Slashdot Mirror
US Air Pollution Deaths Nearly Halved Between 1990 and 2010 (eurekalert.org)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from EurekAlert: Air pollution in the U.S. has decreased since about 1990, and a new study conducted at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill now shows that this air quality improvement has brought substantial public health benefits. The study, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, found that deaths related to air pollution were nearly halved between 1990 and 2010. The team's analyses showed that deaths related to air pollution exposure in the U.S. decreased by about 47 percent, dropping from about 135,000 deaths in 1990 to 71,000 in 2010.
These improvements in air quality and public health in the U.S. coincided with increased federal air quality regulations, and have taken place despite increases in population, energy and electricity use, and vehicle miles traveled between 1990 and 2010. [...] Still, despite clear improvements, air pollution remains an important public health issue in the U.S. The estimated 71,000 deaths in 2010 translates to 1 of every 35 deaths in the U.S. -- that's as many deaths as we see from all traffic accidents and all gun shootings combined.
These improvements in air quality and public health in the U.S. coincided with increased federal air quality regulations, and have taken place despite increases in population, energy and electricity use, and vehicle miles traveled between 1990 and 2010. [...] Still, despite clear improvements, air pollution remains an important public health issue in the U.S. The estimated 71,000 deaths in 2010 translates to 1 of every 35 deaths in the U.S. -- that's as many deaths as we see from all traffic accidents and all gun shootings combined.
Mission accomplished! We can roll back all the regulations now!
It's a labor-intensive, dirty way of extracting energy from Mother Earth. It wasn't killed by regulations, either. It was killed by labor costs, and the final death knell was cheap natural gas from fracking.
Also, many coal jobs were utterly shitty. Imagine being the poor schmoe who drove a steam engine or shoveled coal into the boiler. Sounds romantic? Now imagine standing in a cab when it's 100F outside and 120F in the cab. Turn some valves while watching for signals and danger ahead, or shovel enough coal per minute to power a freight train in these conditions...
Greenhouse gases cause long-term harm to Earth. The pollutants that cause more immediate deaths are things like nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons, and particulate matter.
You can remove the three pollutants above and still emit CO2 and methane, which causes long-term harm to climate which will harm humans in other ways.
With all the other progress being rolled back by this government, we may as well start indirectly killing people in order to prop up an industry well into death spasms already. But hey, you'll win the electoral votes from West Virginia and Kentucky!
Oh wait, you would have anyway.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Thou shalt have no other political parties before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any other parties yard signs.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
The war against CO2 is sadly overwhelming the real war we should be fighting, the war against emissions and real pollution.
Luckily as we can see emissions have naturally gotten a lot better, and with the inevitable switch to more electric cars along with improved ICE emission control tech in the next decade we should see even greater improvement...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
When I was a kid, we had a coal fire, and you'd shovel coal onto it hourly to keep the house warm. It was a PITA to light in the morning. When you went out, and came back to the house, the house was cold. You'd try to revive the embers and the house would take an hour or two to warm up.
Diesel trains had already replaced coal fired steam engines. There were still some coal fired power stations, and quite a few blackened buildings/lungs around those.
That was the age of coal. Long gone.
You can see Murray *Energy* trying to revive it with PAC bribes and revolving door EPA officials and marketing MEMES, but even old man Murray calls his company Murray *Energy* and not Murray *Coal*. Even his own company name shows, he's ashamed of coal.
Trump can pretend coal is "clean coal", but there's no way he'd let a coal fire power plant near his hotels or golf courses.
Surviving due to regulations is not likely to be noticed by the survivor. Like not dying due to a prevented accident thanks to technology. So, Americans can keep going blasting big government and regulations, their favorite pastime, and lament on the price of medical insurance while spending their money on churches that never cured anyone instead. Growing trend: ignore experts as your personal opinion trumps their expertise. ....
Dead Americans are the only certain result.
Republican Party Death Cult
Why is Snark Required?
Wow, that's a pretty bad NPC repeating dialog glitch there at the end. Can someone get a programmer in to fix entity 57515590?
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
You talk as if CO2 reduction is antagonistic to airborne pollutant reduction. As if you can have one not both.
But if you're lowering atmospheric mercury, for example, swapping coal for solar tackles BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
And swapping gas for electric vehicles reduces both NOx and CO2 pollution at the same time, as long as the car is recharged with solar or renewables, and not a coal fired power station.
I'm struggling to think of an instance where CO2 pollution isn't from the same source as the other airborne pollutants.... Asbestos maybe? That is an airborne pollutant not directly connected to CO2 that was eliminated.
You talk as if CO2 reduction is antagonistic to airborne pollutant reduction. As if you can have one not both.
Although theoretically you can do both, think of all of the money spent on warning about CO2 that could have been spent of pollution eradication measures and education.
Just as a for-instance, you could take any anti-CO2 ad campaign and pay thousands of people to walk roadsides picking up long discarded trash, including a huge number of plastic bottles and bags. That would have a huge real impact on the environment, and possibly the ocean in the future as that stuff filters down the coast.
But instead, some big NYC ad firms get fat and probably produce a metric ton of plastic waste from all the things they buy with "green (Ha, first typed as "greed")" ad dollars.
But if you're lowering atmospheric mercury, for example, swapping coal for solar tackles BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
Yes, that is true, and why I am a huge proponent of solar energy.
I'm struggling to think of an instance where CO2 pollution isn't from the same source as the other airborne pollutants
Again, it's more about where a huge amount of money is being diverted to try and convince people CO2 is a problem, while they ignore other real physical pollution which could be addressed to a greater degree.
However, you are way too limited thinking of airborne pollutants when we have so many problems, yet another problematic vector of the CO2 hysteria. As we can see here airborne pollutants are actually getting better anyway so it would be way better to really focus on the other stuff which is maybe even worse than it used to be, even with plastic bag bans and a push away from bottled water.
I clean up a lot of roadside and trail side trash throughout the year, and to me it seems like trash wandering around the environment is maybe worse than it ever has been in the past. That is not getting better on its own and we need to focus there much more than we are.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Solar long surpassed coal for jobs. By 2017 its more than 3 times the number of jobs:
http://fortune.com/2017/02/07/us-solar-jobs-2016/
I wonder how much old man Murray made dollar for dollar for all the investment he made in getting Trump elected. He did a real dodgy deal, Trump announced a rescue plan for coal, on the back of it Murray swapped debts for equity. Then Trump's plan disappears with the equity holders screwed for the money:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-04/murray-energy-swaps-debt-on-heels-of-trump-plan-to-boost-coal
"U.S. Energy Department makes plans to exercise emergency authority to force grid operators to buy electricity from struggling coal and nuclear power plants."
Ha ha, as if you can force grid operators to subsidize coal. Of course it was fake, enough to let Murray cash out a little, but at 78 he doesn't have long to spend it.
Thanks to the programmers for the quick fix for the NPC dialogue repetition bug I mentioned above, you can close that ticket now.
I would like to see a little more variety in the dilig offered, but I guess there are only so many reaction trees you can program that get across the core Democratic Party values so clearly.
Keep up the good work!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If we are lucky, the warming we see from CO2 would stave off the next ice age a while longer - but that does not mean Iâ(TM)m eager for greater CO2 emissions, I just find it itrelevant and like I said, a huge waste of resources that could be used to fight real pollution like ocean plastics and lots of bad land based pollution.
The money going to fight CO2 today is having virtually no impact - countries are doing what they would be doing anyway in general. Letâ(TM)s fight a battle against pollution where we can make a real impact in making the Earth a cleaner place.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
We recently had a similar study conducted in my country as well, with (of course) a much more alarmist summary: we must reduce pollution NOW or else... And while a further reduction of pollution is good, the urgency with which we do so and the expense and disruption incurred by that urgency must be weighed against the benefits. So... what kind of deaths are these? Normal people with healthy lives tragically cut short, as is the case in traffic accidents and shootings? Or people with respiratory ailments that are exacerbated rather than caused by pollution ? Not that we shouldn't care about the latter, but in terms of public health these are not comparable.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Except that manufacturing jobs in the US have been on the rise since 2010...
https://data.bls.gov/timeserie...
Just another day in Paradise
If it fits your political agenda and narrative, then the cause of death is 100% known to be caused by pollution.
I was curious how they determined the number of pollution related deaths...
Zhang, West and colleagues analyzed concentrations of two pollutants, known as PM2.5 and ozone, from a 21-year computer simulation of air pollution across the U.S. PM2.5 are very small particles suspended in the air that come from power plants, motor vehicles, industries, and some commercial and residential sources
They then related the declining concentrations of PM2.5 and ozone to the geographical areas in which people live and the causes of death in those areas, using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, to estimate deaths from air pollution during the period. They estimated deaths from ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer and stroke related to PM2.5, and from respiratory disease for ozone. .
Interesting, but I'd be looking for some validation of this before pointing to it a fact. I've seen too many simulations, and estimations (both used above) that ended up being garbage in, garbage out.
Just another day in Paradise
Perhaps it is because science is exposing what is. Climate change is real, however Carbon Dioxide which is considered the major factor in climate change, at current and projected levels will not effect our health directly, like with the other chemicals that are in smog, that we got good at filtering out.
Despite the fossil fuel industry paid claims, the left isn't trying to get rid of your energy, take away your car. The do see science for what it is and wants measured regulations to slow down such effect, unfortunately fossil fuel is the primary cause. As we are quickly expelling carbon, that took these plants millions/billions of years to collect. However if we slow down fossil fuel consumption and replace it with alternative energy then we can slow down globabl warming, and allow the earth to heal some of its problems.
But normal Air Pollution, is full of other chemicals that are directly bad for us, and we have little evolutionary strategies for dealing with.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
There is a flaw in your argument.
You just flat out wrong.
The industrial economy in the United States has continues to be top in the world. While labor costs in the US may be higher, labor in the US is much more efficient. Many of these jobs that have been outsourced to other countries on the individual company may had been from some penny pinching, but many had found it wasn't as good of a deal as they thought. Also a lot of foreign countries will move their manufacturing in the US as well.
Now such a perception is because manufacturing is very closely tied to the state of the economy + hiring a lot of low-mid skilled workers (that creates lower turnover cost) means these industries will often be first to take a hit during an economic hit, thus getting all the stories of layoffs.
Raised in a blue collar family, I understand the tension that happens, and why my parents pushed me to go to college and get a degree. So now I am a few levels up. Where recessions will need to last a big longer until I am affected. However this had always been the case. However after WWII where the rest of the world was rebuilding, the US had a near monopoly, so such cuts in manufacturing didn't happen.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Why did it fall so rapidly? Reason: the phase-out of leaded gasoline and the disappearance of automobiles that don't meet today's emission standards (EPA Tier 2 Bin5/CARB ULEV-II). Indeed, Los Angeles has experienced a lot less serious "smog days" since the late 1990's.
I mean....global warming, the planet is getting hotter, less deaths from air pollution. ;-P
I'm pro-oxygen.
Now you've met two pro-gas people!
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Statistics and data. For example, if you have elevated lung cancer rates in a conical plume downwind from a coal generating station, decreasing with distance and spread / concentration.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
That technology came along because of regulation. When California says "raise your mpg or don't sell cars here" the mpg magically goes up, and smog goes down.
Funny, that.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Trees take carbon from the air. Burning a tree puts it back, minus what stays in the ash. There isn't magic carbon coming from nowhere when you burn firewood.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
What gets you the better MPG with cars that require octane 91 is the turbocharger that creates the higher cylinder pressure.
It's not just turbocharging, though. Higher-compression engines have higher output, too. I drove a 1.6 liter Nissan Almera with a slush box in Panama and it was an absolute knockout, but it did take high-octane. I was stunned at just how good it was. Later in the same trip we had to rent a Toyota Echo, and I was equally stunned... but in a different way :)
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I'm just wondering how they come to these conclusions that "1 out of 35 deaths" has a cause of air pollution?
Seems pretty suspect to me, since it's not extremely common you hear of a coroner's report stating "air pollution" as the cause of death.
I mean, is this total counting every single time somebody stupidly runs a fossil fuel burning space heater indoors with no ventilation? Is this making an assumption that COPD sufferers who damaged their lungs by decades of cigarette smoking and now require oxygen are dying from air pollution? What determines these stats? I have a feeling the totals aren't really showing a reality where otherwise healthy individuals die prematurely because of the pollution in the air they're breathing in the city they live in ....
It's possible for both things to be true - if the dirtiest manufacturing jobs all got exported and replaced with cleaner ones.
Posted from my Android phone. Oh, I can change this? There, that's better...
It's hard to write anything sillier. How do you harm the Earth - send it spiraling into the Sun? If you want not to be ridiculed, write sensibly and name specific things on Earth that are harmed, and how they're harmed. The Earth itself is pretty much invulnerable.
Humans generate nitric oxide internally; it's essential to human life.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I will claim ignorance here, but could someone explain to me how you KNOW a single death, little lone a concrete number of them was caused by air pollution?
Contributed too? maybe. Even then , seem REALLY hard to prove unless you are using blatant coloration = cause type thinking.
so how do a say a number, that can't be reliably estimated went down? I read the abstracts and whatnot, but don't see anything publicly available that describes how they measured this. Did I miss it?
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
Some cars have had knock detectors for at least 30 years now. Use low-octane gasoline, the detector senses pre-ignition, and the timing is retarded to stop the pre-ignition. Both power and efficiency suffer when timing is retarded.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Although some places do require filters on fireplaces and wood-burning stoves, there's a lot of wood burning that goes on unfiltered. Wood smoke is NOT clean, although generally it's not as nasty as coal.
Even if you burn only hard woods, lots of creosote builds up inside the chimney, and much more gunk gets into the air. I love a good wood fire, but I don't pretend it's clean.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Poverty and war are very significant causes of death. As poverty goes down during Trump's administration, the resulting increased lifespan will outweigh any likely loss of life from increased air pollution.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Tuberculosis in the United States is largely due to illegal immigration.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Us. Human civilisation is harmed. So are a lot of animal and plant species. If you want a full list of the main ways in which things on the Earth are harmed (and occasionally benefited) by greenhouse gases, see here.
Nitric oxide is present in human blood at concentrations of around 2 ppm - but exposure above 25 ppm is considered dangerous, and above 100 ppm will harm you in minutes. Also undesirable is how contact with water forms nitric acid, i.e. acid rain. And particulates are just as bad. Air pollution in general is still responsible for nearly a third of lung cancers and other respiratory diseases - we have a lot more improving to do.
Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
Except that's ignoring the economic crash that started in 2008 and got worse in 2009. Your own link shows that manufacturing jobs are down in 2018 by over a million from where they were ten years ago. And when you take population increases into account, manufacturing jobs have kept shrinking as a sector of the economy, even as new jobs are "added".