4 ms·

That's exactly it - the analogy is that they couldn't see that the water was unclean, and so it was difficult to build the political will to spend money to fix

by isp 3y ago

That's exactly it - the analogy is that they couldn't see that the water was unclean, and so it was difficult to build the political will to spend money to fix an "invisible" problem. So even though they knew the water made people ill, it didn't visually appear dirty, and so there was reluctance to clean the water. Ditto now for air.

taeric 3y ago
I think where it falls, though, is that the claims were stronger for the water. People were literally getting ill and dying. With the air, there are much softer metrics being pushed that are more about seeing things are clean, but only if you have the measuring tools to see that they are dirty.
- isp 3y ago
  The evidence is now incontrovertible that people are "literally getting ill and dying" for diseases currently spread through the air. So the situation is analogous: back then, it was controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the water (since many falsely thought it was already clean). Now, it is controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the air (since many falsely think that it is already clean).
  - taeric 3y ago
    Most of that evidence is for really bad air in cities, though? Akin to the open sewage river from years ago, such that I don't see much debate there. Note, please don't take my post here as argument against having targets for ventilation. I don't intend it that way. I do think many people over state the dangers of in house stoves and such. I also have no problem saying that we have advanced enough that well ventilated house should be the default. Stated differently. I have no problem mandating child seats. I do wish the safety comparisons for them wasn't to "someone completely unbuckled in the vehicle." So, for air, I do not argue against better codes for ventilation. I also don't expect it to have an impact on my life. My last house didn't even have forced air anything, whereas my current house does. I feel basically the same between the two. Such that all of the stories of ventilation being a miracle cure rub me very much the wrong way.
    - isp 3y ago
      Ah - I see where we are talking at cross purposes. I am primarily thinking of "dirty air" in the context of airborne diseases (e.g., Covid and flu). This can be any enclosed indoor place with people and without mitigations, i.e., doesn't require wildfires or stoves. The mitigations to clean this indoor "dirty air" can be either replacing with outdoor air, or directly "cleaning" by removing or inactivating the disease particles (e.g., with HEPA filters / UVGI).
      - taeric 3y ago
        Covid is, oddly, a specific one that has me scratching my head. I am all for increased ventilation. I have a hard time grokking any of the claims on covid. Note that it is easy to believe most claims, except schools stand in the way. The outlandish claims that so many have held about the magic of ... well, anything, seems to fall in the face of why it didn't demolish schools. It clearly spread through the schools. Just as I have friends where it hit their family, but didn't spread to us this round. Somehow. I don't think I can credit good hygiene for my family. Certainly not the 5yo. Again, I'm all for ventilation standards. They certainly shouldn't make things worse. By all reasoning, they should make things better. Claims against Covid/Flu, though, I take with some salt right now. I'm hopeful, but not sure I'm expecting anything there.
        isp 3y ago
        I am definitely not one for outlandish claims. Amidst all the noise, my understanding of the key points is: - We know that airborne diseases primarily spread indoors - We know that we can clean the air, and that cleaning the air reduces disease spread Putting the two together, I believe that cleaning the air can improve public health. I don't expect most diseases to disappear entirely. But I do expect a dramatic reduction. Analogy: like cholera. It hasn't disappeared entirely, but I don't personally need to think about it during my day-to-day life because the incidence rate is now so low.
        taeric 3y ago

by isp 3y ago

taeric 3y ago

I think where it falls, though, is that the claims were stronger for the water. People were literally getting ill and dying. With the air, there are much softer metrics being pushed that are more about seeing things are clean, but only if you have the measuring tools to see that they are dirty.

isp 3y ago
The evidence is now incontrovertible that people are "literally getting ill and dying" for diseases currently spread through the air. So the situation is analogous: back then, it was controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the water (since many falsely thought it was already clean). Now, it is controversial to introduce the steps required to clean the air (since many falsely think that it is already clean).
- taeric 3y ago
  Most of that evidence is for really bad air in cities, though? Akin to the open sewage river from years ago, such that I don't see much debate there. Note, please don't take my post here as argument against having targets for ventilation. I don't intend it that way. I do think many people over state the dangers of in house stoves and such. I also have no problem saying that we have advanced enough that well ventilated house should be the default. Stated differently. I have no problem mandating child seats. I do wish the safety comparisons for them wasn't to "someone completely unbuckled in the vehicle." So, for air, I do not argue against better codes for ventilation. I also don't expect it to have an impact on my life. My last house didn't even have forced air anything, whereas my current house does. I feel basically the same between the two. Such that all of the stories of ventilation being a miracle cure rub me very much the wrong way.
  - isp 3y ago
    Ah - I see where we are talking at cross purposes. I am primarily thinking of "dirty air" in the context of airborne diseases (e.g., Covid and flu). This can be any enclosed indoor place with people and without mitigations, i.e., doesn't require wildfires or stoves. The mitigations to clean this indoor "dirty air" can be either replacing with outdoor air, or directly "cleaning" by removing or inactivating the disease particles (e.g., with HEPA filters / UVGI).
    - taeric 3y ago
      Covid is, oddly, a specific one that has me scratching my head. I am all for increased ventilation. I have a hard time grokking any of the claims on covid. Note that it is easy to believe most claims, except schools stand in the way. The outlandish claims that so many have held about the magic of ... well, anything, seems to fall in the face of why it didn't demolish schools. It clearly spread through the schools. Just as I have friends where it hit their family, but didn't spread to us this round. Somehow. I don't think I can credit good hygiene for my family. Certainly not the 5yo. Again, I'm all for ventilation standards. They certainly shouldn't make things worse. By all reasoning, they should make things better. Claims against Covid/Flu, though, I take with some salt right now. I'm hopeful, but not sure I'm expecting anything there.
      - isp 3y ago
        I am definitely not one for outlandish claims. Amidst all the noise, my understanding of the key points is: - We know that airborne diseases primarily spread indoors - We know that we can clean the air, and that cleaning the air reduces disease spread Putting the two together, I believe that cleaning the air can improve public health. I don't expect most diseases to disappear entirely. But I do expect a dramatic reduction. Analogy: like cholera. It hasn't disappeared entirely, but I don't personally need to think about it during my day-to-day life because the incidence rate is now so low.
        taeric 3y ago