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

The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 165 posts

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#41

Post by scaladev »

satysin wrote: post #26
pietrovismara wrote: post #25

This pandemic gave me so much to think about air pollution. It puzzles me how we can have, just in Europe, around 800k yearly premature deaths caused by pollution[0] and still not care at all. On the other hand, covid-19 hasn't caused yet as many deaths but we quickly intervened, as it should be. Why can't we, as a society, react with the same effectiveness to air pollution? - [0]: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/…

I live in [redacted], [redacted] and we often have high air pollution warnings and you really can feel it in the air. During lockdown, back in April and May, there was a noticeable difference in the air quality. It felt different. When we went out for a walk you could also tell the difference in noise pollution from there being so few cars on the roads. It was lovely. There is a church nearby that we can sometimes he…

I am not trying to undervalue your problems, but I suggest looking at some third world countries for some perspective. I live in one such place. In winter (which lasts for about 8-9 months each year) the air pollution is _horrifyingly_ bad: 250-300 µg/m³ of PM2.5 at day time, and 900-1500 µg/m³ each night. I am not bullshitting you, this is how we live. You can feel the taste of coal on tour tongue in a completely sealed room.

And almost nobody gives a fuck — when you try to discuss it with someone, you either get a blank stare, or "stop exaggerating, it's no so bad" (by which they mean "you don't drop dead right away (unless you're asthmatic)".)

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#42

Post by y04nn »

pietrovismara wrote: post #25

This pandemic gave me so much to think about air pollution. It puzzles me how we can have, just in Europe, around 800k yearly premature deaths caused by pollution[0] and still not care at all. On the other hand, covid-19 hasn't caused yet as many deaths but we quickly intervened, as it should be. Why can't we, as a society, react with the same effectiveness to air pollution? - [0]: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/…

I would say that our brain is wired to react to direct threats and not long terms ones because the main cause of death was direct threats until not so long ago. And by natural selection, the ones reacting to direct threats survived. This is an hypothesis, I would be interested if there is research done on the subject.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#43

Post by wongarsu »

pietrovismara wrote: post #25

This pandemic gave me so much to think about air pollution. It puzzles me how we can have, just in Europe, around 800k yearly premature deaths caused by pollution[0] and still not care at all. On the other hand, covid-19 hasn't caused yet as many deaths but we quickly intervened, as it should be. Why can't we, as a society, react with the same effectiveness to air pollution? - [0]: https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/…

The EU has limits for suspended particulate matter, and at least in Germany all the major cities are battling to stay within the thresholds. A few cities ban diesel vehicles in the city, others put expensive air purifiers next to the measuring stations.

People seem to love their cars more than their health, and other measures like modernizing heating don't seem to have much traction.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#44

Post by satysin »

CydeWeys wrote: post #39
satysin wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in [redacted], [redacted] and we often have high air pollution warnings and you really can feel it in the air. During lockdown, back in April and May, there was a noticeable difference in the air quality. It felt different. When we went out for a walk you could also tell the difference in noise pollution from there being so few cars on the roads. It was lovely. There is a church nearby that we can sometimes he…

Paris, at least, is doing an amazing job of replacing motor vehicles on the streets with friendlier alternatives, with great results in terms of reduced air and noise pollution. Try to elect a mayor of Lyons who's like Annie Hidalgo?

The traffic in and around Lyon is fucking terrible. They really need to do something to reduce how many cars are on the road.

The thing is overall the metro is decent as is the bus service and they are always full yet there are still so many cars on the road I wonder where all the people come from tbh. There are also lots of alternative options available with Lime e-scooters and Vélo'v bikes all over the place but still what feels like a million cars!

I used to live in London so a lot of traffic isn't new to me but during peak times Lyon is a nightmare so I just avoid it as much as possible.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#45

Post by kmfrk »

A lot of people are coming to terms with bad air quality, even in their homes. Air purifiers are selling like hotcakes, even where wildfires aren't a concern.

One of the concerns I hope will stick after this thing is (largely) over.

Something I would love for a HNer to solve is SEO for air purifiers: basically all Google results are absolute bullshit that make it harder, not easier, to make an informed choice. Much like VPNs where it just comes down to SEO, marketing, and affiliate links.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#46

Post by pmiller2 »

dimitrios1 wrote: post #36
pmiller2 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You want the real reason? Fixing air pollution quickly would disrupt the global economy on a long term scale. Capitalism doesn't like that. Edit: Y'all so predictable.

The pandemic proved that disrupting the global economy to save lives wasn't an issue at all. The issue is the right people feeling threatened for their lives. As soon as you can convince rich people that their survival is at risk, and they can't just fly off to another planet or live in their own biosphere somewhere in the Alps, something will be done.

Exactly, and truly getting serious about it would basically destroy the global economy in the short term. That's why rich people (and capitalism) don't like it, so they don't do anything about it. There's a big difference between a ~1-2 year disruption and a 5-10 year disruption, which is what I think it would take to make any serious difference vis a vis air pollution.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#47

Post by goodpoint »

VBprogrammer wrote: post #33
goodpoint wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Electric cars still have a significant environmental impact due to the space they take in a city, the production and recycling of the cars, and road maintenance. The efficiency of combined use of trains, electric buses and bicycles dwarfs electric cars. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport

I don't know about anyone else, I'm pretty far from being a germaphobe in everyday life, but the idea of returning to packed trains and busses turns my stomach. I'm sure this will pass in a surprisingly short amount of time but for the moment I'm glad that I can work from home and doing so has the lowest environmental impact I can muster.

Covid did wonders for the environment in the societies that choose to encourage remote working.

Yet, doing short trips by feet or bike is equally sustainable - and healthier than sitting all day.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#48

Post by Raphmedia »

kmfrk wrote: post #45

A lot of people are coming to terms with bad air quality, even in their homes. Air purifiers are selling like hotcakes, even where wildfires aren't a concern. One of the concerns I hope will stick after this thing is (largely) over. Something I would love for a HNer to solve is SEO for air purifiers: basically all Google results are absolute bullshit that make it harder, not easier, to make an informed choice. Much l…

Your best bet is probably something like an independant YouTuber making tests that are easy to see, understand and replicate.

This video comes to mind, I had watched it when comparing products: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CXL5NoX25XM

But even then, it's hard to get total transparency. Did they receive a product from a manufacturer for free? Are they receiving money to ignore a particular device? Etc.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#49

Post by tristor »

amingilani wrote: post #37

> Delivering a narrative verdict, Mr Barlow said levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) near Ella's home exceeded World Health Organization and European Union guidelines. There are WHO and EU guidelines? I had no idea. Most my life, I've lived in a city where the AQI is usually >250 during the day, and it's been in IQAir's top polluted cities[0] for the past 2 years. [0]: https://www.iqair.com/ca/world-most-polluted-cities

Wow, that's horrifying to look at that chart. I live in San Antonio, TX where we sometimes have air quality days which have specific restrictions. The trigger point is that we expect to rise about 10 AQI which is the WHO guideline. Our average for 2019 was 9.4. Living in a city where the average is over 100 sounds terrible to me. I'm asthmatic, and I have seasonal allergies, and there are days the air quality here bothers me.

Re: The first person in the UK to have air pollution listed as a cause of death

#50

Post by CraigJPerry »

nether wrote: post #12
CraigJPerry wrote: post #8

There's a neat feature in the BMW X5 xDrive45e (a petrol plug-in hybrid SUV) - when you enter a low emissions zone, it automatically switches to battery power. Moving emissions away from the tailpipe in heavily populated areas seems like a great idea. There's no free lunch though. The emissions are still happening, just in different places where they're, ideally, less likely to affect people. It's a better situation…

Most forms of municipal power generation are much lower emission than a piston engine. Hydro, wind, and nuclear especially. Just having the generation take place with a near-constant RPM steam turbine is vastly more efficient than a stop-n-go motor.

Yeah and the emissions are in one place so capture should be more economically viable I’d have thought.
Post reply on HN