Getty
Show Hide image

How Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia revelation has intensified post-truth politics

The presidential candidate's team confirmed she was ill late on Sunday. What effect has this had on the US presidential race?

Hillary Clinton's supporters spent Sunday wishing her well after her campaign team revealed she had been diagnosed with the bacterial infection pneumonia.

The 68-year-old Democratic presidential candidate was forced to leave a 9/11 memorial event early, amid press speculation. Her team confirmed she was ill but added she was "feeling much better".

As well as hoping Clinton gets well soon, her supporters have pointed out that prostate cancer didn't stop John Kerry running, nor Rudi Giuliani.

But for supporters of her opponent, Donald Trump, 70, this news seems to confirm their deepest suspicions.

As early as July, fringe news websites and internet commentators were speculating whether Clinton suffered from seizures, often using the hashtag #Hillaryshealth. The basis for this theory appears to come from when she visited hospital in 2012 with a blood clot. In August, pro-Trump websites began publishing a photo of Clinton being helped up the stairs, with the claim she had trouble walking. In fact, this photo captures a specific moment where Clinton slipped on the steps.

Although Trump has not referred explicitly to the wildest theories, he declared in August that Clinton lacked "the physical and mental stamina" to take on ISIS. He then followed this up with tweets about her health.

In fact, the conspiracy theory still seems far-fetched. Pneumonia is spread like the flu or other bacterial infections, and anyone can catch it, including babies and children. According to the NHS, the symptoms tend to develop almost immediately or over just a few days. 

What may be more damaging for Clinton is the fact that pneumonia is a serious condition, and could force her to take time out from her campaign, while Trump can build on his accusations that she is too frail to lead the country. And the fact her campaign team initially only confirmed Clinton had "overheated" fuels the more mainstream Trump accusation that "lyin Hillary" is evasive with the truth. 

Julia Rampen is the digital news editor of the New Statesman (previously editor of The Staggers, The New Statesman's online rolling politics blog). She has also been deputy editor at Mirror Money Online and has worked as a financial journalist for several trade magazines. 

Getty
Show Hide image

The deafening killer - why noise will be the next great pollution scandal

A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. 

Our cities are being poisoned by a toxin that surrounds us day and night. It eats away at our brains, hurts our hearts, clutches at our sleep, and gnaws at the quality of our daily lives.

Hardly a silent killer, it gets short shrift compared to the well-publicised terrors of air pollution and sugars food. It is the dull, thumping, stultifying drum-beat of perpetual noise.

The score that accompanies city life is brutal and constant. It disrupts the everyday: The coffee break ruined by the screech of a line of double decker buses braking at the lights. The lawyer’s conference call broken by drilling as she makes her way to the office. The writer’s struggle to find a quiet corner to pen his latest article.

For city-dwellers, it’s all-consuming and impossible to avoid. Construction, traffic, the whirring of machinery, the neighbour’s stereo. Even at home, the beeps and buzzes made by washing machines, fridges, and phones all serve to distract and unsettle.

But the never-ending noisiness of city life is far more than a problem of aesthetics. A growing body of evidence shows that noise can have serious health impacts too. Recent studies have linked noise pollution to hearing loss, sleep deprivation, hypertension, heart disease, brain development, and even increased risk of dementia.

One research team compared families living on different stories of the same building in Manhattan to isolate the impact of noise on health and education. They found children in lower, noisier floors were worse at reading than their higher-up peers, an effect that was most pronounced for children who had lived in the building for longest.

Those studies have been replicated for the impact of aircraft noise with similar results. Not only does noise cause higher blood pressure and worsens quality of sleep, it also stymies pupils trying to concentrate in class.

As with many forms of pollution, the poorest are typically the hardest hit. The worst-off in any city often live by busy roads in poorly-insulated houses or flats, cheek by jowl with packed-in neighbours.

The US Department of Transport recently mapped road and aircraft noise across the United States. Predictably, the loudest areas overlapped with some of the country’s most deprived. Those included the south side of Atlanta and the lowest-income areas of LA and Seattle.

Yet as noise pollution grows in line with road and air traffic and rising urban density, public policy has turned a blind eye.

Council noise response services, formally a 24-hour defence against neighbourly disputes, have fallen victim to local government cuts. Decisions on airport expansion and road development pay scant regard to their audible impact. Political platforms remain silent on the loudest poison.

This is odd at a time when we have never had more tools at our disposal to deal with the issue. Electric Vehicles are practically noise-less, yet noise rarely features in the arguments for their adoption. Just replacing today’s bus fleet would transform city centres; doing the same for taxis and trucks would amount to a revolution.

Vehicles are just the start. Millions were spent on a programme of “Warm Homes”; what about “Quiet Homes”? How did we value the noise impact in the decision to build a third runway at Heathrow, and how do we compensate people now that it’s going ahead?

Construction is a major driver of decibels. Should builders compensate “noise victims” for over-drilling? Or could regulation push equipment manufacturers to find new ways to dampen the sound of their kit?

Of course, none of this addresses the noise pollution we impose on ourselves. The bars and clubs we choose to visit or the music we stick in our ears. Whether pumping dance tracks in spin classes or indie rock in trendy coffee shops, people’s desire to compensate for bad noise out there by playing louder noise in here is hard to control for.

The Clean Air Act of 1956 heralded a new era of city life, one where smog and grime gave way to clear skies and clearer lungs. That fight still goes on today.

But some day, we will turn our attention to our clogged-up airwaves. The decibels will fall. #Twitter will give way to twitter. And every now and again, as we step from our homes into city life, we may just hear the sweetest sound of all. Silence.

Adam Swersky is a councillor in Harrow and is cabinet member for finance. He writes in a personal capacity.