Slashdot Mirror
92% of the World's Population Exposed To Unsafe Levels of Air Pollution: WHO (sciencedaily.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Science Daily: A new World Health Organization (WHO) air quality model confirms that 92% of the world's population lives in places where air quality levels exceed WHO limits. "The new WHO model shows countries where the air pollution danger spots are, and provides a baseline for monitoring progress in combatting it," says Dr Flavia Bustreo, Assistant Director General at WHO. It also represents the most detailed outdoor (or ambient) air pollution-related health data, by country, ever reported by WHO. The model is based on data derived from satellite measurements, air transport models and ground station monitors for more than 3000 locations, both rural and urban. It was developed by WHO in collaboration with the University of Bath, United Kingdom. Some 3 million deaths a year are linked to exposure to outdoor air pollution. Indoor air pollution can be just as deadly. In 2012, an estimated 6.5 million deaths (11.6% of all global deaths) were associated with indoor and outdoor air pollution together. Nearly 90% of air-pollution-related deaths occur in low- and middle-income countries, with nearly 2 out of 3 occurring in WHO's South-East Asia and Western Pacific regions. Ninety-four per cent are due to noncommunicable diseases -- notably cardiovascular diseases, stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer. Air pollution also increases the risks for acute respiratory infections. Major sources of air pollution include inefficient modes of transport, household fuel and waste burning, coal-fired power plants, and industrial activities. However, not all air pollution originates from human activity. For example, air quality can also be influenced by dust storms, particularly in regions close to deserts. The model has carefully calibrated data from satellite and ground stations to maximize reliability. National air pollution exposures were analyzed against population and air pollution levels at a grid resolution of about 10 km x 10 km. The interactive maps provide information on population-weighted exposure to particulate matter of an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers (PM2.5) for all countries. The map also indicates data on monitoring stations for PM10 and PM2.5 values for about 3000 cities and towns. Quartz's report features a table that highlights the countries with the world's worst air pollution. The table "shows all the median levels of particulate matter in each country where the WHO collected data."
The thing is it is easier to clean the atmosphere and exhaust ducts of such facilities than it is to clean an exhaust pipe. It is done all the time.
Need examples? Look at pictures of Boston, Chicago, Detroit, los Angeles from 1980-1990 and compare them to today.
You can see the air quality change and exactly what the EPA does with their burdensome regulations.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
The US being on the bottom of the list is finally a good thing. Of course we just import the finished goods and let manufacturers (China) worry about the pollution we cause. Maybe we need to buy some carbon credits? /s
The data is dodgy.
Limitations
Data from different countries are of limited comparability because of
a) Different location of measurement stations;
b) Different measurement methods;
c) Different temporal coverage of certain measurements; if only part of the year was covered,
the measurement may significantly deviate from the annual mean due to seasonal
variability;
d) Possible inclusion of data which were not eligible for this database due to insufficient
information to ensure compliance;
e) Differences in sizes of urban areas covered: for certain countries, only measurements for
larger cities were found, whereas for others also cities with just a few thousand inhabitants
were available. Heterogeneous quality of measurements;
f) Omission of data which are known to exist, but which could not yet be accessed due to
language issues or limited accessibility.
http://www.who.int/phe/health_...
If you untick the "Modeled annual mean" you'll get a better picture of where the data points are measured. The middle of Africa where it's entirely red has no data points.
It just happens to be hot and dry with some wind, so you get dust in the air. I guess that's "natural pollution"
I took a look at the map and if you exclude the "Modeled annual mean" layer, you'll see all the locations where the samples are from. The US has a bunch, the EU has a zillion, India and China have a number of them but the rest of the world is quite sparse on sensors, especially northern Africa.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Bullshit. Rich people tend to have far far better health care. The size of your parents' wallet is not genetically heritable, therefore your claim that somehow Darwinism would solve the problem is utter crap. As with all Social Darwinists, you either twist what Darwin was saying, or you just simply don't understand it.
A few points:
1. Cooperation is as much a result of Darwinian selection as competition. Humans are social animals, not solitary hunters. Even Neanderthals appeared to take care of their infirm, for chrissake.
2. You can legally inherit money, but it confers no genetic advantage. A moron can just as easily have a trust fund as a genius.
2a. There is an at least partial caveat to that, in that poor nutrition during the key developmental years that is often found in the poorest societies can in fact stunt cognitive development. But again, that still doesn't mean rich people are genetically superior, it just means good nutrition and health care allows them to reach a sort of maximum of cognitive development that members of poor societies are often deprived of. The same would happen to a baby born in a rich society if it is deprived of protein and calories necessary for development.
3. There may be a genetic component to earning lots of money; in that either intelligence or risk taking behaviors can likely influence a person's ability to earn money, but high intellect and risk taking can also be associated with some potentially deleterious behaviors as well (i.e. links to depression or, in the case of risk takers, to physically or legally dangerous exploits).
4. The wealthier society, the lower the fertility rate, which generally means it isn't the poor societies who are going to be wiped out, but rather the wealthier ones, which is why they end up having to build big walls which they then are forced to open the gates to because to remain economically viable you need to have some way of generating the required 2.1 children per female to at least maintain a stable population over time.
5. As one can see from poorer societies, women can produce a number of offspring even if their average lifespans are considerably less than your average citizen of an industrialized country, so the idea that "Darwinism" (whatever you mean by that) is just going to leave all the nice rich people in place, and all the poor people will drop dead doesn't even make any bloody sense.
6. Social Darwinism has about as much to do with Darwinism/evolutionary biology as horoscopes have to do with astronomy. It was long ago debunked, but remains oddly popular among Libertarians in wealthy countries who either directly or indirectly benefit greatly from the labour of people in poor societies, and who seem to feel that it somehow justifies that pecking order. If Social Darwinism resembles any kind of evolution, it is the Lamarckian evolution that Darwin set about strongly critiquing in his theory.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Counting deaths is the wrong measure. The average number of days lost is more typical and informative to evaluate the impact of such problems.
I tried to find the paper for this WHO study, but couldn't find it. Pointers appreciated.
This US data is a big dated but useful as order of magnitudes:
Plane crash (200 deaths a year, 1 day lost per average person), house fire (18 days), pesticides (16000, EPA: 27 days), air pollution (50.000, 61 days), crime (26.000 murders, 113 days), driving (43.000, 182 days), smoking (5.5 years lost for average smoker), poverty (7 to 10 years lost).
It is also useful to point out to people who freak out when they read such headlines that air pollution was far worse in the past. From soot to manure particles, not to mention unsanitary housing, there are reasons why life expectancy has increased dramatically (although, water and food sanitation, as well as waste disposal were bigger factors).
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
Yep, L.A. was really bad in the sixties and seventies. My family went through there on our way to visit grandparents that lived in Palm Springs. The air was a yellowish brown and was quite difficult for my mother at the time.
I've been there many times since and it has improved dramatically.
I remember seeing a newspaper article years ago that showed air filters from the city monitoring stations from the seventies that were very dark comparing them to ones in the late nineties that were quite clean in comparison.
It can still get quite smoggy, but nothing like when I was a kid. With more population it would of been a lot like modern Beijing. We used to joke "What happens when the smog over Los Angeles clears? UCLA!"
I fear those growing up since that time who want to eliminate EPA regulations fail to realize what it was like before those regulations existed. After all, it's never been that bad for them, so obviously those regulations are just an impediment to business and serve no real purpose. After all, L.A. was never as bad as Beijing is now, so the regulations must be overreaction by the government.
And while some regulations are overreactions, overall, they have helped more than harmed. I rather like breathing.
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
The real issue is global overpopulation, and until we're ready to let natural Darwinism supersede political correctness, it's not going to change
We're doomed! Doomed I tells ya! Run away population growth
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Yep, L.A. was really bad in the sixties and seventies. My family went through there on our way to visit grandparents that lived in Palm Springs. The air was a yellowish brown and was quite difficult for my mother at the time.
Ironically, much of the improvement in LA actually was due to cleaning exhaust pipes, and not due to cracking down on industrial production. Don't get me wrong, they did do that as well, but Los Angeles has a serious transport problem. Back when cars were more polluting, they had a serious transport pollution problem. But these various laws that people love to hate in California actually made a substantive difference in vehicle emissions. I myself am not very happy with the regulations surrounding equipment restrictions; if a vehicle can pass a tailpipe dyno emissions test then you should be able to mount whatever equipment to it you like. But that's another rant.
I fear those growing up since that time who want to eliminate EPA regulations fail to realize what it was like before those regulations existed.
The EPA regulations are a bad joke. It took the CARB (an entire additional emissions regulation board!) to fix the problems in Los Angeles (and the state as a whole) because the EPA is so pathetic. California has the most vehicles, almost the most road, and the most vehicle-miles traveled, so cleaning up vehicle emissions made a big difference. But the CARB also handles other kinds of emissions, like VOCs and particulates from commercial sources.
California could probably do without the EPA, because we could replace it by expanding the CARB's mandate. The rest of the country would go immediately to shit. Well, more shit than it is now. Enjoy your lead, America.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"