3 ms·

What is this meant to inspire? The researchers featured have become arguably as neurotic you might imagine: >Kaur still finds her own habits influenced by her

by daenz 7y ago

What is this meant to inspire? The researchers featured have become arguably as neurotic you might imagine: >Kaur still finds her own habits influenced by her nanoparticle research, over a decade later. “My friends find it hilarious that I’m hugging the building side when I walk along a pavement!” she laughs. “Wherever possible I cut through the park or I take the side roads.” >In Edinburgh, Raftis goes a step further. “I stopped burning candles in my house. I don’t use or have a log burner at home, even though I like them... I always have the extraction on when I cook food. I don’t go for runs along roads, I always run in a park. I don’t drive and don’t think I consciously could do unless it was an electric car.” If an article whose message is basically "Toxic particles are everywhere, unavoidable, pragmatically undetectable, and they're killing you" isn't fear mongering, then I don't know what is. I'm just surprised I don't see any ads for air purification systems on the page. >She cycles, despite the proximity to high particle counts, because “even if you cycle in heavy traffic you are offsetting the exposure to air pollution with exercise.” Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't "offset" pollution with exercise. If toxic nanoparticles in your blood stream is killing your cells, then strengthening your cardiovascular system isn't "cancelling" it out. The content and motivation of this article is very questionable.

BuckRogers 7y ago
It sounds neurotic but it’s not, we haven’t evolved to breathe all of these pollutants. It’s rational, we should be in the forest or, have clean air. The article is to inspire the move to clean and renewable energy.
ajross 7y ago
> If an article whose message is basically "Toxic particles are everywhere, unavoidable, pragmatically undetectable, and they're killing you" isn't fear mongering, then I don't know what is. This particular article is definitely on the sensationalist side, but... no, that's taking it too far. These particles certainly aren't "undetectable", that of course is what the research was about to begin with. They're simply uncounted by current standard metrics. So... we could change the metrics, right? Likewise, they're only "unavoidable" in the strictest sense of being impossible to fully eliminate. But we know (or have good hypotheses about) the processes that create them and some techniques for mitigation. Maybe we could try those, and if they're a net benefit then maybe sensationalist journalism that motivates it is a social good. I'm all for citing good science instead of BBC review articles, but let's not throw the baby out too. The science is real, and needs to be discussed. Even by the BBC.
- daenz 7y ago
  >These particles certainly aren't "undetectable" You left off "pragmatically" in "pragmatically undetectable." What I meant by that is that your average everyday person, who I imagine is the BBC's audience, has no practical way of detecting this new invisible, unavoidable, omnipresent "toxic killer." It's why it comes across as fear mongering. >if they're a net benefit then maybe sensationalist journalism that motivates it is a social good. Couldn't disagree more, for the same reason that yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater isn't a social good just because it exercises fire evacuation protocols.
  - graeme 7y ago
    The article gave a clear method of avoiding higher concentrations: stay further from sources of pollution. Even a tiny distance made a big change. So sit away from the exhaust pipe of a bus, walk on the inside of the sidewalk, etc Your initial comment is quite dismissive, on the reasoning that we can't see the particles, or detect them with consumer grade devices. Have you considered that you might be the sort of person who would have shouted down Germ Theory? It was quite unpopular for decades when introduced. We couldn't see or measure the germs.
    - daenz 7y ago
      >The article gave a clear method of avoiding higher concentrations: stay further from sources of pollution. Even a tiny distance made a big change. So sit away from the exhaust pipe of a bus, walk on the inside of the sidewalk, etc Also, avoid being inside public transit buses, or carpool cars, because, according to the article, the highest levels are actually inside the vehicles. Just don't travel anywhere, really, or you're killing yourself. >Have you considered that you might be the sort of person who would have shouted down Germ Theory? It was quite unpopular for decades when introduced. We couldn't see or measure the germs. This as a bad faith accusation because it's based on the wrong assumption that I am denying the science.
      - graeme 7y ago
        You called it fearmongering and said the content is questionable. Maybe you used the wrong word, but fearmongering means a thing is not true or not worth concerning ourselves with as it is groundless.
kevingadd 7y ago
The main general threat posed by nanoparticles, at least as described in the article, is inflammation. Exercise has an anti-inflammatory effect. I don't understand why you think the content of the article being upsetting makes it fear-mongering. Sometimes it's appropriate to be worried about things! It's not as if the article is telling you to buy some miracle cure or make massive changes to your lifestyle.
- epistasis 7y ago
  I do not know the original poster and can not speak for them in any way. However I think it's under appreciated how much we resist changes to the way we live, such as living in ways that require less driving. Anything that threatens the "right" to drive, even by letting other people drive less, is met with a huge amount of resistance in my experience, an amount that I have not been able to understand in any other way.
  - wongarsu 7y ago
    People who are well of are very resistant even to changes that don't directly impact them. Things are fine. Sure, if we change this things could improve, but what if they get worse. Poorer people often act similar for everything that touches their livelihood, but can often easily be sold on changing anything else. They have little to lose, and who knows, maybe driving all the Jews out of the country or building a wall over there does help after all. If it didn't help the individual person didn't lose much. Both behaviours are completely rational for each person, but lead to completely irrational behavior in aggregate.
Reason077 7y ago
> "If an article whose message is basically "Toxic particles are everywhere, unavoidable" The article suggests that you can reduce exposure by avoiding the busiest roadways. Even stepping a few feet away from the roadway reduced the nanoparticle counts. > "Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't "offset" pollution with exercise." Exercise increases your chances of living a long life and remaining healthy. Being exposed to pollution works against those chances, but you're still much better off exercising than not.
- daenz 7y ago
  >Being exposed to pollution works against those chances, but you're still much better off exercising than not. She won't run along roads due to high particle counts, but she'll cycle along roads because "exercise offsets it." There is no logic or consistency here. Either its still "good" to moderately exercise in the presence of these particles, or it isn't.
  - mrob 7y ago
    Running is purely exercise. Cycling is both transport and exercise, which means it displaces motor vehicle use and helps solve the problem.
  - Reason077 7y ago
    > she'll cycle along roads because "exercise offsets it." Ideally, we'd cycle on paths away from busy roads to reduce exposure to pollution. But that option isn't available for all cities and all commutes. But the point is that if you're going to be exposed to pollution anyway, you might as well get some exercise.
    - 11235813213455 7y ago
      Yes, and 1 more bike is 1 less car, so (a bit) less pollution
  - andy_ppp 7y ago
    I think you’re reading this wrong, she still goes for runs but not along paths near congested roads.
neuronic 7y ago
I mean the facts stated aren't wrong, really. The reaction to it may be neurotic but isn't unreasonable. We create these toxic circumstances and we have reached a time where we can surpass this. Fossil fuels and other pollutants were necessary on our path of development but they can now started to be replaced step by step. It's also time to be radical and energetic now because we are quickly progressing towards conditions that will make it hard to live very soon. No border wall will hold the flood of people escaping these conditions - especially if your own economy is in the gutter. Half of the US is developmentally resembling third world countries at this point. Interesting times ahead, but we have the power to make a positive impact for humanity and the planet. It's our own habitat after all.
jshaqaw 7y ago
To me it inspires supporting electrification of automobiles.
- oakwhiz 7y ago
  Tire dust and brake dust is still generated by electric vehicles.
  - p1mrx 7y ago
    EVs don't generate as much brake dust, because regenerative braking leaves less work for the friction brakes.
- pretendscholar 7y ago
  Unfortunately nano particles come from the tires,asphalt and brake pads too.
- 11235813213455 7y ago
  and also, making, maintaining and 'recycling' all car components is still a large source of pollution, compared to public transports, bike, ..
namirez 7y ago
> If an article whose message is basically "Toxic particles are everywhere, unavoidable, pragmatically undetectable, and they're killing you" isn't fear mongering, then I don't know what is. The article is proposing a very clear solution: "The solution for NOx and nanoparticles are also the same: replacing combustion with electrification. Electric cars still kick up road dust, but they emit no combustion-derived nanoparticles or NOx; and while power stations are needed to take the electricity, we spend far more time standing by roads than we do standing by power station chimneys (although this is all the more reason to rapidly move to 100% renewable energy)."
7952 7y ago
For me it encouraged curiousity in a poorly understood field of science. The bit about her own behaviour was very short. And actually a lot of the mitigations make good sense. Burning as a leisure activity (in the case of candles and a lot of wood burners) is not a great idea.
dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't "offset" pollution with exercise. Yes, you can. See this study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297712056_Can_air_pollution_negate_the_health_benefits_of_cycling_and_walking https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297712056_Can_air_p...

by daenz 7y ago

BuckRogers 7y ago

It sounds neurotic but it’s not, we haven’t evolved to breathe all of these pollutants. It’s rational, we should be in the forest or, have clean air. The article is to inspire the move to clean and renewable energy.

ajross 7y ago

> If an article whose message is basically "Toxic particles are everywhere, unavoidable, pragmatically undetectable, and they're killing you" isn't fear mongering, then I don't know what is. This particular article is definitely on the sensationalist side, but... no, that's taking it too far. These particles certainly aren't "undetectable", that of course is what the research was about to begin with. They're simply uncounted by current standard metrics. So... we could change the metrics, right? Likewise, they're only "unavoidable" in the strictest sense of being impossible to fully eliminate. But we know (or have good hypotheses about) the processes that create them and some techniques for mitigation. Maybe we could try those, and if they're a net benefit then maybe sensationalist journalism that motivates it is a social good. I'm all for citing good science instead of BBC review articles, but let's not throw the baby out too. The science is real, and needs to be discussed. Even by the BBC.

daenz 7y ago
>These particles certainly aren't "undetectable" You left off "pragmatically" in "pragmatically undetectable." What I meant by that is that your average everyday person, who I imagine is the BBC's audience, has no practical way of detecting this new invisible, unavoidable, omnipresent "toxic killer." It's why it comes across as fear mongering. >if they're a net benefit then maybe sensationalist journalism that motivates it is a social good. Couldn't disagree more, for the same reason that yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater isn't a social good just because it exercises fire evacuation protocols.
- graeme 7y ago
  The article gave a clear method of avoiding higher concentrations: stay further from sources of pollution. Even a tiny distance made a big change. So sit away from the exhaust pipe of a bus, walk on the inside of the sidewalk, etc Your initial comment is quite dismissive, on the reasoning that we can't see the particles, or detect them with consumer grade devices. Have you considered that you might be the sort of person who would have shouted down Germ Theory? It was quite unpopular for decades when introduced. We couldn't see or measure the germs.
  - daenz 7y ago
    >The article gave a clear method of avoiding higher concentrations: stay further from sources of pollution. Even a tiny distance made a big change. So sit away from the exhaust pipe of a bus, walk on the inside of the sidewalk, etc Also, avoid being inside public transit buses, or carpool cars, because, according to the article, the highest levels are actually inside the vehicles. Just don't travel anywhere, really, or you're killing yourself. >Have you considered that you might be the sort of person who would have shouted down Germ Theory? It was quite unpopular for decades when introduced. We couldn't see or measure the germs. This as a bad faith accusation because it's based on the wrong assumption that I am denying the science.
    - graeme 7y ago
      You called it fearmongering and said the content is questionable. Maybe you used the wrong word, but fearmongering means a thing is not true or not worth concerning ourselves with as it is groundless.

kevingadd 7y ago

The main general threat posed by nanoparticles, at least as described in the article, is inflammation. Exercise has an anti-inflammatory effect. I don't understand why you think the content of the article being upsetting makes it fear-mongering. Sometimes it's appropriate to be worried about things! It's not as if the article is telling you to buy some miracle cure or make massive changes to your lifestyle.

epistasis 7y ago
I do not know the original poster and can not speak for them in any way. However I think it's under appreciated how much we resist changes to the way we live, such as living in ways that require less driving. Anything that threatens the "right" to drive, even by letting other people drive less, is met with a huge amount of resistance in my experience, an amount that I have not been able to understand in any other way.
- wongarsu 7y ago
  People who are well of are very resistant even to changes that don't directly impact them. Things are fine. Sure, if we change this things could improve, but what if they get worse. Poorer people often act similar for everything that touches their livelihood, but can often easily be sold on changing anything else. They have little to lose, and who knows, maybe driving all the Jews out of the country or building a wall over there does help after all. If it didn't help the individual person didn't lose much. Both behaviours are completely rational for each person, but lead to completely irrational behavior in aggregate.

Reason077 7y ago

> "If an article whose message is basically "Toxic particles are everywhere, unavoidable" The article suggests that you can reduce exposure by avoiding the busiest roadways. Even stepping a few feet away from the roadway reduced the nanoparticle counts. > "Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't "offset" pollution with exercise." Exercise increases your chances of living a long life and remaining healthy. Being exposed to pollution works against those chances, but you're still much better off exercising than not.

daenz 7y ago
>Being exposed to pollution works against those chances, but you're still much better off exercising than not. She won't run along roads due to high particle counts, but she'll cycle along roads because "exercise offsets it." There is no logic or consistency here. Either its still "good" to moderately exercise in the presence of these particles, or it isn't.
- mrob 7y ago
  Running is purely exercise. Cycling is both transport and exercise, which means it displaces motor vehicle use and helps solve the problem.
- Reason077 7y ago
  > she'll cycle along roads because "exercise offsets it." Ideally, we'd cycle on paths away from busy roads to reduce exposure to pollution. But that option isn't available for all cities and all commutes. But the point is that if you're going to be exposed to pollution anyway, you might as well get some exercise.
  - 11235813213455 7y ago
    Yes, and 1 more bike is 1 less car, so (a bit) less pollution
- andy_ppp 7y ago
  I think you’re reading this wrong, she still goes for runs but not along paths near congested roads.

neuronic 7y ago

I mean the facts stated aren't wrong, really. The reaction to it may be neurotic but isn't unreasonable. We create these toxic circumstances and we have reached a time where we can surpass this. Fossil fuels and other pollutants were necessary on our path of development but they can now started to be replaced step by step. It's also time to be radical and energetic now because we are quickly progressing towards conditions that will make it hard to live very soon. No border wall will hold the flood of people escaping these conditions - especially if your own economy is in the gutter. Half of the US is developmentally resembling third world countries at this point. Interesting times ahead, but we have the power to make a positive impact for humanity and the planet. It's our own habitat after all.

jshaqaw 7y ago

To me it inspires supporting electrification of automobiles.

oakwhiz 7y ago
Tire dust and brake dust is still generated by electric vehicles.
- p1mrx 7y ago
  EVs don't generate as much brake dust, because regenerative braking leaves less work for the friction brakes.
pretendscholar 7y ago
Unfortunately nano particles come from the tires,asphalt and brake pads too.
11235813213455 7y ago
and also, making, maintaining and 'recycling' all car components is still a large source of pollution, compared to public transports, bike, ..

namirez 7y ago

> If an article whose message is basically "Toxic particles are everywhere, unavoidable, pragmatically undetectable, and they're killing you" isn't fear mongering, then I don't know what is. The article is proposing a very clear solution: "The solution for NOx and nanoparticles are also the same: replacing combustion with electrification. Electric cars still kick up road dust, but they emit no combustion-derived nanoparticles or NOx; and while power stations are needed to take the electricity, we spend far more time standing by roads than we do standing by power station chimneys (although this is all the more reason to rapidly move to 100% renewable energy)."

7952 7y ago

For me it encouraged curiousity in a poorly understood field of science. The bit about her own behaviour was very short. And actually a lot of the mitigations make good sense. Burning as a leisure activity (in the case of candles and a lot of wood burners) is not a great idea.

dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago

> Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but you can't "offset" pollution with exercise. Yes, you can. See this study: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297712056_Can_air_pollution_negate_the_health_benefits_of_cycling_and_walking https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297712056_Can_air_p...