4 ms·
The 'living memory' claim seems a bit far fetched, too. Let's pretend living memory means the last 100 years, that'd mean air pollution levels in 1920 wee so po
by remus 6y ago
The 'living memory' claim seems a bit far fetched, too. Let's pretend living memory means the last 100 years, that'd mean air pollution levels in 1920 wee so poor you couldn't see Everest from Kathmandu. I'm no expert, but I don't think Nepal and the surrounding area of China were industrialised at that time, and there definitely weren't many vehicles on the road at the time, so where would the air pollution have come from?
- idiocratic 6y agoBeen to Kathmandu several times and I wouldn't say Nepal is industrialised in general, but not even remotely at the level of China. What makes the air really bad in Kathmandu is the amount of old trucks and buses on the very dusty streets of the city. It's a different kind of air pollution to what you might experience in an industrialised nation. When I'm there I always wear a mask, otherwise a cough will develop almost for sure in a few hours. If you go a little bit outside of the city the air is very clean and the views are amazing.
- smcl 6y agoWere there many of these old trucks and buses around in Kathmandu in the 1920s?
- serf 6y agono, but it was still a sprawling metropolis, one assumes there was a lot of wood and coal burning going on. Here's a picture from Kathmandu in 1920. It appears to have poor visibility, but it's unclear from the picture whether or not that is pollution or weather. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kathmandu_Basantapur_Durbar_Square_in_1920.jpg https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kathmandu_Basantapur_Du... here's another near the same period that shows similar levels of visibility: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Kathmandu_and_tundikhel_ca_1920.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/Kathmand...
- rezeroed 6y ago"Here's a picture from Kathmandu in 1920. It appears to have poor visibility, but it's unclear from the picture whether or not that is pollution or weather." You don't think it's the quality of a 1920 photograph?
- executive 6y agoAlso: burning trash every night
- idiocratic 6y agoVery true, it's incredible the amount of burning that goes on in front of most houses at sunset. But I guess our cities in Europe were similar in the past, especially in the countryside.
- wahern 6y agoIn rural areas of the U.S. some people still burn their trash. As a kid who watched a lot of 20/20 and 60 Minutes, I was always afraid of the smoke because people would often toss batteries, PVC pipe, etc, in their trash pit. But it was normal behavior, so when visiting someone's house I just tried to stay upwind of the cancer cloud.
- austincheney 6y agoKabul is the same with a huge amount of air pollution, like a visible white fog. Kabul is also not incredibly industrialized. The hard part about Kabul is the geography. It is a raised elevation surrounded by a ring of mountains like a large crater on a giant mountain top. The bowl shape traps the air pollution within the city and it absolutely does obscure visibility.
- mixmastamyk 6y agoThere's a few places in my travels where I've picked black boogers... big cities in Nepal, India, and Venezuela.
- lsllc 6y agoLondon.
- pmorici 6y agoI agree with you, but pollution could have come from burning wood or coal for heating and cooking it isn’t all from industry.
- 101404 6y agoThat leads to the next question: why would Corona-stay-at-home stop people from cooking food or heating their homes?
- saagarjha 6y agoPerhaps they are using natural gas instead of biomass?
- 101404 6y agoNot really. Wood or coal stoves are still very much in use in villages. At least that's what I saw living in many developing countries for the past two decades. Btw, burning biomass would not change the problem. Wood and charcoal is biomass too.
- senorjazz 6y agoPeople in Kathmandu are using gas. That's a few million people. Sure in the villages, but the numbers pale in comparison
- 101404 6y agoWrong again. In developing countries, a majority of people live in the countryside. That's one thing that differentiates those countries from developed countries. But that's not really important, because even if only 20% of households used wood/coal for cooking, it is very much noticiable.
- throwaway0a5e 6y agoParticulate pollution from burning is mostly non-combusted junk. The bigger the scale the more it makes sense to invest in technology that lets you get more out of your fuel from more complete combustion. Someone just burning trash to get rid of it can burn it in a pit. Someone burning trash as a fuel for their industrial process that requires heat is going to invest in a gasifier burner so they're not spewing wasted joules out the smokestack.
- mytailorisrich 6y agoThe surrounding area of China is Tibet, which is virtually empty, so I doubt there is much pollution over there. I think the main issue in Kathmandu is that it is surrounded by mountains, which trap pollution in. This is a problem for all cities with similar geography.
- lb1lf 6y ago> so where would the air pollution have come from? -An ignorant (as I have never been within 1,000 miles of Kathmandu) guess is loads of wood-burning stoves; they soot like mad and can make Woody Allen[0] trust the air. [0] When asked about NYC air pollution, he allegedly quipped that he didn't trust air he couldn't see.
- gumby 6y agoAnswering only your final question: the smoke of burning wood and coal for heat. Coal fire was the cause of the infamous London “pea souper” fogs, for instance. It’s hard to remember now but burning gasoline and natural gas were significant improvements in the levels of pollution (and other hygiene factors) in cities during the 20th century. Of course at that time the only air pollution people were thinking of was particulates. Also it looks like Kathmandu is in a valley which can concentrate the issue so a smaller absolute amount of particulate pollution can have more impact than the same activity on a plain. I also question the “living memory” assertion.