4 ms·

> Thousands unexpectedly developed symptoms? This is hard to believe. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-29/thunderstorm-asthma-eighth-person-dies-from-melbour

> Thousands unexpectedly developed symptoms? This is hard to believe. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-29/thunderstorm-asthma-eighth-person-dies-from-melbourne/8074776 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-29/thunderstorm-asthma-ei... "An eighth person has died following last week's freak thunderstorm asthma event in Melbourne, health authorities have said. One person remains in a critical condition in intensive care, the Victorian Department of Health and Human Services said. Last week hospitals were overwhelmed when after a cool change and storm caused respiratory problems for thousands of people, with more than 8,500 attending emergency departments." "It caused many people, including those who had no history of asthma or respiratory issues, to experience mild to severe breathing difficulties." "The humid weather change last Monday caused pollen, most likely from rye grass, to burst into tiny particles that were able to be inhaled through the nose and enter the lungs." The good name of Russian Meteorology is exonerated from charges of pseudoscience.

dpark 10y ago
That article says nothing about increased atmospheric pressure being at fault. It lays the blame squarely on pollen as expected. This is why pseudoscience is so difficult to discuss meaningfully. It's supporters cherry pick, exaggerate, and outright lie to support the claims they make because the actual science does not support the claims.
- internaut 10y ago
  You mean low barometric pressure, not high. The chain of causality was this: Low pressure causing high pollen density causing respiratory illness. This has the power to explain why large numbers of people were abruptly affected. It's all there in the article. "Last week hospitals were overwhelmed when after a cool change and storm caused respiratory problems for thousands ... The humid weather change last Monday caused pollen, most likely from rye grass, to burst into tiny particles that were able to be inhaled through the nose and enter the lungs." And I repeat myself from 20 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13109702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13109702
  - dpark 10y ago
    > The chain of causality was this: > Low pressure causing high pollen density causing respiratory illness. The news article you're citing literally makes no mention of the barometric pressure. Your citation does not support your claim. > "The humid weather change last Monday caused pollen, most likely from rye grass, to burst into tiny particles that were able to be inhaled through the nose and enter the lungs." This quote clearly does not support your claim. In no way is humidity the same as barometric pressure. > And I repeat myself from 20 hours ago I don't know why you're sure insistent on this. You have basically no data to support your thesis that air pressure changes are meaningful to health. You've definitely got no evidence that they're going to cause asthma. You don't even have any evidence that Russian meteorologists actually give health advice based on barometric pressure. You've only "been told that a Russian or Eastern European weather forecaster sometimes gives health advice based on the air pressure changes." This whole thing makes no sense. You started with the thesis that we're retarded for not having meteorologists give medical advice and you've continued to defend it by claiming with no evidence that air pressure changes have hospitalized thousands, that people with respiratory problems should wear masks when the pressure changes, and that you could pressurize a house to counteract the change in barometric pressure. Your starting point is flawed and the conclusions you're reaching are absurd.
    - internaut 10y ago
      > The news article you're citing literally makes no mention of the barometric pressure. Areas of low pressure have a colloquial name. Storms. I suggest you come back to this thread on a different day and re-read it. Or give it to somebody else with a neutral, uninvested perspective to read. The mention I made of houses controlling pressure was merely a hypothetical as I previously stressed. Everything else I said followed from the understanding that low pressure areas are storms. Storms move air. Air that now contains large quantities of pollen.

dpark 10y ago

That article says nothing about increased atmospheric pressure being at fault. It lays the blame squarely on pollen as expected. This is why pseudoscience is so difficult to discuss meaningfully. It's supporters cherry pick, exaggerate, and outright lie to support the claims they make because the actual science does not support the claims.

internaut 10y ago
You mean low barometric pressure, not high. The chain of causality was this: Low pressure causing high pollen density causing respiratory illness. This has the power to explain why large numbers of people were abruptly affected. It's all there in the article. "Last week hospitals were overwhelmed when after a cool change and storm caused respiratory problems for thousands ... The humid weather change last Monday caused pollen, most likely from rye grass, to burst into tiny particles that were able to be inhaled through the nose and enter the lungs." And I repeat myself from 20 hours ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13109702 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13109702
- dpark 10y ago
  > The chain of causality was this: > Low pressure causing high pollen density causing respiratory illness. The news article you're citing literally makes no mention of the barometric pressure. Your citation does not support your claim. > "The humid weather change last Monday caused pollen, most likely from rye grass, to burst into tiny particles that were able to be inhaled through the nose and enter the lungs." This quote clearly does not support your claim. In no way is humidity the same as barometric pressure. > And I repeat myself from 20 hours ago I don't know why you're sure insistent on this. You have basically no data to support your thesis that air pressure changes are meaningful to health. You've definitely got no evidence that they're going to cause asthma. You don't even have any evidence that Russian meteorologists actually give health advice based on barometric pressure. You've only "been told that a Russian or Eastern European weather forecaster sometimes gives health advice based on the air pressure changes." This whole thing makes no sense. You started with the thesis that we're retarded for not having meteorologists give medical advice and you've continued to defend it by claiming with no evidence that air pressure changes have hospitalized thousands, that people with respiratory problems should wear masks when the pressure changes, and that you could pressurize a house to counteract the change in barometric pressure. Your starting point is flawed and the conclusions you're reaching are absurd.
  - internaut 10y ago
    > The news article you're citing literally makes no mention of the barometric pressure. Areas of low pressure have a colloquial name. Storms. I suggest you come back to this thread on a different day and re-read it. Or give it to somebody else with a neutral, uninvested perspective to read. The mention I made of houses controlling pressure was merely a hypothetical as I previously stressed. Everything else I said followed from the understanding that low pressure areas are storms. Storms move air. Air that now contains large quantities of pollen.