Anecdotally, moving from India to North America really helped my health. I know this study is about long term effects but I believe even short term , it’s quite noticeable.
It’s why I find it perplexing why so many people in the US want to do away with EPA regulations. Not only was pollution rampant in many Americans lifetimes, it’s completely observable how bad pollution is elsewhere in the world for people.
On a tangentially related note, it confuses me why so many people seem to think that the only reason to do away with fossil fuels as much as possible is climate change. Millions die prematurely from air pollution every year. Even if climate change was fake we should still be trying to use cleaner energy.
I honestly feel that people have got away with one with this type of thinking. In my province (British Columbia), there's a few major issues that have all been attributed to climate change; forest fires, flooding & decline of the salmon populations. Since there's this big boogeyman that they can't solve themselves (climate change), they don't even have to look into their forest management practices (spraying round-up to kill Aspen - a firebreak species - to plant mono-culture round-up ready pine stands - a serotineous species), or their off-shore fish farms that are located at the mouth of some of the most important rivers for salmon (spread sea lice and disease) or power generation (almost exclusively hydro dams), or that they've drained lakes for farm land and when the levees can't keep up the land floods again.
Great Barrier Reef is another prime example, pollution is causing a lot of issues, but you only hear of coral bleaching because of climate change.
The government-imposed greenbelts around some major Canadian cities have also backfired.
The reduced supply of land drives up prices within the urban area surrounded by the greenbelt.
This in turn just encourages more sprawl on the outer edges of the greenbelt, where land can be cheaper.
Those living in these new developments often commute into the urban area for work or other reasons, and now have to drive much farther each day as they pass through the greenbelt two (or more) times.
Infrastructure development in and through the greenbelt becomes bureaucratically challenging, preventing public transit or more efficient road infrastructure from being built.
Environmental regulations can too often have unanticipated (or ignored) environmental impacts that negate many of the supposed benefits.
Ehh. The Agricultural Land Reserve really isn't the problem in Vancouver.
Cities already have a ton of land where they can+should be allowing more housing but aren't (ex: the vast majority of residential land in Vancouver bans townhouses+apartments+condos). With the exception of maybe some parts of Richmond, I don't think there's much a case that the ALR is the problem here.
Agree. Just drive down main once and look at all the 2 story buildings… not even talking about the neighborhoods that are primarily detached. Vancouver is so expensive yet nobody is allowed to create denser housing. Nimbyism at its finest
The real question is if the cost to change is less than the current or future costs of inaction. I find what you said a manipulate style of argument used frequently today.
"What about lithium mines" ignoring the various oil disasters and the effects of drilling
"What if the vaccine had a 2% chance of killing me" ignoring the probability of dying from covid (made up numbers here)
I'm not claiming which side is right but these are often framed as the choice between the cost of the change and no cost.
But the premise of the point made by @jrussino is that the avoided costs of mitigating climate change turn out to be less than anticipated. In that case, we will have spent a lot of money for little benefit. The snarky joke doesn’t make logical sense.
This joke asserts that climate change mitigation measures would be justified even if climate change was a hoax. And that joke only works if you assume that those measures are free, or at least very cheap.
That isn't necessarily true if the benefits unrelated to climate change are also high, which it seems to me that they are. If millions of premature deaths are prevented yearly the measures can actually be pretty darn costly and still worth taking. And that is just one of many upsides.
There was a reply to this comment, now deleted, which said "Should have cars add something to exhaust so humans can see/smell it--even if just for demo purposes. Might help people to understand."
And I wanted to reply to that to say that we did used to be able to see exhaust fumes, and things were added so that we can't see them.
I have often thought that "the school run" would be different if everyone could see the cars pumping out exhaust outside the school, but history suggests that what would be different is people wouldn't want to see it, rather than being inconvenienced by getting rid of it. And that's a pattern which comes over from elderly care problems, homelessness and mental health problems, poverty problems, where the actions taken are often closer to sweeping under the rug than trying to solve the root causes.
> "Millions die prematurely from air pollution every year."
Especially including the radiation in the emissions from coal burning power plants, which kills more people every year than any nuclear power plant accident.
Radiation from coal is probably not a problem: "These studies concluded that the maximum radiation dose to an individual living within 1 km of a modern power plant is equivalent to a minor, perhaps 1 to 5 percent, increase above the radiation from the natural environment"
> Especially including the radiation in the emissions from coal burning power plants, which kills more people every year than any nuclear power plant accident.
I once did the maths, Chernobyl was on the order of 100 times Chinas current yearly nuclear emissions caused by coal burning.
Particulate matter and nitrogen oxides are the real issue (and sulphur dioxide where it’s not filtered out yet).
There's one particular mine/set of generators in china that basically just burns low-grade uranium ore (the ash is more concentrated than Namibian and Nigerian mines). If you exclude that one 100x is about right.
For the rest, yeah.
Also La Hague emits about 1/20th of a chernobyl per year.
CO2/NOx/SOx/particulates from coal are still worse.
As a bike riding hippie in the age of video meetings and streaming, explain to me why the world elite need to fly all over the world in private jets to discuss climate change?
Can you tell me why my grocery store stopped giving out free plastic bags by charging for them, and now phasing them out for paper, but they still sell plastic garbage bags and I can't reuse the grocery store bag for my garbage bag now?
Can you tell me why bunker fuel for cargo ships which is a major driver for pollution isn't being stopped? Seems like there are a limited number of large ships creating a massive amount of emissions that would be go after.
Can you explain why the phrase "Climate Change" is a better mission that "reduce pollution", which seems easier to understand and get behind for everyone?
I don't know about the others, but for the last one, "reduce pollution" only works if people, who aren't bike riding hippies by a large margin, see any point in reducing pollution. Why is pollution even bad, anyway? Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and nothing has gone wrong, so why should we regulate where they can pour their waste or make them pay for environmental nonsense like carbon capture? It's just this weird hippy tax that has no point since nothing has gone wrong.
Climate change (because people were too stupid to use the phrase "global warming" without making fun of the "warming" part whenever it was remotely cold) encapsulates the need for people to care about pollution with the understanding that it may be future generations will reap the benefits in a way that "reduce pollution" does not.
And yet people are terrified of radiation at any level, of carcinogen at aspartame level danger, from "toxins", from evil Chinese poisoned food, from modified genetics plants and foodstuffs.
But a direct scientific link to ... well, almost all of those fears is totally acceptable because we love our cars?
> Seriously, factories have been working for centuries and nothing has gone wrong, so why should we regulate where they can pour their waste or make them pay for environmental nonsense like carbon capture?
Pardon? Factories have caused all sorts of problems with discharge, intentional or unintentional. Here's some from the top of my head:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhopal_disaster (mismanagement at a pesticide factory causes an explosion, poisoning many people and permanently contaminating the surrounding landscape).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minamata_disease (a factory discharged mercury into the sea for years, where it interacted with anaerobic bacteria in the sediment to become incredibly deadly organic mercury and poisoned an entire town)
Keep in mind, these are from the top of my head and I am a nonexpert; we have environmental regulations because people have been hurt or killed by pollution numerous times.
Here's a quote that I hope will emphasize just how powerful pollution can be on an industrial scale:
> Pollution was so heavy at the mouth of the wastewater canal, a figure of 2 kg of mercury per ton of sediment was measured: a level that would be economically viable to mine. Indeed, Chisso did later set up a subsidiary to reclaim and sell the mercury recovered from the sludge.
They literally dumped enough mercury into the river to turn it into a mercury mine. If that doesn't convince you that factories haven't simply been operating with "nothing going wrong", then I don't know what to say.
Presumably, in that "Seriously, ..." quote, rather than asking an earnest question, the HNer was roleplaying their idea of the general population that's resistant to "reduce pollution" messaging.
Maybe. I've reread the comment and it can be read either way. Worst case scenario is that my comment remains correct but tone deaf, so I'm not going to retract it, but am open to a correction if GGP chooses to offer one.
Factories have done unmeasurable damage to our ecosystem, that is unequivocable. But we had to rename it climate change because people couldn't get over the phrase global warming whenever it was cold so I don't see "Reduce Pollution!" as a winning slogan. People who care, care about the underlying concept no matter what it's called. People who don't care don't believe it's a problem in the first place and won't do anything to reduce pollution.
If people are too stupid to understand pollution is bad and should be reduced (most people will agree to this, just talk to them about it in a garage with the door shut and a truck running inside), how are they going to understand climate change, which is a more obscure term without a direct meaning?
If the general public needs to be convinced of a project to save the planet climate change is not good messaging!
> Climate change (because people were too stupid to use the phrase "global warming" without making fun of the "warming" part whenever it was remotely cold)
I think climate change works better anyway, as global warming caused other changes, not just a rise in average temperatures
My understanding was that it is not about the bag, but where it tends to end up afterwards. Trash bags mostly end up in landfills, where they do no harm. Grocery bags by contrast have a higher tendency to be mis-identified as recyclable and then get caught by the wind and blown somewhere bad.
And if they tax it, people will complain about cost-shifting, saying the consumer should pay, and accuse the taxes for driving inflation etc. I am in favor of making polluters account for negative externalities, it's been a long-theme of my comments here), but I've noticed that people are adept at inventing new bases of objection.
Perhaps you could suggest a place where the pollution taxation approach has worked and the enforcement has teeth, which you would be happy to see implemented here even though it might come with short-term costs.
And if they tax it, people will complain about cost-shifting, saying the consumer should pay
The consumer should pay, because that will reduce demand.
It’s funny to see a government encourage a carbon tax to reduce fossil fuel use (high gas prices drive consumers to look for alternatives), then turn around this year and either cut gas tax or send out checks to consumers to offset higher gas prices.
Not sure any politician has the Will to follow through with it.
If by “people” you mean “Americans”, they buy F-150s to go to the grocery store, and they vote out governments that threaten their ability to do so.
Taxing pollution, particularly consumer-facing taxes, has a long history of political failure, whereas subsidising clean technology has a long history of political and technical success.
It doesn't simply "have a long history of political failure"; it has a history of political failure in certain areas of the United States. In much of the rest of the developed world, e.g. nearly all of Western-Europe, it has a history of success and taxing cars based on fuel consumption and emissions has indeed caused buyers to gravitate towards more fuel-efficient cars.
Both. The former directly through taxes on the cars themselves and the latter indirectly through fuel taxes, which while imperfect works well as a proxy.
Because major environmental actors (big NGOs...) are mostly engaging in a PR exercise to incite fear into our collective lizard brain. As Attenborough said: "saving our planet is now a communications challenge"
Linking Climate to life-threatening scenarios like Hurricanes (that hit you in-your-face) and food crisis, are more apt to rattle us into panicky action.
Slow, inconspicuous, decades-in-the-making ill-health (but not sudden death) inducing chemicals in our water, air and food will never make it through our current processes of media and political decision-making.
You might be interested to learn that the tribalistic strawman you've created is not entirely accurate, and that some of the staunchest conservatives are more on the side of anti-pollution and environmental conservation than their jet-setting counterparts.
In other words, you've not talked to many (any?) Trump supporters, and are just speculating about what evilly evil things they might evilly support for their own evil ends. Or something of the sort.
The conservative end of the spectrum is generally more concerned with things like "a stable power grid with enough power at all times" than carbon emissions, though I know quite a few pretty hard conservatives with solar, hybrids, EVs, etc. And a good case can be made for all that stuff without bothering with carbon emissions at all.
And then you see things like California, within a week or so, deciding to ban ICE car sales in some fairly near future, and having to send out power announcements about "Please don't charge your EV during these hours." It doesn't take a genius to do the math that, hey, more EVs charging while coal power plants are turned down, that might be a problem. I think it's a solvable one, but "shouting down anyone who points it down as a fossil fuel shill" (as happens in some circles of the internet - not here, but I've certainly been accused it for some nuanced arguments about power systems) doesn't help solve it.
If coal with carbon capture has a future in the power grid... so be it.
The California grid issues were due to momentarily high demands on the grid, not an issue with creating capacity in general. The grid is not infinitely flexible.
Coal plants, mind you, aren’t a good solution to the issue of active spikes demand, they take significant time to ramp up and down and have minimum loads they have to put out, it’s prohibitively expensive to turn them of and on.
EVs can, and likely will play a key role in demand management, that’s a good thing.
> If coal with carbon capture has a future in the power grid... so be it.
It doesn’t. Coal’s sinking like a lead balloon because it’s too expensive. It is far cheaper to build ridiculous overcapacity of wind and solar, with moderate storage, than to pursue other energy sources, like nuclear or coal.
For now, certainly. We'll see what it looks like long term. Of course, we've let China dominate the production of wind and solar equipment... which won't come back to bite us as a trade war continues heating up.
Of course, nobody is willing to have conversations about just using radically less energy. Can't have that...
> It’s why I find it perplexing why so many people in the US want to do away with EPA regulations
I don't think anyone in the US is pro-pollution. There are people who are against whatever the people they don't like are for, so if one side is for regulations controlling pollution, then by gosh they're against it.
At one point in the early to mid-1900s most of the working class was united politically in one party against the ownership class. Sometime around the Civil Rights Era, the two party system in the US executed a maneuver which split the working class vote against itself by pitting working class prejudices against working class self-interest. One party is the party of the ownership class, and this party throws red meat to the working class prejudices, while the other party espouses policies that benefit the working class economically while supporting socially progressive policies that the broad sections of the working class hold in disdain.
As a result we have big chunks of the working class enthusiastically voting against things that obviously serve them, like the right to clean air.
> At one point in the early to mid-1900s most of the working class was united politically
Working class white people were in the Democratic Party… mostly. This was because of the New Deal which was very pro white labor, and also pushed women, children, blacks, and immigrants out of the labor market.
The parties were slowly realigning after the new deal until the civil rights act finally cemented the realignment.
Reading the annual party platforms from about 1910 to roughly 1964 is fascinating.
Well there's also the basic issue of voting for a candidate that claims to provide job security by keeping certain industries (e.g. mining coal) running. A paycheck to put food on the table tomorrow is more important than avoiding the chance of black lung ten years from now.
How many software engineers are doing mental gymnastics justifying their work in adtech so they can afford to live in the SF Bay Area?
In Washington State, there was heavy wildfire smoke across the Seattle area for about a month in Sept/Oct. It was awful. I developed eye irritation, a sore throat, and a persistent cough. I stayed indoors as much as possible, and attached smoke filters to a box fan.
When the rain returned, all my symptoms disappeared.
As for the EPA regulations, they go about it the wrong way, using what in engineering we call "bang bang valves". Bang bang valves are full on or full off, nothing in between. EPA regulations are the same - 100ppm is dangerous and illegal, 99ppm is legal and safe.
This is just idiotic.
The regulations also target the rate of pollution, i.e. ppm, not the amount of pollution. A person can emit 99ppm all day and be golden to the EPA, while another can emit 100ppm for 5 minutes and be illegal.
The correct approach is to simply tax the total amount of pollution. For cars, this can be done with an annual emissions test. The rate of pollution in the test is multiplied by the number of miles driven in the last year, multiplied by the tax rate.
I don't hold a strong opinion myself on the matter as I have not done any deep research, but the EPA enforces the Endangered Species Act and the Wetlands Protection and Restoration. Google either of these with the phrase "Abuse of " at the beginning and you will find many people and organization writing about it. I have read many of these type of articles in different types of publications. One example[1].
I also know a lawyer at the EPA and she tells stories about how, for example, she/EPA is suing 80-90 year old people that owned car washes in LA in the 60's and 70's and had contaminated the soil. I figured that is what Superfund funds were for but I guess those funds are just to clean up corporations that have disappeared, not individuals that owned a small business 50 years ago and can be tracked.
To be clear - in that example, a river was polluted by waste that a negligent private company had gathered for decades and then abandoned in an uncapped gold mine -- the EPA was only involved because they were cleaning up what was already a nightmare of pollution. The spill which accidentally released 100k tons of acidic water mixed with mining tails into the river was proceeded by the owners of that mine intentionally releasing over four million tons of actual tailings as part of their regular operating procedures.
The EPA and other orgs are responsible for the cleanup of thousands of polluted areas and superfund sites created by negligent businesses who wantonly polluted and then abandoned their responsibilities leaving it up to their kids and their kids' kids to clean it up.
It's like blaming the dentist for scratching your gums while repairing a cavity. A big dose of, "Well sure, but if you had listened to them in the first place.. "
> It's like blaming the dentist for scratching your gums while repairing a cavity. A big dose of, "Well sure, but if you had listened to them in the first place.. "
Terrible analogy. The EPA knew there was heavy contamination in that mine, and yet decided to drill into the side of the mountain regardless knowing full well the implications of the heavy water getting released. There were other ways they could have gone about measuring and keeping tabs on the toxic build up. Yet they chose the most expedient riskiest solution that backfired spectacularly.
In your analogy, this is akin to the dentist taking a 1/4 inch drill bit to the side of your tooth to measure the cavity damage and spilling about a pint of blood on the floor in the process.
Even if the EPA were negligent in its handling of the operation, fixating on that does seem to miss the point that they were only in that position because a private company created it and left it for someone else to handle. That's also the point you're missing from the analogy.
I don't think it's unexpected that an agency in charge of cleanups like this is going to have some blunders. Should they have handled it better? Fine. But that's not much of a statement.
I think you'd have to make a claim about the EPA's net impact/value to say something interesting here.
The EPA screwed up and basically instead of the acidic water slowly leaking out they caused it burst open and dump all of it in the span of days. There is no disputing that fact.
But interesting, the mine wasn't polluted in the sense of the company dumped chemicals. The mining process simply exposed rock that when it reacts with water, turns acidic. It's a natural process that is simply amplified by the mining process.
Blaming the EPA for an incident that happened at a horribly toxic mine is like blaming your doctor for your gall bladder exploding while it was being removed for being infectious.
The EPA is in charge of these horrible mines because the previous owners abandoned them to destroy the environment after the profitable stuff was pulled out of the ground.
No. But that specific failure is not an inherent indictment of the mission of the EPA, itself.
That mine is an environmental disaster. Some entity needs to be tasked with containing it or mitigating it--doing nothing is NOT an option. That failure could have occurred whether the mine was under the auspices of the EPA, the Department of the Interior, or the Army Corps of Engineers.
I think most people haven't directly experienced the problems so they've forgotten the justifications, and other assorted cognitive biases/distortions.
The city where I live was ranked the most polluted city in the USA a few decades ago, but people forget what it was like, and newer residents never knew what it was like, so they get very upset about Their Freedoms being encroached upon by EPA regulations and such.
However I don't think people know where the pollution comes from. I personally think smog was ONLY tackled because people could SEE it. Nowadays I think there might be more harmful pollution from car tires and jets flying overhead than tailpipes.
also regulatory capture is a thing, and has a high ROI for big polluters.
There was an interesting article in the NYT about how how very few people in India care about air quality enough to vote specifically for it even though poor air quality is a major contributor to mortality in India.
We offer air quality monitoring solutions and I talk to customers and people interested in air quality monitoring every day from many different countries.
What I see is a very different knowledge on air pollution. For example there is a pretty high awareness on the dangers of PM2.5 in China and some South East Asian Countries (e.g. Singapore) but relatively low awareness in the Middle East and some Eastern European countries.
This has been on HN before[1], https://dynomight.net/air/ arguing that "Better air quality is the easiest way not to die":
"While most things that clearly improve health are well known, one is insanely underrated: Fixing your air. I suspect this is often the most effective health intervention, period. Nothing else is so important while also being so easy to address."
We too often see environmental regulations becoming pointless and costly burdens, or them even being used as bureaucratic weapons, rather than something that brings a net benefit to society.
Even minor construction and infrastructure projects can end up needing costly environmental assessments or studies prepared by "qualified experts", for example, even when the environmental impact is obviously negligible.
Activists and others opposed to development projects will sometimes raise specious environmental "concerns" to try to derail those developments by getting them tied up with red tape.
Even something as simple as trimming or cutting down a tree on private property can become a huge hassle in some municipalities, requiring permits and other bureaucratic headaches.
Of course reasonable people will push back against such regulation. The economic costs that are imposed often far outweigh the environmental benefits, if any benefits even actually exist.
I'm merely pointing out the way that many average Westerners directly experience environmental regulations, and why they may become opposed to the idea, even if such regulation may be beneficial in some cases.
Having to go through a costly and time-consuming permit process merely to trim or remove a tree in one's front yard will leave a sour taste in one's mouth when it comes to environmental regulations in general.
Sometimes the regulation process itself actually causes more environmental harm than it prevents.
For example, somebody I know was telling me about how the environmental assessment process significantly delayed the replacement of a small, old, and poorly-maintained road bridge over a creek near the end of the rural road he lives on.
That project, which could have been (and eventually was) easily finished within a week with minimal environmental disruption turned into a multi-year debacle thanks to environmental assessments.
The bridge was closed to traffic the entire time, causing him and his neighbors to have to drive multiple additional miles each day to backtrack and detour around it, emitting far more vehicle exhaust and causing far more unnecessary wear-and-tear (including oil changes) than if the bridge has just been replaced without the delays that were imposed by environmental regulation bureaucracy.
> Having to go through a costly and time-consuming permit process merely to trim or remove a tree in one's front yard will leave a sour taste in one's mouth when it comes to environmental regulations in general.
To be honest that sounds a great deal more like some kind of central north american home owners association BS than any actual effective environmental regulation regarding pollution, toxic waste, etc.
Although if it's an actual requirement to keep shade levels up in where ever you live in order to legitimately avoid the broader basin becoming some kind of tarmac heat sink then I can find myself on the side of the trees,
> For example, somebody I know was telling me about how the environmental assessment process significantly delayed the replacement of a small, old, and poorly-maintained road bridge over a creek near the end of the rural road he lives on.
This sounds very small beer - I'd hope you support the broader and large range of environmental protections regarding runoffs, spill containments, etc. and arn't merely grandstanding the petty stuff to white ant the general concept of environmental regulation.
Do you have any specifics on why, precisely, the old bridge replacement was delayed?
> It’s why I find it perplexing why so many people in the US want to do away with EPA regulations
By and large, they don’t. Trump’s efforts, for example, were focused on repealing incremental efforts during the Obama administration that hadn’t been in effect for long, and risked disproportionate impact on coal, oil, cars, and farms.
Very few people think we should get rid of rules that require factories to use emissions control technology. But rules that shut down coal plants in favor of renewables implicates a different set of political concerns: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Virginia_v._EPA
Likewise, virtually nobody wants to go back to the days of factories dumping untreated waste into waterways. But many farmers are upset when they suddenly need an EPA permit because the EPA declared some pond on their property a protected water body: https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/more-widespread-support-epa...
As of this decade, we need disproportionate impact on coal, oil, and cars to have any chance to get to net-zero emissions. A country completely built around single-passenger ICE vehicles and burning coal for electricity is what's disproportionate, not the response to them.
We wasted a decade in the 00s, we've mostly wasted a decade in the 10s, and we're starting off by wasting a decade in the 20s. You can keep ignoring late notices on your bills, but sooner or later, they do come due...
Maybe, but my point is that the battleground on “EPA regulations” isn’t the stuff we have had in place for decades that makes our air cleaner than in New Delhi. Installing pollution control devices on emissions stacks doesn’t affect ordinary people. Getting rid of well paying jobs for non-college educated people in coal and oil & gas, or requiring them to live like Europeans in little houses driving little cars does affect ordinary people. That’s obviously going to provoke a different response.
The pictures of those lymph nodes are shocking. In the Methods section, they state that
> LN tissues were obtained from [...] LiveOnNY, the local organ procurement organization for the New York metropolitan area.
which makes it sound like the samples came from residents of NYC. NYC air quality probably isn't great, but those lymph nodes looked so bad that I assumed they must have come from a hyperpolluted megacity like Beijing or New Delhi!
Cars truly are the worst addiction our society has stooped to.
NYC air quality is quite good, especially considering the density. I agree in principle re society's addiction to cars and I'd love if there were fewer in NYC, but, interestingly, the subway system actually has orders of magnitude worse air than street level: https://www.curbed.com/2021/02/mta-subway-air-quality-pollut....
Maybe, but the subway itself is entirely electric. I think the air on underground platforms gets stale and muggy, but I'm not sure it's actually more dangerous than being above-ground with the cars and trucks.
Not to mention drivers (in NYC at least) behaving like entitled psychopaths, honking like crazy the second they are delayed going down a side street at 7am
The same way we look back in horror at the earlier air quality of London, when everyone burned cheap coal for home heating and 'pea-souper' fogs were a thing, before the Clean Air Act:
You're an optimist - if we end up with a nuclear war (which was avoided a few times by pure accident) or runaway global warming, future generations, if any, may think of current times as a golden age...
That's not how history typically works. The group that destroys the place is not regarded as heroes, they're regarded as a warning of things to be avoided.
If any of those things happen, there will be very strong taboos against anything that would begin to lead down the same roads again.
Memory of a civilization only lasts a few generations and at some point all lessons are forgotten. You can see it already wrt lessons from WW1 and WW2 in Europe.
Yet the mines and shells will remind generations to come. Just as the tree-free plains and deserts remind us of our ancestors efforts to exploit forests with little regard for sustainability.
Exactly. If we experience global nuclear warfare or runaway climate change, the generation that caused it will be a cautionary tale, not "the golden age"
I expect their reactions to basically all of our modern society to be "disgust." Our air, our water, our environment, our attention ecosystems. All quite human-toxic.
I have a friend who lives in an apartment near a major, major artery in Seattle. It's 6 lanes wide looking out from the balcony directly down onto the street. It's what they can afford in a somewhat close commute to work by bus (they can't afford a car). I lived in an apartment a block from I-5 for 6 years. I've made enough money to buy a house in a neighborhood away from traffic pollution. It was a major part of my purchasing decision.
Zoning often puts more dense and therefore cheaper housing near busy roads. I think a lot about who can afford fresh air and who can't, and the compounding impacts of that quite often.
How much would it cost to lower the PM 2.5 in his house? Even cut it in half?
I don't know your friend but for some people they can afford air purifiers, running the A/C, and keeping the windows closed, but they feel it's not worth it. It's seen as a wasted expense. Especially true during Covid when many doctors could have retro-fitted their practices with HVAC filters. I think we really need an educational campaign.
"running the A/C," presupposes that the house has A/C. When a wildfire is near, I close up the house and run air-filters, but it can hit 100F inside in the afternoons.
One option is filtering the air immediately before you breathe it in. The active airflow can greatly mitigate common comfort issues with traditional masking.
It also gives you some protection outside, which is nice.
> "How much would it cost to lower the PM 2.5 in his house? Even cut it in half?"
In one room, plausibly reduce it by 99% for a one-off $70 air purifier and $30/year of electricity costs and replacement filters: https://dynomight.net/ikea-purifier/
It might be a bit because of the density, but housing is mainly cheaper near busy roads mainly because most people would prefer to live elsewhere, just like you.
That would explain a difference in price per square foot, but it doesn't explain why there are fewer small homes built further from busy roads. If anything you'd expect the opposite if it were just a reflection of people's preferences.
I think the unstated premise of that comment was that it's bad that we push the worst consequences of our societal choices onto the poorest people. Not that the mechanism by which we do it is mysterious.
I'm not surprised. Our modern air is... poor, and that's before you get into fire season and such out west.
I've started being far more aggressive with air filtration in the house and my office. Get an air quality monitor that shows you PM2.5 and PM10, you'll be horrified by how high those levels are often enough. I've been using "filter boxes" for the most part (a 3-4 furnace filter box around a box fan or similar) and they do a great job of pulling the PM out of the air.
I can fairly regularly keep PM in the sub-5 ug/m^3 range, even during smoke season - though it's a lot of airflow through the filters.
I just wish the health costs of air pollution were factored into fossil and renewable biofuel combustion power plants. Then people might stop saying nuclear was too expensive. Not to even mention a carbon tax.
I have a friend who has this idea that because he grew up in a polluted environment that he is exempt from these things happening. There is no escape from air pollution.
While my friend is used to it, I have an acute response. I try not to visit places with even moderately high AQI.
I am working with a lot of organisations to increase awareness on air pollution -especially among students.
The images of the dark lymph nodes by age remind me of the shocking images of lungs of smokers printed -by law- on cigarette boxes in certain countries. What they do is to make the hidden danger of the small partciles visible.
I will use the images from this study in some of my presentations in future.
It seems that the lung tissues analyzed come from an organisation in New York. So most likely people living in this area. Comparing pollution data of New York City [1] which -globally seen has relatively good air quality- to a very polluted city like New Delhi [2] makes me wonder how much worse this health effect is actually for people living in higher polluted countries.
Increasing awareness on air pollution is one of the key reasons why we offer a popular open-source / open-hardware version of our professional air quality monitor so that people can easily build am affordable and accurate monitor [3] themselves. Similar to above images, it is another way to make the invisible particles in the air visible and helping quantifying the risks from fine particles in the air.
Even if excess CO2 in the atmosphere weren't a problem, there'd be a strong case to ban internal combustion engines for particulates and pollutants alone.
During the pandemic, the air quality here in eastern Massachusetts was profoundly better. So much so that if you were outside and one of the very occasional cars drove by, the fumes were quite noticeable. Now that we're back to normal levels of traffic, I don't particularly notice the pollution anymore when I'm outside.
It’s a common anecdote from med students how black the lungs are from elderly city dwellers, but that doesn’t mean people should accept it.
Is there a way to test this when people are alive rather than waiting until an autopsy.
Is there any way to remove this?
I assume this is a hypothesis, should this be conclusive can it be fixed? Yes cleaner air is the better way to go, but there’d be billions of people with a clogged up immune system, perhaps unaware that would benefit from getting this removed?
Are there animals that have mechanisms to overcome this issue? I doubt many live long enough for this to be an evolutionary driver, but some may have an inadvertent mechanism.
How big a role is smoking, or passive smoking in this?
I fear these questions are proffered to a waning post.
I may have missed it, but where's the statement about what those black spots are in the micrographs and how that was determined. It seems like they're just declared as atmospheric particulates but where's that determined exactly? It would be great to purify them somehow and run the slurry under an electron microscope. Something along these lines of https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-02/the-micro... to see how such raw particulates accumulate in some tissue in the body.
Why I run an expensive HEPA air filtration system 24/7 even though the air is relatively clean. Although I live near a busy highway, the air is effectively 0 ppm (undetectable) in each of 1.0, 2.5, and 10 um at home indoors. (BlueAir 680i with the better 2-part filters.)
this site has been indispensable during wild fires.
but when watching air quality in my region, i’ve been finding myself more and more frustrated by a complete lack of explanation of what causes the plummeting air quality sometimes.
during wildfires the reasons are obvious, but outside of wildfire season i have fairly regularly seen the air quality just plummet and we’re just completely left in the dark why its happening.
Very interesting, I do remember in high school in the city it was well regarded that students who came from the country often had better cardiovascular performance.
Of course that isn't a great test, but may have some merit.
I've started doing so. I bought a couple of large air purifiers for our living spaces and small ones for our bedrooms after the wildfires of 2020. At this pint, I run them 24/7. I've found my allergy symptoms are better and we don't have to dust as often.
It’s why I find it perplexing why so many people in the US want to do away with EPA regulations. Not only was pollution rampant in many Americans lifetimes, it’s completely observable how bad pollution is elsewhere in the world for people.