Slashdot Mirror


Household Products Now Rival Cars As a Source of Air Pollution, Say Scientists (theguardian.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Household cleaners, paints and perfumes have become substantial sources of urban air pollution as strict controls on vehicles have reduced road traffic emissions, scientists say. Researchers in the US looked at levels of synthetic "volatile organic compounds", or VOCs, in roadside air in Los Angeles and found that as much came from industrial and household products refined from petroleum as from vehicle exhaust pipes. The compounds are an important contributor to air pollution because when they waft into the atmosphere, they react with other chemicals to produce harmful ozone or fine particulate matter known as PM2.5. Ground level ozone can trigger breathing problems by making the airways constrict, while fine airborne particles drive heart and lung disease. Writing in the journal Science, De Gouw and others report that the amount of VOCs emitted from household and industrial products is two to three times higher than official US estimates suggest. The result is surprising since only about 5% of raw oil is turned into chemicals for consumer products, with 95% ending up as fuel.

85 comments

  1. CFCs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They know that VOCs were bad back when they banned CFCs in the 1980s and 1990s.

    1. Re:CFCs by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      What I love is the asshole phrase "found that as much came from industrial and household products."

      So the real story is that industrial air pollution overtook automobile air pollution in LA?

      Thanks for the horse shit pie, Beau.

    2. Re:CFCs by dinfinity · · Score: 1

      Thank you. Holy shit, that title is crappy clickbait.

  2. This is why I only steamclean my house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's better for the planet and gets out bloodstains without club soda.

  3. Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by katz · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Livestock pollutes far more. We can take direct action against it by not buying products made from animals and their secretions.

    1. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by omnichad · · Score: 4, Funny

      You're ignoring the cow in the room. By giving us this straw man elephant livestock scenario. There are far more domesticated cows than elephants.

    2. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by tquasar · · Score: 1

      Some of the largest livestock (cattle) feed lots are in Imperial County east of San Diego, California. Much of the agricultural area is planted with alfalfa hay to provide feed and sugar beets for sugar. Cow farts are a major source of air pollution, containing methane gas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    3. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Livestock pollutes far more. We can take direct action against it by not buying products made from animals and their secretions.

      If we killed all of the livestock in the world (which is what would happen if they weren't being bought and eaten, 99% of these domesticated animals would die very quickly in the wild), the exact same pollution would be released. And it would stay in the environment forever instead of being temporarily taken back out when new livestock is born and grown.

    4. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So what you're saying is I should be stealing bacon cheeseburgers rather than paying for them?

    5. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are different types of pollution. Cow farts are not harmful to local people, do not cause cancers like petrochemical burns or automotives. By contrast methane is a 50x concentrated insulating gas compared to C02.
      Cars however also produce NOX and tire and brake particulate matter in addition to unburned hydrocarbons, and outscale anything you compare them to by tensfold. So comparisons can't be made 1:1:1:1

    6. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by El_Muerte_TDS · · Score: 1

      You mean human livestock, right?

    7. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the largest livestock (cattle) feed lots are in Imperial County east of San Diego, California. Much of the agricultural area is planted with alfalfa hay to provide feed and sugar beets for sugar. Cow farts are a major source of air pollution, containing methane gas.
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Methane is not a pollutant, it is a greenhouse gas. There is a huge difference between these two.

    8. Re: Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      And it would stay in the environment forever instead of being temporarily taken back out when new livestock is born and grown.

      Err ... ahh ... what?

      Are you under the strange impression that cows eat methane?

    9. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct! Kill all the animals!

    10. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Weird that you think livestock are being ignored, when 2017 was the year that meat alternatives really started to become desirable products rather than just more ethical replacements. Also the year when the will to really tackle plastic packaging was found. Lots of longer range, nice looking electric cars reached market too.

      It's partly down to technology providing us with equally good or better alternatives, and partly down to a backlash against the US withdrawing from the Paris Agreement.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      How can you tell when someone's a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you.

    12. Re: Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or we can just remove useless people. No purpose. No existence.

    13. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey dumbass, did you know there will always be something that will have the highest amount of emissions?

    14. Re:Anything to ignore the elephant in the room by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To the vegans' credit, most coworkers etc. are too dense to figure it out on their own.

  4. This is retarded for an obvious reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "and found that as much came from industrial and household products" Industrial puts out a fucking helluva lot more than household products even possibly ever might...

    1. Re:This is retarded for an obvious reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "and found that as much came from industrial and household products" Industrial puts out a fucking helluva lot more than household products even possibly ever might...

      In a given metro area, what is the ratio of industrial plants to homes? We don't grow grass in large fields anymore. We grow fucking subdivisions. Large concrete jungles with thousands of homes.

      Volume matters, so let's stop being ignorant and pretend it doesn't.

    2. Re:This is retarded for an obvious reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was accounted for. Stop being ignorant.

    3. Re:This is retarded for an obvious reason by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Many industrial processes have greater economic benefits for society than household products. Think of pollution like investing money; you don't want to spend money or pollute more than necessary, but you want to make sure the money spent or pollution created is going to return the most value.

      Also, the study is not recommending that household products should be restricted; it only provides evidence that developing new formulations of household products that do the same job with less pollution could be beneficial to everyone.

    4. Re:This is retarded for an obvious reason by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Many industrial processes have greater economic benefits for society than household products.

      An unpainted house is probably worth a quarter less to potential buyers. Partly due to ugliness and partly due to weather and pest damage that's bound to occur. How much is 25% of the US real estate market?

    5. Re:This is retarded for an obvious reason by Ranbot · · Score: 1

      Many industrial processes have greater economic benefits for society than household products.

      An unpainted house is probably worth a quarter less to potential buyers. Partly due to ugliness and partly due to weather and pest damage that's bound to occur. How much is 25% of the US real estate market?

      A house is no less valuable when painted with low-VOC or more environmentally friendly paint that performs equally to a conventional paint. Furthermore, I already said...

      ...the study is not recommending that household products should be restricted; it only provides evidence that developing new formulations of household products that do the same job with less pollution could be beneficial to everyone.

  5. Keep it up and I'll avoid /. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Who wrote this rubbish? Household = Industrial????? Fucking liar. Bait and switch is NOT the way this site will thrive.

  6. Super toxic paint! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That paint must be super toxic, or people must be spraying it out the back of the car as they are driving, or some factories are just belching out the pollution. Cause cars run 24/7 all year long, hard to compete with that output no matter how good the pollution control is on cars these days.

    1. Re:Super toxic paint! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are tons of car painting places in LA. It's like GTA! These places aren't supposed to put out tons of vapor but they all do.

      There is also tons of construction going on. Those are the 2 main sources in this city, next to of course the cars themselves. Don't need scientific instruments to tell me this, only my nose and living here.

  7. Typical nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    PM 2.5 is EPA codeword for fucking over industry and bleeding them dry. They can't measure it but they can regulate the shit out of it.

    If you still believe what the Feds say, you are a tool.

  8. I've noticed it too... by IonOtter · · Score: 2

    Since I stopped using anything with scents or dyes in it, I've become really aware of anything with perfumes. I started with dish soap, then laundry detergent, the shower soap.

    My laundry detergent still has fluorescent dye in it for colors and whites, but no perfume or other dyes. My dish soap is Seventh Generation, and my shower soap is Dr. Bronner's. (I love those bottles! Reading material in the shower!)

    It doesn't save me any money? Stuff without all the added crap is around 30% more expensive. But I've also become far more aware of my own body odors, and act accordingly.

    The downside is when I visit friends or co-workers who use "air freshener", it's like having to endure a teargas attack. And going anywhere near the soap aisle in the grocery store is a total non-starter. X.X

    --
    [End Of Line]
    1. Re:I've noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading material in the shower!

      Where I live there's not enough water to go around for extended showers. Saving water has become a big component of the go-green propaganda.

    2. Re:I've noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too started using those anti-allergic and non-scented products. Reduced drying of the skin is a bonus during winters. People have become separated from the chemical messages from pheromones and body odor. No wonder some people have problems conceiving: they marry too "close to the family" in terms of getting healthy and germ-resistant off-spring, or separate as they don't upkeep their "chemical marriage" by smelling each other regularly.

    3. Re:I've noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Get rid of what they call "fragrance" and everything will smell much better.

      Some people will stink, but water fixes that.

      Right now it feels like an arms race to smell worse than the other product.

    4. Re:I've noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The downside is when I visit friends or co-workers " ...

      Yeah sure, you vegan neckbeard have lots of friends. Sure.

    5. Re:I've noticed it too... by StormReaver · · Score: 1

      Since I stopped using anything with scents or dyes in it, I've become really aware of anything with perfumes.

      I have been sensitive to the poisons used to make perfumes for about 20 years now. My bowels frequently activate if I breathe while close to someone wearing that crap.

    6. Re:I've noticed it too... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Since I stopped using anything with scents or dyes in it, I've become really aware of anything with perfumes.

      I have been sensitive to the poisons used to make perfumes for about 20 years now. My bowels frequently activate if I breathe while close to someone wearing that crap.

      Nature provides its own fragrance in defense!

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    7. Re:I've noticed it too... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 2

      Where I live there's not enough water to go around for extended showers. Saving water has become a big component of the go-green propaganda.

      If there's enough water for a shower, there's enough for a super long extended shower

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    8. Re:I've noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shower water use economy is a bit of a red Herring. Most use of water is in agriculture, with industry being second. While this is not true in every single locality (e.g. deserts with no agriculture, farming communities with no industry) it's the general rule in most industrialized countries AFAICR. So - don't splurge on home water use but just by skipping a few burgers you'd be saving a lot of showers.

    9. Re:I've noticed it too... by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

      The downside is when I visit friends or co-workers who use "air freshener", it's like having to endure a teargas attack. And going anywhere near the soap aisle in the grocery store is a total non-starter. X.X

      We've gone mostly unscented in our house too. After my wife's spontaneous pneumothorax almost a decade ago, most scents cause her discomfort, and many will trigger a debilitating asthma attack. Like you, she can't go down the household cleaning aisle in the supermarket. and she can no longer pump her own gas.

      I'm OK with the cleaning aisle, but the scented laundry products that many people uses make it very uncomfortable to be within 5 to 10 feet of them. Also going outside when one of our neighbours is drying clothes that have been washed in that crap is just disgusting. And don't get me started on perfume and cologne. Especially when I get it on my hands while I'm pumping gas, or taste it on my bagel because some unthinking git at the donut shop just HAD to 'smell good' while preparing my fucking breakfast.

      I always laugh at the air freshener commercials that mention people being 'nose blind'. Guess what, assholes - the crap you push is probably responsible for the vast majority of 'nose blindness' in the developed world.

      --
      'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    10. Re: I've noticed it too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But still highly depends where you live. Farmers in Ohio dont consume water other than what falls out of the sky on their own property. I grew up taking extended showers from the water that fell on our own roof (though we did sometimes run out in August)

  9. Yeah, right. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this were true, then what they're really saying is there is no air pollution problem whatsoever. These people are the ones that make the right wing think everyone's an idiot.

  10. Is this what slashdot's down to? by Grog6 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Reading the fucking labels of shower soap?

    WTF are you, a houseplant?

    --
    Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
  11. I wanna use hairspray! by stooo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I hear where they don't want me to use hairspray. They want me to use the pump!
    Because the other one – which I really like better than going "bing, bing, bing," and then it comes out in big globs, right?
    And it's stuck in your hair and you say, "Oh my God, I gotta take a shower again! My hair's all screwed up!" Right?'

    I wanna use hairspray!

    --
    aaaaaaa
    1. Re:I wanna use hairspray! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And it's stuck in your hair and you say, "Oh my God, I gotta take a shower again! My hair's all screwed up!" Right?'

      I wanna use hairspray!

      Jeez I'm glad I don't have this problem .. i have neither the time nor the inclination to have a hairstyle which requires glue to keep it in place.

    2. Re:I wanna use hairspray! by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There's this new contraption called a razor - it'll fix that hair problem for you.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  12. Perfumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I can't even walk though the detergent isle in the grocery store without getting a headache.
    Some women seem to think they stink so bad that a gallon of perfume will make them more attractive. It won't. In fact less is more.
    I'd love if "fragrance" entered the same territory as peanuts.

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

      Especially really fat people/women. Instead of showering/washing they think putting on industry grade fragrants make them attractive.
      Jesus Christ, worst thing is on a plane, when you get trapped in a window seat, next to a land whale called "house" wearing a full gallon of "perfume".

    2. Re:Perfumes by aevan · · Score: 1

      I think the problem is the more exposed to the perfume, the more desensitized they become, and so they add more. Add in large surface area to apply it to...

      Less 'this spray makes me sexy' and more 'I don't realise I'm wilting flowers and small puppies'

    3. Re:Perfumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Try eliminating scented products from your life for just a month. Use unscented laundry detergent, unscented fabric softener/dryer sheets, don't use any air fresheners, only use 1 spray MAX of cologne or perfume, unscented dish washing soap, unscented bath soaps, get rid of or pack away any scented candles, etc. Eliminate as much smell from your life as possible. At the end of that month you will be AMAZED at how desensitized you were. Your nose will be assaulted on a regular basis by incredibly powerful and disgusting smells from people's clothes, their clothes dryer exhaust, and their excessive perfume/cologne. "Why the hell would I want to do that to myself?" you think. Because once you realize how many chemicals you have to be "snorting" directly into your brain every time you're smelling that shit, you realize how much you're saving yourself.

  13. Says who? by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's just large amounts of bad smelling people. Just kidding. By the way, if you live in a city so dense and overcrowded and impossible to support comfortable human life like 250,000+ people, you're asking for problems like this.

  14. Not a chance by chatoitaly · · Score: 1

    With the garage door closed, take all the products you will use in a lifetime and pour them all out in your garage and go to sleep in there. Will you wake up the next morning? Don't attempt the same thing with a car turned on with you locked in the garage with it. I realize that's not exactly what this article is getting up but come on. Use some common sense.

    1. Re:Not a chance by hankwang · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't be so sure that pouring a lifetime's worth of household chemicals in an enclosed space would not be lethal. Household chemicals include ammonia, chlorine bleach, descaler, paint thinner, and ethanol-rich mixtures. Saturated ethanol vapor is anout 3x the lethal concentration (LC50, 4 hours).

    2. Re: Not a chance by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      With the garage door closed, take all the products you will use in a lifetime and pour them all out in your garage and go to sleep in there. Will you wake up the next morning?

      No, you would drown.

      Ignoring that for a moment, it would be a race to see what kills you first; the chlorine gas from bleach and vinegar, the chloramine vapour from mixing ammonia and bleach, or the massive hydrogen explosion from mixing drano and aluminium. Either way, you're going to leave a fun crime scene for the coroner to investigate.

  15. There is nothing worse for the environment than by Max_W · · Score: 0

    petards and fireworks.

    1. Re:There is nothing worse for the environment than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The worst thing is actually container ships. They spew more pollution that all the cars combined, but they're selectively ignored (globalism). They could improve over night, but they're allowed to burn unrefined fuel (very cheap). The next time anyone moans about "pollution" ask them to direct their attention to the shipping industry. It's a low hanging fruit and improvements are already available.

    2. Re:There is nothing worse for the environment than by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, fuckface, per ton mile, they're the most efficient way to move anything, and rail is a very close second. Your fucking amazon overnight shit frmo China is much, much worse for the environment.

      Stop lying, you bastard.

  16. Re: You know what else rivals cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thought you were going to say anal sex

  17. Hell No! by joao.cordeiro · · Score: 2

    There is no way, No Way you do more pollution in your house then with your car!

    This is one of this articles where you pick the best case scenario for cars. Then you remove data from car type that make the most pollution (like old cars, industrial cars, commercial cars...) And you compare it to the worse case scenario of a house pollution, in that day of the year when that house is polluting the most.

    Then you release this crap and go get your paycheck from oil companies...

  18. Numbers by bluegutang · · Score: 3, Interesting

    From the article, not in the summary:

    It’s hard to say how much pollution is down to VOCs, but a rough estimate is that between one quarter and a third of all particles are made up of organic compounds that originate as VOCs,

    So it's a significant, but not the main source of particulate pollution (in Western cities where the air is usually pretty clean). It doesn't have anything to do with CO2 emissions and global warming/climate change.

  19. Right, because arable farming is so eco.. by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    ... with its zero diversity massive moncultures covered in pesticides and incectides that eventually wash into rivers and poison the ecology there too.

    You can make a case for veganism and animal welfare, but don't even attempt to make out its any more enviromentally sound overall. In fact when you consider sheep can graze on hill land that cannot be farmed for crops its probably a lot worse. Oh , and man made microfibres from man made clothing are currently pollution the oceans. But I guess you'd have a problem with wool too.

  20. Alternate interpretation may be. . . by Salgak1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    . . . that car exhausts have gotten so clean, that outgassing from household and industrial products is now noticeable, instead of being noise in the metrics. . .

    1. Re:Alternate interpretation may be. . . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but that doesn't convey any information about whether we should do something about it. If you clean up a hoarder's house and find piles of dried feces on the carpet nobody says, "no need to do anything, it's just that the house is so clean that the shit is noticeable now."

  21. No one is ignoring anything. by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    We can take direct action against it by not buying products made from animals and their secretions.

    Yes but we won't because farming in the west is a disaster and animals are a healthy source of nutrients to keep our bodies going. On the other side using hydrocarbon propellants and stuff that covers up the smells of farts doesn't really help me through my day very much at all.

  22. Perfumes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jumping Jesus H. Christ people love stink. 2/3 of the time I can't even open the windows or work in the yard because some neighbor or the other is using some God awful scented laundry soap or dryer sheets that smell so strongly it hurts my nose, and my lot is 1/2 acre so they're not exactly right on top of me. I can't even imagine what kind of synthetic fragrance could smell so strongly that it burns my nose after being diluted 1000:1 in water, then rinsed out of clothes, and then just the air that passes over those rinsed clothes is again diluted into the atmosphere and the smell is still so strong a couple of hundred feet downwind that it makes you choke. Multiply that by 15 million people in the LA area and it's no wonder we're swimming in a sea of petrochemicals.

    Smell is one of the last completely unregulated environmental irritants. Cities have codes about noise, about lights, about vibrations, but not about smell.

  23. Air Fresheners by Only+Time+Will+Tell · · Score: 1

    Maybe I can use this article to convince my fiance to get rid of all our plugin air-fresheners! They always seem to cause me to sneeze.

  24. Alternative headline. by BenFenner · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Alternative headline:
    Automobile emissions drop to the levels of household products.

    1. Re:Alternative headline. by crunchygranola · · Score: 2, Informative

      This is an accurate description of what has happened in California. The controls on auto emissions have been very effective and have transformed the natural "smog trap" situation is the Los Angeles basin. In 1968 there were 200 Stage 1 smog alerts and 50 Stage 2 alerts. Stage 2 alerts dropped to near zero in the early 1980s, Stage 1 alerts did the same by the late 1990s. There have been no Stage 2 alerts since 1988 or Stage 1 smog alerts since 2003. And remember this is despite a 50% increase in population.

      For years now the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has been focusing on VOC emissions from household products out of necessity. That is where most the remaining problem is, and is had not been subject nearly as much reduction over the years as vehicle and industrial emission. It is a nuisance for a science/craft hobbyist like myself since many common solvents have disappeared that were useful and superior to their replacements, but it is a price you must be willing to pay to live here. Its not a big price (that be the cost of housing).

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    2. Re:Alternative headline. by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      +1 Insightful

    3. Re:Alternative headline. by Salgak1 · · Score: 1

      You note that the AQMD has focused on VOC emissions out of necessity.

      Not to be too cynical, but might that "necessity" actually be "justifying its' continued existence" ?

      I smell the Iron Law of Bureaucracy in play. . .

    4. Re:Alternative headline. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, sure, interesting point, but as long as the bureaucracy is still doing something useful. And the complaint about it being "another bureaucracy" was present in the 60's, too.

  25. I can believe it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to know a girl who was a walking VOC with the amount of perfume she wore.

  26. Diesel fuel heaters are the blind spot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While making a lot of fuss about cars, nobody ever mentions that many many American homes are heated by diesel fuel, and many old European houses are heated by coal. This is on par with Nigeria where everyone gets electric power from a private diesel generator.

    Solution is to develop power grids and gas lines. Bug no, we must fight private cars and now private house cleaning products.

    1. Re:Diesel fuel heaters are the blind spot by crunchygranola · · Score: 1

      While making a lot of fuss about cars, nobody ever mentions that many many American homes are heated by diesel fuel, and many old European houses are heated by coal. This is on par with Nigeria where everyone gets electric power from a private diesel generator.

      Solution is to develop power grids and gas lines. Bug no, we must fight private cars and now private house cleaning products.

      The air pollution problem is very region specific. This report is about air pollution in the Los Angeles Basin, which naturally has the most serious such problem in the country. No one burns diesel fuel to heat homes in this area, that is mostly in the Northeast (80%) of such homes, and the number is not all that large, 4% of households nationally and declining.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  27. it's a matter of degrees and regulation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The car industry was considered the big problem so a lot of regulation was thrown at it to make it clean up its act. That has been happening while there's been, essentially, no regulation applied to the home products mentioned. They've remained where they were or gotten worse with no oversight while the cars have improved their position.

    Next you clean up the home products and then something else will take over the top spot as the source of pollution problems. no matter how you clean up each industry there will always be one that is not as clean as the rest. the question becomes once you get down to the absolute major source of green house gas or pollution being a natural process do you try to then regulate that. I know already that in humanity's hubris, they would try to regulate a natural process. We're insane.

    1. Re:it's a matter of degrees and regulation by crunchygranola · · Score: 2

      ...

      They've remained where they were or gotten worse with no oversight while the cars have improved their position.

      Next you clean up the home products and then something else will take over the top spot as the source of pollution problems. no matter how you clean up each industry there will always be one that is not as clean as the rest. the question becomes once you get down to the absolute major source of green house gas or pollution being a natural process do you try to then regulate that. I know already that in humanity's hubris, they would try to regulate a natural process. We're insane.

      No, the household products have been improving. If you live in California you have been seeing products being reformulated and many solvent being taken off the shelves for years, and the same thing is happening to a lesser extent in other areas, so your initial claim is false.

      Yes, as you clean one source up others move to the top of the list. That is a natural result of regulatory success. It is not a problem.

      The clean-up process is being driven by actual scientifically derived standards for safe air - air pollution levels that are not causing measurable harm to part of the population. In many urban areas of the country due to topography and weather conditions and settlement density they already meet these standards and so are not being subjected to the ever tightening regulations that South California faces. About 60% of the U.S. population does not face any air pollution problems, a fraction that is growing, and also the severity of the problem of those who still face some is diminishing. So we are hardly done with the issue yet. In some parts of the problem stationary sources (home heating, etc.) is still significant, and interestingly enough many of the solutions are actually cheaper (e.g replacing oil with gas) which is driving replacement even without regulation.

      In the 40% of the country that still has issues we are no where close to the point where natural pollution sources dominate. So you are declaring "we're insane" based on something you are imagining.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
  28. mix, spread, wipe, fan v. suck, squeeze, bang, blo by epine · · Score: 1

    The habitually denominate industrial product volumetrically (mass and volume are paramount in matters of shipping and pit mine scars), while back in biology—and much of chemistry—potency is denominated in surface area (kidney, cortex, lungs, intestine, platinum catalyst, capacitors, and on and on).

    From time to time, one sees the cost of silicon lithography denominated in acres, but even this is mostly for chuckles.

    Internal combustion also depends crucially on surface area, but only on the other side of the fuel injector, the fuel mist being immediately mixed with a billion hours of CFD precision, then explosively incinerated and promptly scrubbed—traditionally by precious-metal surface catalyst.

    On the home front, bleach functions volumetrically, if you are sterilizing water, but otherwise almost every cleaning product is a surface agent. Mix, spread, wipe, fan.

    Those VOC-supercharged whiteboard cleaners? Their mission in life is to escape into the atmosphere. Abetted in this task by a large, off-white surface.

    But derf, derf, derf volumetric consternation.

    Here's the fundamental problem with the human design: you can't judge a cortex by its cranium.

    Sometimes the cortex inside contains all the glorious folds of exceptional human achievement, other times (on available evidence) it's just a spherical blob of congealed lipids, with barely enough surface structure to successfully treat hyperventilation by breathing in and out of a brown paper bag.

    Apparently, to judge by the available evidence.

    (God help the world if Slashdot had permitted me to add that last 'w' to the subject line, which was—apparently—a travesty of insufficient conceptual concision.)

  29. Re:mix, spread, wipe, fan v. suck, squeeze, bang, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (God help the world if Slashdot had permitted me to add that last 'w' to the subject line, which was—apparently—a travesty of insufficient conceptual concision.)

    They sized the field by volume instead of by surface.