3 ms·
I think PM10 rates are in similar orders of magnitude, in the "micrograms per cubic meter" range, so i don't think it would be that different. Maybe an order of
by OskarS 9y ago
I think PM10 rates are in similar orders of magnitude, in the "micrograms per cubic meter" range, so i don't think it would be that different. Maybe an order of magnitude larger, but not much more.
I agree, this is very surprising. Before I saw LeifCarrotson's calculation, I would have thought "tons" was the right unit as well. There's so much polluted air, you'd think that it would add up to some significant amount of matter, but apparently not.
- staplers 9y agoPuts into perspective how much PM burning coal puts into the atmosphere.. EDIT: In 2016, the United States burned roughly 728 million tons of coal, enough to fill a typical railroad car every 4 seconds
- jhugg 9y agoWell, 10km^2 is pretty tiny in a country the size of China, and I'm not sure how high up the pollution goes (higher than buildings but lower than planes). So it's still a lot of pollution, just much less actual mass than I would have guessed.