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

Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#21

Post by epistasis »

capitainenemo wrote: post #19
epistasis wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly right, tire and brake dust are still awful with EVs, though contra the slight implication in the headline, it's no worse than the current situation with ICE vehicles. And the brake dust aspect may slightly reduce due to regenerative braking.

"Electric vehicles are estimated to emit 5-19% less PM10 from non-exhaust sources per kilometre than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) across vehicle classes. However, EVs do not necessarily emit less PM2.5 than ICEVs. Although lightweight EVs emit an estimated 11-13% less PM2.5 than ICEV equivalents, heavier weight EVs emit an estimated 3-8% more PM2.5 than ICEVs" So. It depends. It's sometimes slightly be…

True, but these are all less than 20%, a change which is likely indistinguishable for any sort of risk factors, and likely well within the measurement error for something difficult to measure like this.

The true change we need to make is drastically reduce car use, to a tiny fraction of its current use. This is a hard social problem, however, particularly for the older generations who tend to wield power in most governments. Younger folks seem pretty excited to allow more biking and walking and rolling, though.

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#23

Post by dec0dedab0de »

randcraw wrote: post #20

I know essentially nothing about this topic, but it seems likely that some particles are more dangerous than others (though I've seen no suggestion of that). I'd prefer to go after the elephants in the room before the hamsters. There are MULTITUDES of particles in circulation everywhere everyday. If the impact of only some these are especially dire, we should be able to triage each particle simply by: 1) looking at w…

One thing that shocked me about cancer treatment is how little they asked me about environmental factors. I assumed there would be questionnaires asking about all kinds of specific products and foods, maybe even asking for soil and water samples from my home. But there was none of that, and this was a major research hospital. The only thing was that they asked permission to use my biopsy for additional research.

I know the data would be messy, and if released to the wild it could lead to sensational news stories that affect the sock market, but surely there is some value in collecting up all this data? How long did it take for glyphosate to be linked to cancer? How much sooner could it have been caught?

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#24

Post by jwineinger »

epistasis wrote: post #13
mavhc wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the food, or the fuel?

A lot of it is from the natural gas combustion, but the food itself also contributes. The day I got an air quality sensor (to assess risk from wildfire smoke), I realized that my kitchen is basically an asthma factory for the kids. (I haven't actually assessed the risk from that, as its different from wildfires smoke, but j just keep the kids out of the kitchen now until the air clears)

I have some air filters with air quality sensors on them, and we have an electric range so there's no natural gas combustion happening. Often when cooking (pan frying especially), those sensors will max out and send the air filters into turbo mode for a good while.

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#25

Post by timr »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #17
rufius wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other thing people don’t often talk of is PM2.5 inside their home while cooking. Lot of people have poor ventilation or insufficient air movement capacity in their kitchens.

Getting an air quality monitor during covid really blew my mind when I saw the amount cooking pollution and how long it can linger. No one should be cooking inside without a vent running or a window open.

> No one should be cooking inside without a vent running or a window open.

...or perhaps, it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things, and you're worried about it because you bought a measurement device and started measuring something you hadn't measured before.

This isn't a minor point. It's a recurring theme in biological and medical science where researchers start to measure things for the first time, discover a previously unknown level, declare it significant or "alarming", and ignore that there's no causative link to any known harm.

When you measure things, you find things, but most things you find are uninteresting.

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#26

Post by capitainenemo »

epistasis wrote: post #21
capitainenemo wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Electric vehicles are estimated to emit 5-19% less PM10 from non-exhaust sources per kilometre than internal combustion engine vehicles (ICEVs) across vehicle classes. However, EVs do not necessarily emit less PM2.5 than ICEVs. Although lightweight EVs emit an estimated 11-13% less PM2.5 than ICEV equivalents, heavier weight EVs emit an estimated 3-8% more PM2.5 than ICEVs" So. It depends. It's sometimes slightly be…

True, but these are all less than 20%, a change which is likely indistinguishable for any sort of risk factors, and likely well within the measurement error for something difficult to measure like this. The true change we need to make is drastically reduce car use, to a tiny fraction of its current use. This is a hard social problem, however, particularly for the older generations who tend to wield power in most gove…

Interestingly the first article flagged ebikes as particularly problematic, which are a pretty common way to extend bike range. Although, they must surely be better than cars just due to mass.

Anyway. Cautiously in agreement with you, but it depends a lot on where you live. Western Europe, at least at present, is blessed with a fairly mild climate. Less so than North America which seems to alternate between harsh winters and hot and humid summers. And it's a bit much to ask everyone to move somewhere nice. We probably need to figure out how to make braking systems and wheels less polluting.

Quoted this Douglas Adams once on New York when this came up... "In the summer it's too darn hot. It's one thing to be the sort of life form that thrives on heat and finds, as the Frastrans do, that the temperature range between 40,000 and 40,004 is very equable, but it's quite another to be the sort of animal that has to wrap itself up in lots of other animals at one point in your planet's orbit, and then find, half an orbit later, that your skin's bubbling." [edit] (aside, my theory is the Frastrans live on an aging neutron star like in "Dragon's Egg" ;) )

And really the situation gets worse a few states down. :) To say nothing of Texas or Arizona.

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#27

Post by hammock »

hackerlight wrote: post #22

Will wearing N95 masks when near busy roads help at all?

Yes. When I lived in a drafty street level apartment in SF on Oak St (busy artery) I would have to wipe my inside window sills 1-2x a week of the brake dust and black rubber particles that would accumulate

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#28

Post by MengerSponge »

timr wrote: post #25
micromacrofoot wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting an air quality monitor during covid really blew my mind when I saw the amount cooking pollution and how long it can linger. No one should be cooking inside without a vent running or a window open.

> No one should be cooking inside without a vent running or a window open. ...or perhaps, it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things, and you're worried about it because you bought a measurement device and started measuring something you hadn't measured before. This isn't a minor point. It's a recurring theme in biological and medical science where researchers start to measure things for the first time…

Except here there is a causative link of combustion byproducts of that size causing real harm. I've also lived in lots of apartments that don't have external-venting range hoods, so all that PM you generate while cooking is just in your living space until you filter it or breathe it. Introducing a PM counter, better filters, and enhanced ventilation practices (such as running the upstairs bathroom fan while cooking) dramatically reduced the eye irritation and stuffy nose I tended to wake up with.

For what it's worth, the same particulate counter will also spike off the charts when anyone takes a shower, but as far as we can tell those salt pm's aren't dangerous.

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#29

Post by timr »

MengerSponge wrote: post #28
timr wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No one should be cooking inside without a vent running or a window open. ...or perhaps, it doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of things, and you're worried about it because you bought a measurement device and started measuring something you hadn't measured before. This isn't a minor point. It's a recurring theme in biological and medical science where researchers start to measure things for the first time…

Except here there is a causative link of combustion byproducts of that size causing real harm. I've also lived in lots of apartments that don't have external-venting range hoods, so all that PM you generate while cooking is just in your living space until you filter it or breathe it. Introducing a PM counter, better filters, and enhanced ventilation practices (such as running the upstairs bathroom fan while cooking)…

No, here is a link between car fumes and lung cancer in mice. Unless you routinely have a car running in your kitchen while cooking (for mice), it's not related.

PM2.5 particles are not all the same, nor are periodic exposure levels in a household kitchen in any way comparable to those used in a laboratory animal study.

> For what it's worth, the same particulate counter will also spike off the charts when anyone takes a shower, but as far as we can tell those salt pm's aren't dangerous.

Yes, exactly. You are perfectly illustrating my point. You have just as much evidence for this claim as for the kitchen one (i.e. none), but you assume one is fine and the other is not.

Re: Cancer breakthrough is a ‘wake-up’ call on danger of air pollution

#30

Post by micromacrofoot »

timr wrote: post #29
MengerSponge wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except here there is a causative link of combustion byproducts of that size causing real harm. I've also lived in lots of apartments that don't have external-venting range hoods, so all that PM you generate while cooking is just in your living space until you filter it or breathe it. Introducing a PM counter, better filters, and enhanced ventilation practices (such as running the upstairs bathroom fan while cooking)…

No, here is a link between car fumes and lung cancer in mice. Unless you routinely have a car running in your kitchen while cooking (for mice), it's not related. PM2.5 particles are not all the same, nor are periodic exposure levels in a household kitchen in any way comparable to those used in a laboratory animal study. > For what it's worth, the same particulate counter will also spike off the charts when anyone tak…

You're not wrong... but running a vent or opening a window while you're cooking to mitigate PM2.5 exposure, which we know can be carcinogenic, seems like incredibly minimal intervention. I'd rather change my behavior slightly than wait for more conclusive data in this specific case.
Post reply on HN