4 ms·

>These particles certainly aren't "undetectable" You left off "pragmatically" in "pragmatically undetectable." What I meant by that is that your average every

by 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.
    - daenz 7y ago
      Being "not true" or "groundless" are not requirements to fear monger. Home invasions are real and based in reality, but if someone published an article titled "The hidden criminal killers that are all around us," and had comparable content to this article, I would also consider that fear mongering. Fear mongering is about whipping people up with fear about an issue they have very little control over. To me, this article reaches that threshold.
      - graeme 7y ago
        But there aren't criminal killers all around us, hiding....So your makeshift headline is false. Vanishingly few home invasions lead to death. I know of no definition of fear mongering that includes whether we can control a phenomenon. And unlike the home invader example, nanoparticles are real and do have bad effects. You're also conveniently ignoring that you can avoid them by going further from their sources. And this info is relevant to urban planners, building designers, researchers, etc
        daenz 7y ago
        >But there aren't criminal killers all around us, hiding You're missing the point entirely but that's fine. >You're also conveniently ignoring that you can avoid them by going further from their sources Do you recognize how much privilege you're speaking from here? The biggest concentrations were inside buses and cars...you know, the vehicles that the lower classes of society routinely have take to work? They should just buy a Tesla, obviously. Or just not live by highways. Or just live within casual walking distance, through wooded parks, of their job. I ignored it because it's asinine for everyday people.
ajross 7y ago
> What I meant by that is that your average everyday person [...] has no practical way of detecting [nanoparticles] How is that not true for PM2.5 pollution also? Or mercury, lead, sulfates, CFCs, hydrocarbons... Almost every regulated pollutant has significant health or environment effects at a level undetectable by an "average everyday person". Are you arguing that we shouldn't be reporting on any of this stuff? I mean, what's the scenario you want to see? People never hear about nanoparticles from their general media until a bunch of elite scientists have already effected a mitigation plan? If these things have health effects people have a right to know, and it has to be someone's job to tell them, right?
- daenz 7y ago
  To me, the journalism is not responsible. You hinted in your previous posts that this piece has signs of sensationalism. If you mean that, then we agree. The scenario I want to see is less fear mongering in general. It's a vague and subjective desire, but to me, based on the content, the writing, the contradictions, the lack of research, this article lands firmly as mainly fear mongering. To me, it is irresponsible. I can see you have a different opinion, and I'm fairly sure I grasp it: that journalism like this serves as a motivator to pursuing/researching and correcting truly harmful conditions. I just disagree with you on the method's overall impact, all things considered. I don't think science should be driven by whatever collective hysteria (justified, or not justified) has been whipped up by sensationalist journalism. There are always exceptions and gray area of course, but that's where I stand on this particular example.

by daenz 7y ago

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.
  - daenz 7y ago
    Being "not true" or "groundless" are not requirements to fear monger. Home invasions are real and based in reality, but if someone published an article titled "The hidden criminal killers that are all around us," and had comparable content to this article, I would also consider that fear mongering. Fear mongering is about whipping people up with fear about an issue they have very little control over. To me, this article reaches that threshold.
    - graeme 7y ago
      But there aren't criminal killers all around us, hiding....So your makeshift headline is false. Vanishingly few home invasions lead to death. I know of no definition of fear mongering that includes whether we can control a phenomenon. And unlike the home invader example, nanoparticles are real and do have bad effects. You're also conveniently ignoring that you can avoid them by going further from their sources. And this info is relevant to urban planners, building designers, researchers, etc
      - daenz 7y ago
        >But there aren't criminal killers all around us, hiding You're missing the point entirely but that's fine. >You're also conveniently ignoring that you can avoid them by going further from their sources Do you recognize how much privilege you're speaking from here? The biggest concentrations were inside buses and cars...you know, the vehicles that the lower classes of society routinely have take to work? They should just buy a Tesla, obviously. Or just not live by highways. Or just live within casual walking distance, through wooded parks, of their job. I ignored it because it's asinine for everyday people.

ajross 7y ago

> What I meant by that is that your average everyday person [...] has no practical way of detecting [nanoparticles] How is that not true for PM2.5 pollution also? Or mercury, lead, sulfates, CFCs, hydrocarbons... Almost every regulated pollutant has significant health or environment effects at a level undetectable by an "average everyday person". Are you arguing that we shouldn't be reporting on any of this stuff? I mean, what's the scenario you want to see? People never hear about nanoparticles from their general media until a bunch of elite scientists have already effected a mitigation plan? If these things have health effects people have a right to know, and it has to be someone's job to tell them, right?

daenz 7y ago
To me, the journalism is not responsible. You hinted in your previous posts that this piece has signs of sensationalism. If you mean that, then we agree. The scenario I want to see is less fear mongering in general. It's a vague and subjective desire, but to me, based on the content, the writing, the contradictions, the lack of research, this article lands firmly as mainly fear mongering. To me, it is irresponsible. I can see you have a different opinion, and I'm fairly sure I grasp it: that journalism like this serves as a motivator to pursuing/researching and correcting truly harmful conditions. I just disagree with you on the method's overall impact, all things considered. I don't think science should be driven by whatever collective hysteria (justified, or not justified) has been whipped up by sensationalist journalism. There are always exceptions and gray area of course, but that's where I stand on this particular example.