3 ms·

“The health impacts of exposure to PM2.5 are significant” I think they need to elaborate on this to put the funding in greater context. Statistically significa

• andsoitis 4y ago
  From the article: “The health impacts of exposure to PM2.5 are significant and include respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and premature death.”
  • bumby 4y ago
    Yes, that’s what I quoted too. I’m drawing a distinction between what is “statistically” significant and what is pragmatically significant. An example is the processed foods study from a few years back that showed a statistically significant increase in cancer risk. But if you look harder at the data, it increases your risk from 1.0% to 1.18%. A relative difference of 18% sounds huge, but the absolute difference is very small. That’s not really much difference in the grand scheme of mortality risk. You can measure very small statistically significant differences with large data sets. It doesn’t necessarily mean it should drive people to change their behavior for every “significant” scientific finding.
• weird-eye-issue 4y ago
  Right, since there is no research on this topic already...
  • bumby 4y ago
    So they should quote it to put it in context. Otherwise, it comes across as click-bait and out-of-context
• easytiger 4y ago
  And how do they square the circle that with the deindustrialisation and move to central heating that those particulates production are at a century low in many western countries yet seem to be more deadly than ever.
  • jamiecurle 4y ago
    This is what I cannot fathom. I was born the 70's, played outside for all my childhood amidst all the leaded petrol and sulphur dioxide, I handled leaded petrol for a job at a petrol station for solid three years and I lived in dense urban town from childhood until today. Everything seems to be way lower than it ever has been: [1]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-sulphur-dioxide-so2 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po... [2]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-non-methane-volatile-organic-compounds-nmvocs https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po... [3]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-ammonia-nh3 https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po... [4]: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-pollutants/emissions-of-air-pollutants-in-the-uk-nitrogen-oxides-nox https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/emissions-of-air-po... So why is everything framed as being more deadly now than it was given the all time lows?
    • magicalist 4y ago
      Explicitly mentioned: "Moreover, the study revealed that while daily levels of PM2.5 have reduced in Europe and North America over the past two decades..."
    • easytiger 4y ago
      > So why is everything framed as being more deadly now than it was given the all time lows? Because it's a false predicate for the war on the car and the removal of personal agency in urban areas - a war being waged at multiple levels of government in the UK in particular.
• jjulius 4y ago
  The source data is linked in the article: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(23)00008-6/fulltext#seccestitle120 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5...
  • bumby 4y ago
    Their data is measuring the PM5 levels. What I’m asking about is how that difference gets translated to actual health risk. It’s related, but not in their data set (as far as I can tell on mobile). There’s a distinction between measuring the difference in a plausible mechanism (PM5)and an outcome of interest (health). It’s easy to get caught up in the “mechanism porn” of scientific studies and extrapolate too far in terms of assumed outcomes.