Air Pollution Still Plagues Nearly Half of Americans (npr.org) 106
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NPR: Air in the U.S. has gotten cleaner for decades, adding years to people's lives and preventing millions of asthma attacks, but nearly half of Americans still live with unhealthy air pollution, a new report finds. The report comes as the Trump administration is considering rolling back some key air quality regulations. Air quality across the country has improved dramatically since regulations like the Clean Air Act were put in place in the 1970s to govern sources of pollution like coal-fired power plants and emissions from diesel trucks. Despite that progress, the air is still unhealthy and polluted in many parts of the country. In 2023, nearly half of the country's inhabitants -- 156 million people -- lived in places heavy in smog or soot pollution that harms their lungs, hearts, and brains, according to the newest edition of the American Lung Association's State of the Air report.
"Both these types of pollution cause people to die. They shorten life expectancy and drive increases in asthma rates," says Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard University. Pollution levels vary widely across the country, the report finds, with the worst soot pollution, averaged over the whole year, centered on California cities like Fresno and Bakersfield. Ozone pollution is highest in the Los Angeles region. Phoenix, Arizona, and Dallas, Texas, also rank in the top 10 most smog-heavy cities. Nationwide, people of color are about twice as likely to live somewhere with high soot and ozone pollution as white Americans. "The Clean Air Act is one of the greatest success stories in our country," says Rice. NPR notes that the law requires the EPA to revisit the science every five years, reassessing what health researchers have learned about the risks of breathing in poor air and adjusting the regulations accordingly.
"So the air quality standards have kept pace with the science over time, and levels of fine particulate matter have declined over the last 50-plus years," Rice says. "As a result, life expectancy is longer, and asthma rates have gone down." [...] "We are best equipped to protect our health when we have all the information, like weather and air quality," she says.
"Both these types of pollution cause people to die. They shorten life expectancy and drive increases in asthma rates," says Mary Rice, a pulmonologist at Harvard University. Pollution levels vary widely across the country, the report finds, with the worst soot pollution, averaged over the whole year, centered on California cities like Fresno and Bakersfield. Ozone pollution is highest in the Los Angeles region. Phoenix, Arizona, and Dallas, Texas, also rank in the top 10 most smog-heavy cities. Nationwide, people of color are about twice as likely to live somewhere with high soot and ozone pollution as white Americans. "The Clean Air Act is one of the greatest success stories in our country," says Rice. NPR notes that the law requires the EPA to revisit the science every five years, reassessing what health researchers have learned about the risks of breathing in poor air and adjusting the regulations accordingly.
"So the air quality standards have kept pace with the science over time, and levels of fine particulate matter have declined over the last 50-plus years," Rice says. "As a result, life expectancy is longer, and asthma rates have gone down." [...] "We are best equipped to protect our health when we have all the information, like weather and air quality," she says.
Hahahaha, no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Pollution is only plaguing half of the US populace but that's about to change.
With great don of maga rooting for BEAUTIFUL CLEAN COAL, Amurrikah will soon enjoy the same air quality as Delhi and other large Asiatic shitholes.
MAGA!
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
It isn't pollution when you're coal-rolling willingly.
Re: (Score:1)
Who is y'all?
Re: (Score:1)
Nope.
People are the root of all evil.
Re: (Score:1)
It takes people to love money, so, YES.
Don't be pedantic, it's not becoming.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not my position, it is God's. I just follow it. But since you like to be a smart ass, bend over and I will show you missionary.
Re: (Score:1)
bend over and I will show you missionary.
I don't think you know what missionary is.
Re: (Score:1)
Like I give a fuck what you think. Go troll someone else.
Re: (Score:2)
Fuck humans, amirite?
For the love of money is the root of ALL evil.
Wrong, Religion is the root of all evil. Now it does facilitate big money, but still.
Re: (Score:1)
And religion bleeds its members of lots of money. Thank you for proving my point. By the way God didn't invent religion, man did.
I love and respect my Creator, but fuck all churches.
Probably gonna kill me (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Get one of those "work from home" jobs and live somewhere clean.
Re: (Score:1)
I surprised you jump to the conclusion, somehow, that I am in any way opposed to clean air and water. Then again, this is Slashdot, where jumping to conclusions could an Olympic sport.
I merely offered the previous poster a practical solution to the problem he stated. Mt comment, in no way, whatsoever, commented on the merits of clean or dirty water and air.
Re: (Score:2)
My dude, you do realize that most people can change jobs, even vocation, yeah? It might not be easy but if you truly wanted to breathe better air, you could manage.
Unless, of course, you prefer the additional victim points?
This is by no means a statement of acceptance toward the status quo. That kind of thinking leads to things getting worse everywhere. However, being defeatist certainly hasn't solved any problem ever.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What's wrong with cleaning the air everywhere?
It costs money and the shareholders don't like it. Besides, the houses we bought in clean areas will lose value if the air is good everywhere.
So, no, we won't allow it.
Re: (Score:3)
Hmmmm....25 yr old: I can work anywhere, I choose a nice clean location.
35 yr old: I'd like to work where there are good schools and have quality time for raising the kids.
45 yr old: I need to work in state that has good colleges and unis so Jr. can get a good finished and get the hell out of my house.
55 yr old: I have roots here, I don't want to move, and I'm socking my pay away for retirement.
65 yr old: My house is paid for, with housing prices I cannot afford to move, where's my SS and Medicare.
75 yr old
I'm on /. (Score:2)
As for changing jobs, again, thought terminating cliche. Any job I change to is also in a big city with smog. WFH jobs don't last.
It's funny as hell how you're tone is designed to make yourself sound like the victim here. Do you ever even think about the words you type?
Oh, wait, thought terminating cliches. Of course you don't.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth properly insulating your house and installing air filters. You can get commercial ones but a cheaper option is to just build one from a box fan and some furnace filters: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Unfortunately box filters seem to be a North American thing because they aren't widely available in Europe.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately box filters seem to be a North American thing because they aren't widely available in Europe.
So what kind of filters are used in European HVAC? Google says you have them, and call them "panel filters"
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah it's the fans that you can't seem to get. Nobody here sells box fans, all ours are round or some odd shape.
Business as usual (Score:2)
It's business as usual:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: Why "still"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I love kool aid in the morning.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks MAGA-morons for demonstrating again that you have absolutely no clue how things really work. Pathetic.
Diesel emissions standards weren't about health. (Score:3)
Those and the chicken tariff(look it up). Were simply done to prevent cheaper, more efficient and better made trucks and light duty vehicles from japan, europe, and korea from doing to those markets in the united states that their sedans and hatchbacks did to the regular car market.
Wasn't about health, and the health claims are 'nearly' as dubious as those that claimed artificial sweeteners and dyes are dangerous. Because the media didn't tell people the studies were flawed. For example those two feed the weight equivalent to mice of a normal human chugging gallons of 'pure' sweetener a day for the former, and close to hourly for the latter. Hint, even water is unhealthy if you drink too much of it. Flushes out your electrolytes.
California? Are they measuring wildfires? (Score:2)
From the report, California dominates the list of most polluted places. Is this due to wildfires?
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
From the report, California dominates the list of most polluted places. Is this due to wildfires?
California has the most drivers, the most vehicles, and the most vehicle-miles traveled. (We also have the second-most miles of roadway, after Texas.) We also have refineries which support that, and power plants which support our population (which is the largest in the state) and we have massive agriculture as well, which produces around a third of the produce that Americans consume. It's not surprising that California has a lot of pollution.
We also have a lot of small systems that are a lot dirtier than yo
Healthy Free-Breathing Peasants? (Score:2)
Where's the [corpo-fascist] fun in that?
What if... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
if you were half as smart as you act you'd see posting to the source poll at fucking *Gallup* of all places would be far more effective advocacy than the tabloid trash rag of excrement that is the post millenial, jesus christ you're bad at this
https://news.gallup.com/poll/6... [gallup.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed, nuclear's right there at the very bottom between solar and wind. [ourworldindata.org] We don't want so few dead people, amirite?
Re: (Score:2)
The two big problems with nuclear are the cost and the fact that it takes so long to build.
And while you are waiting for it instead of transitioning to renewables, those fossil fuel plants keep going to act as a placeholder for the nuclear. 20 years later your lungs have accumulated more soot and the nuclear plant still hasn't come online.
We have a solution to this, it works, it scales, it's proven technology, and for once it's also the cheapest and fastest option.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with your opinion on nuclear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, as we established long ago in our brief discussion of breeder reactors. So, whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I notice you don't actually have a rebuttal though.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't even read your drivel, dear.
Re: (Score:2)
Late and over budget as usual. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Managed by South Korea and built in the UAE so it's not like there were any protestors or lobbyists to hinder progress.
Re: (Score:2)
so it's not like there were any protestors or lobbyists to hinder progress.
There is the second-biggest progress hindrance for you: https://fanr.gov.ae/en/ [fanr.gov.ae]
"Protestors" don't even come close to what the state regulator will do to your plant.
Re: (Score:2)
The biggest problem with your opinion on nuclear is that you have no idea what you're talking about, as we established long ago in our brief discussion of breeder reactors. So, whatever.
I'm not aware of that particular discussion of breeder reactors, but overall, there are indeed many problems with breeder reactors. One concern that has been often raised about breeders is proliferation of plutonium that could be repurposed to bombs. (Economics is another that may be the real killer. Breeders are not low cost.)
On the other hand, if nuclear is to be a long-term energy solution we will need breeders, or something like them.
A possible solution is the thorium cycle, which breeds fissile isotope
Re: (Score:2)
This may come as a surprise, but every reactor is a breeder reactor. The question is how much of what it breeds. Typical PWRs, for example, produce and burn quite a lot of plutonium in the course of a fuel cycle, and nobody minds it, because the reactor is designed to operate so that only isotopes of plutonium unsuitable for weapon use are produced. That is, breeders are here, and we have some examples of success and of failure.
The discussion we had was about some nefarious problems that, according to Ami
Re: (Score:2)
Finally, nuclear power production is not magical. Like every other energy sources it has positives, negatives and a context, which is technological, economic and social.
This should be rated insightful.
Unfortunately, the nuclear advocates downplay or outright ignore the negatives, and the anti-nuclears downplay or outright ignore the positives.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
It would make sense if those polls had two questions: (1) do you support a nuclear power plant in your county, (2) do you support storing the nuclear waste right next to the power plant.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It would make sense if those polls had two questions: (1) do you support a nuclear power plant in your county, (2) do you support storing the nuclear waste right next to the power plant.
I see you got modded down for saying things which make sense, fun stuff. I am living in Humboldt co. CA where we used to have a nuke plant which had to be decommissioned. The spent fuel is still on site, in a concrete sarcophagus which is in the tsunami and flood zone. The sarcophagus is, as the name would imply, a structure with a separate lid. There was nowhere to take the waste, and no way to legally transport it out of the county. So now that the plant is gone (and from what I heard from someone who was
Re: (Score:1)
dramatic much.
The casks are made up of three shells. An inner shell for containment, a series of thick steel intermediate shells for gamma shielding and an outer enclosure shell that houses the neutron shielding material, according to Holtec. The casks are inside a subterranean vault made of reinforced concrete 3 to 7 feet thick.
These containers are filled with helium, an inert gas, and will remain onsite so long as Congress and the Department of Energy does not comply with its agreement under the Nuclear W
Re: (Score:3)
There was nowhere to take the waste
The "waste" is not a waste, it is mostly U-8, and about 8-10% various other elements, almost of them somewhat radioactive, with the worst already decayed to practically nothing.
If the "waste" is reprocessed, all of the U-8 and a lot of the remaining other isotopes will find a use.
The reason it is a "waste" is the irrational fear of the US lawmaker of reprocessing, which, incidentally, is blocking reprocessing technology development worldwide.
That's the problem that needs a solution, and it is a political pr
Re: (Score:2)
The reason it is a "waste" is the irrational fear of the US lawmaker of reprocessing, which, incidentally, is blocking reprocessing technology development worldwide.
It's not stopping France from using it to make their nuclear program more expensive. Nuclear is already too expensive, reprocessing fuel is dangerous to do poorly, and expensive to do well.
Re: (Score:2)
France's nuclear program is expensive because it is also maintaining a nuclear arsenal.
As we see today, after your country elected a russian agent for a second time and is now voting with putin at the UN and threatening to disable UK's nuclear weapons, France has remained the only real nuclear deterrent against totalitarianism. So maybe even that isn't too expensive.
The two risks before nuclear are political corruption and ignorance. The technology itself has long shown what it can and cannot do.
Re:More nuclear power then? (Score:4, Interesting)
In Texas, the drop in power production from natural gas was more than five times greater than that from wind turbines. [wikipedia.org] So we clearly can't rely on fossil fuels to keep us warm.
The problem with nuclear is that it isn't load following, just like renewables. The carbon free solution for both nuclear and renewables is grid storage.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's a video of some dudes bullshitting over beers in Texas taking 12 minutes of their podcast to stop talking about guns and anime to take a shit on wind and solar energy: https://www.youtube.com/watch [youtube.com]?... [youtube.com]
These guys want nuclear power. I believe they will get it soon. Why? Because if this issue has beer drinking dudes in Texas talking about nuclear power then there's got to many people that vote, in most every demographic, that want nuclear power.
So a podcast mostly about guns and anime where they spend time complaining about incredibly cost effective wind and solar is your litmus test for where America is on nuclear power? You're being ridiculous right now.
Re: (Score:1)
So a podcast mostly about guns and anime where they spend time complaining about incredibly cost effective wind and solar is your litmus test for where America is on nuclear power? You're being ridiculous right now.
Did you watch the video? How do you not see the political significance of people in a podcast that is primarily about firearms taking time to discuss the benefits of nuclear power? I expect the audience consists of a lot of people that are already politically active because of 2nd amendment issues that affect them, this discussion on nuclear power has now planted a seed in their minds that nuclear power is another thing they should be politically active about.
You believe wind and solar is "incredibly cost
I have no problem with more nuclear (Score:2)
but I'm not going to pretend it's foolproof - during the big freeze the nuclear plant just south of me lost half its output.
How and why a nuclear reactor shut down in Texas cold snap when energy was needed most [washingtonexaminer.com]
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
regulations currently allow pollution (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Add that to how environmentally damaging the batteries are to produce, and its hard to see how these things aren't scams.
No one said batteries are perfectly environmentally friendly, that's in your head. They get objectively compared to the alternative they are replacing, and in that regard they are orders of magnitude more environmentally friendly.
If you're going to complain about hypocrites remember to not be one yourself.
Re: Deprioritize driving everywhere (Score:2)
Dad, what's a manufacturing plant?
Son, it's something in China which spews toxic waste into the environment. But our fearless leader is working hard to get some built over here.
Realistically, the Greenies should be on Trumps side. Build stuff here where we can keep an eye on the manufacturers. But based on the shit-show over the power we need for cloud, crypto and now AI, the end result will be "Screw the soot. I need my tech!"
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The issue is Americans driving everywhere all the time, both Ds and Rs.
Do people not comprehend just how firetrucking huge the USA is? And how thinly spread the population is over that area? Individual states or cities with a high population density might be able to create a viable mass transit system but there is not likely to be any such thing on a federal level, the USA is just too big for that.
What I see as helping considerably is increasing use of PHEVs for cars and light trucks. With a PHEV I'd expect most daily driving, even for rural Americans, could be done on batt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
This is definitely something I can agree on. PHEV vehicles may not be the rage in more urbanized areas, but in a lot of the US, there just are not the chargers available.
I've not understood why serial hybrids are not more popular. BMW had great success with the i3 + range extender from people I know that own those. I'm hoping the RAMCharger sees production, because that is what a half-ton pickup should be. If one doesn't have a charger, fill it up at a gas station as normal. Otherwise, plug it in. Plu
Re: Deprioritize driving everywhere (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That and well, they only seem to make EVs and hybrids in boxy, unsexy "family truckster" configurations.....sorry, not interested.
Make one in a 2-seater sports car shape....with nice lines, and performance gear and I'll give it a very serious look....
But not interested in a SUV, sedan or pickup truck...
Re: (Score:3)
If you live on a farm and "drive into town" to go to Walmart, the dentist, the schoolbus stop etc. then an EV with 250 miles of range is not an issue, because you just charge it at home.
Every morning you wake up to a "full tank" and the ability to drive 125 miles out and 125 miles back.
Does that work for everybody? No, of course not. Invariably there will be the "I drive one thousand miles every day!" replies, but those are the edge case.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I've not understood why serial hybrids are not more popular. BMW had great success with the i3 + range extender from people I know that own those.
You obviously don't understand because of your economic class. The i3 was the most expensive vehicle in its class by a very wide margin.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to discount those people in apartments, renting houses without outside charging, and those without off street parking....there are a LOT of those in the US t
Re: (Score:2)
You seem to discount those people in apartments, renting houses without outside charging, and those without off street parking....there are a LOT of those in the US that cannot charge at home.
Meh, the apartment and rental home problems will sort themselves out pretty quickly, driven by market forces. The reason that they aren't getting chargers now is because the people who live in them mostly don't have EVs, because EVs are still too expensive for the lower-income people who live in suburban apartments (urban apartment dwellers are less likely to have cars at all). As that changes, landlords will be motivated to put in chargers. It'll happen first at high-end apartments, both because high-end
Re: (Score:2)
Do you really see the US, in 10 years, mostly giving up gasoline cars and the support system for them (gas stations, etc)....with even a slim majority of people
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm curious about what part of the US do you live in?
I've travelled about the US and for the life of me, I've NEVER seen a "walkable" city or neighborhood .
Granted I've never been to NYC which sounds like wh
Re: (Score:2)
in a lot of the US, there just are not the chargers available
I've driven my EV all over the western US, which is much less dense in general than the east, so more likely to be a problem, and not found this to be at all the case. Granted, I'm driving a Tesla, and the Tesla Supercharger network has been quite good for a long time, but based on what I see on PlugShare, the others have caught up. And supposedly non-Tesla EVs can now begin using the Supercharger network.
It's really not a problem.
Oh, sure, we'll need to continue building out the fast charging infrastr
Re: (Score:2)
I drive a lot in rural Texas. In a lot of regions, if you want a charger, there might be a plug on the side of a gas station that does 120 volts. For main routes, I would agree that that is getting covered. I'm seeing Superchargers pop up in a number of areas. However, there are large chunks of Texas where I'm going many miles between towns, and on the back roads, there may be a few gas stations, but definitely no chargers. Highways are getting well covered, but if one is going on the back roads... it
Re:Deprioritize driving everywhere (Score:5, Insightful)
Do people not comprehend just how firetrucking huge the USA is?
Tell me, how often do you drive from Hump Tulips to Fluffy Landings? Daily? Well obviously not...
Americans love to use the excuse "America is big" for near enough everything. The average daily driving distance of most Americans is about 50 miles. This makes sense because driving takes time, and people on the whole don't want to spend ages driving and not living their life.
And how thinly spread the population is over that area?
Yeah about 2.5x as dense as Norway. 1.5x as dense as Sweden. Slightly denser than Estonia. Twice as dense as New Zealand.
Basically aggregate statistics like land area and population density are meaningless, and used as an excuse. Most countries are larger than most people want to drive across regularly, and most countries consist of a mix of dense urban with a relatively small amount of rural population.
In other words, Alaska being about 18% of the US land area and a population of 3 plus a lost Canadian moose hunter has zero bearing on any of this, but it sure skews the numbers.
Individual states or cities with a high population density might be able to create a viable mass transit system
The USA has a decently urbanized population, around 83%, apparently. There are plenty of cities but a real lack of mass transit. This is a problem in the UK too to a surprising extent with London being a notable exception. I came across this while debating that particular rabbit hole recently.
https://bathtrams.uk/cities-wi... [bathtrams.uk]
Bath is a small city of 100,000 people, and has no tram. To counter the "it's too small" argument they compiled a list of smaller towns with tram systems.
There are many reasons America lacks good mass transit systems all over the place. There are few good reasons. A fair number of them are shared with my home country, but America has some all of its own too. But "America is big" is not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the state of Pennsylvania has about half the number of people as Spain, while being about 1/4 the size. So why isn't Pennsylvania crisscrossed with hig
Re: (Score:2)
It's particularly stupid argument when you realize there are many corridors in the US that have higher population absolute, higher population DENSITY
Well, just imagine if you acquire Greenland. 25% more land area, 50,000 more people, an even worse population density, so an even worse case for mass transit! :)
I think a much much better aggregate measure is something like median population density. Pick a size, say a 1km radius, or maybe a 1km squared disc. For every dwelling, find the population density with
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Deprioritize driving everywhere (Score:5, Informative)
" 60% of typical community greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation."
Quick google search says:
"In the United States, transportation accounts for about 28% of total greenhouse gas emissions. This makes it the largest contributor of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Within the transportation sector, a significant portion comes from the combustion of fossil fuels in various modes of transportation. "
Asking google about worldwide greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector yields:
"The transportation sector contributes roughly 14% to 29% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, depending on the specific data source and methodology used. For example, road vehicles alone account for 12% of global GHG emissions. Emissions from the transportation sector primarily stem from the burning of fossil fuels for various modes of transport. "
Soooo... no... not even close...
Re: (Score:3)
It says "community gas emissions", not national or global.
When you remove industrial processes, air transport, and other stuff outside the community, outside of people just living in a flat or house and doing local stuff like shopping or going to work/school, it's probably about right.
Re: (Score:2)
" 60% of typical community greenhouse gas emissions are from transportation."
Quick google search says:
"In the United States, transportation accounts for about 28% of total greenhouse gas emissions.
Soooo... no... not even close...
Really? Based on the 28% national figure, it sounds very plausible. If 28% of total emissions are from transportation, where "total" includes industrial operations, then transportation comprising 60% of community emissions, which doesn't typically include industry, seems about right. What other sources of community emissions are there? Fossil fuels burned for heating and cooking, sure. What else?
You could argue that restricting the focus to "community" emissions is an arbitrary and unreasonable choice
Re: (Score:2)
Where did this quote come from? It's not in the NPR story. It's also irrelevant to the content. While CO2 is the major contributor to climate change, it's not been shown to responsible for these types of health problems.
Re: (Score:2)
"Where did this quote come from?"
Post #1965658. The above was in response to it.
Re: (Score:2)
Soooo... no... not even close...
You're comparing Apples with the fucking apple tree. You're looking at total emissions by sector, and the parent is talking about community emissions. Take your figure and subtract from it all industrial emissions, all long distance emissions, the aviation sector, the shipping sector, and what are you left with?
The answer: Mobility, home energy, and local agriculture, of which mobility makes up the majority by far.
Re: (Score:2)
America! Fuck yeah! [youtu.be]