Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Smog in our brains

apa.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 93 posts

Re: Smog in our brains

#31

Post by eli_gottlieb »

trhway wrote: post #12
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they did, I would hope people around them recognized that their conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. I think I understand the sentiment, but I don't think the three are the same. And if they had similar results, hypothetically, they would be for entirely different reasons. edit: I'm interested to know more about peoples' concerns about smartphones and other dev…

>conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. dopamine addiction coming from and through the benign electronics may count for something.

You can't get addicted to dopamine; dopamine mediates one vector of addiction. It conveys something like reward prediction-error or precision of action-based prediction errors. Without it, you can't concentrate; with too much, you're forced to concentrate without control over what you concentrate on.

Re: Smog in our brains

#32

Post by WalterBright »

dsego wrote: post #14
Terr_ wrote: post #2

I wouldn't be surprised if some future historians are able to look back at modern cities the same way that we look at granny pictures of a soot-streaked city of the industrial revolution. "Yes, some of them thought that it was bad to have all that stuff around, but most thought it wasn't too serious compared to the immediate economic benefit it brought."

"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

Government run industries have a far worse track record.

Re: Smog in our brains

#33

Post by Houshalter »

addicted wrote: post #30
Houshalter wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the planet being destroyed, but minor health effects of air pollution. Which in first world countries, is vastly less than it used to be. And could be eliminated entirely in a few years with technology like solar power and electric cars. Possibly it could have been seriously cut back decades ago, if environmentalists hadn't fought so hard against nuclear.

Yea. The real problem was fightng against a technology that is more expensive yhan cleaner options, has massive NIMBY problems that are not yet resolved, gets more expensive as time goes on, has led to massive cpncentrated disasters and still is unable to find a solution to its long term problems. A technology whose proponents's best answer even today is "wait until the next breakthrough". Nuclear: The one trick the…

If we had adopted nuclear power decades ago, none of that would be an issue. Solar power is only just now catching up to cost effectiveness with nuclear. And only on sunny days, the storage problem is very far away from being solved. Maybe coal is cheaper, but only if you exclude externalities. The amount of radiation released by nuclear is tiny compared to coal. Not to mention mercury, carbon dioxide, etc.

Re: Smog in our brains

#35

Post by addicted »

Houshalter wrote: post #33
addicted wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea. The real problem was fightng against a technology that is more expensive yhan cleaner options, has massive NIMBY problems that are not yet resolved, gets more expensive as time goes on, has led to massive cpncentrated disasters and still is unable to find a solution to its long term problems. A technology whose proponents's best answer even today is "wait until the next breakthrough". Nuclear: The one trick the…

If we had adopted nuclear power decades ago, none of that would be an issue. Solar power is only just now catching up to cost effectiveness with nuclear. And only on sunny days, the storage problem is very far away from being solved. Maybe coal is cheaper, but only if you exclude externalities. The amount of radiation released by nuclear is tiny compared to coal. Not to mention mercury, carbon dioxide, etc.

The only reason nuclear is even viable today is because nuclear technokogy isn't as bad today as it was a few decades ago.

Every time we have a massive nuclear disaster the defense (a valid one!) Is that the disaster happened from a poorer technology that isn't used anymore today.

If we had built out nuclear earlier we would have had a lot more nuclear disasters.

The problem with nuclear is solely that by the time the technology became good enough that it could be used fairly safely it became way more expensive than almost all competitors including most other renewable sources.

And this is even before including the geopolitical limitations of nuclear. Would we be living in a better world if every country including countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan had easy access to nuclear.

Re: Smog in our brains

#36

Post by steve_adams_86 »

trhway wrote: post #12
steve_adams_86 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they did, I would hope people around them recognized that their conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. I think I understand the sentiment, but I don't think the three are the same. And if they had similar results, hypothetically, they would be for entirely different reasons. edit: I'm interested to know more about peoples' concerns about smartphones and other dev…

>conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. dopamine addiction coming from and through the benign electronics may count for something.

I agree with that to a point. It does count for something for sure, but I think the analogy breaks down pretty quickly from there. I don't want to be pedantic or overly demanding of the statement either though. I just thought, when I read it, that the issues are much more complex than that, and the analogy overly simplifies the matter.

I'm a big fan of electronic devices, and a huge believer in them being a medium for addiction and escapism. But I think societies need to look at the root of that issue rather than dismiss any medium for dopamine addiction as harmful (as harmful as lead in your water in this case). That becomes extremely subjective, and maybe not worth pursuing because I admit, I'm not educated on the matter. I simply believe that (based on my experiences) the misuse of electronics will often stem from a lack of stimulation, satisfaction, and/or engagement coming from other aspects in life. There is too much room for this form of addiction in modern life in many parts of the world.

If we blame the devices, we fail to blame ourselves for better educating ourselves and striving to develop society in such a way that people feel they have better things to do than escape into a screen.

I'm totally open to being called out as clueless or full of it - that's just my take on things. It's a very fascinating conversation, but probably not a great one for the internet. I worry I'll come across as thinking I'm an authority on this stuff or something, when it's quite the opposite.

Re: Smog in our brains

#37

Post by losteric »

callalex wrote: post #25
losteric wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They refer to "mass media", so I assume the point is technology as a dopamine button... however, cell phones have been linked to damaged / lower quality sperm in men. That could subtly damage society in the same way that lead-based paints hurt Rome.

[citation needed]

Since you asked so nicely: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mobile+phones+sperm+site%3Ancbi.nlm.nih...

Re: Smog in our brains

#38

Post by gregw134 »

This doesn't prove that smog is the cause. Perhaps the people in smoggier districts had lower education levels and didn't stay as mentally active in old age? There are too many other variables that could be at fault.

Re: Smog in our brains

#39

Post by freeflight »

Houshalter wrote: post #33
addicted wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea. The real problem was fightng against a technology that is more expensive yhan cleaner options, has massive NIMBY problems that are not yet resolved, gets more expensive as time goes on, has led to massive cpncentrated disasters and still is unable to find a solution to its long term problems. A technology whose proponents's best answer even today is "wait until the next breakthrough". Nuclear: The one trick the…

If we had adopted nuclear power decades ago, none of that would be an issue. Solar power is only just now catching up to cost effectiveness with nuclear. And only on sunny days, the storage problem is very far away from being solved. Maybe coal is cheaper, but only if you exclude externalities. The amount of radiation released by nuclear is tiny compared to coal. Not to mention mercury, carbon dioxide, etc.

>If we had adopted nuclear power decades ago, none of that would be an issue.

Then we would have even more problems with final disposal than we already have, that's the topic none of the pro-nuclear people ever want to touch on because they fully realize it's quite an issue.

As is, it's already bad enough how plant operators socialize these long-term costs while keeping all the profits private, which is the only way these operations can turn a short-term profit. Case in point: http://www.dw.com/en/german-government-does-nuclear-waste-de...

It's even more infuriating to see that quote of Sigmar Gabrial boasting that "society alone doesn't have to bear the costs". How generous of them to pay a little bit into a fund for the disposal of their own waste, while the German taxpayer will end up picking the brunt of the bill when, as always, everything ends up going way over the estimated costs.

Just take a look at Fukushima: TEPCO has a book equity of $US20 billion, total cleanup costs are estimated at $US250 billion, who's paying for that? Right, the Japanese government aka the tax payer.

Re: Smog in our brains

#40

Post by legulere »

Houshalter wrote: post #20
dsego wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995

Nonsense. This has nothing to do with the planet being destroyed, but minor health effects of air pollution. Which in first world countries, is vastly less than it used to be. And could be eliminated entirely in a few years with technology like solar power and electric cars. Possibly it could have been seriously cut back decades ago, if environmentalists hadn't fought so hard against nuclear.

Electric cars surprisingly don't reduce particulate matter air pollution by much. A big part of the pollution comes from wear of the tires and the road. It's higher with heavier cars and electric cars generally are heavier because of their batteries. Then you have the effect of reemission of PM already lying on the road that stays the same.

Another way of PM emissions that is not tackled at all is agriculture.

And it does not just have minor health effects. People are dying because of it.

Post reply on HN