Even if you think climate change is a hoax, why not reduce pollution anyway?
However, some things that are regarded as renewable (e.g. wood burning, such as the notorious Drax power station in the UK) are more polluting than fossil fuels. Personally I doubt they are even effective at CO₂ reduction. What we need is clean energy.
Do you think the world might have made these regions unstable because they have the oil?
Have people meddled since? Of course. Such is how power works. But you'd have to go back to Roman times to find a period of stability in the middle east, and the factors that led to that have nothing to do with Oil.
Yes, those people are mostly imbeciles.
They argue that because Obama has a house near the ocean… and because people fly…
You can have a discussion with them but be prepared to start over in the same place the next time the subject comes up.
Maybe try listening to them. After all, scientists did switch from "global warming" to an unspecific term like "climate change", which gives them a reason for distrust. Same for other aspects of scientific notion, like distrust against scientists when they and politicians tried to cover up information on COVID and COVID vaccines.
They’re imbeciles!
By the way, it’s still global warming but that was causing some confusion to some people because the weather locally might be cooler, warmer, wetter, dryer, etc.
Hence, climate change seems to better convey what people actually see.
Should we review what climate scientists actually said in the 1970s next?
What’s your favorite anecdotal (ie non science) story you go to?
It's why governments try to curb online disinformation. Did you know conspiracy theories thrive among the less successful? Insulting them will only push them further away towards groups that gladly open their arms to them.
At any rate, is there any climate change belief that you would like to discuss?
Try to stay on topic. Digression is a common tactic. People quickly like to change the subject when they run into someone who knows why they are wrong.
Another tendency is to complain about current policies without offering any solutions.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jtg9qBq110
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgMagIqZNuA
I'm not a politician. I don't offer policies. But I did specify policies, based on policies that have been proposed, and some that are thankfully being implemented. But unreasonable people want extremist implementations, and go against reasonable policies.
I'm being as specific as it gets. Now, you can try keeping me on the defense, or give in and admit I've proved my point.
The first video said nothing about climate change. (By the way DDT was banned.) The second started with Greta. I stopped immediately. None of it was science.
Chris Wallace interview did nothing. No gotcha moments there.
No wonder you have issues.
Keep it simple. Tell me what we have wrong about climate change and I’ll clear it up.
I don't think beauty has anything to do with it. Climate change has very negative concrete effects on human civilization that justify the effort we should put (but don't) into limiting it. Generally pollution is nocive to human health which is why we strive to avoid it too.
I think talking about "beauty" moves the debate away from rational arguments. The reason we do all this is to preserve a world where humans can have comfortable lives, without additional health risks adding up and with enough access to necessities (food, water, shelter, breathable air compatible with human survival (never too long above 35C wet-bulb)).
https://www.epa.gov/land-research/quantifying-methane-emissi...
Quantifying methane emissions from United States landfills https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adi7735
Looking carefully at your cooking situation is worthwhile though. Was horrified by the spike in readings from stuff like steak in a pan
Big spikes in soft money group spending in 22 and 24 elections...
https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus?cycle=2024&ind=...
This thing says roadside ppm2.5 is down from 17 to 8 in central where I live https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/07/london-a...
https://www.ikea.com/gb/en/p/vindstyrka-air-quality-sensor-s...
And sure, yes, it's just water and its entirely plausible that water based PM2.5 is completely harmless... but wouldn't it be good to know that for sure?
Heat shock proteins (and cold shock proteins) are affected by more than temperature, but temperature is really important as well.[1][2]
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21848409/ [2] https://academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article/80/4/glae...
Link: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12413735/
Conclusion: "Clean fuel use for cooking and transitioning from solid to clean fuels decreases MCRS risk among older adults. Moreover, earlier adoption of clean cooking fuels is associated with a lower prevalence of MCRS in later life..."
---
Study: Association between cooking fuels and mild cognitive impairment among older adults from six low- and middle-income countries
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-17216-w
Conclusion: "In this large representative sample of older adults from multiple LMICs, unclean cooking fuel and a lack of chimney or hood when cooking were associated with a higher risk of MCI..."
---
Study: Household air pollution from solid fuel use as a dose-dependent risk factor for cognitive impairment in northern China
Link: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-10074-6
Conclusions (summarized by ChatGPT):
> People who use solid fuels (like wood, coal, or crop residue) for cooking or heating tend to do worse on cognitive tests compared to those who use clean fuels (like electricity or natural gas). This effect shows up across several areas of thinking, but the biggest impacts were on attention (for cooking) and orientation (for heating).
> The more often people currently use solid fuel stoves, the worse they do on attention-related tasks. For example: if someone cooks with a solid fuel stove 100 extra days in a year, their attention score drops by about 0.05 points (a small but measurable decline).
> Long-term exposure matters too. For every 5 extra years of solid fuel stove use (over the past 20 years), people scored about 0.07 points lower in attention tests. In other words: the longer you’ve been exposed, the worse your performance tends to be.
https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-air-purifier...
My main suspicion: In my last 3 abodes with pre-1955 construction in East Coast, the pre-filter on the top Wirecutter pick needs to be cleaned 3x per carbon filter replacement in order to reduce largest particle accumulation on the carbon or HEPA filters.
The inexpensive IKEA model did not have a viable and easily cleaned pre filter as far as I could figure out.
I've found that taking a shop vac and leaf blower to the pre-filter works quite well to get it clean.
That said, the Ikea air purifiers only make sense if you have a room that's about the right size for the Fornuftig. Their larger purifier is worse value, and you're better off looking at something like the Squair.
I have mine hooked up to smart outlets and particulate meter to automate them. I just wish I could control the speed.
[1] https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-air-pollution-l... polluted place
Heat Shock Proteins in Alzheimer’s Disease: Role and Targeting
"In summary, the mechanism of PM2.5-induced brain damage involves entry via the olfactory system and BBB, activation of glial cells, neuroinflammation, oxidative stress, BBB disruption, and downstream neurodegenerative changes."
Learn about biology instead of relying on simple searches for you answers.
I don't doubt it and they could expect other implications if the pollution also included heavy metals and other chemicals in the air, water and land.
Why is that?
What we should be asking is why aren't countries like China, India, and a lot of others in Asia suffering catastrophic rates of Dementia?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:China_population_sex_by...
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-states-of-america/2...
Also Utah has worse air quality than Miami? Where in Utah? My trips to Utah I remember pristine air but of course I didn’t have an air monitor on board other than my nose.
Edit: Oh I see
>Utah, particularly in urban areas like the Wasatch Front, frequently experiences worse air quality than Miami. Utah's air quality issues are often caused by unique geographical and meteorological conditions. In winter, temperature inversions trap cold, polluted air in the valleys, leading to high levels of particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution. In the summer, heat and sunlight can create high levels of ground-level ozone. The American Lung Association has ranked cities in the Salt Lake City-Provo-Orem area among the worst for ozone and short-term particle pollution.
>In contrast, Miami's air quality is generally "Good" throughout the year, with occasional exceptions. The primary pollutants are also PM2.5 and ozone, but the geographical and weather conditions do not contribute to the same level of pollutant trapping as in Utah. The city has programs in place for air quality monitoring and standards.
Utah has the highest birth rate and therefore the youngest population of the 50 states (median age 31.5 years). Florida is not the oldest state, but it's near the top (median age 42.7 years).
I can walk in cities.
That's strange, because the dementia mortality rate is high...
Studies like this show that air quality is correlated with dementia in general, but we don’t know if that means air quality directly contributes to dementia or if air quality just happens to be correlated with something else that contributes to dementia.
As for Utah: They have lower rates of drinking and drug use and higher levels of physical fitness and outdoor activity, among other factors.
Utah’s average air quality also isn’t as bad as you hear about. The mountain geography can trap pollution on certain winter days, but the average air quality in Salt Lake City is surprisingly better than most metro areas with 500K or more people: https://www.axios.com/local/salt-lake-city/2024/03/26/air-qu...
> In 2023, Salt Lake had the 11th-lowest average particulate matter levels, known as PM2.5, of 103 cities reviewed by IQAir, a Swiss air quality technology company.
Potentially related
https://m.slashdot.org/story/446420
EDIT commenting to child so as not to start a flame war. Lung scarring, emphasema, bronchial illness and so forth can cause the lungs to trap particulates in the lungs longer than they should over the long term this exacerbating health risks. It definitely makes sense.
But maybe you will be happy to hear that the rates of pollution in the whole European civilization block are orders of magnitude lower than non-European blocks[1]
[1] https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-air-pollution-l...
Your idea could hold for people who smoke cigarettes or use combustion-heated pipes to consume hard drugs like meth or crack, or for people who smoke a lot of poor quality cannabis, especially without any kind of filtering.
It probably doesn’t hold for people who use a dry herb vaporizer to consume cannabis, since the method of consumption doesn’t generate PM2.5 or combustion gases, and the volatile constituents of cannabis are well established to have local and systemic anti-inflammatory effects.
Why do we never talk about the fact that the post polluted areas are not at all in the European civilization block, i.e., they are Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Chad, and the DR of Congo. So they should also have the highest rates of dementia if this research holds, right?
This all just seems like gaslighting lies, manipulation, and abuse.
[1] https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/mapped-air-pollution-l...
The average age in developing countries is also lower (due to both lower life expectancy and higher birth rate) which is a further confounding value to skew the numbers. Dementia is an old people game, even if it is true that air pollution worsens it.
The countries you give all have less than half and usually less than a third the percentage of people over 65.
> Long-term exposure accelerates the development of Lewy body dementia and Parkinson’s disease with dementia in people who are predisposed to the conditions.
I think it's entirely possible (perhaps even likely) that this is true. But the paper does not show it.
We do population level correlation studies because sometimes a double blind study is unethical, and double blind studies is the bar for establishing causation in the medical community. We cannot give one person randomly worse air to breath, and even if it were experimentally feasible it would be ethically impossible because there is strong suspicion we would be harming the subjects.
Let’s discuss the actual data. The dose dependent result that was found is an indicator of a strong relationship. There is a clear potential mechanism of action (Air -> Lungs -> Bloodstream -> Brain). This isn’t a controversial result in the literature, it’s more evidence for what we already know —- air pollution is very bad.
What I claimed is that this press release takes a population-level correlational study and presents it in a misleading way that implies causation was established. Which this press release most certainly does.
Ultimately both exaggerating pop-sci articles and dismissive comments are contributing to public distrust of science.
It is certainly controversial for individuals whose way of life (see non-electric car-centric society) is being questioned by this science. Just look at some of the cynic answers in this thread pretending that air pollution is not bad
Especially since pm2.5 tends to be higher in areas with higher population densities, near roads, industrial areas, etc.
Hell, maybe the underlying major risk factor is actually time spent in the car. Or repeated viral exposures of a specific type. Or a specific type of air pollution.
Either way, it’s not like everyone is going to be moving out of high pm2.5 areas anytime soon, or that we’ll be able to just solve the sources of pollution right now even if it is the cause.
For some reason, nature DGAF.
Or do you have some other policy proposal? Banning lightning or fire perhaps? Making trees illegal?
I'd be interested to compare the disease map with a map of average income, because at first glance the disease data looks to be correlated with wealth, and we already have tons of research that shows that wealth is one of the biggest determinants of health outcomes in the US.
Dementia is linked to diabetes. And diabetes risk is increased for African-Americans. And African-Americans live in high-pollution urban areas for entirely historical reasons.
So some amount of the causation here does go in the way opposite to what a person might naively suspect.
A is correlated with B. B is causally correlated with C, i.e. C causes B. (C is correlated with D.) Hence C causes A.
Let’s replace. Flowers are correlated with bees. Bees are caused by hives. (Hives are correlated with trees.) Hence, hives cause flowers.
Loosely, yes. Formally, no.
Air pollution might not be the direct cause, it might be a proxy measurement that is correlated with some other factor or factors that contribute to dementia risk. For example, do areas with higher air pollution measurements also have higher or lower rates of something else that is actually contributing to the dementia directly? Do they simply correlate with overall development of the area, and therefore areas with poor pollution numbers also have high levels of water pollution?
People who are poorer and have worse health, also have an increased incidence of dementia, seemingly independently of the number of particles in their dwellings.
We really need a term that sits between correlation and causation in situations where data is difficult to come by. There's such a huge rift of meaning between these terms, and too often 'correlation is not causation' gets wheeled out in a room of people that already know that and are trying to figure out the nuances.
How about plausal? Aka it's rather plausible that there is a causal relationship between two things but causality is hard to prove.
"Air quality and dementia have a plausal relationship".
The bar for plausation is much lower, yet many correlates still won't meet it. "Bad air quality causes dementia" is a categorically different statement than "ice cream sales cause shark attacks", if we establish the category of plausal relationships.
The first exercise in my O'Reilly book (released next month) is to build a pm25 forecast using basic ML (features are weather and lagged air quality). Code is available here:
swayvil•23h ago
(And this says nothing about the effects of noise pollution or aesthetic pollution)
EDIT
Oh come on, it's the obvious conclusion. So discuss already.
amanaplanacanal•21h ago
For example, in my state there is a specific more rural area which has a high incidence if heating with wood stoves, and they have higher air pollution that other more urban areas.
Another possibility is that urban areas are richer on average, and therefore might have better air filtration systems in homes and businesses than poorer rural areas. You can't tell without actually gathering the data.
gausswho•21h ago
plorkyeran•21h ago
On average the air quality is worse in cities than in rural areas, but at least in the United States the difference is smaller than you might expect. In countries that do not take urban air pollution seriously it gets very bad, of course.
J_Shelby_J•18h ago