News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe? by hirundo on Sunday March 13, 2022 @10:54AM (#30661740)
> Taken all together, the large body of literature with consistent findings indicate there may be significant benefits to lowering the total amount of air pollutant exposure one receives over a lifetime.

Dr. Attia is someone who is willing to take -- and prescribe to his patients -- extreme and difficult measures on the expectation that they could increase longevity. In this article he mentions the benefits of using a HEPA air filter for everyday life, and I would guess that he does that.

And he is a careful researcher. So I can take some comfort that he does not feel that there's sufficient benefit to wearing a respirator in daily life. He is the kind of nerd that wouldn't be much deterred by people judging him harshly for it.

Re:Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe? by ZeroGravitas on Sunday March 13, 2022 @10:59AM (#30661780)
Though most of the things he mentions are things that we probably want to do away with for a bunch of other reasons anyway, and so this is just another co-benefit:

> Outside, fine particles predominantly come from motor vehicle exhaust, burning of fuels such as wood or coal, natural forest fires, and reactions from power plants. Inside, fine particles are produced by cooking, tobacco smoke, burning candles, and lighting fireplaces.

Re:Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe? by lil_dispaches on Sunday March 13, 2022 @12:07PM (#30662539)
I am sure the regulators are not being totally honest. My folks in CA live in a gated condo residence, where recently Prop 65 signs in giant metal placards have been posted at the entrance, with the warning that "cigarette smoke and cooking gas" might be polluting the area and giving you cancer. No mention of open air garages under every building, the nearby highways, etc.

My point is, regulators let the businesses protect their assets, without giving people the real information.

Re:Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe? by throwaway22032 on Sunday March 13, 2022 @11:56AM (#30662409)
Is air pollution homogeneous in its' health effects? It seems to be treated as being such (classified by size) but I don't think that makes sense.

I'd much rather breathe in a room with 100ug/m3 of 2.5um particles of paper than I would glass or exhaust fumes for example.

Re:Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe? by Flozzin on Sunday March 13, 2022 @01:14PM (#30663356)
I would think it’s not all the same, and point out asbestos has very bad side effects. So I too would rather breathe paper than other things. Ideally just air though.
Re:Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe? by frontman1988 on Sunday March 13, 2022 @11:37AM (#30662172)
Fine particles like PM 2.5 are basically fine dust. You won't die of dust.
Re:Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe? by bagacrap on Sunday March 13, 2022 @12:19PM (#30662668)
dust is more like pm10.