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

Smog in our brains

apa.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 93 posts

Re: Smog in our brains

#81

Post by dxhdr »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #62
freeflight wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they did, I would hope people around them recognized that their conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. Right now we consider these electronics, and their emissions, largely benign but that doesn't mean that's actually the case in the long term. Think about the amount of wireless stuff constantly going on around you: GSM, EDGE, UMTS, LTE, bluetooth, several WLAN…

> GSM, EDGE, UMTS, LTE, bluetooth, several WLAN standards, radio, satellite Non-ionizing, regulated dosage. Maybe we'll discover they were dangerous, but evidence doesn't support it so far.

> Non-ionizing

Non-ionizing radiation can have adverse health effects, e.g. UV light.

Re: Smog in our brains

#82

Post by [deleted] »

LMYahooTFY wrote: post #7
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Someday people may also look back at the television and the smartphone and compare the garbage we call mass media that we put into our minds to the lead in Roman water pipes.

Are you referring to non-ionizing radiation? Is there anything yet to show negative effects? My understanding is that there hadn't been conclusive study, but from what we know of thermal radiation there aren't known mechanisms for damage to occur within the FCC(think it's their rules?) guidelines.

[deleted]

Re: Smog in our brains

#83

Post by sevenfive »

observation wrote: post #53

You should be worried about IAQ - indoor air quality. This is because you spend 90% of your time indoors. It is also because IAQ is far worse than outdoor air quality. The kitchens of most homes would be closed down by inspectors if they were commercial. Correctly ventilating a home with a ERV/HRV, bathroom ventilation and oven hood (harder than it sounds because many designs are snake oil) solves the problem. Few pe…

> Most American homes share a leaky wall with their garage. A garage with shelves of highly toxic substances that offgas through the wall when the weather gets hotter.

I don't buy this... what substances exactly, and wouldn't this imply that spending any time in one's garage is extremely dangerous, given that the concentration must still be orders of magnitude higher inside than out.

Also, why is bathroom ventilation important? Nothing neurotoxic there, just gross.

Re: Smog in our brains

#84

Post by dEnigma »

legulere wrote: post #68
jdc wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just how great are the PM emissions from car tires? Has anyone quantified the effect?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016... > Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic.

The authors regret that as Victor Timmers did not carry out the research under the auspices of the University of Edinburgh, nor in collaboration or consultation with any personnel at the University of Edinburgh, the affiliation of “University of Edinburgh” has now been removed from this work at the request of the Institution. In addition, subsequent to the publication of the Paper, Victor Timmers has disclosed a potential Conflict of Interest with regard to the work, namely: “non-financial support from Innas B.V, during the conduct of the study”.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016...

Re: Smog in our brains

#85

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

KGIII wrote: post #72
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpick: I think you mean to say EVs don't apply friction braking as often as use regenerative braking a lot.

Correct, thanks. I should have been more clear. They also (usually) have smaller pads and rotors.

I've often wondered what brake pads are made from. I was aware asbestos had been used in the past.

Have you read much about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_pad#Materials

Re: Smog in our brains

#86

Post by KGIII »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #85
KGIII wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Correct, thanks. I should have been more clear. They also (usually) have smaller pads and rotors.

I've often wondered what brake pads are made from. I was aware asbestos had been used in the past. Have you read much about them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brake_pad#Materials

Yup. I believe they are still in use in some areas. There are still asbestos clutches, as well. They are, the clutches, still used in the US.

Re: Smog in our brains

#87

Post by verelo »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #69
verelo wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> "Maybe coal is cheaper" Many make this claim, but I do not buy it. Take Australia as an example: relies on coal for around 85% of electricity production [1], also has some of the most expensive electricity in the western world [2] at around 29c / USD Kilowatt hour (that is over 2x the US national average). [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20070709212140/http://www.iea.or... [2] https://www.ovoenergy.com/guides/ener…

Until Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and The Wilderness Society come out and publicly claim responsibility for the mess Australia's electricity generation is I won't take "Environmentalism" seriously. I live in Tasmania now, I think most of our electricity comes from hydro. Thirty hydropower stations operating in Tasmania[1], but we still pay ~26 cents a kilowatt-hour here. 1. https://www.hydro.com.au/energy/our-p…

Curious, what did (or didn't) those organizations do? I donate to some of them and would gladly change that by donating elsewhere if there is good reason not to.

Also, agreed. Australia is a mess. I grew up in Newcastle, living in Toronto Canada now and love looking at where our energy comes from: https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelect...

No coal, beautiful!

Re: Smog in our brains

#88

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

verelo wrote: post #87
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Until Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and The Wilderness Society come out and publicly claim responsibility for the mess Australia's electricity generation is I won't take "Environmentalism" seriously. I live in Tasmania now, I think most of our electricity comes from hydro. Thirty hydropower stations operating in Tasmania[1], but we still pay ~26 cents a kilowatt-hour here. 1. https://www.hydro.com.au/energy/our-p…

Curious, what did (or didn't) those organizations do? I donate to some of them and would gladly change that by donating elsewhere if there is good reason not to. Also, agreed. Australia is a mess. I grew up in Newcastle, living in Toronto Canada now and love looking at where our energy comes from: https://www.cns-snc.ca/media/ontarioelectricity/ontarioelect... No coal, beautiful!

Generally campaign hard against nuclear and hydro. There hasn't been any new hydro in Australia since The Wilderness Society blocked the Franklin Dam project[1].

I'll admit that no new hydro is arguably a good thing for certain aspects of sustainability, but it could be argued that new hydro is better than new coal or gas. That's sort of a false dichotomy because there are other options:

An in-principle agreement has been reached to build a new 144MW wind farm in central Tasmania[2], the first new wind project in the state in almost a decade[3].

The Franklin Dam project was to be 180MW, with arguable much greater capacity factor than wind.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franklin_Dam_controversy

2. http://www.goldwindaustralia.com/aurora-energy-goldwind-anno...

3. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-07/new-$300m-wind-farm-fo...

Re: Smog in our brains

#89

Post by legulere »

dEnigma wrote: post #84
legulere wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231016... > Non-exhaust emissions already account for over 90% of PM10 and 85% of PM2.5 emissions from traffic.

The authors regret that as Victor Timmers did not carry out the research under the auspices of the University of Edinburgh, nor in collaboration or consultation with any personnel at the University of Edinburgh, the affiliation of “University of Edinburgh” has now been removed from this work at the request of the Institution. In addition, subsequent to the publication of the Paper, Victor Timmers has disclosed a pote…

Thanks! A bit sad that the publication was not retracted

Re: Smog in our brains

#90

Post by Doxin »

sevenfive wrote: post #83
observation wrote: post #53

You should be worried about IAQ - indoor air quality. This is because you spend 90% of your time indoors. It is also because IAQ is far worse than outdoor air quality. The kitchens of most homes would be closed down by inspectors if they were commercial. Correctly ventilating a home with a ERV/HRV, bathroom ventilation and oven hood (harder than it sounds because many designs are snake oil) solves the problem. Few pe…

> Most American homes share a leaky wall with their garage. A garage with shelves of highly toxic substances that offgas through the wall when the weather gets hotter. I don't buy this... what substances exactly, and wouldn't this imply that spending any time in one's garage is extremely dangerous, given that the concentration must still be orders of magnitude higher inside than out. Also, why is bathroom ventilation…

The problem with having toxic gasses/particulates in your home, as opposed to in your garage, is that you spend way more time in your home. Brief exposure to low levels of toxic materials is usually not a terribly big deal. Chronic exposure is much more serious, even for the same low levels.

As to what substances, the garage is used by many people to store household volatiles, which will gas off no matter how tight you screw the cap on. Add to that the exhaust fumes and it makes for a fairly unpleasant atmosphere.

Now to be fair this is all very likely to not be a problem in 99% of cases, otherwise it'd have been in the news already, but it's still a good idea to keep in mind when deciding how to store chemicals.

Post reply on HN