4 ms·

It's because, for many, the car represents freedom. As in, freedom to go wherever they want. To not rely on someone else's transport. It sounds silly to me, but

by tormeh 13y ago

It's because, for many, the car represents freedom. As in, freedom to go wherever they want. To not rely on someone else's transport. It sounds silly to me, but apparently that's how many people think.

meepmorp 13y ago
I think it's also because people think they know how to assess the risks of cars. They think of crashes, maybe, as the primary (if not sole) risk. They don't know of anyone who's ever died from car exhaust, apart from perhaps a carbon monoxide suicide. Cell phones are newer things in people's lives. There's less established understanding of what they can do. Combined with a general fear of radiation, and the associated risks of cancer, and it's easier to believe you'll get cancer from a phone than from car exhaust.
- andrewflnr 13y ago
  Think about that. Most people don't know anyone who has died from exhaust, but almost everyone knows someone who has been involved in a crash. We might not be sufficiently afraid of cars, but I think rating the danger of crashes above exhaust is reasonable.
  - CalRobert 13y ago
    Most people know somebody whose emphysema, cancer, or other air-pollution related disease was at least exacerbated by exhaust. They just don't know that they do. This could even be you a few decades hence. Ironically this is similar to the danger posed by low-level radiation releases (except exhaust is far more dangerous), except everyone freaks out when their local radiation levels are 10% above baseline, but nobody cares when local pm2.5 levels are 20% above baseline. (They do notice at 1000%, to their credit).
CalRobert 13y ago
This is a shame, and I speak as somebody who really enjoys a good road trip. Cars, when used as a primary (not supplementary) means of transport, are an utter menace to walkers, cyclists, and as we've established, people who breathe air. Maybe I'm biased since I was a bicyclist in LA for 18 months, but they destroy cities, kill people in droves, and of course aren't great for Earth. Nevermind the fact that walkers, cyclists, and public transportation users now have to cross much farther distances because two thirds of the land in that godforsaken hellhole is auto infrastructure, or subsidize automobile ownership with taxes that support street parking and parking minimums making it illegal to open a restaurant or build an apartment building without OCEANS of parking because the local NIMBY's complain about how they might have less convenient access to unlimited, taxpayer-subsidized automobile storage. Anyway, back to graphene. As amazing as these materials sound I worry greatly about their environmental impact. What do you do when your lungs are full of graphene? Your blood stream? It seems unlikely the liver is well-suited to removing it from the body.

by tormeh 13y ago

meepmorp 13y ago

I think it's also because people think they know how to assess the risks of cars. They think of crashes, maybe, as the primary (if not sole) risk. They don't know of anyone who's ever died from car exhaust, apart from perhaps a carbon monoxide suicide. Cell phones are newer things in people's lives. There's less established understanding of what they can do. Combined with a general fear of radiation, and the associated risks of cancer, and it's easier to believe you'll get cancer from a phone than from car exhaust.

andrewflnr 13y ago
Think about that. Most people don't know anyone who has died from exhaust, but almost everyone knows someone who has been involved in a crash. We might not be sufficiently afraid of cars, but I think rating the danger of crashes above exhaust is reasonable.
- CalRobert 13y ago
  Most people know somebody whose emphysema, cancer, or other air-pollution related disease was at least exacerbated by exhaust. They just don't know that they do. This could even be you a few decades hence. Ironically this is similar to the danger posed by low-level radiation releases (except exhaust is far more dangerous), except everyone freaks out when their local radiation levels are 10% above baseline, but nobody cares when local pm2.5 levels are 20% above baseline. (They do notice at 1000%, to their credit).

CalRobert 13y ago

This is a shame, and I speak as somebody who really enjoys a good road trip. Cars, when used as a primary (not supplementary) means of transport, are an utter menace to walkers, cyclists, and as we've established, people who breathe air. Maybe I'm biased since I was a bicyclist in LA for 18 months, but they destroy cities, kill people in droves, and of course aren't great for Earth. Nevermind the fact that walkers, cyclists, and public transportation users now have to cross much farther distances because two thirds of the land in that godforsaken hellhole is auto infrastructure, or subsidize automobile ownership with taxes that support street parking and parking minimums making it illegal to open a restaurant or build an apartment building without OCEANS of parking because the local NIMBY's complain about how they might have less convenient access to unlimited, taxpayer-subsidized automobile storage. Anyway, back to graphene. As amazing as these materials sound I worry greatly about their environmental impact. What do you do when your lungs are full of graphene? Your blood stream? It seems unlikely the liver is well-suited to removing it from the body.