4 ms·

I asked a 5 year old if lower pollution means things grow better. She said yes.

VeninVidiaVicii 4y ago
good = good. Now ask a non-leading question.
whatshisface 4y ago
These studies sound trivial in the headlines because the headlines take out the quantitative degree of the effect, which was the hard-won part of the study. An excerpt: >Utilizing this data, the researchers calculated that a reduction in NOx emissions of around 50% in each region would improve yields by approximately 25% for winter crops and 15% for summer crops in China. In Western Europe, yields were estimated to improve nearly 10% for both winter and summer crops. Now it is possible to put a number on how much NOx is costing farmers.
- mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
  This is the type of quantitative research that's hard to report because, in my mind, it's not particularly useful reporting. Simplifying it for layman understanding makes it seem completely trivial, as you point out. The methodological details that make the study interesting are only relevant to people who are gonna read the study anyway.
bamboozled 4y ago
I actually up voted you because you were down voted. It is common sense for many reasons. Not detracting from the value of the study, but I do agree, these days a five year old would've guessed pollution = bad.
- Majestic121 4y ago
  Well yeah, because of the studies and wide communication of the results, to push for a less polluted world. Ask a kid in 1950 on whether the factory right here, or daddy's car, is bad for the fields, and you would not have the same answer. Now that I say it I'm not even sure if kids would answer correctly on this one today.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > Not detracting from the value of the study You just upvoted a comment detracting from the value of the study. (Well, if it's not doing that then it's a non-sequitur. I'm not sure which interpretation is giving the most benefit of the doubt.)
aaron695 4y ago
im3w1l 4y ago
This kind of simplified thinking causes so many issues. Like people avoiding fluoride toothpaste because fluoride bad. Or people not getting important vaccines because they contain minuscule amounts of something harmful. Or the alarm fatigue that cause people to just stop paying attention at all, like with "known to the State of California to cause cancer". We have to know how harmful something is to know whether to bother fixing it.
- tremon 4y ago
  Alternatively, we have to know how harmful it is so we have an excuse to keep doing it.
andi999 4y ago
Would that 5 year old say that CO2 is a pollution substance?

good = good. Now ask a non-leading question.

These studies sound trivial in the headlines because the headlines take out the quantitative degree of the effect, which was the hard-won part of the study. An excerpt: >Utilizing this data, the researchers calculated that a reduction in NOx emissions of around 50% in each region would improve yields by approximately 25% for winter crops and 15% for summer crops in China. In Western Europe, yields were estimated to improve nearly 10% for both winter and summer crops. Now it is possible to put a number on how much NOx is costing farmers.

mtlmtlmtlmtl 4y ago
This is the type of quantitative research that's hard to report because, in my mind, it's not particularly useful reporting. Simplifying it for layman understanding makes it seem completely trivial, as you point out. The methodological details that make the study interesting are only relevant to people who are gonna read the study anyway.

bamboozled 4y ago

I actually up voted you because you were down voted. It is common sense for many reasons. Not detracting from the value of the study, but I do agree, these days a five year old would've guessed pollution = bad.

Majestic121 4y ago
Well yeah, because of the studies and wide communication of the results, to push for a less polluted world. Ask a kid in 1950 on whether the factory right here, or daddy's car, is bad for the fields, and you would not have the same answer. Now that I say it I'm not even sure if kids would answer correctly on this one today.
Dylan16807 4y ago
> Not detracting from the value of the study You just upvoted a comment detracting from the value of the study. (Well, if it's not doing that then it's a non-sequitur. I'm not sure which interpretation is giving the most benefit of the doubt.)

aaron695 4y ago

im3w1l 4y ago

This kind of simplified thinking causes so many issues. Like people avoiding fluoride toothpaste because fluoride bad. Or people not getting important vaccines because they contain minuscule amounts of something harmful. Or the alarm fatigue that cause people to just stop paying attention at all, like with "known to the State of California to cause cancer". We have to know how harmful something is to know whether to bother fixing it.

tremon 4y ago
Alternatively, we have to know how harmful it is so we have an excuse to keep doing it.

andi999 4y ago

Would that 5 year old say that CO2 is a pollution substance?