3 ms·
Okay, then what, exactly, is "ordinary" air? Air that has no ill health effects? If so, then this has become a tautology -- obviously air that has no ill health
by nilkn 10y ago
Okay, then what, exactly, is "ordinary" air? Air that has no ill health effects? If so, then this has become a tautology -- obviously air that has no ill health effects has no ill health effects. If all such cases are conveniently excluded from the definition, then there's no point even talking about this. This is air that millions and millions of people breathe just by walking outside.
Anyway, your observation that air in Beijing, etc., is polluted from smoke works towards my point, not against it.
- dragonwriter 10y agoThe upthread question about why inhaling smoke would be harmful if "ordinary air" was not pretty clearly used "ordinary air" to mean at least "air without smoke", since inhaling "smoke" is always inhaling "air with smoke", and it would be silly to ask the question if both alternatives meant "air with smoke".
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- nilkn 10y agoThe upthread question also mentioned heat, so one could also say that "smoke" was pretty clearly used to refer to something like dense, hot cigarette smoke dragged right off a lit cigarette and inhaled directly, not the sort of "smoke" that's involved in city air.