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

A study on the extent of global air pollution

scienceswitch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 73 posts

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#21

Post by trgn »

waynenilsen wrote: post #2

Seems like too few categories, safe or not safe? Clearly this is a spectrum

This is the battered spouse argument in our relationship to our living environment. Well of course the air is unhealthy, but see, you need to understand the whole story!

Categorical thinking is not always because of a lack of nuance or of zealotry or stupidity (which are generally more modern dismissive interpretations). Delineating categories is a useful framing to firmly separate what is on the one hand good and virtuous (clean air), and on the other evil and depraved (polluted air). It's an excellent way to identify when exactly rationalization, submission or complaisance kicks in. Well, it's not as bad as it used to be. It's even worse in xyz country. It's not reflected in the average life expectancy. It's the price we pay for modern luxuries etc... etc... Having firm categories, and these will read as fearful or callous defenses.

Good categories should compel to action. In this case, what can be done to move from Box B into Box A. And then do those things (because Box B is inherently evil).

The real world is grey. For sure. And multiple opposing things can be true at once. Nonetheless, we need to cut through that, and I'm fearful we've forgotten how. The reason our cities are degraded is in large part because we have failed to think in categories, and have rationalized away (categorically) wrong habits.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#22

Post by easytiger »

bumby wrote: post #6

“The health impacts of exposure to PM2.5 are significant” I think they need to elaborate on this to put the funding in greater context. Statistically significant? Significant in terms of actual impact on one’s life?

And how do they square the circle that with the deindustrialisation and move to central heating that those particulates production are at a century low in many western countries yet seem to be more deadly than ever.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#23

Post by rootusrootus »

Jorchime wrote: post #20
waynenilsen wrote: post #2

Seems like too few categories, safe or not safe? Clearly this is a spectrum

Why? If critical levels of "unhealthy stuff" is exceeded, it's not safe. Your spectrum is on the threshold of "unhealthy stuff"

So there is a magic point, greater than zero, where it simply switches from healthy to unhealthy? That seems improbable.

Edit: Downvotes but no comments. That's a pretty low effort way of admitting your position is faith-based, not scientific.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#24

Post by mc32 »

waynenilsen wrote: post #2

Seems like too few categories, safe or not safe? Clearly this is a spectrum

I think you have a point. If there were no people on Earth, what would the PM 2.5 look like? If it would still be too high, then it seems this measure while, baseline to know, wouldn't be practically useful. We'd have to then control naturally occurring PM2.5 in the environment.

That's not to say the obvious is not true, that Regions of China and India suffer from too much PM2.5 due to human activity and should be addressed. However, a chicken little situation is not helpful as people will tune out.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#25

Post by dahart »

waynenilsen wrote: post #2

Seems like too few categories, safe or not safe? Clearly this is a spectrum

Indeed it is, you’re right. Here is the spectrum the WHO publishes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574582/table/fm-ch1.ta...

Note that the idea of a single safe “threshold” limit is based on the best available research today showing that they haven’t measured adverse health effects below 5 μg/m³ average annual exposure. The spectrum here is a spread of increased mortality that can be attributed to pollution above that limit. There’s a different threshold for a single day exposure than for average exposure. Also note that the recommendation recently came down from the 2005 recommendation of 10 μg/m³ due to more research showing adverse health effects of pollution. There might not exist any so-called “safe” limit, and speculating wildly, we might expect their recommendation to drop again in the future.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#26

Post by jodrellblank »

dsq wrote: post #13
Am4TIfIsER0ppos wrote: post #5

Only seventy thousand people? I don't believe you.

Just the people living in Greenland, Lapland and the Antarctic scientists probably passes 70 thousand. Unless they include people breathing in smoke from their wood fires as they roast their wild venison or salmon.

What makes you think the people living in Greenland, and Lapland aren't doing anything with diesel engines or industry? Wikipedia says Greenland's main industries are "fish processing, and oil, gold, niobium, tantalite, uranium, iron, and diamond mining".

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#27

Post by Jorchime »

rootusrootus wrote: post #23
Jorchime wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If critical levels of "unhealthy stuff" is exceeded, it's not safe. Your spectrum is on the threshold of "unhealthy stuff"

So there is a magic point, greater than zero, where it simply switches from healthy to unhealthy? That seems improbable. Edit: Downvotes but no comments. That's a pretty low effort way of admitting your position is faith-based, not scientific.

You have a multitude of things to measure in breathing air. For each you can establish thresholds for safe levels through the scientific method with evidence. Likely there is a transition area, but also regions with a very high likelihood of being unhealthy.

If any of these measures is "in the red", your air is unhealthy.

Why not?

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#29

Post by now__what »

rootusrootus wrote: post #23
Jorchime wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If critical levels of "unhealthy stuff" is exceeded, it's not safe. Your spectrum is on the threshold of "unhealthy stuff"

So there is a magic point, greater than zero, where it simply switches from healthy to unhealthy? That seems improbable. Edit: Downvotes but no comments. That's a pretty low effort way of admitting your position is faith-based, not scientific.

As with most things, even if there is no "magic point," you need to draw the line somewhere as accurately as you can, or you'll be trapped in pedantic bickering and inaction forever.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#30

Post by belorn »

moneywoes wrote: post #4

Lets say I'm living in one of these areas ( and can't help it) besides wearing a kn95 when going out, is there anything that can be done?

As with most environmental issues, the best thing anyone can do is getting political active and create changes that reduces air pollution. Problem created by people acting as a social group (i.e. densely populated cities, power plants, factories, highways and so on) do not really have solutions that individuals can easily apply.
Post reply on HN