3 ms·

> Crazy. Why do you believe that? Because no one is dying from some smoke blowing across the region for a day, lol. Chronic pollution is a problem. Breathing

> Crazy. Why do you believe that? Because no one is dying from some smoke blowing across the region for a day, lol. Chronic pollution is a problem. Breathing bad air daily is a problem. working around smoky environments day in and day out is a problem Having some smoke in the area for a day is not. I'm tired of the neurotics and hypochondriacs making big deals out of things that aren't. Like, don't get fat and don't smoke, and use bad things in moderation and get regular checkups and don't stress about everything and you'll live to 80 in most cases. Some people get unlucky. People dramatizing this recent event like it was HARMFUL to them and "scary" or some type of public health crisis are insane. Posts like yours that for whatever reason want to reference something that isn't really science but is used like it's irrefutable truth to say that the smoke event was somehow dangerous - I mean, just c'mon. It's fine.

dahart 3y ago
> Because no one is dying from smoke blowing across the region for a day, lol. Why do you think that? How do you know, exactly? I would totally recommend reading the WHO report! The guidelines are based on mortality statistics. They have in fact studied how often people are dying from a 24 hour exposure to bad air. Statistically, a few people are actually dying from one “bad day” exposure. It’s not many people, but it’s still a measurable number greater than zero, and they are demonstrating the number is greater than if they didn’t have the one bad day of smoke. Yes, for a single event it affects the most prone population. What we are talking about is risk factors. Most people will not die from one day of smoke, but that doesn’t mean no one will. I could see this topic being irritating to hear about if you don’t believe in science and don’t trust the WHO, and we certainly have a political climate with people intentionally trying to reduce public trust in science and organizations like the WHO. But it’s worth keeping an open mind and studying a little bit about what they’re actually saying, what they’re not saying, and how they arrived at their conclusions.
- nemo44x 3y ago
  > They have in fact studied how often people are dying from a 24 hour exposure to bad air. Statistically, a few people are actually dying from one “bad day” exposure. Yeah it wasn’t the million other things they did in the last 80 years of their lives. Perfectly healthy people keeling over because of a bad air quality day lol. Please take a moment to use a small bit of logic here. This is a make believe idea like people who died in car accidents but had Covid were victims of Covid. This is aggregate nonsense and to suggest a single, mild event (hundreds of miles from danger) was the bullet to the head is so far fetched as to be hilarious to me. I’m not a science renter but as a person highly educated in that field I can spit bullshit quickly. I know what the report is saying because stats and math are fun to tell a story. But just because you’re using the tools of science doesn’t mean you’re doing meaningful science. Your report is a political statement to justify power/action when it isn’t warranted. Much like people used to reference the word of god as authorities truth. Maybe all the alarmists and doom sayers caused unhealthy rubes undue stress that that’s what did it. They never even breathed a breath. Your science is laughable at best in the context of this weeks event.

dahart 3y ago

> Because no one is dying from smoke blowing across the region for a day, lol. Why do you think that? How do you know, exactly? I would totally recommend reading the WHO report! The guidelines are based on mortality statistics. They have in fact studied how often people are dying from a 24 hour exposure to bad air. Statistically, a few people are actually dying from one “bad day” exposure. It’s not many people, but it’s still a measurable number greater than zero, and they are demonstrating the number is greater than if they didn’t have the one bad day of smoke. Yes, for a single event it affects the most prone population. What we are talking about is risk factors. Most people will not die from one day of smoke, but that doesn’t mean no one will. I could see this topic being irritating to hear about if you don’t believe in science and don’t trust the WHO, and we certainly have a political climate with people intentionally trying to reduce public trust in science and organizations like the WHO. But it’s worth keeping an open mind and studying a little bit about what they’re actually saying, what they’re not saying, and how they arrived at their conclusions.

nemo44x 3y ago
> They have in fact studied how often people are dying from a 24 hour exposure to bad air. Statistically, a few people are actually dying from one “bad day” exposure. Yeah it wasn’t the million other things they did in the last 80 years of their lives. Perfectly healthy people keeling over because of a bad air quality day lol. Please take a moment to use a small bit of logic here. This is a make believe idea like people who died in car accidents but had Covid were victims of Covid. This is aggregate nonsense and to suggest a single, mild event (hundreds of miles from danger) was the bullet to the head is so far fetched as to be hilarious to me. I’m not a science renter but as a person highly educated in that field I can spit bullshit quickly. I know what the report is saying because stats and math are fun to tell a story. But just because you’re using the tools of science doesn’t mean you’re doing meaningful science. Your report is a political statement to justify power/action when it isn’t warranted. Much like people used to reference the word of god as authorities truth. Maybe all the alarmists and doom sayers caused unhealthy rubes undue stress that that’s what did it. They never even breathed a breath. Your science is laughable at best in the context of this weeks event.