Babies born to women pregnant during wildfires in Southern California in 2003 tended to have slightly lower birthweights than babies born to women pregnant in the same area at other times, according to a recently released study out of UC Berkeley.
The study, published in the September 2012 issue of the journal Environmental Health Perspectives, examined data on births of babies born to women living in the South Coast Air Basin who were pregnant during this period as well as data for babies from the same area born before and after October 2003. The South Coast Air Basin includes Orange County as well as parts of Los Angeles, San Bernardino and Riverside counties. Smoke from a series of wildfires that destroyed more than 750,000 acres of forest blanketed the area in late October 2003, according to the study.
Rachel Morello-Frosch, one of the study’s authors and a campus associate professor in the department of environmental science, policy and management, said the study was prompted in part by the increasing frequency of wildfires in western regions, including California.
The researchers studied a total of more than 138,000 birth records of pregnant women in all three trimesters who were exposed to smoke from the fires in Southern California, according to the study.
The study found a slight reduction, ranging between three to 10 grams, in the birthweight of babies born to women who lived in the area during the fires.
“In the delivery room, a reduction of seven to 10 grams isn’t a big deal,” Morello-Frosch said. “But decrements in birthweight in a large population might mean shifting the birthweight profile of a large population downward. Combined with other pollutants that also reduce birthweight, this is significant.”
The level of reduction may not be very clinically significant but could be statistically relevant, said T. Allen Merritt, a professor of pediatrics at Loma Linda University School of Medicine.
Carrie Breton, an assistant professor of preventive medicine at the USC Keck School of Medicine, is studying the effects of the same set of fires to determine the effect of individuals’ varying levels of exposure to particulate matter on birthweight. Breton said her research has shown similar results.
“The trends are the same — it’s very comforting, in terms of confirming the connection between wildfires and small but significant effects on birthweights,” she said.
It is not clear what differentiates wildfire smoke from other kinds of smoke and air pollution in their effects on birthweights, but said the size of the particles and components of the smoke could be significant, said Bill Jesdale, a co-author of the UC Berkeley study.
The ecological effects of climate change may make the probability of wildfires higher as dry seasons increase in length.
“We are projected to have drier and hotter times ahead in California,” Jesdale said.
Contact Gautham Thomas at [email protected]
Comment Policy
Comments should remain on topic, concerning the article or blog post to which they are connected. Brevity is encouraged. Posting under a pseudonym is discouraged, but permitted. The Daily Cal encourages readers to voice their opinions respectfully in regard to the readers, writers and contributors of The Daily Californian. Comments are not pre-moderated, but may be removed if deemed to be in violation of this policy. Click here to read the full comment policy.
“The ecological effects of climate change may make the probability of wildfires higher as dry seasons increase in length.”
What a load of BS. The wildfires in 2003 weren’t set off by “climate change”. They were set off by irresponsible individuals by such things as illegal campfires and irresponsible firearms use.
You do realize that longer, hotter summers make things drier, right? The causes of wildfires won’t change, but when everything is bone-dry it makes it MUCH harder to control and contain. That’s why there aren’t as many in the winter. Duh.
“You do realize that longer, hotter summers make things drier, right?”
Apparently you don’t realize that the real fire risk in So Cal has less to do with temperature than with the amount of combustible fuel available, which is actually a function of rainfall during winter and spring. Still, fires don’t set themselves. Unless we’re talking lightning strikes, these fires are caused by humans, whether by intention or accident. Stop being such a gullible sucker and buying into every global warming scare story you read – it only makes you look like a fool.
“Apparently you don’t realize that the real fire risk in So Cal has less
to do with temperature than with the amount of combustible fuel
available, which is actually a function of rainfall during winter and
spring.”
So then why doesn’t a rainforest get wildfires? Huh…at least we know there is a gray zone.
“Stop being such a gullible sucker and buying into every global warming
scare story you read – it only makes you look like a fool.”
It’s not a story though is it? Because stories are fictional. I’m not sure what you consider to be “reality”, but in general if 99% of scientists agree on something, it’s probably true. You can always say that it’s not, but then you’re the one looking like a fool thinking that evolution is an invalid theory, and that the sun is the center of the universe. And what would be wrong with us admitting that climate change is occurring, is probably man-made or man-enhanced, and creating sustainable energy sources that we will never have to worry about running out of in the future? Of course, the oil companies will suffer (the only reason, in addition to tax money being spent for the public good, that conservatives are in the pocket of the “science skeptics”), but SO WHAT?
> “So then why doesn’t a rainforest get wildfires?”
Actually, some of them do – but that’s not the issue here, dimwit. Southern California summers are always hot and dry, so even the mildest one will lower the moisture content in combustible plants like sagebrush and manzanita to the point where they are ready fire hazards (dry pine is also nasty, but that is typically found at higher elevations and in areas with a bit more moisture). The big issue is how much biomass is available to burn, and this is directly influenced by the amount of rainfall in the wetter months. More rainfall in winter = more brush = greater fire danger. Those of us old enough to have lived in So Cal for several decades are quite familiar with how that works, even if you children are clueless.
> “I’m not sure what you consider to be “reality”, but in general
> if 99% of scientists agree on something”
Except for the fact that “99% of the scientists” do NOT agree on the causes of what is called “global warming”, despite all the droning by so-called “journalists” who for the most part have NO scientific background whatsoever.
“Of course, the oil companies will suffer (the only reason, in addition
to tax money being spent for the public good, that conservatives are in
the pocket of the “science skeptics”), but SO WHAT?”
So your desire to “punish the oil companies” overrides common sense. How brilliant. And you wonder why those of us who actually know something regard your type as fools…