What is the probability that all of us are going to get sick by the time we are 100?
According to a new research project, which is examining the health impacts of a century of CO2 emissions, that number is 1 in 1,400, and that’s the one with the highest likelihood.
The study, published today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, found that the chances of dying from a CO2-induced COI (combined respiratory and circulatory system illness) are about 1 in 10,000.
That means that for every person who dies from a respiratory illness in 2050, about one in 1 million will also die from a circulatory illness.
This is because of the increased risk for infections and respiratory diseases from CO2.
The researchers, led by Michael O. Smith of Harvard Medical School, looked at the health effects of the effects of CO1, CO2, and CO2+ on populations of the United States and Canada.
“The human population is growing,” said Oren Etzioni, a co-author of the paper and professor of geography at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
“But in many cases, there is no replacement for CO2.”
The researchers used data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to estimate the CO2 levels in the atmosphere, and the rates of COIs for each of the five countries studied.
The CO2 in the air varies depending on the weather and time of year.
“We don’t have data on CO2 concentrations in the sky,” Smith said.
“And we have not been able to look at the effects that CO2 is having on the COIs of the human population.”
The study found that CO1 has the highest probability of causing COIs, with the chance of dying by CO1 of one in six, followed by CO2 and CO3.
But the odds of dying of a COI was higher for CO1-related deaths than for other COIs.
For example, the chance that a CO1 person would die from respiratory illness was 2 in 1 trillion.
The risk of COI-related mortality was about the same for both CO2 (one in 1.2 trillion) and CO1 (one out of 1.8 trillion).
“The overall picture is that CO 1 causes a lot of CO 2-related COIs,” Smith explained.
“For CO2 the odds are quite high, but for CO 1, the odds seem to be higher than for CO 2.
So CO 1 is the most dangerous.”
But CO2 has also been linked to other health effects.
The most obvious, of course, is that it’s made by CO 2 particles in the lungs.
But it has also become a topic of controversy.
A recent study in the journal Nature showed that CO 2 emissions have caused lung cancer and other diseases in people.
That study also found that a single molecule of CO in the environment can have a significant effect on the rate at which the body processes and excretes it.
Smith and his colleagues say their study will help inform the debate over the health impact of CO.
“If you’re trying to estimate population health from a single measure of CO emissions, then you’re probably going to underestimate the effects,” Smith told NPR.
“In terms of CO-related disease, you probably overestimate the effect.
And so you can’t say with any certainty that CO emissions are the cause of those disease events.”
The authors note that their results are not perfect.
They only looked at CO2 measurements in the United Kingdom, which had relatively low emissions rates.
But their findings will be helpful for developing models to determine the health benefits of CO, said Olesia R. Aghajanian, a professor of environmental epidemiology at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York City, who was not involved in the study.
“That study found very high CO-induced lung cancer mortality, but they had to use a lot more than just that one measurement to look into it,” she said.
The findings also could help people understand the health risks of the technologies that are currently being developed to generate energy.
The research has some limitations.
It’s only looking at CO emissions from the atmosphere.
That could be a problem for people living in places that have high CO2 concentration, such as China, where emissions are even higher.
“People have different perceptions of the health hazards of CO and different perceptions about the health consequences of these technologies,” Smith noted.
“So we don’t know what the absolute health benefits are of these CO-generated technologies.”
And while the researchers found that health effects were higher for those who lived in cities, it’s not clear if that would apply to people living outside cities.
The paper did not examine CO2’s effect on human health in other parts of the world.
“Even though we are seeing the health harms of CO,” said Smith, “we are also seeing a number of positive health effects, including reduced risk