As it happens, it has been understood that combustion particulates cross the blood barrier in the womb since the mid 1980s. This is not 'new' information, it is further more precise confirmation. I will cite four resources, using their own text, within quotation marks, to lay out the basic floor plan.
1. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/05/toxic-air-pollution-particles-found-in-lungs-and-brains-of-unborn-babies
"Toxic air pollution particles have been found in the lungs, livers and brains of unborn babies, long before they have taken their first breath. Researchers said their “groundbreaking” discovery was “very worrying”, as the gestation period of foetuses is the most vulnerable stage of human development.
Thousands of black carbon particles were found in each cubic millimetre of tissue, which were breathed in by the mother during pregnancy and then passed through the bloodstream and placenta to the foetus.
Dirty air was already known to strongly correlate with increased miscarriages, premature births, low birth weights and disturbed brain development. But the new study provides direct evidence of how that harm may be caused. The scientists said the pollution could cause lifelong health effects."
"Tiny carbon particles dumped into the atmosphere by industry and transport have been found on the wrong side of the placenta - a critical barrier meant to protect unborn babies from harm.
Only last year researchers spotted ominous flecks of soot in placental white blood cells, the first solid indication that the pollutants could migrate so close to a foetus. Now there's evidence that these potential toxins can creep even closer still.
Researchers from Belgium's Hasselt University and East-Limburg Hospital used high resolution imagery to highlight tiny accumulations of black particles on both the mother's and foetus's side of every placenta taken from 28 births.
Further testing on the tiny clumps confirmed they were firmly embedded in the tissue, and were made up of the kind of potentially hazardous 'black carbon' particles emitted by combustion engines and fossil fuel power plants.
While the study stops short of linking carbon particles with birth complications, it does show the barrier at the core of the placenta isn't filtering out enough of the material already associated with a variety of serious health concerns for developing bodies."
3. https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/01/fossil-fuel-political-giving-outdistances-renewables-13-to-one/
"Corporations, special interest groups, and individuals inject billions of dollars into the American political system every year. Much of the financial support in politics is concealed from public view, as some rules – and loopholes – allow “dark money” and undisclosed donors to remain behind a wall. But some of those contributions can be traced via the Federal Election Commission, the IRS, congressional public records offices, and other resources.
The Open Secrets database, for instance, shines a light on this often murky process. The website is the work of the Center for Responsive Politics, whose stated mission is to improve transparency and citizen engagement around the influences of money in public policy. The website uses existing transparency laws to track the finances of candidates, political parties, lobbyists, and outside groups, and it describes ways cash is funneled through the system.
Few seriously question whether fossil fuel money in politics has played a substantial role in climate change and energy policy, and some researchers say it’s the single most important reason climate action has been stalled for decades in the U.S. Investigative reporting by InsideClimate News showed that Exxon and other oil companies have spent more than $5 billion undermining climate science and fighting clean energy policies. It reported in a 2017 article on how money circulated through multiple channels:
The industry sowed doubt for decades about climate science, spending $2.9 billion on advocacy advertising alone in a 10-year period ending in 2015. It spent $1.3 billion more lobbying to shape public policy on energy issues during the same period and has pumped out $827.9 million in campaign contributions since 2000 to elect sympathetic officials at the local, state and federal levels.
While the breadth of fossil fuel spending on climate policy and political issues is not surprising, the scope and scale is perhaps best understood when hard numbers are brought out to daylight.
Fossil fuel interests outspend renewable energy by more than 13 to 1"
4. https://www.greenpeace.org/usa/fighting-climate-chaos/exxon-and-the-oil-industry-knew-about-climate-crisis/exxons-climate-denial-history-a-timeline/
The following is taken from the Greenpeace Article. The point here is knowledge of harm, and a long campaign of denial - in effect the externalisation of the costs of preventing the harm. Now, babies in all our mothers wombs are bearing that cost.
"1957
Scientists working at Humble Oil (now ExxonMobil) publish a paper on the dilution of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and ocean. The paper notes: “Although appreciable amounts of carbon dioxide have undoubtedly been added from soils by tilling of land, apparently a much greater amount has resulted from the combustion of fossil fuels”–indicating company scientists understood the link between fossil fuel use and rising CO2. (Source: Center for International Environmental Law)
1978 (Global CO2 level: 335 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $2.4 billion)
James Black, working under Exxon’s Products Research Division, writes an internal briefing paper called “The Greenhouse Effect” following from a 1977 presentation to Exxon’s management committee. The paper warns that human-caused emissions could raise global temperatures and result in serious consequences. “Present thinking holds that man has a time window of five to ten years before the need for hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical,” Black writes in his summary of the presentation. (Source:InsideClimate News)
1979-1983
Major fossil fuel companies, including Exxon, Mobil, Amoco, Phillips, Texaco, Shell, Sunoco, Sohio and Standard Oil of California and Gulf Oil (two companies that became Chevron) meet regularly as part of a task force to discuss the science and implications of climate change. The meetings are organized with the help of the American Petroleum Institute. A minutes document from one of the meetings suggests that oil companies knew that climate change was occurring, and that they would bear some responsibility for managing it. (Source: InsideClimate News)
1982
Roger Cohen, director of the Theoretical and Mathematical Sciences Laboratory at Exxon, writes a memo summarizing Exxon’s climate modeling research. The memo states: “The consensus is that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 from its pre-industrial revolution value would result in an average global temperature rise of (3.0 ± 1.5)°C [equal to 5.4 ± 1.7°F]…There is unanimous agreement in the scientific community that a temperature increase of this magnitude would bring about significant changes in the earth’s climate, including rainfall distribution and alterations in the biosphere.” Cohen would later become a lead climate science denier at an Exxon-funded front group.
1983 (Global CO2 level: 343 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $5 billion)
Exxon cuts funding for climate research from $900,000 per year to $150,000. Exxon’s total research budget at the time was more than $600 million.
2000 (Global CO2 level: 370 ppm, Exxon annual profit: $17.7 billion)
ExxonMobil publishes an ad, titled “Unsettled science,” highlighting a study showing a historical decrease in temperatures in the Sargasso Sea. CEO Lee Raymond presents the study at that year’s shareholder meeting as evidence that fossil fuels may not be causing global warming. The author of the study, Lloyd Keigwin, later complains that Exxon misused the data: “I believe ExxonMobil has been misleading in its use of the Sargasso Sea data. There’s really no way these results bear on the question of human-induced climate warming…I think the sad thing is that a company with the resources of ExxonMobil is exploiting the data for political purposes…”
January 2001
George W. Bush inaugurated as US president, with $100,000 in inaugural funding from ExxonMobil. Just days before Bush’s inauguration, Exxon’s publishes an advertisement titled “An energy policy for the new administration.” The ad argues that “the unrealistic and economically damaging Kyoto process needs to be rethought.”
February 2001
The Bush White House receives a letter from Exxon asking if the administration can oust climate scientist Robert Watson from his position as chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Under Watson’s chairmanship, the IPCC had released a number of reports linking climate change to human activity.
March 2001
Bush administration announces withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol."
----
It's worth reading all 4 articles.
What must we do to counter this?
Corneilius
Thank you for reading this blog.
"Do what you love, it is your gift to universe."
This blog, like all my other content creation work is not monetised via advertising. If you like what I present, consider sharing my content. If you can afford the price of a cup of coffee or a pint of beer/ale/cider for a few months, please donate via my Patreon account.
https://patreon.com/corneilius - donations gratefully received
https://www.reverbnation.com/corneilius - .mp3 songs
https://www.soundcloud.com/coreluminous - .wav Songs
https://www.corneilius.net - Archive
#folkmusic
#singersongwriter
#blogger
#music
