4 ms·

PM2.5 smog is literally poisonous.. From Wiki[1]: The smaller PM2.5 were particularly deadly, with a 36% increase in lung cancer per 10 μg/m3 as it can

PM2.5 smog is literally poisonous.. From Wiki[1]: The smaller PM2.5 were particularly deadly, with a 36% increase in lung cancer per 10 μg/m3 as it can penetrate deeper into the lungs And... An increase in estimated annual exposure to PM 2.5 of just 5 µg/m3 was linked with a 13% increased risk of heart attacks. So 36% increase in lung cancer per 10μg/m3 and a 13% increase in heart attacks from 5μg/m3. The level in Beijing right now is 250μg/m3. It maxed at over 360μg/m3 in the past 48 hours.[2] People are literally being killed by Beijing's air quality as we speak, should we temper our language to not appear biased? [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particulates [2] - http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/us-embassy/ http://aqicn.org/city/beijing/us-embassy/

ekianjo 11y ago
Come on, the article referred "you could get sick just by standing in the street" - if that's not hyperbole, I don't know what that is. > with a 36% increase in lung cancer per 10 μg/m3 as it can penetrate deeper into the lungs Observational study. That says everything, it does not account for all variables that have to be taken in account and therefore the effect cannot be isolated. > An increase in estimated annual exposure to PM 2.5 of just 5 µg/m3 was linked with a 13% increased risk of heart attacks. Annual exposure. Not standing in the streets for 5 minutes like the article suggests. Yes, we should temper our language and use Good Science and not Sensationalism.
- dengnan 11y ago
  Have you ever been there? If you want to talk about science, then define "sick" fisrt. For most people, frequently coughing would be considered as "sick". Note that we are not discussing disease, we are talking about sickness, which I think is a less rigorous word sometimes referring to "not feeling good". I was born in Beijing and have been living there for more than two decades. And yes, I feel bad when I was exposed under that environment: I can hardly breathe, I coughed a lot and felt itchy in every inch of my skin. If you think that is not "getting sick", then well, welcome to Beijing.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > Have you ever been there? As a matter of fact, I have, and several times. Don't assume I know nothing of what I am talking about please. Please show me the stats of lung cancer in Beijing vs other parts of the world. I'd like to see how much the reality stands out vs the assumptions people make. > If you think that is not "getting sick", then well, welcome to Beijing. I was not talking about discomfort (that, I have noticed on every trip I did there) but this particular article makes blatant claims with absolutely no data to back them up, which was exactly the point of my post: allegations do not create facts.
    - jccalhoun 11y ago
      https://www.google.com/search?q=stats+of+lung+cancer+in+Beijing+vs+other+parts+of+the+world https://www.google.com/search?q=stats+of+lung+cancer+in+Beij...
- rahimnathwani 11y ago
  "Come on, the article referred "you could get sick just by standing in the street" - if that's not hyperbole, I don't know what that is." Actually, that's understatement. You don't even need to be standing in the street. Air circulates everywhere, both indoor and out. Sure, you can try and seal your windows, and run air purifiers in your home. But what about when you're at work, or at a restaurant, or any other non-home place?
Retra 11y ago
It's worth remembering that a 36% increase of a marginal risk is still marginal. That number doesn't mean anything unless you know the original risk.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  Exactly. the typical risk of cancer is measured in "per million", so having a 36% risk does not mean "people are getting killed as we speak".
  - Retra 11y ago
    At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. That's a significant effect, because it means 900% more people will get lung cancer on average. People are getting killed, it's just hard to say how many without better numbers.
    - ekianjo 11y ago
      > At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. You can extrapolate linearly such numbers, it makes absolutely no sense. This is not a math class, we are talking about clinical effects with actual thresholds.
      - Retra 11y ago
        "35% per 10µg" expresses a linear relationship. If someone says that's what it is, I'm going to assume they measured a linear relationship. It makes perfect sense if that is indeed the reality, and I see no reason why it cannot be. Unless you've got some actual conflicting data, it just sounds like you have unfavorable agenda.
        ekianjo 11y ago
        Even if it's a linear relationship, it can only exist within the demonstrated range. You should know that not everything is linear when you go outside of the range you have studied. So unless proven this linear relationship is valid across all the spectrum (which is obviously is not), then you should take whatever is written with a big grain of salt and thing twice about it before making over simplistic assumptions.
ekianjo 11y ago
From your link in [1] > The meta-analyses showed a statistically significant association between risk for lung cancer and PM10 (hazard ratio [HR] 1·22 [95% CI 1·03–1·45] per 10 μg/m3). For PM2·5 the HR was 1·18 (0·96–1·46) per 5 μg/m3. The increase of risk of lung cancer was NOT significant with PM2.5 ratio. Only with PM10.
- mikeyouse 11y ago
  So pick any other study that shows a significant link.. There is no ambiguity within the scientific community about the link.. Why are you so intransigent about this? PM2.5 at 300 is equivalent to 25 cigarettes per day, and has the same associated risks: http://i.imgur.com/YP5FeWp.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YP5FeWp.jpg From: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1103639/ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1103639/

ekianjo 11y ago

Come on, the article referred "you could get sick just by standing in the street" - if that's not hyperbole, I don't know what that is. > with a 36% increase in lung cancer per 10 μg/m3 as it can penetrate deeper into the lungs Observational study. That says everything, it does not account for all variables that have to be taken in account and therefore the effect cannot be isolated. > An increase in estimated annual exposure to PM 2.5 of just 5 µg/m3 was linked with a 13% increased risk of heart attacks. Annual exposure. Not standing in the streets for 5 minutes like the article suggests. Yes, we should temper our language and use Good Science and not Sensationalism.

dengnan 11y ago
Have you ever been there? If you want to talk about science, then define "sick" fisrt. For most people, frequently coughing would be considered as "sick". Note that we are not discussing disease, we are talking about sickness, which I think is a less rigorous word sometimes referring to "not feeling good". I was born in Beijing and have been living there for more than two decades. And yes, I feel bad when I was exposed under that environment: I can hardly breathe, I coughed a lot and felt itchy in every inch of my skin. If you think that is not "getting sick", then well, welcome to Beijing.
- ekianjo 11y ago
  > Have you ever been there? As a matter of fact, I have, and several times. Don't assume I know nothing of what I am talking about please. Please show me the stats of lung cancer in Beijing vs other parts of the world. I'd like to see how much the reality stands out vs the assumptions people make. > If you think that is not "getting sick", then well, welcome to Beijing. I was not talking about discomfort (that, I have noticed on every trip I did there) but this particular article makes blatant claims with absolutely no data to back them up, which was exactly the point of my post: allegations do not create facts.
  - jccalhoun 11y ago
    https://www.google.com/search?q=stats+of+lung+cancer+in+Beijing+vs+other+parts+of+the+world https://www.google.com/search?q=stats+of+lung+cancer+in+Beij...
rahimnathwani 11y ago
"Come on, the article referred "you could get sick just by standing in the street" - if that's not hyperbole, I don't know what that is." Actually, that's understatement. You don't even need to be standing in the street. Air circulates everywhere, both indoor and out. Sure, you can try and seal your windows, and run air purifiers in your home. But what about when you're at work, or at a restaurant, or any other non-home place?

Retra 11y ago

It's worth remembering that a 36% increase of a marginal risk is still marginal. That number doesn't mean anything unless you know the original risk.

ekianjo 11y ago
Exactly. the typical risk of cancer is measured in "per million", so having a 36% risk does not mean "people are getting killed as we speak".
- Retra 11y ago
  At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. That's a significant effect, because it means 900% more people will get lung cancer on average. People are getting killed, it's just hard to say how many without better numbers.
  - ekianjo 11y ago
    > At 35% per 10µg, it's actually about a 900% increase in lung cancer risk. You can extrapolate linearly such numbers, it makes absolutely no sense. This is not a math class, we are talking about clinical effects with actual thresholds.
    - Retra 11y ago
      "35% per 10µg" expresses a linear relationship. If someone says that's what it is, I'm going to assume they measured a linear relationship. It makes perfect sense if that is indeed the reality, and I see no reason why it cannot be. Unless you've got some actual conflicting data, it just sounds like you have unfavorable agenda.
      - ekianjo 11y ago
        Even if it's a linear relationship, it can only exist within the demonstrated range. You should know that not everything is linear when you go outside of the range you have studied. So unless proven this linear relationship is valid across all the spectrum (which is obviously is not), then you should take whatever is written with a big grain of salt and thing twice about it before making over simplistic assumptions.

ekianjo 11y ago

From your link in [1] > The meta-analyses showed a statistically significant association between risk for lung cancer and PM10 (hazard ratio [HR] 1·22 [95% CI 1·03–1·45] per 10 μg/m3). For PM2·5 the HR was 1·18 (0·96–1·46) per 5 μg/m3. The increase of risk of lung cancer was NOT significant with PM2.5 ratio. Only with PM10.

mikeyouse 11y ago
So pick any other study that shows a significant link.. There is no ambiguity within the scientific community about the link.. Why are you so intransigent about this? PM2.5 at 300 is equivalent to 25 cigarettes per day, and has the same associated risks: http://i.imgur.com/YP5FeWp.jpg http://i.imgur.com/YP5FeWp.jpg From: http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1103639/ http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1103639/