From The Daily Mail.
Com, in the health section of their January 30 edition, comes another indicator that the things may be, as my tenyear-old granddaughter says, “a little Cra, cra.”
(Pronounced with a long a) That’s “crazy” for those of you who don’t speak 10-yearold.
Researchers are asking doctors to use less anesthesia on their surgery patients in order to possibly reduce the planets carbon footprint by up to 0.1%. These guys have obviously, not watched enough Westerns growing up or they would know that they don’t need anesthesia at all.
Just a bottle of whiskey and a good strong stick worked for the likes of many a Western hero.
Dr. Mohamed Fayed, a senior anesthetist from the Henry Ford Health Group in Detroit, Michigan said, “'Global warming is affecting our daily life more and more, and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions has become crucial. No matter how small each effect is, it will add up. As anesthesiologists, we can contribute significantly to this cause by making little changes in our daily practice — such as lowering the flow of anesthetic gas — without affecting patient care.”' He went on to suggest that inhaled anesthesia accounts for up to 0.1 percent of the world’s carbon emissions.
Henry Ford gathered data over seven months and included around 13,000 patients. The study ended in September 2021. They set a goal of reducing anesthesia use to under 3 liters every minute per surgery when possible. The story didn’t mention whether they would get your permission, or not.
This is only for inhaled anesthetics, not the sedation or local anesthetic used in less serious procedures.
According to the article, the amount of anesthesia a person receives during surgery depends on their weight and other factors such as time in surgery, age and potential risk factors.
”'For a long time, there was a notion that the greenhouse effect caused in health care settings was an inevitable and unavoidable cost of providing patient care,” said Dr. Fayed.
“But we have learned that reducing anesthetic gas flow is one of the many ways health care can lessen its contribution to the global warming crisis, along with reducing waste, turning off lights and equipment when not in use and challenging practice habits, as long as they don't compromise patient care.”
I avoid doctors and surgery whenever possible, but they certainly have a place in our efforts to keep drawing breath. The article itself points out that there are risks: “While it is safe in nearly all cases, too much anesthesia can deprive cells of oxygen and cause stroke, brain injury, coma or even death.”
Of course, using to little anesthetic could cause a person to wake up during surgery in pain and traumatized by what’s going on around them. Movement might not be a good thing during surgery either. What do you think?
If you would like to read the entire article this is where you can find it, https://www.dailymail.co.uk/ health/article-11685265/Would-acceptanesthetic- operation-saveplanet. html
At the core of the issue is not whether climate change is happening. At the core of the issue is if man made climate change is a danger.
Depending where you get your information the number of scientific dissenters to the danger of man-made climate change runs somewhere in the neighborhood of 12%.
Of course, important to this statistic, is that many scientists are afraid to stand up and tell the truth because of government and private funding for their research in whatever field they work.
It is not cool to be in the 12% that say man-made global warming/climate change/ hocus pocus is not anything to worry about.
I would need to do further research but I think 12% dissension in the scientific community is about the same percentage as those in 1492 who didn’t believe the world was flat. History will show that this 12% is equally right.