Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Pollution Responsible For a Quarter of Deaths of Young Children, Says WHO (theguardian.com)

Posted by msmash on from the where-we-are dept.

More than 1 in 4 deaths of children under 5 years of age are attributable to unhealthy environments. Every year, environmental risks -- such as indoor and outdoor air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation, and inadequate hygiene -- take the lives of 1.7 million children under 5 years, say two new WHO reports. The Guardian adds: "A polluted environment is a deadly one -- particularly for young children," says Dr Margaret Chan, director-general of the WHO. "Their developing organs and immune systems -- and smaller bodies and airways -- make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water." The harm from air pollution can begin in the womb and increase the risk of premature birth. After birth, air pollution raises the risk of pneumonia, a major cause of death for under fives, and of lifelong lung conditions such as asthma. It may also increase the risk of heart disease, stroke and cancer in later life.

87 comments

  1. ...and inadequate hygiene by TWX · · Score: 3, Interesting

    indoor and outdoor air pollution, second-hand smoke, unsafe water, lack of sanitation, and inadequate hygiene

    This last one doesn't seem like it really fits in with the others too well. Certainly impoverished people may not necessarily be able to afford the chemicals needed for good hygiene, or they might lack the education to know why hygiene is important, but impoverished people in countries with good anti-pollution policies and with otherwise strong economies may also have problems with hygiene and possibly for the same reasons.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by lobiusmoop · · Score: 2

      45% of all child deaths are simply down to malnutrition.

      --
      "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
    2. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      "Hygiene" may not just be about bathing and washing, but also defective equipment, like refrigerators with inconsistent temperature, washing machines with mold in them because they don't drain properly, toilets that only half flush, and corroding pipes that deliver tainted water.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by HornWumpus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's so they can include natural dirty water, Malaria and other parasite deaths in the number and make a nice inflammatory headline.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hygiene is cheap - if you have plenty of water. It is all about washing, if you can't afford soap - scrub harder!

      If water is something you have to walk miles for and carry back - well you're not going to waste much of it on washing.

      Rich people don't have this problem, they bring water in a car or construct a pipeline.

    5. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is chemistry in soap that can't be replaced with mechanical effect. Well you could replace some of it with ultrasonic cleaning, but that's not comfortable on human flesh and it's not as cost effective as soap.

    6. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So sonic showers aren't actually going to be a thing? Next you'll tell me that there's some problem with warp drive working in real life too....

    7. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hygiene part covers surely a makeshift hospital under a war zone, or in conditions with insufficient access to electricity to keep instruments and the surfaces clean enough. Simply the lack of treated, clean water from the tab is often a reason enough to catch deceases in densely populated areas.

    8. Re:...and inadequate hygiene by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      This last one doesn't seem like it really fits in with the others too well.

      Hygiene and sanitation have overlapping definitions with a slightly different basis. Sanitation is about provision of services and hygiene is about using them.

      e.g:
      Sanitation: Not having a functioning sewer / waste water system.
      Hygiene: Shitting on your own lawn regardless of any provision for sewer / waste water.

      Hygiene isn't just about washing your hands, but it's general cleanliness practices. You can have either without the other. E.g. if you have no waste water system, then the hygienic approach would be to ensure your waste is discarded to somewhere where your health isn't affected, i.e. not next to your veggie patch.

    9. Re: ...and inadequate hygiene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if they eat more pollution they'll get even sicker.

  2. There are enough people in the world already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Thinning out the herd starting with children who can't hack it due to pollution isn't such a bad thing. Along with the ones who can't be in the same room as a peanut. Let Darwinism run its course already

    1. Re:There are enough people in the world already by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 4, Informative

      Scientific studies conducted in Bangladesh by the NIH show that child death that occurs, parents make two more to ensure that some survive into adulthood. Something like if two children die, four extra are made. Families where no children have died are much smaller than families where multiple children have died. And yes, they accounted for the whole correlation/causation thing. This is the single biggest factor to the TFR.

    2. Re:There are enough people in the world already by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Your family goes first.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    3. Re:There are enough people in the world already by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      There's some evidence that lack of exposure to filth at an early age causes allergies later in life. I suppose it's a matter of degree; minor exposure allows the body to learn to handle problems, major exposure overwhelms the young body and kills it.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  3. Poverty is the root cause. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why are all these children exposed to all this pollution? Because their social run precludes the possibility of applying political and economic pressure to the task of keeping the environment clean.

    Far more than 1 in 4 babies are born dirt-poor. Their communities have no means of dealing with this problem, and never will.

    The first world can self-regulate on pollution all it wants...the third world will keep right on dumping on everyone below them. They must, in order to survive.

  4. population growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But doesn't this help lower our carbon footprint by reducing population growth?

  5. Sounds like fake news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Especially considering they are lumping poor hygiene and lack of sanitation (aka "being poor") with air pollution

  6. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm beginning to think conservatives like pollution because it causes enough brain damage to make one vote Republican, expanding their voter base.

    I know this claim will anger a lot of conservatives, but it's the best explanation I can find for their irrational behavior and conspiracy nuttiness.

    Heh, your theory is flawed. I believe it's fairly common knowledge that people in areas with lots of pollution (big cities) tend to be far more democrat leaning that people who live around clean air (the country.)

    Perhaps you were subjected to too much pollution as a child to realize that fairly obvious conclusion to your line of thought.

  7. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the best explanation I can find

    I'll believe that.

  8. Good news! by waltlaw · · Score: 2

    This means relatively fewer deaths from famine and disease. I dare hope that someday accidents will become the #1 killer of children.

    1. Re:Good news! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      When we get to that point, we'll have a world filled with helicopter parents.

    2. Re:Good news! by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      I thought accidents were the #1 cause of children.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  9. This is a bit disingenuous ... by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, pollution is bad for your health. In no way is that a false statement.

    At the same time, living in a pre-industrial society is also very bad for your health. As it living in a poorer society for a number of important reasons.

    And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths because we don't know if reducing it, and thereby reducing our output, would be beneficial or harmful at each margin. It's somehow implying that the pollution isn't accepted as part of trade-off -- or that we intentionally pollute with no side benefit -- which is ludicrous.

    Of course, by the same vein that not all polluting activities are harmful on the margin, not all are beneficial on the margin either. Clearcutting rainforest to make room for banana groves is almost certainly a net harm. Burning natural gas to electrify rural areas that didn't previously have power is almost certainly a net gain. In between there's a whole realm of less obvious answers.

    There's a future where all our power comes from nuclear and renewable and all our food is grown or synthesized on a small amount of land. We aren't there yet, and so we have to pick and chose.

    1. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I LIKE bananas.

    2. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by PoopJuggler · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution

      Sure we can, we're just too greedy and pathetic as a species to do it.

    3. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by doconnor · · Score: 1

      While the article doesn't make clear, but I suspect most of these deaths are in 3rd world countries that aren't industrialized where unchlorinated water and indoor wood fires are common and are much worse then pollution caused by industry.

    4. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by hey! · · Score: 1

      And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths because we don't know if reducing it, and thereby reducing our output, would be beneficial or harmful at each margin. It's somehow implying that the pollution isn't accepted as part of trade-off -- or that we intentionally pollute with no side benefit -- which is ludicrous.

      Well it would be ludicrous, if that's what anyone was saying ... excuse me, somehow implying. This is what is known as a straw man argument.

      You advocate making a trade-off between pollution and its benefits. I agree. But if you want to make a rational trade-off, it's necessary to quantify the costs empircially. Which is not to say this study is correct in its conclusions; it almost certainly gets some things wrong, because studies like this are never perfect.

      But undertaking a study like this does not somehow imply that people are unaware we live in a less-than-ideal world where every course of action you can choose has some undesirable consequences.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Yes it does because if you listen to any liberal talk about these article the first thing out of their mouth is how XYZ ought to stop polluting so much because the pollution is bad and it kills people. I have NEVER heard a person in the media cover a story like this and come to the conclusion that while the pollution does kill people, the number of people saved by the pollution causing activities is much higher and therefore further analysis is required. NEVER EVER EVER has that happened. The "real world" implication of saying pollution kills anything is that the "pollution must be stopped" with a side of "its the corporation and evil rich that benefit".

      It isn't a straw man when he is describing a situation that actually happens. A straw man is just that setting up a **fictitious** situation to knock down. This situation is real. These studies have been weaponized and used to advocate for pollution control on a massive scale that potentially harms lower income people's access to things that could help them. Food, electricity, fuel, etc. are all much more expensive due to environmental controls. That means environmental regulations are directly responsible for poverty and deaths related to poverty. Is this ever considered or discussed in the public? NO.

      Some regulators think of it in passing but mostly from the corporate profit side i.e. higher prices mean less demand meaning less volume generally meaning less economies of scale and less profit. In "public" the media makes both sides evil - Pollution kills people and corporations are trying to kill people by preventing more regulations "for their own profit" (completely ignoring the benefit of lower prices to consumers saving lives)

    6. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nearterm future for PoopJuggler:
      * Society uncaps spending on creating clean industry
      * Some breakthroughs are realized but...
      * Company's A- Z go bankrupt trying to implement new standards
      * No more industry
      * PoopJuggler must now literally juggle poop to make ends meet
      * World devolves into war over economic disaster
      * PoopJuggler lacks enough sustenance to poop and starves to death

    7. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by hey! · · Score: 1

      Pollution IS bad. It DOES kill people. And no people are "saved" by pollution. People are saved by the economic products, the by product of which is pollution.

      Pollution is simply not desirable, as you seem to think.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    8. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      It is not possible to live without polluting.

      A reasonable goal is to minimize the problems caused by pollution while maximizing the benefits of processes that inescapably produce pollution.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    9. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Reading failure. The GP wrote "people saved by the pollution causing activities", not just 'people are "saved" by pollution' as you claimed.

      The problem you both are complaining about is context dropping.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    10. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by mesterha · · Score: 1

      While I agree with your main point, I think these types of articles are important for people to realize the costs of pollution. The reality is that the balance between the people and the corporations is heavily stacked in favor of the corporations.

      In more detail, companies have no incentive to control their pollution, so the government has to step in. It's a classic tragedy of the commons. As we can see, the corporations just buy off the politicians and the people do not know to fight. Ironically, in a true free market, the polluters don't even gain much. The government needs to step in to prevent a race to the bottom.

      Another problem is that alternatives that pollute less are disadvantaged because of the externalities that the polluters are exploiting. The government tries to step in and offer incentives to balance things but then the right starts crying about how this is against the free market and that regulations are killing jobs. As technology advances, there should be a constant increase in regulation to replace these polluters with cleaner technology and level the playing field.

      --

      Chris Mesterharm
    11. Re:This is a bit disingenuous ... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And since (unfortunately) we cannot yet have an industrial society without some pollution, it's disingenuous to say that pollution causes those deaths

      Not at all, it's absolutely correct. I take your point, but actually there is a huge gap between the kind of industrial revolution that the West had and what we can do relatively cleanly now. It is simply not necessary to go through as much pain as we did, with the benefit of modern technology and hindsight.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  10. number of deaths exceeds 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100% is no longer cap or limit on number of deaths.
    The WHO has lost the ability to do simple math; hence their statements are no longer believable.
    "pneumonia, a major cause of death for under fives" cannot be more than 30% since
    25% is due to "unhealthy environments"
    45% is due to "malnutrition"

    What about war, drowning, starvation (which is different from malnutrition)?

    1. Re:number of deaths exceeds 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      100% is no longer cap or limit on number of deaths.
      The WHO has lost the ability to do simple math; hence their statements are no longer believable.
      "pneumonia, a major cause of death for under fives" cannot be more than 30% since
      25% is due to "unhealthy environments"
      45% is due to "malnutrition"

      What about war, drowning, starvation (which is different from malnutrition)?

      problem is the categories are vague enough that more specific ones can overlap with the more general ones... e.g pneumonia could be considered to be caused by unhealthy environment.

    2. Re:number of deaths exceeds 100% by aicrules · · Score: 1

      Or perhaps they are deliberately vague so the stats can be abused by people who cite them in order to try to lend credence to their broad assumptions.

  11. More political FUD from the new world order by johnlcallaway · · Score: 1

    A recent New Zealand study found that the risks of death from second hand smoke is between the risk of getting melanoma and dying in a car crash.

    So unless you want to start banning cars and going out in the sun, STFU about casual second hand smoke. Walking through that cloud on your way into the restaurant isn't as dangerous as driving to get there. I'm not suggestion people should take steps on their own to avoid it or not expose their children to it, but enough is enough from the nanny state governments of the world.

    Smoking does not cause cancer, lung disease or other ailments. It increases the risk that someone will get them. Just as driving does not cause automobile crashes, it just increases the risk of having one.

    --
    I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
    1. Re:More political FUD from the new world order by GreatDrok · · Score: 4, Informative

      "A recent New Zealand study found that the risks of death from second hand smoke is between the risk of getting melanoma and dying in a car crash.
      "

      Interesting that you picked the NZ study and not one from somewhere else because here Melanoma and car accidents are both big killers due to us having far stronger sun, very low levels of ozone meaning we have the highest incidence of melanoma in the world: http://www.stuff.co.nz/nationa...

      Also, the driving standards here are terrible as are the roads, and there's a lot of old cars still in use with the average age of cars being 14+ years meaning they lack a lot of the modern safety features and given that's an average, there are plenty of cars that are 30+ years old still running around. We have a very high accident rate and many deaths on the roads as a result of poor driving and old vehicles.

      Put those together and then consider that smoking sits in between them and then think, how safe is smoking? It is already illegal to smoke in a car with children and there's a push for the country to be completely smoke free by 2025 because that's at least something that can be done to improve health as we can't fix the ozone layer, turn off the sun, or train drivers to not be crap behind the wheel apparently.

      As for pollution, NZ is 85% renewable energy so that's nice, but transport makes up a lot of our pollution and the air in cities like Auckland is very poor at some times of the year due to traffic fumes along with a large amount of wood burners. There's very little support to move to EVs (I have one) or to encourage no-polluting heating (I have heatpumps) and there are even efforts to penalise those who generate their own electricity (I have solar) so it is pretty poor in the face of the whole clean green New Zealand image.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    2. Re:More political FUD from the new world order by by+(1706743) · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the primary differences, though, is that you choose to get into a car, or to put on/not put on sunscreen/etc.

      Second-hand smoke, air pollution, etc., are unavoidable in some areas (and "move to the middle of an uninhabited swath of land" isn't really a viable option for some people). It's the difference between getting bit by your own dog and getting bit by someone else's.

    3. Re:More political FUD from the new world order by fropenn · · Score: 2

      Yes, that pesky nanny state government. Always trying to keep people from getting cancer. Those bastards!

    4. Re:More political FUD from the new world order by hawkfish · · Score: 1

      Also, the driving standards here are terrible as are the roads, and there's a lot of old cars still in use with the average age of cars being 14+ years meaning they lack a lot of the modern safety features and given that's an average, there are plenty of cars that are 30+ years old still running around. We have a very high accident rate and many deaths on the roads as a result of poor driving and old vehicles.

      While visiting the South Island a few years back, I heard from a cop that a big problem with driving down there is tourists. Specifically, people who fly in from mainland China on cheap flights that arrive late at night. They then get into a car with no sleep and drive several more hours to their hotel, often forgetting what side of the road they are supposed to be on. Bad Things often ensue.

      --
      You will not drink with us, but you would taste our steel? - Walter Matthau, The Pirates
    5. Re:More political FUD from the new world order by GreatDrok · · Score: 1

      "I heard from a cop that a big problem with driving down there is tourists."

      There's a degree of that to be certain, but also local driving standards are pitiful as well. The tourist crashes get noticed but there's a pretty constant rate of locals losing control on corners, or running into the back of other cars due to insufficient following distances. This has nothing to do with driving on the wrong side of the road, and everything to do with people being too bunched up and speeding. Local drivers frequently blame tourists but they're no angels on the road either and tourists don't actually make up a massive proportion of accidents.

      --
      "I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
    6. Re:More political FUD from the new world order by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One of the primary differences, though, is that you choose to get into a car, or to put on/not put on sunscreen/etc.

      Second-hand smoke, air pollution, etc., are unavoidable in some areas (and "move to the middle of an uninhabited swath of land" isn't really a viable option for some people). It's the difference between getting bit by your own dog and getting bit by someone else's.

      Pollution has a cost to society that can be measured, if imperfectly, in dollars. For instance you could estimate increased costs of health care, reduced life expectancy/productivity/etc. That cost will be paid, whether you like it or not. I'd rather have the polluters pay, ideally by setting up systems such that the pollution is minimized.

      Of course our loser in chief put a guy in charge that is actively suing the EPA who won't even recuse himself. Maybe the EPA isn't perfect, but why not just address the issues rather than risking everyones lives on the goodwill of industry? In St. Louis we even have a nice underground landfill fire that is ever so close to radioactive waste. I can smell the landfill every time I drive into work.

      Just think, it now will now probably have even less oversight. Maybe we will start kicking up radioactive waste pretty soon..

  12. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps American conservatives. Around here, rich conservatives are all for pollution control. When they drive to their holiday homes, they want to see a nice scenery. Not oil spills or roadside plastic. They want to eat the fish they catch with their all-carbon hobby fishing rods, they don't want to worry about toxins.

    Pollution control doesn't really cut into profits - because it hits the competition equally hard. So a factory owner and his competitors pass the increased cost onto consumers - all with the same price jump. Not their problem at all.

  13. Re:Feedback cycle? by Sys32768 · · Score: 0, Troll

    It is strange that current republicans seem to like pollution, when it was a republican (Nixon) who created the EPA in the first place....

  14. Gosh by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 4, Funny

    Strangely, 3/4 of all childhood deaths are due to pristine lands without any industry or modernity.

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
  15. Re:Feedback cycle? by penandpaper · · Score: 1, Insightful

    And democrats are any better? Did you see the last candidate they put forward for POTUS? That bitch be whack yo.

    Do you think anti-science is restricted to one party? The non-gmo labels on salt are really scientifically based, ya? Or the "organic" label that is totally about science and not marketing of legal words compared to laymen usage to charge more for cheap products to stupid people.

    Do you think racism is restricted to one party? Here is an experiment; set up social media profile as a black conservative and behold the "Uncle Tom" and "race traitor" comments!

    At least vaccine denial has bipartisan support.

    Just an idea; The ends do not justify the means. Democrats were definitely worse this time around about that particular ideal and seemed to have forgotten what that phrase even means to put forward a candidate like Clinton. Sheesh. Get out of your echo chamber once in a while. I agree with their policy. I do not agree with their actions. Actions speak louder than words and their actions are horrible.

  16. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Troll

    your theory is flawed. I believe it's fairly common knowledge that people in areas with lots of pollution (big cities) tend to be far more democrat leaning that people who live around clean air (the country.)

    I don't see what the proportion between the two groups has to do with my original point. Please clarify. The conservatives would be judging based on their surroundings mostly. How it relates to a different group somewhere else is a minor factor to them (unless they are taking a global outlook, which I don't believe you implied).

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  17. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 0, Troll

    Moderate conservatives have been a dying species since roughly around the mid 1980's. The nation has polarized since Nixon.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  18. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not the sharpest tool in the shed now are you?

  19. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    You're not the sharpest tool in the shed now are you?

    Maybe my brain has been poisoned by pollution.

    By the way, one doesn't have to stay in one place. They could be poisoned in cities and move to the country to fit in with others like them. Maybe poison in the cities could mean more low-IQ migrants to rural areas.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  20. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe poison in the cities could mean more low-IQ migrants to rural areas.

    I doubt it. The welfare office is much closer in the city. But yeah, the racist ones might move out to the trailer parks and make some meth for extra income. It is the new moonshine.

  21. Indoor air pollution by TheSync · · Score: 1

    WHO says that 3.3 million deaths linked to indoor air pollution.

    WHO Assistant Director-General Family, Women and Children's Health says "Poor women and children pay a heavy price from indoor air pollution since they spend more time at home breathing in smoke and soot from leaky coal and wood cook stoves."

    Providing electricity or gas mechanisms for cooking could solve those 3.3 million deaths. But that simply requires some level of economic development.

    1. Re:Indoor air pollution by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      The Chevrolet Volt second generation gets some 50+ miles of electric range per charge, with a 4-hour charge time at 240V, 3.3kW (most electric vehicles charge at 6kW). 90% of all miles driven in Chevrolet Volt first-generation vehicles (38 mile electric range) are electric. PHEVs with 50-100 miles of range, even with only a 3.3kW continuous-load charger (capable of taking 40kW or so from regen for maybe 30 seconds, but not 6.6kW from wall for several minutes), will eliminate most of the outdoor air pollution issue, since the greatest source of localized air pollution is cars (they're not the greatest source of total pollution; they're just all over the place belching out the pollution currently hanging around residential and commercial streets, which blows away in like, what, an hour?).

      ERVs in homes exchange the indoor air with outside air in the return system, just before the furnace air filter (which you should replace with a 4-inch-thick, high-MERV medium, since that will give you better airflow 6 months into its life than a brand-new 1-inch filter). They retain latent heat (absorbed by water to cause humidity) as well as just the heat in the air by exchanging these as outdoor and indoor air pass each other. Indoor air pollution, thus, becomes a problem of the past, as outdoor air is brought into the house every time the central air blower runs.

      So the problems caused by industrial technology will be solved by more industrial technology.

      --
      Support my political activism on Patreon.
  22. It's a start by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many people anyway. Gaia must be put back in balance. This is the way nature works, not like some Disney film.

    More mouths to feed with cheap Monsanto and ADM nutrition-free GMO starch. Who needs them other than Monsanto, Bayer, and ADM.

  23. breackdown between air and water by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I would love to see the breakdown. Lack of access to clean water is probably the #1 cause of infant in 3rd world shitholes. How convenient to lump "make them especially vulnerable to dirty air and water." together to fit the agenda

    1. Re:breackdown between air and water by PPH · · Score: 1

      A breakdown would be useful. But I'll bet that most of the air pollution mortality is due to open cooking fires inside huts. Also a third world problem.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  24. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Ah yes. Because the countryside is free of pollution

    Perhaps you were subjected to too much manure as a child to be able to tell when someone is feeding you more of it.

  25. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not the brightest crayon in the crayon box, are you?

    When you find yourself in a hole the best idea is to stop digging.

    Unless of course you don't mind people laughing at you. Generally, I like people laughing with me but to each their own.

  26. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You never read much American history if you think the nation wasn't polarized before Nixon. It is an inevitable occurrence in democratic societies unless there is a common enemy to unite the country; like the Cold War (Soviets) or WW2 (Nazi's).

    Get some perspective, would ya?

  27. If only activists were not so fixated on CO2 by Kernel+Kurtz · · Score: 1

    there might be some effort to work on these other big problems.

    But that might make more CO2, so forget about it.

  28. Population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Religion and politics are birth control through other means.

    1. Re: Population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite the opposite. The Quran gives you bonus points for bringing extra muzzies into the world, and democrats love it when more little black voters be getting born.

    2. Re: Population by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      10,000 religious and political systems have gone extinct to the last man, woman and child. They're suicide cults.

  29. Re:Feedback cycle? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Nixon created the EPA to short-circuit the leftist environmental movement that was emerging as the Vietnam war wound down. They needed something new to protest about when the war was gone.

    Long term, the strategy backfired, as could have been predicted. Leftists took over the EPA and advanced their anti-industrial agenda.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  30. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It goes through cycles.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  31. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Projection. Your counter-theory bad two unproven assumptions.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  32. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Correction: "had", not "bad". Mondays.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  33. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Do you think anti-science is restricted to one party? The non-gmo labels on salt are really scientifically based, ya? Or the "organic" label that is totally about science and not marketing of legal words compared to laymen usage to charge more for cheap products to stupid people.

    If the labeling standards/metrics are poor, people want them improved. Just because the metrics are poor now doesn't mean people want to keep them that way. Many also believe that poor labeling standards are better than no standards. Arguments can be made both ways on that.

    Do you think racism is restricted to one party? Here is an experiment; set up social media profile as a black conservative and behold the "Uncle Tom" and "race traitor" comments!

    I won't dispute that. Both "sides" have general problems they need to address. Note my original post said nothing about race.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  34. WHO are you talking to? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many children die due to abortion each year...seems like we need to rethink WHO is to blame.

  35. Re:Feedback cycle? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    No, there is a difference between label standards (which we have), poor label standards (the gmo project), and outright denial of science and facts of labels like Food Babe and using fear and ignorance to sale homeopathy. There is nothing to label for something that has no problems found in any study.

    I won't dispute that. Both "sides" have general problems they need to address. Note my original post said nothing about race.

    Yes, both sides have problems with science and use it to push their political goals. Glad we both can agree that each party err "side" is bad for science for different reasons.

    But Democrats are making everything about race so your post has everything to do about race because reasons and muh racist republitards. Therefore;

    I resent the fact that you called me a racist in your post and will demand an apology because fuck you that is why and respect me because I am fucking better than you. BTW vote for me even though you are a piece of shit. /s

    Democrats are fun people.

  36. Why don't people in America wear breath masks? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The world is laughing at us for being libs and SJWs with respect to the environment, but TRUMP is fixing that. With his choice of Scott Pruitt to lead the EPA, Stephen Bannon from Goldman Sachs as his de facto chief domestic advisor, denial of climate change, and his commitment to revive to coal industry in the US midwest.

    U! S! A! U! S! A! U! S! A!

  37. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I don't know what you are talking about. You appear to be meandering now. Homeopathy wasn't mentioned before. Are you claiming homeopathy is a progressive thing?

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  38. Re:Feedback cycle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nibbarized city droolers don't know when to ... spit. Now this, which could have been different, seeing the initial Semetic ansatz ... but they never left law-before-culture meme after replacing the warlord. Civilization is now a very faint cannibalistic scrawl on the thin frozen shell of Nordic blood.

  39. Re:Feedback cycle? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    If only there was a network of information that you could use to find out what I am talking about instead of acting like a disingenuous partisan fool. You can search Food Babe and the gmo project. Although, it is easier to act like a disingenuous partisan fool than to have your bubble popped by reality.

    Good luck. I think you are going to need it.

  40. Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Vague fool.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  41. Re:Feedback cycle? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    lol, what is vague about Food Babe or the gmo project?

    Good grief, you take the fun out of it. It's like kicking a baby on the floor, eventually my leg gets tired.

    I would rather be a vague fool than a disingenuous partisan fool because at least I am not blind to the world (or part) even though I don't understand it.

  42. But Wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, what fraction of childhood deaths come from greenhouse gases? We need to focus on that first. It's the most important thing in the world.

  43. Labels never killed anybody [Re:Feedback cycle?] by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    It never killed anybody to put a GMO indicator on the package label. If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product. Most progressives are NOT for outright banning GMO's, just a label. Freedom.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  44. Re:Labels never killed anybody [Re:Feedback cycle? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    If GMO's don't bother you, then go ahead and buy the product.

    Would love to but the problem with hipster main stream commercialism is that the market that shares that pseudo-science is growing because there is a lot of money to be made selling organic or non-gmo. FUD is used to push that crap that does have a human cost (an example is higher risk for salmonella for certain organic produce, see Chipotle).

    Most progressives

    You started this thread commenting about a party. I responded about a party. I was ok with using the broad term like "side", as you put it, but saying "not all progressives" so that you can hide behind a name that you can keep shifting like moving goal posts is disingenuous.

    just a label. Freedom.

    No it is more than just a label because it is purely motivated by FUD and pseudo-science. If you want science to inform government policy then you would be against "just a label" salesmen and positions like Food Babe and non-gmo project.

    Want to talk about what labels may need or not need? You don't start from a position of ignorance and fear to inform your solution.

  45. Re:Labels never killed anybody [Re:Feedback cycle? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    so that you can hide behind a name that you can keep shifting like moving goal posts is disingenuous.

    I assure you I have no sinister intent. More precision would have made the writing verbose, and most people prefer short over precise in my experience.

    No it is more than just a label because it is purely motivated by FUD and pseudo-science.

    Categorizing GMO and "organic", improving the metrics, and characterizing related potential risks are long and involved subjects. I don't wish to delve there today. Maybe if those topics become primary /. topics I'll revisit.

    --
    Table-ized A.I.
  46. imsofunny by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Says WHO?

  47. Re:Labels never killed anybody [Re:Feedback cycle? by penandpaper · · Score: 1

    Categorizing GMO and "organic", improving the metrics, and characterizing related potential risks are long and involved subjects.

    I have had my fair share of time dedicated to this topic. And as I have said it is primarily based on pseudo-science that as a voting demographic tend toward the D.

    I think the phrase, 'don't throw rocks in a glass house' comes to mind. Each party denies science they just disagree which science they dislike. Except vaccines. Some reason that has bipartisan denial.