Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Earth Science

Nearly Everyone is Exposed To Unhealthy Levels of Tiny Air Pollutants, Study Says (washingtonpost.com) 68

Posted by msmash from the closer-look dept.
Nearly everyone -- 99 percent of the global population -- is exposed to unhealthy levels of tiny and harmful air pollutants, known as PM 2.5, according a new study released Monday in Lancet Planet Health. From a report: The findings underline a growing urgency for policymakers, public health officials and researchers to focus on curbing major sources of air pollution, such as emissions from power plants, industrial facilities and vehicles. "Almost no one is safe from air pollution," Yuming Guo, the lead author of the study and professor at Monash University, said in an email. "The surprising result is that almost all parts of the world have annual average PM 2.5 concentrations higher than air quality guidelines recommended by the World Health Organization." Nearly 7 million people worldwide died from air pollution in 2019, according to recent estimates. What's known as PM 2.5, small air particles that measure 2.5 microns or less in width rank as one of the most concerning toxic air pollutants for human health. The tiny pollutants -- one-thirtieth the width of a human hair -- can travel into our lungs and bloodstream. They can cause ailments including heart disease or lung cancer.

Guo and his colleagues assessed daily and annual PM 2.5 concentrations across the globe from 2000 to 2019 using a computer model, which incorporated traditional air quality observations from ground stations, chemical transport model simulations and meteorological data. Overall, the highest concentrations were located in eastern Asia, southern Asia and northern Africa. In 2019, they found 0.001 percent of the global population is exposed to levels of PM 2.5 pollution that the World Health Organization deems safe. The agency has said annual concentrations higher than 5 micrograms per cubic meter are hazardous. Additionally, the study found that across the globe, 70 percent of days in a year were above recommended PM 2.5 levels.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Nearly Everyone is Exposed To Unhealthy Levels of Tiny Air Pollutants, Study Says More

Nearly Everyone is Exposed To Unhealthy Levels of Tiny Air Pollutants, Study Says

Comments Filter:

  • Breathing is bad for you. We should pass a law banning it immediately!

    • *opens a can of Perri'Air [youtube.com]*

    • Like I alwats say, nothing that holding your breath for ten minutes can't fix.

    • So, basically, they are complaining about air being dusty. I am disappointed that they have never explained that PM2.5 is just Particulate Matter of some specific size. It is not a compound, it is all the particles in the air of some size range. I am not too surprised that there are particles in the air, think about dust and smoke. I am not sure we can do much about it. So.. the entire point is to scare people, again. Scare and use that to control the population. And also, consider this, probably it does ma

      • You make a good point. Our lungs are designed to cope with a certain amount of small particulate matter. Of course, they can be overwhelmed, as we see in people with long exposure to asbestos or mining dust. But in small amounts, it's fine, our bodies don't expect to live in a "clean" environment.

      • > So, basically, they are complaining about air being dusty.

        No, theirs and other's concern is about a particular kind and size of particulate emission, like those from power plants, industrial facilities and vehicles, and the negative effect they have when they and enter our blood stream or get stuck in our lungs.

        These particles can have a much more profound effect on our health than many of the kinds of inert particles I assume you're referring to as dust.

        • PM2.5 is mainly smoke sized particles. Forrest fires is one of the sources of those. Forrest fires have been around for a while. Industrial smoke, I guess, should also be in the same range. Before we raise the alarm we need to know what is so wrong with them and why are we concerned with them now. Wood smoke is obviously not a new invention, and we have much less of it now than we used to have. Trends, by the way, confirm this. Most of the articles you can find on-line do not discuss anything and sound outr

          • Forest fires are rare events. The stuff being talked about in the article is 24/7/365.

            • Forrest fires are not and have never been rare events. Especially in the past, especially when nobody fought them. Even now in summer we have hundreds of them going on at the same time just in BC and Alberta. Also, we moved from wood and coal burning for heating to cleaner means. Installed catalysts in the cars. The problem used to be much worse. Why to raise the alarm now? Just think about it.

          • > PM2.5 is mainly smoke sized particles. Forrest fires is one of the sources of those. Forrest fires have been around for a while. Industrial smoke, I guess, should also be in the same range.

            "Outside, fine particles primarily come from car, truck, bus and off-road vehicle (e.g., construction equipment, snowmobile, locomotive) exhausts, other operations that involve the burning of fuels such as wood, heating oil or coal and natural sources such as forest and grass fires. Fine particles also form from the

            • Of course I don't think being hysterical helps, though it's not been my experience. I think it's just common sense that particulate matter is a serious health.

              Well, this is my main problem, common sense often does not really work with science. Sometimes things are not how the look from outside and assumptions based on "common sense" are often do not give you the best options. For example, I have researched the dangers of the wood dust, and it appears that there is not danger in it, it is a nuisance dust that does not pose any long term health effects. I have carefully researched actual research papers. There are no studies that indicate any serious health dangers

              • > Well, this is my main problem, common sense often does not really work with science.

                Yeah, I didn't mean there's a common sense one can rely on to make decisions. I shouldn't use the expression that way.

                I'm sure certain levels of non treated non laminate wood dust can be relatively safe compared to other air pollutants like those present in city air, like NO2 for example.

                > And eventually they will try to sell you an air cleaner.

                I have no patience for those kinds of web sites so I agree with you there

                • Well, it seems there has been a change in the wood dust hazard assessment since the last time I checked. ... However, I just went for the source again.

                  https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0133024

                  .... Regarding the meta-analysis performed, there were very few studies that met the inclusion criteria due to methodological differences. In addition, large heterogeneity was observed between the included studies. Therefore, although our meta-analysis confirms that a significant relationship between wood dust and nasal ADCN exists, this result should be approached with caution.

                  Conclusions

                  The conclusion of this systematic review is that there is low-to-moderate quality evidence that supports a causal association between the incidence of cancer and occupational exposure to wood dust. However, the association between exposure to wood dust and nasal ADCN is stronger, largely because most of the causal criteria established by Bradford Hill have been assessed [72]. In regard to lung cancer, caution is still advised in establishing an association with wood dust exposure given the low number of studies that have been conducted and their poor methodological quality. ...

                  So, this has been a retrospective meta study of the a number of previous studies that has selectively used the old results to confirm that there is a link between the wood dust and various kinds of cancer. And... they managed to find an association. They wanted it, though. I would be

                  • What's wrong with the study I linked to? It's more recent and exhaustive, covers a longer period, and was better able to account for confounds and methodological problems. - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]

                    > However, I just went for the source again.

                    The meta study you link to doesn't appear to have been used as a source for 2019 study I linked to.

                    > So, this has been a retrospective meta study of the a number of previous studies that has selectively used the old results to confirm that there is a link

    • The Blue Man Group suddenly has lots of competition.

  • not that I can do anything about it. I live where the work is and that's the city. Remote work's nice if you can get it, but with the Fed actively trying to cause a recession I can't count on it, and it's pretty clear the commercial real estate property owners want my ass back in the office so their property values go back up.

    My family has a history of lung cancer, albeit with smoking. I don't smoke, nor have I ever, but while I don't live in my city's downtown I'm not exactly out in the country either.
    • Stuff is being done about it, at least in many western countries. Concentrations of PM2.5 have more or less halved over the past 15 years and levels are still dropping here. If the trend continues, we'll hit the WHO norm in a decade or so, even in the cities. IIRC the norm here is 20 ug/m3, we're already well below that.

      • > Stuff is being done about it, at least in many western countries. Concentrations of PM2.5 have more or less halved over the past 15 years and levels are still dropping here.

        Yes, I've read something like that, any links appreciated. What I've also read is that mesurement of smaller ultra fine particle levels is being neglected when they really shouldn't, and that many ways of reducing the production of PM2.5 raises the production of PM0.1 particulates.

        "The Three Types of Particulate Matter: All About P

    • The cities are full of tire dust and fine particulate soot from car exhausts, microplastics from clothing and packaging, and of course airborne human shit.

      Rural areas are full of industrial emissions (from mills, or mines, or manufacturing plants) and agricultural emissions like airborne soil from tilth, and of course airborne animal shit.

      Take your pick.

      • I live in the rural west, where one of the biggest contributors to this is...

        wait for it...

        sagebrush

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by skam240 ( 789197 )

      On the up side the move to electric will do a shit ton for air quality in US cities. It wont solve all of our problems in regards to urban air pollution but in will do a ton.

      I know I look forward to visiting LA as an old man and not finding the air quality to be totally gross.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      Gov't agencies big and small could allow much more telework, but they are slow to change. We need a way to light a fire under their butt. And maybe tax incentives for private co's.

      Note that some initial studies suggested telework didn't cut pollution much because many do errands on their commute route, combining trips that are not combined under full telework. However, under partial telework one typically bundles errands on their in-office days, and thus the study was flawed.

      • Actually, I think that office spaces have much less dust and airborne particles than common private houses. In this sense, it may be healthier to work at the office than from home.
  • Sometimes living close to the quick convenience of a mango chutney latte just isn't worth it.

    But on behalf of the people that live in rural areas, if you move out here, keep your bullshit in the city.

  • Klling Us? (Score:3)

    by Arzaboa ( 2804779 ) on Tuesday March 07, 2023 @10:43AM (#63350011)

    Last I checked, people are continually living longer and longer lives sans the blip for the last couple of years. These particles are not lowering life expectancy on planet earth.

    Are these particles not great for us? Yep. Are you going to get people to quit driving everywhere and kicking up dirt/brake dust/heavy metals into the air? Definitely not in your lifetime.

    I feel terrible for the people that constantly read this stuff and think their lives are going down the drain and we all have no hope.

    --
    In order to carry a positive action we must develop here a positive vision. - Dalai Lama

    • Look up fertility and testosterone evolution rates and try not to get spooked. They might not be lowering life expectancy, but the chances of making more of us is dwindling fast.
      And yeah, if this is "good news" for fixing overpopulation problems, there might not be a population at all.

  • If draw a timeline of all of human history on a meter stick, we've used open fires for heating, cooking, and as a tool for all but the last few millimeters. Wood smoke contains a significant amount of PM 2.5 (small particulates) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. I'm certainly not going to argue that air pollution is good for us, but it's difficult to imagine that we're now exposed to more PM2.5 specifically than our ancestors.

    • >> it's difficult to imagine that we're now exposed to more PM2.5 specifically than our ancestors.

      Those ancestors may have been exposed to wood smoke in their homes but they only had to go outside and upwind to get away from it. Their village had a few dozen fires burning and the next nearest village was far enough away that any PM2.5 was sufficiently diluted to be practically nonexistent. World population (now over 8 billion) was well under 1 billion people all but the last few millimetres of your

    • Wood smoke is bad, it has PM2.5 and dioxin, no question that these are problems. But cars produce a disturbing and generally unaccounted for amount of PM2.5, because gasoline soot is so fine it's difficult to measure, and their tires go into the air and the water as well — over 50% of marine microplastics are tire dust, but it has lots of opportunity to enter your body before it gets to the ocean because a lot of it is airborne. And we have a lot more people now than they did even a few millimeters ag

    • Because so many of the things that used to kill people have been addressed or are now routinely cured, the remaining causes of death are becoming more significant and worth paying attention to.

      However the interesting question is whether microplastics are causing new diseases; this report suggests they may well be

      https://www.theguardian.com/en... [theguardian.com]

  • This whole thing is total garbage. The giveaway is the following assinine statement:

    The agency has said annual concentrations higher than 5 micrograms per cubic meter are hazardous.

    5 micrograms per cubic meter is an instantaneous concentration. There is no such thing as an annual concentration. There is a maximum annual concentration (the maximum instantaneous concentration observed over the period of a year), and there is an average annual concentration (the integral of the concentration for the year divided by one year -- which could mean 158 grams per cubic meter for 1 second and 0 ug/m3 for the

    • This whole thing is total garbage. The giveaway is the following assinine statement:

      The agency has said annual concentrations higher than 5 micrograms per cubic meter are hazardous.

      5 micrograms per cubic meter is an instantaneous concentration.

      You know you can just combine it with time to get an annual concentration, right? What they're saying is that if you experience persistent levels like these, there will be negative effects. HTH HAND

      • You are a moron. Probably a youngster who failed grade school and got a participation award instead.

        • You are a moron.

          They literally did a study that showed an elevated risk in that environment, and you literally failed to understand it, yet somehow I'm the moron? Okay there, champ.

        • As far as being a youngster, his user ID is 6 million less than yours.

  • I've wondered for a while if it was worthwhile to get an indoor air purifier. The medical evidence seemed somewhat uncertain, but maybe this is a reason to reconsider?

    • It's a good idea, but you either need a big expensive filter or an electrostatic filter to trap PM2.5, so make sure that whatever you get actually gets that stuff. Also, while you're filtering the air, you absolutely want to pass the air through an activated carbon filter ("activated" just means it has a lot of surface area, which is created by soaking the carbon material in saltwater and then cooking it in a kiln) after the HEPA filter. The carbon filter removes VOCs, dioxins, and other nasty compounds. Id

        • Takes about $25

          That only gets you the HEPA filter. But without a prefilter it will rapidly clog if you actually need it, and it does literally nothing to control VOCs, dioxin, etc. Also, $25 is a very low estimate, maybe if you get everything on sale. In the really real world just a 20x20 HEPA furnace filter costs most of that, and so does the box fan.

        • CBC Marketplace (TV show) looked at air purifiers, and this method fell in the middle of the pack as far as effectiveness. The super expensive Dyson air purifier was actually the worst tested.

          https://www.cbc.ca/news/busine... [www.cbc.ca]

  • ...my employer is designing a tyre that is both quieter and doesn't emit particulates that even rubber EV tyres emit. In fact, EVs are heavier so their tyres wear quicker.

    • ...my employer is designing a tyre that is both quieter and doesn't emit particulates that even rubber EV tyres emit.

      So what kind of particulates does it emit?

      In fact, EVs are heavier so their tyres wear quicker.

      EV tires wear quicker than normal pass car tires in part because they make them grippy so that they can provide traction while the driver enjoys the massively increased acceleration (compared to an ICEV in the same class.) More small EVs are now going to LRR tires in order to reduce tire flex, so as to improve efficiency. Since EVs have far superior traction control, the only significant drawbacks are increased stopping distance as compared to softer tires, and tha

      • You're so wrong it isn't even remotely funny.

        It's pathetic, actually.

        EV tires wear quicker than normal pass car tires in part because they make them grippy so that they can provide traction while the driver enjoys the massively increased acceleration (compared to an ICEV in the same class.)

        Wrong, and Troll (you're trolling for reactions)

        EV tires tend to be rock-hard and slippery, from the factory, to placate the environazis (that's my turn to troll) who buy such cars.

        Truth is, you can fit any kind of tire to any kind of car. I live in Florida, I don't have cold temps, so I have been for 20 years now rolling on really sticky summer rubber, with sillica-infused tread. Either Yokohama S-Drive, or Firestone Indy 500s. I have

        • You're so wrong it isn't even remotely funny.

          Tell us you know nothing without telling us. You haven't even come up to speed who read an article on this subject.

  • Yes, perhaps in some utopian fantasy people will not be exposed to things like dust and dirt.

    But I'm pretty sure in the real-world it's omnipresent.

    Humans have literally evolved physiological systems to deal with such particulates in the air and water we consume as long as there have been humans. I guarantee you that our ancestors at nearly any time in the past lived in higher-particulate environments, particularly once we invented FIRE.

    Is breathing them objectively worse than not breathing them? Yes, cer

  • facemask (Score:3)

    by pitch2cv ( 1473939 ) on Tuesday March 07, 2023 @12:27PM (#63350401)

    Next thing, my esoteric newage antivax covid-is-a-hoax friends walking around with facemasks.

    Maybe such might have them even reconsider their next flight to some tropical island or to the ashram in India 'to become one with nature'.

    OK. Not funny. We've had this coming, and we've been knowingly doing this to ourselves our whole lives.

  • I can imagine living in a stone-age hut, cave, teepee, whatever and their cooking / heating fires couldn't have been very healthy either. But then when you read about the very low lifespans back then, I guess they _all_ weren't being eaten by bears or lions or whatever.

  • With all the focus on carbon dioxide, a weak greenhouse gas, we have forgotten that people and ecosystems are still at risk.

Slashdot Top Deals

1 + 1 = 3, for large values of 1.

Close