4 ms·

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 who

by 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.)

by trgn 4y ago

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.)