Slashdot Mirror
Air Pollution Causes 'Huge' Reduction in Intelligence, Study Reveals (theguardian.com)
Air pollution causes a "huge" reduction in intelligence, according to new research, indicating that the damage to society of toxic air is far deeper than the well-known impacts on physical health. From a report: The research was conducted in China but is relevant across the world, with 95% of the global population breathing unsafe air. It found that high pollution levels led to significant drops in test scores in language and arithmetic, with the average impact equivalent to having lost a year of the person's education. "Polluted air can cause everyone to reduce their level of education by one year, which is huge," said Xi Chen at Yale School of Public Health in the US, a member of the research team. "But we know the effect is worse for the elderly, especially those over 64, and for men, and for those with low education. If we calculate [the loss] for those, it may be a few years of education."
The damage in intelligence was worst for those over 64 years old, with serious consequences, said Chen: "We usually make the most critical financial decisions in old age." Rebecca Daniels, from the UK public health charity Medact, said: "This report's findings are extremely worrying." [...] The new work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysed language and arithmetic tests conducted as part of the China Family Panel Studies on 20,000 people across the nation between 2010 and 2014. The scientists compared the test results with records of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide pollution.
The damage in intelligence was worst for those over 64 years old, with serious consequences, said Chen: "We usually make the most critical financial decisions in old age." Rebecca Daniels, from the UK public health charity Medact, said: "This report's findings are extremely worrying." [...] The new work, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, analysed language and arithmetic tests conducted as part of the China Family Panel Studies on 20,000 people across the nation between 2010 and 2014. The scientists compared the test results with records of nitrogen dioxide and sulphur dioxide pollution.
Carbon monoxide substitutes for oxygen in your biologic system, substitutes chemically but not functionally and takes considerable time to remove from your blood stream, it has to diffuse out. The more you have the quicker it leaves and the less it becomes the slower the removal, numbers between it and excess oxygen (so snort a bunch of oxy before bed time). Carbon monoxide make brain not work good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Stop burning shit, especially that really old fossilised shit (heh heh).
Now for shits and giggles, add in lead (you need it for the real cra cra, that gun nut cra cra) as well as a range of endocrine disrupting chemicals, radioactive elements breaking down into Radon, 'ohh my', nation wide fracking and things get real interesting. No wonder corruption is running rife in the USA at every level but hey, if you say anything the New York Times will paint you as an agent of the KGB (now thats typical cra cra, so out of New York, I get it now).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
stupid people choose to live in polluted places. Or can't afford to live anyplace else...
It explained crime in many cities and how it was reduced after lead was removed from fuel. Criminals with a reduced IQ due to pollution couldn't see the future consequences of their actions.
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
yes I know, in 2018 it's not nice to point a certain thing out, but there are a couple groups that don't do so well on those whitey boy IQ tests, cause, you know, they ain't white. And they mostly live in the city...
You get an awful lot more people using that road, so the cost per person is far less. Estimates are that it costs an average of ~$1-3million per mile to build a rural paved 2-lane road ($3-5million in the city). Are you and your rural neighbors really paying for all that? I know mine aren't. In Denver you've got 4,000 people per square mile, with an average of 16 blocks per mile, or 32 miles of road per square mile (16 1-mile segments in each direction) - that's only 0.008 miles (14 yards) of road per person. And Denver isn't exactly a pinnacle of population density - New York averages 27,000 people per square mile.
In comparison though, the average population density of metrpopolitan areas in general (heavily biased by more spacious small towns and suburbs) is supposedly only ~280 people per square mile, so over 14 times lower than Denver, and the density of streets probably isn't dramatically larger - you still have blocks about the same size, the yards are just bigger and you have a lot fewer apartment buildings.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Really? Deprive them of imported fuel, fertilizers, and pesticides, vehicles and other machinery, etc. and I bet you most would have a very rude awakening as to just how self-sufficient they really are. Better off than city dwellers no doubt, but it'd still be mighty bleak and a lot of folks wouldn't make it.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
My experience doesn't line up. I've lived in large Australian and Asian cities, and in small Australian towns. One town in particular was full of ignorant people and the average intelligence was definitely lower than in the cities. People in country towns are less welcoming, worse gossips, more likely to hold grudges. People in cities are exposed to more variety of people and ideas, and more open-minded and educated on the whole.
Deprive them of the stuff only needed for mass-farming?
Oh no, how can we survive without all this food we never needed in the first place?
Farming is trivial for your family. It only gets complex when you want to feed cities of people.
Sure, your modern conveniences will be gone, but they can still depend on man-power alone to feed their own mouths.
No, they won't need horses, horses were only used for feeding pre-modern towns of populations, not families.
I can grow food to feed a family of 3 in a 30'x30' space easily and I'm in bloody Scotland of all places.
You seriously over-exaggerate just how much humans need to do in order to survive comfortably with their own 2 hands.
It's not a hard task. Not even slightly.
In fact, your modern day farmer will fair FAR better than your farmer of yester-century due to modern knowledge on efficient farming, twinning plants that naturally protect each other, nitrogen-fixers, and just nutritional value in general.
Pay up, you lost that bet.
That'll be $20 + tip.