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

High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

scienceclock.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 81 posts

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#31

Post by unglaublich »

ozim wrote: post #14
Theodores wrote: post #10

If only you could see it. In the big cities the air quality has improved, however, I am not sure if it really has, or if we are now just burning hydrocarbons more efficiently so that the particle sizes have become invisible. Put it this way, although cars are allegedly better than they were, fuel consumption hasn't dropped considerably. The cars are more numerous than ever, and, although there are EVs, there are stil…

Exhaust fumes were easy to optimize. Lots of particles cars emit are from tires and break pads. I think someone was measuring that but I don’t have sources but most likely I read that somewhere in the comments of HN.

One good thing about electric vehicles is that regenerative breaking effectively eradicates brake pad use and pollution. Only tire dust remains significant.

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#32

Post by staminade »

qprofyeh wrote: post #24

If you have ever been to a city that has banned fossil fuels then you can absolutely tell the difference, to most of the overpopulated European cities that I have visited. It’s astonishing how peaceful and comfortable it is to run or even stroll when every breath is just 100% refreshing; you feel 10 pounds lighter. Meanwhile the blackened filter of our home HVAC needs replacement again… and allergies.

Which cities are you referring to? Some cities have policies that discourage gas and diesel cars, and plans to outlaw them by 2030, but I'm not aware of any that have banned them outright yet.

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#33

Post by hagbard_c »

edhelas wrote: post #8
adrianN wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the future electric cars and heat pumps will improve the situation.

And how the electricity will be made? Without any CO2 for sure! (or not... yet)

Nuclear power is a good option, wind and solar are usable for charging batteries - either EV batteries or storage banks which can be used to charge EV batteries. The problem with wind and solar is that there is no long-term storage solution as of yet but single-day storage is already achievable. Once enough nuclear capacity has been built up I foresee wind turbines disappearing from the landscape since they are cumbersome bird-killing eyesores. Solar power is there to stay since buildings need roofing anyway and we'll soon be at a point where the price difference between 'passive' roof cladding and PV 'panels' is close to negligible so it makes sense to install PV roof cladding and get some power for free, especially in places where air conditioning is popular.

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#34

Post by staminade »

Theodores wrote: post #10

If only you could see it. In the big cities the air quality has improved, however, I am not sure if it really has, or if we are now just burning hydrocarbons more efficiently so that the particle sizes have become invisible. Put it this way, although cars are allegedly better than they were, fuel consumption hasn't dropped considerably. The cars are more numerous than ever, and, although there are EVs, there are stil…

Sure thing, here's a report from the Greater London Authority tracking the history of air quality in the city since the "Great Smog" event 1952, which caused an estimated 4000 deaths.

https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-...

The main takeaway is that yes, urban air quality (including fine particulate matter) has improved massively over time, but most of it had little to do with road traffic, as for decades it wasn't a significant contributor to the overall mix. The important change was the move away from burning solid fuels like coal for household heating and in power stations within cities, to using gas and electricity with larger, out-of-town power stations.

As other sources have declined, road traffic has indeed become the largest contribution to urban air pollution, but even here there has been progress. Fine particulate emissions have continued to decline as car manufacturers have adapted to more stringent regulation (cheating scandals notwithstanding). A bigger problem now is higher non-exhaust emissions caused by larger and heavier vehicles. This is something else that will need to be solved via regulation. Other policies like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods can also help to restrict the worst pollution to major roads and away from where most people live.

Urban air quality is never going to be as good as that in the countryside, but it's not true to believe that no progress has been made, and that it's simply been a switch in the type of pollution.

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#36

Post by merryocha »

I wish more people paid attention to air quality. I'm a delivery driver and air quality has a noticeable effect on my energy levels throughout the day and also my mood. Slightly rainy days are probably my favorite days to work because no one is outside digging up roads and kicking up tire dust with leaf blowers and the rain seems to clean the air a bit.

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#37

Post by gedy »

qprofyeh wrote: post #24

If you have ever been to a city that has banned fossil fuels then you can absolutely tell the difference, to most of the overpopulated European cities that I have visited. It’s astonishing how peaceful and comfortable it is to run or even stroll when every breath is just 100% refreshing; you feel 10 pounds lighter. Meanwhile the blackened filter of our home HVAC needs replacement again… and allergies.

Maybe you mean this, but does "fossil fuel" really mean Diesel engines? Those were very awful to breathe around and were widespread in European cities as we all know.

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#38

Post by hexbin010 »

Theodores wrote: post #10

If only you could see it. In the big cities the air quality has improved, however, I am not sure if it really has, or if we are now just burning hydrocarbons more efficiently so that the particle sizes have become invisible. Put it this way, although cars are allegedly better than they were, fuel consumption hasn't dropped considerably. The cars are more numerous than ever, and, although there are EVs, there are stil…

> Anecdotal, however, I used to work with meteorologists and they would always live to the West of the city centre, to get cleaner air than those living in the east of the city, or further downwind.

The industrial-revolution era mill owners were very aware of this too. Posh area of Manchester is to the south (westerly winds;) Leeds to the north (mix of northerly and westerly winds I believe).

Also, anecdotally, smaller towns and villages can have poor air quality too due to log burners. They're an absolute pain. You can tell when an area has become gentrified when shiny new chimneys start popping up or a log burner shop opens up!

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#39

Post by djtango »

potato3732842 wrote: post #26
ta12653421 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember an interview with the producthead of Google Earth (the desktop client), she said when photographing all the streets, the cars also checked for air pollution: She mentioned a capital in Europe, where the amount of particles under certain sizes differed by 10x from one crossing to the next.

The measurement may very well be accurate but statements like that should set off massive red flags and not be taken at face value. A factor of ten difference for something that just kinda diffuses through the air doesn't "just exist". You don't get gradients like that "naturally" for the most part. It's the result of something. Maybe there's a source something is upwind of and something else is downwind of. Maybe th…

Doesn't it really depend? Like I recall Oxford Street in London at one point was notoriously bad because it was a bottleneck for a lot of slow moving traffic so that one length of road was especially bad. 10x bad I don't know... But it's not hard to imagine some of the quieter roads filtering off like Berwick St or Dean St would be considerably better

Re: High air pollution could diminish exercise benefits by half – study

#40

Post by ffsm8 »

potato3732842 wrote: post #26
ta12653421 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember an interview with the producthead of Google Earth (the desktop client), she said when photographing all the streets, the cars also checked for air pollution: She mentioned a capital in Europe, where the amount of particles under certain sizes differed by 10x from one crossing to the next.

The measurement may very well be accurate but statements like that should set off massive red flags and not be taken at face value. A factor of ten difference for something that just kinda diffuses through the air doesn't "just exist". You don't get gradients like that "naturally" for the most part. It's the result of something. Maybe there's a source something is upwind of and something else is downwind of. Maybe th…

Especially the small particles in large cities are mostly caused by Biodiesel fuels - at least from my anecdotal experience.

I have a Phillips air purifier which includes a sensor for particles - whenever Diesel cars drove by the particles spiked and it went full throttle for a while if I had my window open.

Post reply on HN