A study on the extent of global air pollution • Hacker News Board

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#51

Post by bumby » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

jjulius wrote: post #42

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?

The source data is linked in the article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...

Their data is measuring the PM5 levels. What I’m asking about is how that difference gets translated to actual health risk. It’s related, but not in their data set (as far as I can tell on mobile).

There’s a distinction between measuring the difference in a plausible mechanism (PM5)and an outcome of interest (health). It’s easy to get caught up in the “mechanism porn” of scientific studies and extrapolate too far in terms of assumed outcomes.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#52

Post by earlyam » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

stinos wrote: post #43

cmews wrote: post #31

My wife has severe astma and when traveling this is something that worries me all the time. At home we have blue air machines and plants to filter the air, but astma attacks still happen (when she didn't use her medicines enough) when she travels from work to home on bad air quality days in Amsterdam. The astma medication is something that comes with a lot of trade-offs/health complications if you use it too much. Ho…

I don't understand why politically it doesn't get the attention it deserves Same as the obesity pandemic, the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis: there are no clear immediate effects for the general population (consequences of that in turn lead from claims that it's fake to 'yeah sure whatever I don't care doesn't affect me' and everything in between), dealing with it will in the short run cost lots of money, no…

> Same as the obesity pandemic, the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis

That and almost every problem is a political party's solution. Get the voter base whipped up about any attempts to do anything and get reelected for obstructing it. Rinse, repeat.

Politicians don't care about issues, they care about getting reelected; to do that they must exploit and perpetuate problems they're supposed to fix.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#53

Post by jamiecurle » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 4:55 PM UTC

easytiger wrote: post #22

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.

This is what I cannot fathom.

I was born the 70's, played outside for all my childhood amidst all the leaded petrol and sulphur dioxide, I handled leaded petrol for a job at a petrol station for solid three years and I lived in dense urban town from childhood until today.

Everything seems to be way lower than it ever has been:

[1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po...

[2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po...

[3]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po...

[4]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po...

So why is everything framed as being more deadly now than it was given the all time lows?

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#54

Post by alwa » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 5:00 PM UTC

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #40

graeme wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average home in a mildly polluted area will actually generally have clean indoor air without filtration. Even with windows open. Don't ask me how this works, but I've verified it using a PM 2.5 monitor, a laseregg 2. With indoor and outdoor measurements on the same day. I recommend indoor filtration for other reasons (allergies, diseases, cutting down pollution from cooking). But if someone already isn't producin…

No one but the most concerned loonies are gonna start wearing a mask though and how do you select for a car with good filtration among the countless other decision parameters for a car?

One option, regardless of the car you choose, might be to seek out a high-efficiency aftermarket replacement when you change your cabin air filter.

I went longer in life than I should have before I even realized I should be changing mine out every 15,000 miles or so in the first place.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#55

Post by flanbiscuit » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 5:06 PM UTC

If you live in the US, the EPA has a website to check outside air quality

https://www.airnow.gov/

There was a recent thread[1] about air quality sensors a few months ago. From that thread there were a lot of recommendations. I ended up buying the Airthings ViewPlus[2] because it covered the widest range. If it's too pricey for you, AirGradient[3] sells a DIY "Pre-soldered" kit for cheaper that I strongly considered as well. The article in that thread was about how "Many indoor air quality sensor products are a scam," but like people mentioned in the comments, even if they are not 100% exactly accurate, you can still see that something has changed and you can crack a window, or close one if PM2.5 from outside is too high.

1. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33025995

2. https://www.airthings.com/view-plus

3. https://www.airgradient.com/open-airgradient/kits/

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#56

Post by graeme » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 5:20 PM UTC

Traubenfuchs wrote: post #40

graeme wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average home in a mildly polluted area will actually generally have clean indoor air without filtration. Even with windows open. Don't ask me how this works, but I've verified it using a PM 2.5 monitor, a laseregg 2. With indoor and outdoor measurements on the same day. I recommend indoor filtration for other reasons (allergies, diseases, cutting down pollution from cooking). But if someone already isn't producin…

No one but the most concerned loonies are gonna start wearing a mask though and how do you select for a car with good filtration among the countless other decision parameters for a car?

It really depends where you live. What's the pm 2.5 in your city? Mine isn't high enough to worry about outdoor pollution, and if it was I would move.

But people in high smog cities do wear masks. They have regular smog warnings too; people treat it like the weather. See this pre-pandemic article showing people wearing masks during a smog outbreak: https://www.ctvnews.ca/lifestyle/beijing-locals-don-colourfu...

For cars, I think the biggest factor is choosing a good filter and making sure it remains in good working order.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#57

Post by jjk166 » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 5:24 PM UTC

trgn wrote: post #21

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 vi…

No it's not, and the comparison is absurd.

With domestic violence it is trivially easy to have none at all, and there is a very distinct difference between none and some.

With air quality there is a smooth and continuous measurement for what is in the air. You will never get to zero particulates per cubic meter, you can only get under a certain level. Further, the effects of air quality are also a smooth continuous function - there isn't some distinct point where if you are below it there's no risk of health issues and immediately above it you have guaranteed serious health issues. A binary categorization is clearly inappropriate.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#58

Post by gniv » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 5:32 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #18

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?

* Testing/replacing car air filter * Any mask outside. Even surgical can cut more than half of pm 2.5 * A lot of people recommending indoor filters, but indoor pollution generally a lot less than outdoors except when cooking. You can verify this with a PM 2.5 monitor. I do recommend indoor filters, but if budget is limited and you're working on overall lower pm 2.5 filters, testing car and getting masks is the more e…

> indoor pollution generally a lot less than outdoors

Why would that be? Unless you have central A/C with good filter, I don't see how indoor air would be cleaner.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#59

Post by jjk166 » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 5:38 PM UTC

now__what wrote: post #29

rootusrootus wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Drawing an arbitrary line where none logically should exist is the cause of, not the solution to, pedantic bickering and inaction. You're going to get a lot more people to agree "pollution should be lower" than "this is a good amount of pollution."

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#60

Post by AstralStorm » Tue, Mar 07, 2023, 5:57 PM UTC

cmews wrote: post #50

stinos wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand why politically it doesn't get the attention it deserves Same as the obesity pandemic, the climate crisis, the biodiversity crisis: there are no clear immediate effects for the general population (consequences of that in turn lead from claims that it's fake to 'yeah sure whatever I don't care doesn't affect me' and everything in between), dealing with it will in the short run cost lots of money, no…

I agree with you, however historically the move from leaded fuel to lead-free fuel proved that we could do it or the protection of the ozon layer (one of the few times in history that we took collectively action against something damaging humanity, but it doesn't happen often enough). Curious what would cause a tipping point for improving air quality or any of the other multiple crises you mentioned and if we could l…

The only worked because we had a ready replacement in place. (Different comparable gasoline additives, different comparable refrigerants, alternative motive gasses for pressured containers.)

And even today, leaded gas is still used for aircraft.

The problem with fossil fuels is we really do not quite have anything as energy dense and useful, not even lithium. (Which there is too little of, not to mention mining issues.)

As such, it will require a major change not just a tweak.