this post was submitted on 28 Mar 2024
50 points (96.3% liked)

Public Health

375 readers
3 users here now

For issues concerning:


🩺 This community has a broader scope so please feel free to discuss. When it may not be clear, leave a comment talking about why something is important.



Related Communities

See the pinned post in the Medical Community Hub for links and descriptions. link (!medicine@lemmy.world)


Rules

Given the inherent intersection that these topics have with politics, we encourage thoughtful discussions while also adhering to the mander.xyz instance guidelines.

Try to focus on the scientific aspects and refrain from making overly partisan or inflammatory content

Our aim is to foster a respectful environment where we can delve into the scientific foundations of these topics. Thank you!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 10 points 7 months ago (1 children)

That’s cool—but it doesn’t actually give any info. What are the environmental risks found in these images?

This reads like it’s trying to sell something.

[–] Shadow@lemmy.ca 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

Did you read further down?

For instance, features like green space and walkable roads were associated with lower risk, while other features, such as poorly paved roads, were associated with higher risk. However, these findings need further investigation.

Basically they used analysis of street view to figure out what areas are friendly for walking, and compared that to data on health risks for that area.

Seems like a pretty tenuous link to me though.

[–] SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz 20 points 7 months ago

They really need to correct for income, otherwise they're just finding that poorer areas have worse health outcomes - which is pretty well known.

[–] tsonfeir@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

Yes, I read that. It just seemed very vague.