I’ve long been struck by how consistently different methods find large health harms from air pollution. Most people seem to think we no longer have an air pollution problem, because we mostly don’t see much air pollution. But the particles that are too small to see continue to cause great harm.
and sterilizing our environment to help people with Asthma is not necessarily the best strategy either, considering early life microbial exposure is actually negatively correlated with asthma.
We humans repress natural fires and live in air-conditioned homes and buildings so we in the USA may already be exposed to much less air pollution than in a state of nature. People in the environmental movement seem to not be bothered by natural levels of pollution.
This is very true. The low hanging fruit for this would be reduction in male trees that reproduce via airborne pollen.In most first-world cities, human pollution is relatively low, its the natural pollution thats horrible.
I guess the case against that action for me would be, that perhaps the aggregate effect is explained entirely by people with some asthma or similar symptoms. In other words, cleaner air might make a few people much healthier, instead of making everyone a little healthier.
I read the articles you linked to, and it appears that they make the assumption of a linear relationship between mortality and PM concentrations over the whole range of observed values. But, in toxicology in general, such linearity would be an exception - there are usually multiple mechanisms of injury operating for any poison, operating at various concentration ranges and over various timespans. Are there any research results specifically addressing the toxicity of PM at low levels? Frequently, especially as regards carcinogenicity, there are threshold effects below which there is no negative impact, or there may be even a beneficial effect, so called hormesis (as is suspected with low-dose ionizing radiation).
In the absence of such low-level PM mortality results, there is insufficient data to suggest increasing the stringency of air quality standards, since this action would have clear and substantial economic costs but unclear benefits.
not that air pollution isnt an issue that should be looked at as a potential health risk factor, i question your two conclusions.increasing lifespan by .61 years is certainly something, but i'm not sure this should be considered 'huge.' I question even more your assertion that these gains could be achieved at a modest expense. how are you justifying that claim? we have already made great strides in recent history to reduce air pollution, and as you decrease particulates further, the marginal cost to get cleaner would increase exponentially.
Apparently woodsmoke is really bad for you too: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
thanks
and sterilizing our environment to help people with Asthma is not necessarily the best strategy either, considering early life microbial exposure is actually negatively correlated with asthma.
We humans repress natural fires and live in air-conditioned homes and buildings so we in the USA may already be exposed to much less air pollution than in a state of nature. People in the environmental movement seem to not be bothered by natural levels of pollution.
Relatedly, boo coal.
This is very true. The low hanging fruit for this would be reduction in male trees that reproduce via airborne pollen.In most first-world cities, human pollution is relatively low, its the natural pollution thats horrible.
I believe the role of particulates in air was detailed well in the Skeptical Environmentalist.
Only four comments on such a subject.. Does this show hopelessness for a fix or acceptance for the orderly elimination of the human species.
I guess the case against that action for me would be, that perhaps the aggregate effect is explained entirely by people with some asthma or similar symptoms. In other words, cleaner air might make a few people much healthier, instead of making everyone a little healthier.
http://startsomegood.com/Ve...
So does that mean a home air purifier might be a good idea?
I read the articles you linked to, and it appears that they make the assumption of a linear relationship between mortality and PM concentrations over the whole range of observed values. But, in toxicology in general, such linearity would be an exception - there are usually multiple mechanisms of injury operating for any poison, operating at various concentration ranges and over various timespans. Are there any research results specifically addressing the toxicity of PM at low levels? Frequently, especially as regards carcinogenicity, there are threshold effects below which there is no negative impact, or there may be even a beneficial effect, so called hormesis (as is suspected with low-dose ionizing radiation).
In the absence of such low-level PM mortality results, there is insufficient data to suggest increasing the stringency of air quality standards, since this action would have clear and substantial economic costs but unclear benefits.
not that air pollution isnt an issue that should be looked at as a potential health risk factor, i question your two conclusions.increasing lifespan by .61 years is certainly something, but i'm not sure this should be considered 'huge.' I question even more your assertion that these gains could be achieved at a modest expense. how are you justifying that claim? we have already made great strides in recent history to reduce air pollution, and as you decrease particulates further, the marginal cost to get cleaner would increase exponentially.