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

Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

unenvironment.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 188 posts

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#41

Post by mmphosis »

dest wrote: post #15

I think it is misleading to display a picture of chimneys of nuclear power plants, when the only thing they release is clean water droplets: no SO2, NO2 or PM10. edit: Actually, not 100% sure it's a nuclear power plant. Thanks for your comments

I agree there are worse types of power plants than nuclear: no SO2, NO2 or PM10, but at the risk of the release of Cesium-134, Cesium-137, Iodine-131, Xenon-133, strontium-90, plutonium-239.

  https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/radioactive-isotopes-from-fukushima-meltdown-detected-near-vancouver/
  https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nuclear-accidents-fact-sheet

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#42

Post by wowzap »

jesstaa wrote: post #27
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

human powered transport like walking or cycling works great in dense cities, it's more space efficient so it scales better too.

Is there actually proof that it "works great"? Asking for myself every time I try to cross the street in downtown Manhattan and have to look for a cyclist on the sidewalk, going against traffic, blowing through a red light, or fighting with another cyclist.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#43

Post by rayiner »

tarboreus wrote: post #34
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

If by "electrification" you mean "switch to public transportation," I agree with you. If by electrification you mean "burn dinosaurs four miles away," then I don't agree with you.

In economic terms, the biggest impact from air pollution is particulate matter in densely populated areas, not CO2. Burning dinosaurs four miles away (more accurately, 40+) has a huge positive impact, because the worst of the particulate matter falls to the ground by then.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#44

Post by jarvist »

dest wrote: post #15

I think it is misleading to display a picture of chimneys of nuclear power plants, when the only thing they release is clean water droplets: no SO2, NO2 or PM10. edit: Actually, not 100% sure it's a nuclear power plant. Thanks for your comments

Those are cooling towers (steam -> water), and there is no indication whether that is a power station or industrial plant.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#46

Post by singularity2001 »

wccrawford wrote: post #37
jeffdavis wrote: post #13

What's with the use of the word "linked"? Is thay synonymous with "correlated"? I feel like it's just another way to suggest causation without knowing that it is causation.

It's more of a weasel word than correlated is, even. It suggests that there's a meaningful connection but it could just be coincidence, even moreso than correlation.

correlated is well defined.

but can be used by weasels, so yes.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#47

Post by twelvechairs »

jesstaa wrote: post #27
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

human powered transport like walking or cycling works great in dense cities, it's more space efficient so it scales better too.

Plus it provides health benefits!

Its not for everyone in every big city but certainly the Dutch model of transitioning cities from cars to transit and pedestrian/cycle focus is probably the clearest model for sustainable and healthy tansport out there.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#48

Post by VBprogrammer »

swebs wrote: post #12
Symmetry wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the new power is generated in coal plants that might actually be a net minus, at least in particulates and SO2 terms. EDIT: I'm referencing this: A series of studies by Tsinghua University, whose alumni includes the incumbent president, showed electric vehicles charged in China produce two to five times as much particulate matter and chemicals that contribute to smog versus gas-engine cars. Hybrid vehicles fare li…

How so? A car's ICE is much less efficient than a power plant.

I found a series of videos on youtube a while back, a set of training videos for people working in steam turbine plans, which really cemented in my head the reasons why this is the case.

For example: the final stages of a steam condensing turbine are actually operating under vacuum relative to atmospheric pressure. To start the turbine a vacuum pump first removes the the air from the turbine. After steams works its way through the turbine it is cooled by feed water (which is then used in the boiler) reducing it's volume by about 1000 times maintaining the vacuum.

An ICE on the other hand expels a good portion of the input energy as hot exhaust gasses several PSI above atmospheric pressure.

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#49

Post by rcMgD2BwE72F »

jesstaa wrote: post #27
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

human powered transport like walking or cycling works great in dense cities, it's more space efficient so it scales better too.

Oh yes. As a Parisian and a big supporter of the electrification of all terrestrial transportation, I want as few EVs as city as possible. Cars simply don't make sense in dense cities (bikes do).

Re: Air pollution linked to “huge” reduction in intelligence

#50

Post by jwr »

tarboreus wrote: post #34
Reason077 wrote: post #3

Electrification of surface transport is the most obvious way to improve air quality in dense cities. This needs to be a priority.

If by "electrification" you mean "switch to public transportation," I agree with you. If by electrification you mean "burn dinosaurs four miles away," then I don't agree with you.

Burning dinosaurs is much more efficient in bulk at a huge power plant than by transporting them to your local storage (gas station) and burning them in your tiny engine. So even if you do burn dinosaurs, you're much better off burning them at scale.
Post reply on HN