6 ms·

People concern for "air quality" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything th

People concern for "air quality" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything they could smell was doing to them. Perhaps we should be encased in sterile bubbles at birth, with all inputs filtered for purity and consistency. Surely that would be the best way to avoid all the dire consequences of the pollutants surrounding us.

melling 4y ago
Well, I wouldn’t say it’s a recent concern. Nixon started the EPA in 1970. Historically, there have been issues with coal and air quality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London Now that we have 8 billion people on the planet at once, even a small human footprint adds up.
- BeefWellington 4y ago
  Visiting any older city in Europe that hasn't had a good cleaning done to every building, you can really see the soot buildup that remains even today on buildings that are being cleaned[1][2] for example. Granted that was acquired over centuries of burning coal and wood to heat houses. [1]: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manchesters-dark-history-archive-pictures-8722223 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manch... [2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/powerwashingporn/comments/6d3l6p/this_is_the_palace_in_vienna_austria_its_in_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/powerwashingporn/comments/6d3l6p/th...
- rsynnott 4y ago
  And note that the Great Smog was nearly a century after the UK started passing serious air quality legislation. Things were _significantly worse_ in the 19th century; while recording of cause of death wasn't great, it's all but certain that there were worse incidents than the great smog.
IceDane 4y ago
Sterile bubbles?? Made of what, plastic? But what of the microplastics? I upvoted your comment because I, too, am tired of the constant doom and gloom rhetoric. It turns out that practically anything and everything we are exposed to as we live our lives can have negative effects on us. I'm gonna keep using scented candles, and if they want to be the death of me, well, they will just have to get in line behind basically everything else on this planet.
- JohnBooty 4y ago
  constant doom and gloom rhetoric That's a take you share with many, without a doubt. I view it more like performance optimization. Clear correlation between CO2 levels and cognition. Clear correlation between "air quality" in general and health. I try to optimize for those things when possible. When I deviate from that I'd at least like it to be an informed decision. Do you think there's a happy middle ground between "doom and gloom" and "utter ignorance?" I do. Many of us find knowledge more comforting than ignorance. I still use my gas stove. I'm just more conscientious about it now. Candles... yeah I don't use them enough for it to be a factor. Hell, I even burn incense sometimes and that's literally designed to flood the air with particulates. (Japanese incense burns a bit more cleanly, FWIW) I just like to be informed, I suppose. I'm gonna keep using scented candles Me too. and if they want to be the death of me, well A candle has roughly the effect of one resting person in terms of heat and CO2. That's... small. Nobody is claiming that's bad or that you shouldn't use them, and certainly not Carmack in the linked tweet. If you've willfully misinterpreted his tweet as "doom and gloom" or "candles are gonna kill us, don't use 'em" than that is a very conscious choice you have made, and one unrelated to reality.
  - guntherhermann 4y ago
    > Nobody is claiming that's bad or that you shouldn't use them, and certainly not Carmack in the linked tweet. Are you not reading all the other comments on this thread? Haha. They might not be outright saying "don't use them", but there are several comments in this thread that say 'if you use candles then you don't care about improving health safety.' I certainly get that vibe from a lot of the comments here, even if I detest scented candles and wish my partner would stop using them!
wahnfrieden 4y ago
> The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution is associated with 7 million premature deaths annually Technology has improved this in areas that adopt it.
slickdork 4y ago
h2odragon in 1890: People concern for "Germs" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything they could touch was doing to them. Perhaps we should wash our hands with soap, with all inputs filtered for purity and consistency. Surely that would be the best way to avoid all the dire consequences of the pollutants surrounding us.
- zug_zug 4y ago
  h2odragon in 1950: People concern for "leaded gasoline" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage simply being near a car is doing to them.
- guntherhermann 4y ago
  While I agree with you, it's possible to write this comment without the snarky, reddit-style tone. I think re-writing your comment to be less snarky and more patient would lend itself to a better website experience. Cheers.
  - h2odragon 4y ago
    Well said. > snarky, reddit-style tone. I share the blame there. Sorry. I'd like to make the point in a better way, but im busy and my hands hurt, so i said this and hope some are amused as much as annoyed.
- rsynnott 4y ago
  While that works, you could also actually just keep the original text (serious legislation on air quality started in the mid to late 19th century).
degif 4y ago
Air quality in this context is not about smells or the sterility of the air, but simply just about the oxygen level.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  Maybe your house shouldn't be a sealed plastic bubble.
  - degif 4y ago
    Oh my house is pretty well passively ventilated. Not sure what has my house to do with the fact that lighting a candle consumes oxygen though.
jackmott42 4y ago
1. there were far less people with far less industry, so a lot of the problems we have didn't exist yet 2. there was, in some regions, lots of living indoors with fires and candles and sleeping with animals, because they had no other choice, and they died in their 30s or 40s at best anyway so it didn't really matter. Probably breathing soot all the time while indoors was part of the reason they died in their 30s and 40s a lot though? 3. In the distant past a moderate IQ drop due to particulates wouldn't have been as big of a hindrance to survival and success as in the modern world, perhaps. I see lots of hints that even small shifts in a societies IQ in the modern world has pretty dire consequences. I'd love for that to be investigated more.
- medstrom 4y ago
  Re. point 2: I wish I had sources for this, but as I understand it, few adults have ever died in their 30s and 40s. We hear the average age was 35 in some periods of history, but I don't know how many scientists even said that, maybe it was reporters misunderstanding the point of the number, because to laymen it's a weird way of saying that "child mortality was high and disease was common". Once you were an adult and you didn't catch the plague, you lived to 60+.
  - PeterisP 4y ago
    On the other hand, air quality was a one part of why back then 60 was considered old age, comparable to what we think of 80-year-olds nowadays.
delecti 4y ago
> how in the world humanity survived to this point By outbreeding the fact that we also died a bunch for unknown reasons. And I think this tweet is actually a fairly calming view on things. I wouldn't hesitate to share a room with a couple extra people, so I won't worry about a few candles occasionally, because they're a nice benefit to the space. Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) to avoid gas stoves, because they don't have any ambience benefits and my local power grid is quite stable. Living in bubbles might be biologically safer, but we're also creatures that need to live, so it's not a tradeoff most people would (or should) accept. We can make gradual incremental change as we learn more though, and we should try to do so.
- Gordonjcp 4y ago
  > Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) to avoid gas stoves Surely you mean avoiding dangerous electric stoves, which emit hazardous electromagnetic radiation? Edit: Yup, everyone bit. Christ you're a bunch of dafties.
  - fastball 4y ago
    Is non-ionizing radiation hazardous?
    - sampo 4y ago
      > Is non-ionizing radiation hazardous? At LTE and WiFi frequency bands, it can be used to spread a great deal of misinformation.
    - trashtester 4y ago
      it depends on the dose. Visible light from a nuke will kill you more quckly than the gamma rays if youre close enough.
    - Gordonjcp 4y ago
      Put your hand on the cooker ring and tell me.
paulryanrogers 4y ago
Humanity survived, poorly and with many ailments, by being few in number and less capable of causing long term damage to our habitat. Until the invention of fire and agriculture anyway. Then came industrialization with little thought to future generations.
johannes1234321 4y ago
For one humanity massively increased air pollution in the middle of last century since then discussions (which existed before as well) became more. Also understanding of problems caused by this and availability of alternatives increased. We can see how life expectancy improved in areas where pollution was reduced. In the end you could mind the survivorship bias. Sure, people survived through the past, but many had earlier death due to pollution.
timonoko 4y ago
I remember how all the rich kids with indoor bathtub had always asthma or hay fever or some other sniff. We made fun this phenomenon. We washed ourselves only once per week in communal sauna. This may be the main cause why I have not had flu for 50 years -- or Covid, or Covid-vaccination(s).
KaiserPro 4y ago
Ah, I see, so any kind of improvement to society is bad? is that what your asserting? should we remove all public health interventions, like sewers, drinking water standard, seat belts, any kind of transportation licensing? sorry, that's a logical fallacy, and is not helping anyone. But, improvements to society can be disruptive. The move from coal gas to natural gas was a marked improvement in safety, but was mildly inconvenient for a few years. Ensuring that every dwelling had a toilet and bathroom attached to the house was expensive to implement, but now its taken as standard.
lil_cain 4y ago
Lots of them didn't. Under 5 mortality is down ~79% since my parents were born (using US figures. Down 92% where I live).
themitigating 4y ago
Not everyone survived or had good health throughout their life. You're looking at this in an over simplified way, that since the human race still exists how things are done is correct.
danans 4y ago
> People concern for "air quality" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, Simple. By living in extremely drafty and effectively open-air structures. That had other tradeoffs though.
rsynnott 4y ago
> People concern for "air quality" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything they could smell was doing to them. "Lately?" People have been worrying about air quality ever since it became clear that poor air quality was killing people (mid 19th century), and have been legislating it since then. Now, the biggest killers have been mostly legislated out of existence in developed countries (with some exceptions around big old coal plants, which can cause serious regional problems), and attention is turning to those that just knock of a few tens of thousands of people a year, rather than the millions of yesteryear.

melling 4y ago

Well, I wouldn’t say it’s a recent concern. Nixon started the EPA in 1970. Historically, there have been issues with coal and air quality. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Smog_of_London Now that we have 8 billion people on the planet at once, even a small human footprint adds up.

BeefWellington 4y ago
Visiting any older city in Europe that hasn't had a good cleaning done to every building, you can really see the soot buildup that remains even today on buildings that are being cleaned[1][2] for example. Granted that was acquired over centuries of burning coal and wood to heat houses. [1]: https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manchesters-dark-history-archive-pictures-8722223 https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/nostalgia/manch... [2]: https://old.reddit.com/r/powerwashingporn/comments/6d3l6p/this_is_the_palace_in_vienna_austria_its_in_the/ https://old.reddit.com/r/powerwashingporn/comments/6d3l6p/th...
rsynnott 4y ago
And note that the Great Smog was nearly a century after the UK started passing serious air quality legislation. Things were _significantly worse_ in the 19th century; while recording of cause of death wasn't great, it's all but certain that there were worse incidents than the great smog.

IceDane 4y ago

Sterile bubbles?? Made of what, plastic? But what of the microplastics? I upvoted your comment because I, too, am tired of the constant doom and gloom rhetoric. It turns out that practically anything and everything we are exposed to as we live our lives can have negative effects on us. I'm gonna keep using scented candles, and if they want to be the death of me, well, they will just have to get in line behind basically everything else on this planet.

JohnBooty 4y ago
constant doom and gloom rhetoric That's a take you share with many, without a doubt. I view it more like performance optimization. Clear correlation between CO2 levels and cognition. Clear correlation between "air quality" in general and health. I try to optimize for those things when possible. When I deviate from that I'd at least like it to be an informed decision. Do you think there's a happy middle ground between "doom and gloom" and "utter ignorance?" I do. Many of us find knowledge more comforting than ignorance. I still use my gas stove. I'm just more conscientious about it now. Candles... yeah I don't use them enough for it to be a factor. Hell, I even burn incense sometimes and that's literally designed to flood the air with particulates. (Japanese incense burns a bit more cleanly, FWIW) I just like to be informed, I suppose. I'm gonna keep using scented candles Me too. and if they want to be the death of me, well A candle has roughly the effect of one resting person in terms of heat and CO2. That's... small. Nobody is claiming that's bad or that you shouldn't use them, and certainly not Carmack in the linked tweet. If you've willfully misinterpreted his tweet as "doom and gloom" or "candles are gonna kill us, don't use 'em" than that is a very conscious choice you have made, and one unrelated to reality.
- guntherhermann 4y ago
  > Nobody is claiming that's bad or that you shouldn't use them, and certainly not Carmack in the linked tweet. Are you not reading all the other comments on this thread? Haha. They might not be outright saying "don't use them", but there are several comments in this thread that say 'if you use candles then you don't care about improving health safety.' I certainly get that vibe from a lot of the comments here, even if I detest scented candles and wish my partner would stop using them!

wahnfrieden 4y ago

> The combined effects of ambient air pollution and household air pollution is associated with 7 million premature deaths annually Technology has improved this in areas that adopt it.

slickdork 4y ago

h2odragon in 1890: People concern for "Germs" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything they could touch was doing to them. Perhaps we should wash our hands with soap, with all inputs filtered for purity and consistency. Surely that would be the best way to avoid all the dire consequences of the pollutants surrounding us.

zug_zug 4y ago
h2odragon in 1950: People concern for "leaded gasoline" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage simply being near a car is doing to them.
guntherhermann 4y ago
While I agree with you, it's possible to write this comment without the snarky, reddit-style tone. I think re-writing your comment to be less snarky and more patient would lend itself to a better website experience. Cheers.
- h2odragon 4y ago
  Well said. > snarky, reddit-style tone. I share the blame there. Sorry. I'd like to make the point in a better way, but im busy and my hands hurt, so i said this and hope some are amused as much as annoyed.
rsynnott 4y ago
While that works, you could also actually just keep the original text (serious legislation on air quality started in the mid to late 19th century).

degif 4y ago

Air quality in this context is not about smells or the sterility of the air, but simply just about the oxygen level.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
Maybe your house shouldn't be a sealed plastic bubble.
- degif 4y ago
  Oh my house is pretty well passively ventilated. Not sure what has my house to do with the fact that lighting a candle consumes oxygen though.

jackmott42 4y ago

1. there were far less people with far less industry, so a lot of the problems we have didn't exist yet 2. there was, in some regions, lots of living indoors with fires and candles and sleeping with animals, because they had no other choice, and they died in their 30s or 40s at best anyway so it didn't really matter. Probably breathing soot all the time while indoors was part of the reason they died in their 30s and 40s a lot though? 3. In the distant past a moderate IQ drop due to particulates wouldn't have been as big of a hindrance to survival and success as in the modern world, perhaps. I see lots of hints that even small shifts in a societies IQ in the modern world has pretty dire consequences. I'd love for that to be investigated more.

medstrom 4y ago
Re. point 2: I wish I had sources for this, but as I understand it, few adults have ever died in their 30s and 40s. We hear the average age was 35 in some periods of history, but I don't know how many scientists even said that, maybe it was reporters misunderstanding the point of the number, because to laymen it's a weird way of saying that "child mortality was high and disease was common". Once you were an adult and you didn't catch the plague, you lived to 60+.
- PeterisP 4y ago
  On the other hand, air quality was a one part of why back then 60 was considered old age, comparable to what we think of 80-year-olds nowadays.

delecti 4y ago

> how in the world humanity survived to this point By outbreeding the fact that we also died a bunch for unknown reasons. And I think this tweet is actually a fairly calming view on things. I wouldn't hesitate to share a room with a couple extra people, so I won't worry about a few candles occasionally, because they're a nice benefit to the space. Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) to avoid gas stoves, because they don't have any ambience benefits and my local power grid is quite stable. Living in bubbles might be biologically safer, but we're also creatures that need to live, so it's not a tradeoff most people would (or should) accept. We can make gradual incremental change as we learn more though, and we should try to do so.

Gordonjcp 4y ago
> Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) to avoid gas stoves Surely you mean avoiding dangerous electric stoves, which emit hazardous electromagnetic radiation? Edit: Yup, everyone bit. Christ you're a bunch of dafties.
- fastball 4y ago
  Is non-ionizing radiation hazardous?
  - sampo 4y ago
    > Is non-ionizing radiation hazardous? At LTE and WiFi frequency bands, it can be used to spread a great deal of misinformation.
  - trashtester 4y ago
    it depends on the dose. Visible light from a nuke will kill you more quckly than the gamma rays if youre close enough.
  - Gordonjcp 4y ago
    Put your hand on the cooker ring and tell me.

paulryanrogers 4y ago

Humanity survived, poorly and with many ailments, by being few in number and less capable of causing long term damage to our habitat. Until the invention of fire and agriculture anyway. Then came industrialization with little thought to future generations.

johannes1234321 4y ago

For one humanity massively increased air pollution in the middle of last century since then discussions (which existed before as well) became more. Also understanding of problems caused by this and availability of alternatives increased. We can see how life expectancy improved in areas where pollution was reduced. In the end you could mind the survivorship bias. Sure, people survived through the past, but many had earlier death due to pollution.

timonoko 4y ago

I remember how all the rich kids with indoor bathtub had always asthma or hay fever or some other sniff. We made fun this phenomenon. We washed ourselves only once per week in communal sauna. This may be the main cause why I have not had flu for 50 years -- or Covid, or Covid-vaccination(s).

KaiserPro 4y ago

Ah, I see, so any kind of improvement to society is bad? is that what your asserting? should we remove all public health interventions, like sewers, drinking water standard, seat belts, any kind of transportation licensing? sorry, that's a logical fallacy, and is not helping anyone. But, improvements to society can be disruptive. The move from coal gas to natural gas was a marked improvement in safety, but was mildly inconvenient for a few years. Ensuring that every dwelling had a toilet and bathroom attached to the house was expensive to implement, but now its taken as standard.

lil_cain 4y ago

Lots of them didn't. Under 5 mortality is down ~79% since my parents were born (using US figures. Down 92% where I live).

themitigating 4y ago

Not everyone survived or had good health throughout their life. You're looking at this in an over simplified way, that since the human race still exists how things are done is correct.

danans 4y ago

> People concern for "air quality" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, Simple. By living in extremely drafty and effectively open-air structures. That had other tradeoffs though.

rsynnott 4y ago

> People concern for "air quality" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything they could smell was doing to them. "Lately?" People have been worrying about air quality ever since it became clear that poor air quality was killing people (mid 19th century), and have been legislating it since then. Now, the biggest killers have been mostly legislated out of existence in developed countries (with some exceptions around big old coal plants, which can cause serious regional problems), and attention is turning to those that just knock of a few tens of thousands of people a year, rather than the millions of yesteryear.