deserve attention.

  5. the US? how so?

  6. Fuck, I;m in the red space

  7. right, Gore sucks! big fraud

  8. work? who is working? dude, what about all of the out of work people?

  9. that's what i was thinking. he might be putting ore attention to it to bring attention to it, but i don't think that environment is even close in magnitude to nutrition and exercise.

  10. Yes air, land and water quality and variation of them in different places will effect you.

  11. this is so baised and subjective. yawn… no studies, no health statistics, kinda ignorant. not very phased

  12. TED talks sometimes are a little light on the data side and this one is no exception. Its of course common sense to anyone that your environment effects your health (as do your genes). But unless one is presented with some new and interesting information its like saying too much fat in your diet is bad for you.

  13. I think those things are always taken into account in the DRs office..and most patients nod and ignore the warnings to give up the smokes and booze. That said – What we don't have is a comprehensive list of high level exposures per patient of industrial outputs – and we can't imagine though we seem to want to that those things have no impact. they obviously do .

  14. because sea air blew particulate matter of industrialized towns inland…

  15. Your health depends on how well conscious your are about the environment you live in, the food you consume and ABOVE ALL depends on your inner state thoughts and feelings that accompany your social life..

  16. The information made available could also backfire. Companies and insurance companies could also see that you have been exposed to a significant amount of toxin, making your insurance bill higher or not accept you to a job.

  17. Yes they are taken into account in the Dr.'s office but are not tracked geographically. It's important because it would be easy to look at environmental issues and blame them when the true causal factor might actually be a societal issue. That's why I pointed out the geographic relationship of smoking to states. It closely correlates to the map he showed. He seemed to be implying that environmental toxins were a causal factor and not a suspicious element that — might — be a false correlation.

  18. The only problem being they would start rejecting the vast majority of the population. The highest concentrations of these exposure sites are in the major cities where the employers are located. You're talking about a breakdown of the system so broad that a general solution would have to be found or the problem ignored by all anyway. Who knows, someone might even realize that the chemical companies should be subsidizing public medicine.

  19. "i don't think that environment is even close in magnitude to nutrition and exercise."

    Depends on who you are talking about. Children raised in communities surrounded by toxic release sites have a much higher lifetime risk of respiratory, neurodevelopmental and immune system diseases.

    While the LA air may have been a daily stress to his system, I bet that his youth in Scranton had a bigger impact on how his body would react to that stress.

  20. AutodidacticPhd – the key words in your response were "I bet". Right now environmental toxins are only a bet not a measurable probability. That is why we do actually need this kind of data. But we need to be careful not to mistake the geographic relationship with social habits in geographic locales. Whatever it turns out to be we really do need the information but we also need to face it honestly.

  21. An idea, which perhaps could be possible.

  22. You seem to be confusing the general with the specific. I KNOW that environmental toxins have an effect in the general population… the studies and statistics exist. I can only say "I bet" in his particular case because I don't know his medical history not to mention the fact that statistical data on things like health will always include some anomalies.

    Exposure statistics do exist for individual toxins. All he's talking about is personalized combined risk sheets.

  23. this makes me think of Miller's "Enemy of the People"
    First ; it's bleeding obvious.
    Thirty years ago, when I lived in Detroit, it was common knowledge that simply breathing was the equivalent of smoking two packs of cigarettes a day.
    But everyone also knows, that making too much noise about the ills of industrial pollution, and actually acting on it, is an invite to economic disaster.
    So we choose to believe that not smoking is the answer, while quitting our jobs is out of the question.

  24. Wow! 5:11 is the real Patch Adams!

  25. Big Brother is watching

  26. AutodidacticPhd – that is good that you KNOW it. After all KNOWing something is called testimonial evidence. I can go around saying I KNOW all kinds of things but that would only be a testimonial straw man. Studies and statistics are only valid when they are supported by – scientific research. A study without controlled scientific research to back it, is a – potential – moving goal post. Since you KNOW it then perhaps you can site your sources and enlighten us please. Thanks AP

  27. No they are not 'taken into account' in the DRs office. Give me a break. 8 minutes per patient they aren't taking an serious assessment.

    Environmental toxins are definitely a factor. To what degree we do not know. WE have the toxicology in most cases for high exposures what we don't have is data about individuals. Correlation is not causation. (DUH) But lack of data makes it impossible to prove anything more than correlation which is SUSPECTED with good reason in many cases.

  28. How many identical twins would be separated at birth and grow up in a different environment?

  29. Man this is a great idea, I love constantly having my position tracked, and then guise it for my health.

    I'd say we go one step further, and putting a tag into every persons body that not only tracks their location but also what chemical inputs go into their body, all of this information than can be sent to a central computer run by the government, and interpreted by whoever has access to the information.

    Big brother is fun!

  30. Good preventative medical care can help change lifestyle factors and compensate for bad decisions.

  31. "A study without controlled scientific research to back it"

    Excuse me? Try some of these then…

    Catherine Karr, M.D. PhD in American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine Nov 15 '09

    Prenatal exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons adversely affects a child's IQ, according to research by the the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health

    Exposure to tetrachloroethylene caused congenital birth defects… Ann Aschengrau, Boston University School of Public Health

    etc

  32. Do you honestly think that this information would make anything worse? Cell phone can and are already tracked and can be remote activated as bugs. Most financial transactions are tracked. License plates are tracked. We have no privacy left. This won't make anything worse.

  33. And those were just the first few I found scrounging pubmed with only one search. If you want to keep proving your fear of the real issues by being a pedantic nit picker of irrelevant minutia feel free. But the fact is, your insinuation that environmental toxicology is insignificant or that the data doesn't exist is bollocks and you know it.

  34. @planetmax83:

    Sources please. I'm particularly picky about asking for those when it comes to people who can't spell the word "studies".

  35. CJ you are an odd bird. You – made the claim that 'those things were taken into account in the dr's office'. I merely agreed. Geographic information is needed to establish and identify causation within a locale. But what is most significant that I tried to point out is that I will NOT accept that the primary causation as being environmental toxins – WITHOUT the evidence. I agree there are suspicious correlations but if the results are NOT environmental will you accept the evidence or deny it?

  36. Thanks AP that was a nice STUDY and NOT research. It concluded with a nice CONJECTURE on causal relationship based on an extremely small sample of 11,000 study subjects. The STUDY was a META analysis which lays the ground work for a good solid conjecture toward further research. Per C. Karr "Conclusions: Air pollutants from several sources may increase infant bronchiolitis requiring clinical care. Traffic, local point source emissions and woodsmoke may contribute to this disease." MAY not DO

  37. The only fear I have of the real issue is that overemotional zealots will pursue a politicized false causal relationship and miss a real causation. I do think there are localized issues with environmental toxins and using technology to localize, study and research these LOCALIZED phenomena will help eliminate them in the future. BUT, do NOT underestimate the effects of social causation: car exhaust and wood stoves as with cigarette smoking are social phenomena. C Karr's study defends my argument

  38. @michalchik

    There is a HUGE difference between your "can be" and the videos idea of mandating it in order for us to be "healthy". If you're cool with the government holding all the information about where you go, when and what you do in a database for whatever they feel like using it for, then sign up, they already have RFID chips people are putting into their bodies, jump on that bandwagon. For myself, on the other hand, I don't feel comfortable about that at all.

  39. We rely need to move on from fossil fuels

  40. This guy is wrong.

    If you zoom in closer to those areas in red you will see the REAL reasons for the poor health outcomes. Diet, exercise, cigarette smoking, etc. Just because somebody lives in a red zone doesn't mean they are truly EXPOSED to the risk factors in that zone. "Health" happens to individuals, not populations.

    Rather than zooming out and viewing earth from space, this guy needs to zoom in and fill out his risk factors form. It's many orders of magnitude more important.

  41. Apparently I didn't convey how horrified i am at the current state of affairs. I was just saying that kvetching about this kind of research, is like locking up the prison after all the inmates have escaped. There is no information that a corrupt corporate or government official can not find out about you now. Name one place this kind of research would intrude that is not already laid bare. You have already completely lost your privacy, only a rollback will restore it.

  42. I think we misunderstood each other.

    I am for more data per patient record. More data is the only way you get close to determining cause. Excluding it and pre-empting the examinination and incorporation – INCLUDNG training DRs in industrial toxicology – are what is needed.

    Not less data and not pre-emptive exclusionary assumptions. What data would I be denying – you are seemingly wanting to exclude from the patient record.
    We agree smokes and bacon and sugar are bad.

  43. When did CO2 suddenly become toxic?
    Just for that, I have a hard time taking this guy seriously.

  44. Then I think we are in agreement. I am against the assumptions. That's all. I don't make the assumption that all the evidence or even strong evidence for toxins exist. Pursuit of the data needed to perform the research is needed and evidence does exist but…if the evidence turns against toxins and shows stronger cause by social habits I have to side with data not a belief of cause. I think that leaves us pretty much in agreement.

  45. I never said ANYTHING about either location OR made any statement one way or the other about personal habits. To be frank, most of the studies I've read on personal habits are no more controlled nor more numerous than toxicology studies. I merely pointed out that you were dismissing out of hand the importance of environmental exposure and the fact that the studies do exist. The only zealotry here is your devotion to semantic BS.

  46. People, hurricane katrina was a terrorist attack… check out the book called katrina nights.

  47. Where we live is a part of a holistic view of our health, along with our diet choices & how we spend our time. It is never to late to design your life. We also owe it to each other & future generations, to make our world a better place to live.

  48. What part of "these are only the first few" did you not get? I'm sorry, but I don't have more than ten minutes to waste on this crap. I am not going to sift through thousands of studies and research papers for you. Look for yourself.
    Pubmed searches:

    environmental pollution and health – 63853
    ozone and health – 12189
    carbon monoxide exposure – 22198

    …even if you get more specific the numbers are in the hundreds…

    pollutants and child development – 633
    industrial toxin exposure – 477

  49. Why do you think 'belief in toxins' is a cause? Does that mean we should shut down university toxicology programs? It sounds to me that it's you that has the ideology problem.

  50. It appears to me that you weren't paying attention.

  51. I would add people have *some* control over what we eat and smoke and drink (very generally speaking). People don't have control over what gets to them via the environment but more data means more choice.

    And please we know exactly what high level of particulate matter in the air does to peoples lungs, just as a for instance…

  52. Maybe.
    My understanding is that the point he tries to make is that environmental factors have a large impact on health. He then lists places he's been and gives examples of pollution in those areas which he thinks may hypothetically have impacted his health.
    Amongst the examples of such pollutants from factories/cars he lists carbon dioxide.

    What piece of the puzzle did I miss?

  53. APhd This video was entirely about "localized toxins" that's why the title was "Your health depends on where you live". That's called your locale. I do not deny localized toxins I support research to find it but the video showed a large region that is associated with heart disease NOT toxins. Dr. Davenhall's conjecture was toxins. I made the skeptical observation that there are a lot of smokers in the same geographic region, could that be the cause? I was then attacked for being skeptical.

  54. CJ I did not say 'belief in toxins' you have misquoted me. I said I side with data NOT 'belief in cause'. There is an important difference between those two statements. You can believe in broad toxicological impact but there is little evidence of broad causal relationship which is why we need this research. I have NO ideology, I defend only the research NOT the belief or conjecture. All conjecture should be attacked, that is called peer review. Conjecture that survives peer review is hypothesis.

  55. My apologies.
    This is what led me to respond as I did "I don't make the assumption that all the evidence or even strong evidence for toxins exist." a risable mis-statement..

    hence encapsulating your incredulity in 'belief in toxins'
    We agree more research is good.

    Please don't lecture me on the scientific method. It's obnoxious, you were misunderstood because you were not writing clearly. Not because I somehow lack knowledge of the scientific method.

    I also was not writing clearly.

  56. because trolltards of the internetz say so!

  57. Thanks CJ, 500 characters makes it a constraint to be both sociable and accurate and even then we all still manage all too frequently to miss the mark. While there are many laughable things about myself, I take slight exception at my statement being called risible "I don't make the assumption…". While evidence probably exists, many experts are pushing for this kind of research to establish the strong evidence. Because we are already aware of some serious localized issues I'm for more research.

  58. My initial response was not about the video. It was in reaction to this statement… "i don't think that environment is even close in magnitude to nutrition and exercise." The fact of the matter is, we are exposed to the toxins that are released near us. Is the speaker's idea of a map based risk analysis a good one… *shrug* maybe. I don't really care. My point was that exposure to environmental toxins is already linked to several problems. So to some people it is a big factor.

  59. My guess, and I was quite clear about it being a guess, about his particular case though, was based on what I know about gene activation and developmental sensitivity, not the specific things he may have been exposed to.

    The fundamental problem in all of this seems to be that every new contributing factor or line of inquiry seems to be presented as superseding all others, and the backlash that follows… I think all lines of inquiry should be pursued and weighted only after the data comes in.

  60. "Who knows, someone might even realize that the chemical companies should be subsidizing public medicine. "

    Now that is change I can believe in. Along with the tobacco, meat and booze companies. All for it.

  61. TED talks are purposely kept short. The point is to present the world changing idea in an engaging fashion – anyone interested in further information is invited to dig more deeply in to the presenters body of work which no doubt is available online in most cases – with more data than most would ever be interested in…

  62. How would we ever know without the data in the patient records…

  63. Environmental Toxicology University Programs – all over that google machine.

  64. Err, they are usually about 20 minutes long. That aside I was pointing out that the idea isn't very "world changing" so I was hoping him to bring it down well with good science. Data doesn't have to be boring as people at TED have shown time and time again.

  65. I would like to point out though, that the talks orriginally presented on TED (dot) com were closer to 30+ minutes. Most of the presentations I've seen since they started posting to Youtube have been somewhat disappointing… and somewhat less revolutionary than the material I was used to seeing a few years ago.

    I recognize what you're saying, but the stuff that makes it here has been a bit lack luster compared to their older videos.

  66. Have you ever stuck your head in a cooler full of dry ice and taken a deep breath?

  67. "Along with the tobacco, meat and booze companies."

    Similar idea, though different emphasis. Chemical and oil companies produce products that effect all whether they consume the product or not. My point is that by offering the product at all, they own everyone.

    Tobacco, booze and the like however, are consumer choices. They do add to the health risks of the people that consume them, but not many others… at least not to the same extent. A tax for subsidy makes more sense in their case.

  68. Go the the EPA site – look up TRI – you can check at the zip code level.

  69. LOL.

  70. Agreed. All though not correct for children of smoking parents…

  71. very true!

  72. "We're not talking about breathing large quantities of CO2. You can get dizzy by breathing pretty much any gas…"

    You obviously haven't tried it then… it does not "make you dizzy". It gives you a massive headache, severe chest pain and there is a strong chance it'll make you throw up. Your body is desperate to get rid of the stuff for a reason.

    As for your 0.06 numbers, that may be overall, but its way low for someone sitting on the highway.

  73. And, as you increase the concentration of CO2 in the air, you decrease the efficacy of the diffusion in your lungs… ie, your body is less able to get rid of CO2 in the blood. It may not be as deadly as carbonmonoxide, but it does stress the body and can be a contributing factor to overall poor health. Especially in combination with all the other wonderful things a car spits out while idling in a traffic jam.

  74. If you spend hours on the highway breathing car exhaust, you have a long list of chemicals that are ACTUALLY dangerous at tiny levels that are going to kill you long before CO2 has any noticeable effect on your health. Why not list those chemicals, if you accept that they should worry you tons more?

    The EPA and air quality control people only took an interest on CO2 because of global warming, and that's the reason why they classify CO2 as a polutant. There just isn't a real health concern.

  75. You didn't ask about the others. Yes, they are bad, but CO2 is technically toxic. It is a fact. That is what you seemed to have a problem with so that is what I explained.

    What I fail to understand is why you are putting so much effort into arguing about it?

  76. Once again, pretty much anything, (e.g. distilled water) is "technically toxic". You can't just make abstraction of dosage/context.

    The question here is whether or not it makes sense for the speaker to list CO2 from traffic as a significant (or even noticeable) environmental health risk.

    "What I fail to understand is why you are putting so much effort into arguing about it?"
    – Maybe we're just both insane.

  77. So they take a geograpical history? The only people I see benefitting from this are the health insurance companies.

    Be a lot better if they had a questions and answer section at the end of each of these lectures.

  78. Hey genius! what about the life expectancy of Palestinians living under Jewish occupation or other crimes against humanity!

  79. 5:11–5:16 you can see the real Patch Adams turn around and face the audience

  80. Health insurance has many bad points. Hopefully for you Obama will get his social health bill passed.

  81. How do i find this map online?
    how do i find maps of other places in on the globe online?
    I can imagine that a lot of information could be gathered about a lot of things. Right now we have a drought and the dams are low. How can i know the quality of my drinking water through this? (one example) Can we know how much living in the LA area for 40 years has effected me and how much moving away from LA has helped?
    I have a lot of questions How do i get any answers ??

  82. i think i'd take it more seriously if this talk was by a DOCTOR Bill Davenhall.
    Otherwise i'm inclined to just write it off as quackery.

  83. Alternatively we could just stop dumping toxic crap into the air. Most people don't have the means to move across the country to escape pollution.

  84. @roidroid Yes, because 30 years of experience in data analysis is not good enough…. do some research next time please.

  85. Agreed. they are lame at best… WTF happened to TED? where's the stimulating, brand new bleeding edge information?

  86. it is becoming that

  87. how about a job-share?

  88. 5:10 hey it's Patch Adams again 😛

  89. I was hoping he actually survived getting hit by a train.

  90. Nietzsche wrote about this a hundred years ago…

  91. interesting but the better question to ask is why is it that people in pennsylvania or otherwise have a greater risk of heart attack? is it due more to diet, air pollution, water quality, etc? if we can determine what's causing such high rates of disease we can find a better solution like, reduce emissions as opposed to just moving somewhere else

  92. The only people that don't want to be tracked are the ones that are ashamed of what they have done and what they would do in the future coupled with a completely lack of insight into human causality. I don't fear tyrants because karma is quite self-evident. No one can do anything unethical for too long without it coming back and biting them in the ass

  93. Great presentation. We are building maps that show health and safety data about oil and gas operations. See Drililng Maps dot com.

  94. uau
    tremendous insught!

  95. so he just said he spent millions of dollars to find info they could've just gotten in an atlas….?

  96. Not only that, he spent millions of dollars finding out information that he could have found in an atlas which will be obstructive to doctors and non-constructive if it ever becomes part of any check-up. Unless it's private doctors, in which case – go nuts.

  97. Where's the evidence that intervening on this information has any clinical significance? I didn't hear him offer any. The only intervention I heard him give as an example was basically: if you come from a polluted place, don't go jogging when air pollution is highest. Is there any study to back up this suggestion? Seems like a lot of effort and time spent on pure conjecture

  98. Too late by the time info gets into one's medical records. Total load.
    Few places left to run to.
    Medical care=sick care, not health care.

  99. For those of us who have been working in public health, this is old news.

  100. Our health is more or less referred to as a train in this speech given by Bill Davenhall. Davenhall makes the point that where we live will determine the outcome of our health. He states that he moved around the country in ways that would benefit him the most, with little knowledge of his surroundings. Later on in life, his health gets hit by a train, the train being a heart attack. Through his experience of continuing change in location this speaker put himself into a social lottery. The social lottery for this particular situation, is the society (environment) that just so happens to be polluted with toxic air. In a way Davenhall chose to go to these specific areas but then again unintentionally put himself in this environment three other times. To further comment on what Davenhall has to say is that I agree, that most physicians do not ask about our history as to an extent as to where we have lived over the course of our lives that make us more susceptible to health complications, because we in a sense do not choose exactly where we begin our lives whether it benefits us or not.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *