Air pollution directly linked to increased dementia risk

This article repeats the common mistake of conflating correlations and causality. The main results are (1) that PM2.5 exposure is correlated with dementia in humans, (2) some experimental results with mice. This does not establish causality in humans. The paper is careful to stay juuuust on the right side of the line by carefully using "associated" in the right places. But the press release discards that pretense at rigor and jumps straight to full-on claims of causality in people:

> Long-term exposure accelerates the development of Lewy body dementia and Parkinson’s disease with dementia in people who are predisposed to the conditions.

I think it's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that this is true. But the paper does not show it.

Why is this brought up here every time an association article is mentioned, every undergraduate that took a statistics course has covered the difference between correlation and causation.

We do population level correlation studies because sometimes a double blind study is unethical, and double blind studies is the bar for establishing causation in the medical community. We cannot give one person randomly worse air to breath, and even if it were experimentally feasible it would be ethically impossible because there is strong suspicion we would be harming the subjects.

Let’s discuss the actual data. The dose dependent result that was found is an indicator of a strong relationship. There is a clear potential mechanism of action (Air -> Lungs -> Bloodstream -> Brain). This isn’t a controversial result in the literature, it’s more evidence for what we already know —- air pollution is very bad.

> This isn’t a controversial result in the literature, it’s more evidence for what we already know —- air pollution is very bad.

It is certainly controversial for individuals whose way of life (see non-electric car-centric society) is being questioned by this science. Just look at some of the cynic answers in this thread pretending that air pollution is not bad

Just because air pollution is bad, doesn’t mean it is bad in this way. It could just as easily be that some other lifestyle thing is causing dementia AND leading to living in areas with worse pm2.5.

Especially since pm2.5 tends to be higher in areas with higher population densities, near roads, industrial areas, etc.

Hell, maybe the underlying major risk factor is actually time spent in the car. Or repeated viral exposures of a specific type. Or a specific type of air pollution.

Either way, it’s not like everyone is going to be moving out of high pm2.5 areas anytime soon, or that we’ll be able to just solve the sources of pollution right now even if it is the cause.