3 ms·

>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

by 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.

by daenz 7y ago

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.