I'm pretty sure having the capital to move to a home in a suburb with greenery is the variable that contributes to both.
"Overall mortality was 12 per cent less for people who had the most greenery within 250 metres of their homes."http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/04/14/move-to-a-leafy-suburb-to-cut-cancer-risk/ …
-
-
-
In the US, where this study was conducted, people who live in the country are not richer than people who live in cities.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
you can be in a city like SF and have this too no need to move to suburbia necessarily.
-
I prefer Central Park West
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
correlation or causation
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Opposite effect in urban areas, says https://www.nice.org.uk/ https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/dec/01/trees-may-increase-air-pollution-on-city-streets … Bottom line: rural is better.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
this is just the old wealth correlation
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The effect is not limited to cancer. Green is important. http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/06/how-walking-in-nature-prevents-depression/397172/ …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
this needs a giant "correlation is not causation" stamp
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
.
@paulg city streets lined with trees & small interspersed parks both provide the greenery and walkable environment that gets one out in itThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.