6 ms·

Seems like too few categories, safe or not safe? Clearly this is a spectrum

Jorchime 4y ago
Why? If critical levels of "unhealthy stuff" is exceeded, it's not safe. Your spectrum is on the threshold of "unhealthy stuff"
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  So there is a magic point, greater than zero, where it simply switches from healthy to unhealthy? That seems improbable. Edit: Downvotes but no comments. That's a pretty low effort way of admitting your position is faith-based, not scientific.
  - Jorchime 4y ago
    You have a multitude of things to measure in breathing air. For each you can establish thresholds for safe levels through the scientific method with evidence. Likely there is a transition area, but also regions with a very high likelihood of being unhealthy. If any of these measures is "in the red", your air is unhealthy. Why not?
  - now__what 4y ago
    As with most things, even if there is no "magic point," you need to draw the line somewhere as accurately as you can, or you'll be trapped in pedantic bickering and inaction forever.
    - p_j_w 4y ago
      >or you'll be trapped in pedantic bickering and inaction forever. There are lots of people and groups out there for which this is the goal.
    - jjk166 4y ago
      Drawing an arbitrary line where none logically should exist is the cause of, not the solution to, pedantic bickering and inaction. You're going to get a lot more people to agree "pollution should be lower" than "this is a good amount of pollution."
  - peteradio 4y ago
    Why? Here is a model that would make sense: your body is capable of clearing x ug/day and anything over that causes inflammation. Well then stay below that level and it is
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
trgn 4y ago
This is the battered spouse argument in our relationship to our living environment. Well of course the air is unhealthy, but see, you need to understand the whole story! Categorical thinking is not always because of a lack of nuance or of zealotry or stupidity (which are generally more modern dismissive interpretations). Delineating categories is a useful framing to firmly separate what is on the one hand good and virtuous (clean air), and on the other evil and depraved (polluted air). It's an excellent way to identify when exactly rationalization, submission or complaisance kicks in. Well, it's not as bad as it used to be. It's even worse in xyz country. It's not reflected in the average life expectancy. It's the price we pay for modern luxuries etc... etc... Having firm categories, and these will read as fearful or callous defenses. Good categories should compel to action. In this case, what can be done to move from Box B into Box A. And then do those things (because Box B is inherently evil). The real world is grey. For sure. And multiple opposing things can be true at once. Nonetheless, we need to cut through that, and I'm fearful we've forgotten how. The reason our cities are degraded is in large part because we have failed to think in categories, and have rationalized away (categorically) wrong habits.
- jjk166 4y ago
  No it's not, and the comparison is absurd. With domestic violence it is trivially easy to have none at all, and there is a very distinct difference between none and some. With air quality there is a smooth and continuous measurement for what is in the air. You will never get to zero particulates per cubic meter, you can only get under a certain level. Further, the effects of air quality are also a smooth continuous function - there isn't some distinct point where if you are below it there's no risk of health issues and immediately above it you have guaranteed serious health issues. A binary categorization is clearly inappropriate.
  - AstralStorm 4y ago
    Binary categorization is quite appropriate, considering there are IDLH levels. And it is actually highly nonlinear for most contaminants. There's an area of none to low risk, even chronic, then an area of exponentially increasing risk, then area where the levels are known to be harmful chronically, and yet another where they're immediately dangerous. So while not binary, the difference between dangerous and not is usually pretty sharp. For PM 2.5, < 12 ug/m3 is considered safe, while > 35 ug/m3 is considered harmful after just few hours. For chronic exposure, mean levels of < 15 ug/m3 over 3 years is considered safe. (There is probably some level that is certain to produce silicosis in about everyone. I would have to dig on that.) That is how thin the margin is. And these are the laxer NIOSH values. Even AQI which is weighted to be more linear and granular, easily gets pegged at moderate (risky to sensitive people) in clean seeming cities unless there's wind... (That is a level above 15 ug/m3 already by some.)
mc32 4y ago
I think you have a point. If there were no people on Earth, what would the PM 2.5 look like? If it would still be too high, then it seems this measure while, baseline to know, wouldn't be practically useful. We'd have to then control naturally occurring PM2.5 in the environment. That's not to say the obvious is not true, that Regions of China and India suffer from too much PM2.5 due to human activity and should be addressed. However, a chicken little situation is not helpful as people will tune out.
dahart 4y ago
Indeed it is, you’re right. Here is the spectrum the WHO publishes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574582/table/fm-ch1.tab1/?report=objectonly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574582/table/fm-ch1.ta... Note that the idea of a single safe “threshold” limit is based on the best available research today showing that they haven’t measured adverse health effects below 5 μg/m³ average annual exposure. The spectrum here is a spread of increased mortality that can be attributed to pollution above that limit. There’s a different threshold for a single day exposure than for average exposure. Also note that the recommendation recently came down from the 2005 recommendation of 10 μg/m³ due to more research showing adverse health effects of pollution. There might not exist any so-called “safe” limit, and speculating wildly, we might expect their recommendation to drop again in the future.

Why? If critical levels of "unhealthy stuff" is exceeded, it's not safe. Your spectrum is on the threshold of "unhealthy stuff"

rootusrootus 4y ago
So there is a magic point, greater than zero, where it simply switches from healthy to unhealthy? That seems improbable. Edit: Downvotes but no comments. That's a pretty low effort way of admitting your position is faith-based, not scientific.
- Jorchime 4y ago
  You have a multitude of things to measure in breathing air. For each you can establish thresholds for safe levels through the scientific method with evidence. Likely there is a transition area, but also regions with a very high likelihood of being unhealthy. If any of these measures is "in the red", your air is unhealthy. Why not?
- now__what 4y ago
  As with most things, even if there is no "magic point," you need to draw the line somewhere as accurately as you can, or you'll be trapped in pedantic bickering and inaction forever.
  - p_j_w 4y ago
    >or you'll be trapped in pedantic bickering and inaction forever. There are lots of people and groups out there for which this is the goal.
  - jjk166 4y ago
    Drawing an arbitrary line where none logically should exist is the cause of, not the solution to, pedantic bickering and inaction. You're going to get a lot more people to agree "pollution should be lower" than "this is a good amount of pollution."
- peteradio 4y ago
  Why? Here is a model that would make sense: your body is capable of clearing x ug/day and anything over that causes inflammation. Well then stay below that level and it is
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]

trgn 4y ago

This is the battered spouse argument in our relationship to our living environment. Well of course the air is unhealthy, but see, you need to understand the whole story! Categorical thinking is not always because of a lack of nuance or of zealotry or stupidity (which are generally more modern dismissive interpretations). Delineating categories is a useful framing to firmly separate what is on the one hand good and virtuous (clean air), and on the other evil and depraved (polluted air). It's an excellent way to identify when exactly rationalization, submission or complaisance kicks in. Well, it's not as bad as it used to be. It's even worse in xyz country. It's not reflected in the average life expectancy. It's the price we pay for modern luxuries etc... etc... Having firm categories, and these will read as fearful or callous defenses. Good categories should compel to action. In this case, what can be done to move from Box B into Box A. And then do those things (because Box B is inherently evil). The real world is grey. For sure. And multiple opposing things can be true at once. Nonetheless, we need to cut through that, and I'm fearful we've forgotten how. The reason our cities are degraded is in large part because we have failed to think in categories, and have rationalized away (categorically) wrong habits.

jjk166 4y ago
No it's not, and the comparison is absurd. With domestic violence it is trivially easy to have none at all, and there is a very distinct difference between none and some. With air quality there is a smooth and continuous measurement for what is in the air. You will never get to zero particulates per cubic meter, you can only get under a certain level. Further, the effects of air quality are also a smooth continuous function - there isn't some distinct point where if you are below it there's no risk of health issues and immediately above it you have guaranteed serious health issues. A binary categorization is clearly inappropriate.
- AstralStorm 4y ago
  Binary categorization is quite appropriate, considering there are IDLH levels. And it is actually highly nonlinear for most contaminants. There's an area of none to low risk, even chronic, then an area of exponentially increasing risk, then area where the levels are known to be harmful chronically, and yet another where they're immediately dangerous. So while not binary, the difference between dangerous and not is usually pretty sharp. For PM 2.5, < 12 ug/m3 is considered safe, while > 35 ug/m3 is considered harmful after just few hours. For chronic exposure, mean levels of < 15 ug/m3 over 3 years is considered safe. (There is probably some level that is certain to produce silicosis in about everyone. I would have to dig on that.) That is how thin the margin is. And these are the laxer NIOSH values. Even AQI which is weighted to be more linear and granular, easily gets pegged at moderate (risky to sensitive people) in clean seeming cities unless there's wind... (That is a level above 15 ug/m3 already by some.)

mc32 4y ago

I think you have a point. If there were no people on Earth, what would the PM 2.5 look like? If it would still be too high, then it seems this measure while, baseline to know, wouldn't be practically useful. We'd have to then control naturally occurring PM2.5 in the environment. That's not to say the obvious is not true, that Regions of China and India suffer from too much PM2.5 due to human activity and should be addressed. However, a chicken little situation is not helpful as people will tune out.

dahart 4y ago

Indeed it is, you’re right. Here is the spectrum the WHO publishes: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574582/table/fm-ch1.tab1/?report=objectonly https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK574582/table/fm-ch1.ta... Note that the idea of a single safe “threshold” limit is based on the best available research today showing that they haven’t measured adverse health effects below 5 μg/m³ average annual exposure. The spectrum here is a spread of increased mortality that can be attributed to pollution above that limit. There’s a different threshold for a single day exposure than for average exposure. Also note that the recommendation recently came down from the 2005 recommendation of 10 μg/m³ due to more research showing adverse health effects of pollution. There might not exist any so-called “safe” limit, and speculating wildly, we might expect their recommendation to drop again in the future.