5 ms·

Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos. When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I wo

by jmclnx 1y ago

Not being a scientist of any kind, I fully believe it is fossil fuel emissions, mainly from autos. When I was very young, where I lived, a city of 100000, I would say less than 50% of the people there drove plus most worked in the city they lived in. Now, almost every household has at least 2 autos and most drive at least 10+ (16km) miles to work. But, I also wonder if this is tied to the general increase in cancers for people under 50.

0points 1y ago
Modern cars should be equipped with a catalysator, making the majority of pollution to be Co2, worsening the global warming. To some extent heavy metals are being distributed in the air by the wheels in heavily populated areas. This can be greatly improved by limiting traffic in heavily populated areas. Trump removed such a rule from New York City recently for reasons I can not comprehend. Many european cities have improved air quality successfully and hence increased life expectancy by limiting car traffic. The majority of air pollution of particles however, is caused by the industry (the companies making those cars, among others). In fact, you are a worse polluter of the earth today if you buy a new Tesla than if you kept driving your 1980s gasoline car due to the amount of pollution created by producing a single vehicle.
- danielbln 1y ago
  Particulate matter is still a huge problem, mainly produced by tires and break pads, but also road abrasion. In terms of pure engine exhaust, catalysts don't do much here, you'd need a particulate filter, which not all cars have. So, cars still a problem wrt cancer, as particulate matter is carcinogenic.
- uzj100 1y ago
  European cities were especially bad because the EU pushed diesels while having significantly less emissions controls than gas vehicles until the mid 2000s. Most of the vehicles impacted by ULEZ are those same diesels.
codyb 1y ago
I know no one's ever going to change their ways cause of the increasingly evident ravages of climate change but I swear I feel like throwing rocks at the big SUVs rolling by with exactly one person in them during the heat domes here in NYC. Just, so, gross. And it truly is the _vast majority_ of cars going by with exactly one person in them. So wasteful, so much pollution, so hot... frustrating.
- RajT88 1y ago
  I get it. My wife drives a big SUV. She is a small lady, and says the car let's her see the road better and overall feel more safe. Back when SUV's started to get popular, this was a trend they noticed as well. Back then, it was met with a lot of guffaws about yuppie housewives and all that. (This was before the term Karen had been coined)
  - QuercusMax 1y ago
    But she's making everyone else less safe by driving in her tank-mobile. Those are much more deadly to pedestrians, cyclists, and those in smaller vehicles.
    - kccqzy 1y ago
      Some people are selfish. It's not illegal to be selfish.
      - QuercusMax 1y ago
        It can be morally wrong, however.
        kccqzy 1y ago
        That's a problem of the legislators: identifying which immoral activities should be made illegal.
        1y ago
999900000999 1y ago
Ohh it's definitely cars. In more ways than one. A lot of "poor" countries have life expectancies comparable to the US. The big difference is they don't have a culture of every single person needing to own a car that spray carcinogens all over the place. Obesity, which is its own massive wrecking ball, is also significantly lower in these "poor" countries. The arrogance of laughing at poor people riding bikes to work when that would create a drastically healthier society. Imagine if you had a 4km x 4km city with no consumer vehicles ( emergency and delivery exempt). Just walking paths and bike lanes. The people living there would be drastically healthier. Or hell, it might just be luck. A lot of smokers live until there 80s enjoying a fat cigar once a day
- SchemaLoad 1y ago
  It's honestly such awakening experience to see videos or visit these "poor" low GDP, stagnant economy countries and see their streets are full of happy, healthy people out walking, talking with each other. Kids out playing on the street, old people dancing in the parks. And then see our rich cities where everyone sits in traffic scoffing McDonalds raging out at other people doing the same. Huffing in diesel exhaust and tire microplastics.
  - lazide 1y ago
    Eh, visit a big city in India for a third view.
    - SchemaLoad 1y ago
      Have to wonder what happened differently between countries like China, Japan, and India. I'm not an expert but yeah there is something more to it. Better managed government perhaps?
      - lazide 1y ago
        Indian society is a non-homogenous mix of thousands of different coherent factions, with different languages, clear ethnic/genetic differences, identities, etc. all vying for control. Many groups have tried to conquer and unify India over the millennia (Mughals, various Hindu kings, the British), but they always lose steam/interest before they can finish the job. It is (in modern times) also an environment where you’re not allowed to murder your neighbor (generally) or the other factions will gang up on you. It’s the perfect environment for backstabbing, corruption, and performative changes without actual changes. No one has ever successfully forced a coherent unifying identity on India - the British just papered over things, and as long as they got paid, rarely attempted to exert more low level control. China, in contrast, had the Qin dynasty/Qin Shi Huang, which not only did unify China into a coherent ethnic-religious state, but also had periods of clear ‘murder anyone who didn’t fit in exactly as the emperor wanted’. This resulted in 90%+ of China being from a single genetic group (Han Chinese), having the same religious background (or lack thereof), and being used to being steered from a single central gov’t control point (the central Court in Beijing). The CCP only temporarily diverged from the same historic pattern. China has a lot of ‘local control’ diversity on the ground (Hokkien, Cantonese, Mandarin are very different languages for example, and say to day life in Southern China vs Eastern or Northern China is very different), but is very used to the central gov’t coming in and stomping everyone into the ground if anyone messes with things the central gov’t cares about. And everyone is generally going to agree they are all Chinese first, instead of say Shanghainese. Still not a trivial thing to ‘steer’, but China is more steerable. Japan, being a relatively small Island that isn’t in the middle of any major trading routes or the like, has had even more extreme levels of ‘be like how I say or else’ applied over time, also from a central gov’t/emperor/shogun, and has a far more extreme version of ‘be like everyone else’ than China. They’re even more ethnically consistent - 95% ish. To the point they seem to ‘lock in’ to one mindset even at a really extreme level, then ‘flip’ more in lockstep. Either xenophobia, or conquering, or chill, or whatever.
mrob 1y ago
I think people underestimate the impact of air pollution because it's so easy to get desensitized to it. Try wearing a respirator with good seal and filter in an urban area for 10 minutes or so. When you take it off you'll probably smell vehicle exhaust you didn't notice before. Human sense of smell tends to tune out constant low level background odors, but they can still be a sign of something harmful.
- Enginerrrd 1y ago
  For sure. I live in an area with superb air quality and going down to LA and trying to take a run feels like smoking a couple of cigarettes.
potato3732842 1y ago
I think you grossly underestimate the degree to which cars (and industry that we had yet to kick out to China) were dirtier decades ago than they are today. We're talking like literal orders, plural, of magnitude when comparing between the generally no cats automotive fleet of the 70s with anything since the advent of both cats and computerized fuel injection. Any old timer can tell you of the smog that used to be frequent in urban areas. These days it's mostly gone, at least when California or Canada (depending on where you live) isn't on fire. (INB4 people who are a net negative to public discourse construe this comment as some sort of endorsement for everyone driving everywhere all the time)
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
  Cars were dirtier but I think there were fewer.
  - asdff 1y ago
    Just look at old photos of city smog in the 1960s. It is night and day different compared to air today even with larger populations in these same metros in some cases.
- uzj100 1y ago
  You emit less driving a new Ford F-150 Raptor from Texas to Alaska than using an old school gas lawnmower for two hours. It's crazy how efficient and low emissions our engines today are, compared to 50 years ago.
asdff 1y ago
Pollution was way worse in the past. Old pictures of american cities from 50 years ago look like Beijing. We hadn't yet offshored heavy industry by that point and like you said, a larger percent of the metro was living closer to it. And whatever you saw outside was actually better than your air quality inside where these pollutants would accumulate and mix with Dad's cigarette smoke. This was the air you were breathing back then (1, 2, 3). 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JXONWOW2JII6TINFCYVYVHE4UI.jpg&w=1600&h=900 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://... 2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/SKYSCRAPERS_OF_MANHATTAN_VEILED_IN_SMOG_-_NARA_-_548360_edited.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/SKYSCRAP... 3. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/2020-12-02-FORGOTTEN_banner.jpg https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satev...

by jmclnx 1y ago

0points 1y ago

Modern cars should be equipped with a catalysator, making the majority of pollution to be Co2, worsening the global warming. To some extent heavy metals are being distributed in the air by the wheels in heavily populated areas. This can be greatly improved by limiting traffic in heavily populated areas. Trump removed such a rule from New York City recently for reasons I can not comprehend. Many european cities have improved air quality successfully and hence increased life expectancy by limiting car traffic. The majority of air pollution of particles however, is caused by the industry (the companies making those cars, among others). In fact, you are a worse polluter of the earth today if you buy a new Tesla than if you kept driving your 1980s gasoline car due to the amount of pollution created by producing a single vehicle.

danielbln 1y ago
Particulate matter is still a huge problem, mainly produced by tires and break pads, but also road abrasion. In terms of pure engine exhaust, catalysts don't do much here, you'd need a particulate filter, which not all cars have. So, cars still a problem wrt cancer, as particulate matter is carcinogenic.
uzj100 1y ago
European cities were especially bad because the EU pushed diesels while having significantly less emissions controls than gas vehicles until the mid 2000s. Most of the vehicles impacted by ULEZ are those same diesels.

codyb 1y ago

I know no one's ever going to change their ways cause of the increasingly evident ravages of climate change but I swear I feel like throwing rocks at the big SUVs rolling by with exactly one person in them during the heat domes here in NYC. Just, so, gross. And it truly is the _vast majority_ of cars going by with exactly one person in them. So wasteful, so much pollution, so hot... frustrating.

RajT88 1y ago
I get it. My wife drives a big SUV. She is a small lady, and says the car let's her see the road better and overall feel more safe. Back when SUV's started to get popular, this was a trend they noticed as well. Back then, it was met with a lot of guffaws about yuppie housewives and all that. (This was before the term Karen had been coined)
- QuercusMax 1y ago
  But she's making everyone else less safe by driving in her tank-mobile. Those are much more deadly to pedestrians, cyclists, and those in smaller vehicles.
  - kccqzy 1y ago
    Some people are selfish. It's not illegal to be selfish.
    - QuercusMax 1y ago
      It can be morally wrong, however.
      - kccqzy 1y ago
        That's a problem of the legislators: identifying which immoral activities should be made illegal.
        1y ago

999900000999 1y ago

Ohh it's definitely cars. In more ways than one. A lot of "poor" countries have life expectancies comparable to the US. The big difference is they don't have a culture of every single person needing to own a car that spray carcinogens all over the place. Obesity, which is its own massive wrecking ball, is also significantly lower in these "poor" countries. The arrogance of laughing at poor people riding bikes to work when that would create a drastically healthier society. Imagine if you had a 4km x 4km city with no consumer vehicles ( emergency and delivery exempt). Just walking paths and bike lanes. The people living there would be drastically healthier. Or hell, it might just be luck. A lot of smokers live until there 80s enjoying a fat cigar once a day

SchemaLoad 1y ago
It's honestly such awakening experience to see videos or visit these "poor" low GDP, stagnant economy countries and see their streets are full of happy, healthy people out walking, talking with each other. Kids out playing on the street, old people dancing in the parks. And then see our rich cities where everyone sits in traffic scoffing McDonalds raging out at other people doing the same. Huffing in diesel exhaust and tire microplastics.
- lazide 1y ago
  Eh, visit a big city in India for a third view.
  - SchemaLoad 1y ago
    Have to wonder what happened differently between countries like China, Japan, and India. I'm not an expert but yeah there is something more to it. Better managed government perhaps?
    - lazide 1y ago
      Indian society is a non-homogenous mix of thousands of different coherent factions, with different languages, clear ethnic/genetic differences, identities, etc. all vying for control. Many groups have tried to conquer and unify India over the millennia (Mughals, various Hindu kings, the British), but they always lose steam/interest before they can finish the job. It is (in modern times) also an environment where you’re not allowed to murder your neighbor (generally) or the other factions will gang up on you. It’s the perfect environment for backstabbing, corruption, and performative changes without actual changes. No one has ever successfully forced a coherent unifying identity on India - the British just papered over things, and as long as they got paid, rarely attempted to exert more low level control. China, in contrast, had the Qin dynasty/Qin Shi Huang, which not only did unify China into a coherent ethnic-religious state, but also had periods of clear ‘murder anyone who didn’t fit in exactly as the emperor wanted’. This resulted in 90%+ of China being from a single genetic group (Han Chinese), having the same religious background (or lack thereof), and being used to being steered from a single central gov’t control point (the central Court in Beijing). The CCP only temporarily diverged from the same historic pattern. China has a lot of ‘local control’ diversity on the ground (Hokkien, Cantonese, Mandarin are very different languages for example, and say to day life in Southern China vs Eastern or Northern China is very different), but is very used to the central gov’t coming in and stomping everyone into the ground if anyone messes with things the central gov’t cares about. And everyone is generally going to agree they are all Chinese first, instead of say Shanghainese. Still not a trivial thing to ‘steer’, but China is more steerable. Japan, being a relatively small Island that isn’t in the middle of any major trading routes or the like, has had even more extreme levels of ‘be like how I say or else’ applied over time, also from a central gov’t/emperor/shogun, and has a far more extreme version of ‘be like everyone else’ than China. They’re even more ethnically consistent - 95% ish. To the point they seem to ‘lock in’ to one mindset even at a really extreme level, then ‘flip’ more in lockstep. Either xenophobia, or conquering, or chill, or whatever.

mrob 1y ago

I think people underestimate the impact of air pollution because it's so easy to get desensitized to it. Try wearing a respirator with good seal and filter in an urban area for 10 minutes or so. When you take it off you'll probably smell vehicle exhaust you didn't notice before. Human sense of smell tends to tune out constant low level background odors, but they can still be a sign of something harmful.

Enginerrrd 1y ago
For sure. I live in an area with superb air quality and going down to LA and trying to take a run feels like smoking a couple of cigarettes.

potato3732842 1y ago

I think you grossly underestimate the degree to which cars (and industry that we had yet to kick out to China) were dirtier decades ago than they are today. We're talking like literal orders, plural, of magnitude when comparing between the generally no cats automotive fleet of the 70s with anything since the advent of both cats and computerized fuel injection. Any old timer can tell you of the smog that used to be frequent in urban areas. These days it's mostly gone, at least when California or Canada (depending on where you live) isn't on fire. (INB4 people who are a net negative to public discourse construe this comment as some sort of endorsement for everyone driving everywhere all the time)

2OEH8eoCRo0 1y ago
Cars were dirtier but I think there were fewer.
- asdff 1y ago
  Just look at old photos of city smog in the 1960s. It is night and day different compared to air today even with larger populations in these same metros in some cases.
uzj100 1y ago
You emit less driving a new Ford F-150 Raptor from Texas to Alaska than using an old school gas lawnmower for two hours. It's crazy how efficient and low emissions our engines today are, compared to 50 years ago.

asdff 1y ago

Pollution was way worse in the past. Old pictures of american cities from 50 years ago look like Beijing. We hadn't yet offshored heavy industry by that point and like you said, a larger percent of the metro was living closer to it. And whatever you saw outside was actually better than your air quality inside where these pollutants would accumulate and mix with Dad's cigarette smoke. This was the air you were breathing back then (1, 2, 3). 1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/JXONWOW2JII6TINFCYVYVHE4UI.jpg&w=1600&h=900 https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://... 2. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/SKYSCRAPERS_OF_MANHATTAN_VEILED_IN_SMOG_-_NARA_-_548360_edited.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0a/SKYSCRAP... 3. https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/2020-12-02-FORGOTTEN_banner.jpg https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satev...