9 ms·
Smog in our brains
- Terr_ 9y agoI wouldn't be surprised if some future historians are able to look back at modern cities the same way that we look at granny pictures of a soot-streaked city of the industrial revolution. "Yes, some of them thought that it was bad to have all that stuff around, but most thought it wasn't too serious compared to the immediate economic benefit it brought."
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- rm_-rf_slash 9y agoSomeday 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.
- LMYahooTFY 9y agoAre 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.
- losteric 9y agoThey refer to "mass media", so I assume the point is technology as a dopamine button... however, cell phones have been linked to damaged / lower quality sperm in men. That could subtly damage society in the same way that lead-based paints hurt Rome.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- steve_adams_86 9y agoIf they did, I would hope people around them recognized that their conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. I think I understand the sentiment, but I don't think the three are the same. And if they had similar results, hypothetically, they would be for entirely different reasons. edit: I'm interested to know more about peoples' concerns about smartphones and other devices emitting harmful radiation. I've never seen anything conclusive at all, but my girlfriend is positive research will eventually reveal something, for example. Very curious if anyone knows more about this. Perhaps I'm totally incorrect.
- trhway 9y ago>conflation of neurotoxins in water and largely benign electronics makes very little sense. dopamine addiction coming from and through the benign electronics may count for something.
- eli_gottlieb 9y agoYou can't get addicted to dopamine; dopamine mediates one vector of addiction. It conveys something like reward prediction-error or precision of action-based prediction errors. Without it, you can't concentrate; with too much, you're forced to concentrate without control over what you concentrate on.
- steve_adams_86 9y agoI agree with that to a point. It does count for something for sure, but I think the analogy breaks down pretty quickly from there. I don't want to be pedantic or overly demanding of the statement either though. I just thought, when I read it, that the issues are much more complex than that, and the analogy overly simplifies the matter. I'm a big fan of electronic devices, and a huge believer in them being a medium for addiction and escapism. But I think societies need to look at the root of that issue rather than dismiss any medium for dopamine addiction as harmful (as harmful as lead in your water in this case). That becomes extremely subjective, and maybe not worth pursuing because I admit, I'm not educated on the matter. I simply believe that (based on my experiences) the misuse of electronics will often stem from a lack of stimulation, satisfaction, and/or engagement coming from other aspects in life. There is too much room for this form of addiction in modern life in many parts of the world. If we blame the devices, we fail to blame ourselves for better educating ourselves and striving to develop society in such a way that people feel they have better things to do than escape into a screen. I'm totally open to being called out as clueless or full of it - that's just my take on things. It's a very fascinating conversation, but probably not a great one for the internet. I worry I'll come across as thinking I'm an authority on this stuff or something, when it's quite the opposite.
- dnh44 9y agoThe Romans also used lead acetate as a sweetener.
- Terr_ 9y agoIMO the issue isn't media-consumption per-se, but the mechanisms used in advertising and how our society condones certain tactics for one group "hacking the brains" of another.
- obstinate 9y agoIt's not so much how close the stuff is together as what is being burned to power it, how much of that stuff is being burned, and how close that is happening to where people live. Rural areas with coal plants nearby are going to perform very poorly on these particulate matter metrics.
- virmundi 9y agoAnd the question is "were they wrong?" Soot-streaked cities of the industrial revolution had to be soot-streaked. They didn't have any other technology. They had to use what they could to make better things. It provided better economic benefit, and ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). We're at a point where we have better things, but choose to not use them. It's intrinsically different than the industrial revolution. It's more like slavery in the relatively modern Western world. They knew better. They just chose to argue against their core morality because they could make more money.
- LMYahooTFY 9y agoI think there is a good argument to be made that we did (and typically do) opt for speed and low cost over safety unnecessarily. Though I think you could also argue that speed and low cost bring chain benefits that may balance it out. I feel we may never get quantitative answers without quantum computers crunching these numbers.
- jjt-yn_t 9y agochoose not to use them, as in 'collectively until we are wiser and... '
- babyrainbow 9y ago> ultimately better life for us all (such as antibiotics). Yes. A number of generations had a good life. But what about the coming generations. What does the "progress at any cost", have in store for them? All things considered, what does the future look right now?
- virmundi 9y agoOn the whole I still think things look pretty good. We're getting better at reducing our impact environmentally. We're getting better at purifying things we already messed up. We're also making tech to do all this cheaper so that if and when the rest of Asia become more modern, they might, just might, get to skip the polluting parts.
- dsego 9y ago"Yes, the planet got destroyed. But for a beautiful moment in time we created a lot of value for shareholders." http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995 http://www.newyorker.com/cartoon/a16995
- Houshalter 9y agoNonsense. This has nothing to do with the planet being destroyed, but minor health effects of air pollution. Which in first world countries, is vastly less than it used to be. And could be eliminated entirely in a few years with technology like solar power and electric cars. Possibly it could have been seriously cut back decades ago, if environmentalists hadn't fought so hard against nuclear.
- Danihan 9y agoThank you. One of my biggest regrets for our country is that we're losing the race for nuclear power-grid adoption. And for what.
- addicted 9y agoYea. The real problem was fightng against a technology that is more expensive yhan cleaner options, has massive NIMBY problems that are not yet resolved, gets more expensive as time goes on, has led to massive cpncentrated disasters and still is unable to find a solution to its long term problems. A technology whose proponents's best answer even today is "wait until the next breakthrough". Nuclear: The one trick the evil environmentalists won't tell you about that will solve all your energy problems.
- Houshalter 9y agoIf we had adopted nuclear power decades ago, none of that would be an issue. Solar power is only just now catching up to cost effectiveness with nuclear. And only on sunny days, the storage problem is very far away from being solved. Maybe coal is cheaper, but only if you exclude externalities. The amount of radiation released by nuclear is tiny compared to coal. Not to mention mercury, carbon dioxide, etc.
- leggomylibro 9y agoI definitely get a little worried about fumes, in a modern urban city. Diesel pollutants are local, and when I walk across a 4+ lane street with traffic, I always find myself practically gagging on exhaust fumes. That can't be healthy. We should really ban big diesel rigs from areas with population density above a certain threshold. Especially considering how little the regulations around diesel emissions are actually complied with.
- gbrown 9y agoI think national emissions standards would also be nice. My state doesn't emissions test vehicles (not even commercial vehicles), and it's obvious when you're driving or biking behind someone with a clearly malfunctioning car. Ick.
- ams6110 9y agoYou can really tell how much cleaner modern cars are though, when you pass a "classic" 1950 - 1970s model on the road. You can smell the unburned fuel/exhaust distinctly. And back in the day you'd have gotten a dose of lead along with it.
- tomatsu 9y ago> We should really ban big diesel rigs from areas with population density above a certain threshold. I'd go much further than that. I'd ban all combustion engines in cities. There are enough alternatives: Walking, bicycles, ebikes, trams, electric buses, trains, and electric cars. We should try to keep the air as clean as possible in densely populated areas.
- orthoganol 9y agoHow can it be that there are not decades of thorough, prioritized studies on the connection between air pollution and cognitive impairment?
- gbrown 9y ago$
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- dsfyu404ed 9y agoThey didn't mention whether the effect remained constant regardless of population density. I'm a big proponent of "you probably shouldn't be inhaling more than you need to of any sort of particle" but I wouldn't be surprised if the small amounts of extra stress of day to day life in a more densely populated area isn't good for you.
- losteric 9y ago> I wouldn't be surprised if the small amounts of extra stress of day to day life in a more densely populated area isn't good for you. Extra psychological stress is always detrimental. They did mention other variables, including noise and other gasses, were not controlled for. However, the mouse study removed those variables: > He exposed mice to high levels of fine particulate air pollution five times a week, eight hours a day, to mimic the exposure a human commuter might receive if he or she lived in the suburbs and worked in a smoggy city (Molecular Psychiatry, 2011). After 10 months, they found that the mice that had been exposed to polluted air took longer to learn a maze task and made more mistakes than mice that had not breathed in the pollution. > > Nelson also found that the pollutant-exposed mice showed signs of the rodent equivalent of depression. Mice said to express depressive-like symptoms give up swimming more quickly in a forced swim test and stop sipping sugar water that they normally find attractive. Both behaviors can be reversed with antidepressants. Nelson found that mice exposed to the polluted air scored higher on tests of depressive-like responses. I suggest reading the article. There were other disturbing changes that strongly suggest pollution may be the modern analogue to the Roman Empire's lead paint. It's definitely worth significant and rapid research investment.
- gregw134 9y agoThis doesn't prove that smog is the cause. Perhaps the people in smoggier districts had lower education levels and didn't stay as mentally active in old age? There are too many other variables that could be at fault.
- acd 9y agoClean diesel is the biggest industry scam since smoking. Thousands die every year from small particle emission from vehicles. Smog damages baby brain development. Most diesel cars emitt up to ten times small particles like pm2.5 than car regulation and it's really bad for human health.
- jodrellblank 9y agoAlways a bit of a sucker for conspiracies and woo, reading this left a long term impression on me: "Are Diesels More Dangerous than Cigarettes as a Cause of Lung Cancer?" - http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html
- observation 9y agoYou 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 people have gone to such lengths, not even the wealthy. The "Building Performance Podcast" has more information if anybody's interested. There's a lot of good information online from US government websites. 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 intend to design my home so it does not contain these drawbacks.
- bostonvaulter2 9y agoIs there an easy way to measure your indoor air quality?
- simongray 9y agoI live in Beijing and we use the air purifiers from Xiaomi to measure indoor air quality (and clean it up). It's true that eg frying bacon really makes the air quality index spike up a lot.
- logicallee 9y agoOff topic but I have a ton of questions about air in Beijing - I can hardly believe what I've heard. It's kind of off-topic but if you'd have a minute, could you shoot me an email (see my profile here) or reply with yours? Thanks.
- toisanji 9y agosounds like a great idea for a startup product, air monitoring device
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- louprado 9y agoCan anyone recommend an air quality detector for personal use. My second floor office is in downtown Oakland by a busy road. The windows are closed and an air filter is always running. Perhaps the air filter is providing a false sense of security and not trapping any sub 2.5 micron particles. My last air quality detector seemed questionable. I could leave the windows open during rush hour it would always just say the quality was good. Meanwhile there is soot on my window sill.
- semi-extrinsic 9y agoThere are sufficiently many aspects of air quality (NOX, PM2.5, PM10, O3, SO2, CO, CO2, VOCs, humidity) that a basic trustworthy monitoring station would set you back at least $500. I'd say get a trustworthy temp/humidity/CO2 sensor, since those are the only ones you really emit yourself, and get the remaining data from your local environmental info agency - check e.g. aqicn.org . Edit: is your air filter a HEPA unit? (Does it look like a big car engine air filter?) Do you change the filter every 6 months? Those should help.
- fma 9y agoI have foobot if you want an IOT device. Seems to work. I have a brand new house and the formaldehyde/VOC levels were very high. It's sad that it's not regulated in the USA for residential (it is for office...). Opened the windows as much as possible. Now levels are low and I'm not as concerned. I also got a cheaper monitor (https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01N0MJJRO/ref=pd_aw_sim_sbs_469_of_23?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=62RB613G717H7WSRBXFG https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01N0MJJRO/ref=pd_aw_sim_sbs_... this has no reviews, but on mobile and don't feel like searching more) and this works as well for fast instantaneous readings. One day my wife was using moisturizer and it went crazy. Found out many bath and cosmetic products use formaldehyde (DMDM hydrogenate or whatever...different name but essentially formaldehyde)
- dxhdr 9y agoGet a Dylos DC1100 Pro, costs around $250 and works great. It measures particles only, not gases or radiation. A large HEPA filter in a closed room will remove most PM2.5 particles. That monitor will show you what's going on.