Comments
swiftcleaner t1_ixfgut6 wrote
Is there anything that can be done for air pollution? I started wearing masks walking in the city but someone mentioned that plastic masks make you inhale microplastics, does a N95 work?
We’re truly living in a dystopian world at the moment
newpua_bie t1_ixfzpw2 wrote
Move away or live your life inside with air purifiers as much as possible?
Depressing but that's the only way I'm aware of.
Funktastic34 t1_ixgbusz wrote
Forgot to add all the microplastics we eat from food sources too
ZippyDan t1_ixibw8e wrote
That isn't getting in our lungs though. Not directly anyway.
Strazdas1 t1_ixgtvn9 wrote
there will be more microplastics in unfiltered air than filtered one with a mask like that. wearing N95 everywhere can be expensive if done properly. Its one time use for 2 hours then you put on a new one.
[deleted] t1_ixfn4jx wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixg9rja wrote
[removed]
asdaaaaaaaa t1_ixh3rzd wrote
I'm sure you can have some impact through precautions and such, but without living entirely in a heavily filtered, airtight bunker, you're going to get exposed. Sure, living in the country is much better than a major city, but I'd imagine this is just one of those things most people can't afford to drastically change on a whim.
ShadowController t1_ixg1snq wrote
Really makes me wonder what kind of future impact all the summers on the West Coast full of wildfire smoke will have on health down the line.
lurkerfromstoneage t1_ixge013 wrote
Yup… Seattle here too. I LOATHE fire season…like this past end of summer into fall Sept-Oct with all the fires burning in our region and the AQI was in the 100’s and 200’s for well over a month, nearly two- some days clocking the worst in the world. And 2020 similar smoke intensity. But what absolutely stymies me is the lack of awareness and precautions people actually take. The sky can be murky heavy smog with limited visibility, everything a thick smoky gray to the point you can’t even see the tops of buildings yet people of all ages and activities just carry on. Announcements are made on the news yet people just don’t care. Masks became such a highly controversial topic but it sucks that more people won’t use N95s (or better) but too many just think “eh, no big deal I’ll be fine.” Or “my kids are healthy.” While people continue to work and exercise outdoors, not even half the population has AC in their homes, These worsening fire seasons would be one hinge on me moving out away from the West. Poor AQI is hazardous to everyone, whether they accept it or not. I know for sure it makes me feel like garbage!
nathanfay t1_ixhe59q wrote
Someone told me one time that "if it's natural it's fine" as if only man could create a substance harmful to the body
adfthgchjg t1_ixiwb6w wrote
Whoever told you “if it’s natural, it’s fine” is an idiot. Arsenic is natural. So is lead. In fact, even asbestos is natural (it’s mined, not made in a factory).
nathanfay t1_ixk2uer wrote
Oh yeah I hear you loud and clear on that. He was the kind of person to eat Vaseline so I didn't exactly take him all that serious
Insufferablelol t1_ixgr9ev wrote
Isn't wildfire smoke like 10x worse than cigarettes or something?
Strazdas1 t1_ixgtyyt wrote
only in a sense that its much thicker and theres lots of it. A cigarette is what, 5 minutes filtered smoke and youre done. a firest fire is 5 days nonstop poisoning.
asdaaaaaaaa t1_ixh41a7 wrote
I'd imagine wildfire smoke is probably a lot less worse than industrial/residential smoke as well, due to it mainly being burning wood/organics. With actual buildings and stuff, there's so many things not meant to burn, or off-gas some pretty terrible stuff just due to being plastic or some other commonly used material. Would be interesting to see a study on the differences over a longer period of time.
Strazdas1 t1_ixh4f07 wrote
A house fire does include hazardous smoke, but they tend to produce a lot less exhaust mass than a burning forest. Note that the #1 pollutant in cities used to be people using wood in their stoves.
ZippyDan t1_ixibt7v wrote
I don't know why you would think that "natural" burned stuff is somehow "better" than "artificial" burned stuff. I mean, it could be, and certainly some artificial stuff is really nasty, but it's all really bad to be breathing in. It's not like we were "designed" to breathe in "organic" smoke. It's all bad.
asdaaaaaaaa t1_ixh3wv9 wrote
Just look towards cities that already regularly sit in the 250-500 range on the pollution maps, it's not good.
moeru_gumi t1_ixh7sdh wrote
That, and all the people who live or lived in parts of Asia where the human and car and pollution density is unreal.
No_Fun_2020 t1_ixg4g5s wrote
I've been living in a downtown area my whole life almost, I can feel the pollution and I can smell the difference when I leave. I don't know what to do about it and I'm scared. I don't want to die of cancer
[deleted] t1_ixg680m wrote
[deleted]
nathanfay t1_ixhedep wrote
How does Broccoli flush away toxins?
No_Fun_2020 t1_ixhgd34 wrote
Well I'm not constantly in fear, I'm just aware of the danger and don't want cancer and living downtown I think doesn't help with avoiding toxins.
Unfortunately, moving is easier said than done. We live in one of the most expensive cities in the United States, however we are rent controlled. We pay about 50% less than the average person in the same city, If we move out of the city into the county, there is no rent control and things are pretty expensive.
My wife and I, both are jobs specialize in state based law, We are working to broaden our scope however this takes time.
lauromclauroface t1_ixik9gp wrote
It obviously depends upon how dense an urban area you live in, traffic levels and greenspace, but altering your routes to work / around town can lower your exposure to the worst particulate pollution levels. Street-to-street variations can be quite large.
No_Fun_2020 t1_ixinmps wrote
That's pretty interesting and good to know. It's not like I drive an open top vehicle or anything either but I have to take the highway a lot and drive a lot for work
Is there a big difference if I put air filters capable of filtering VOCs in the house?
Smittywerbenjagerman t1_ixipntb wrote
VOCs aren't the big concern, it's small particulate matter.
PM 2.5 is the most commonly reported air pollution statistic. That is the concentration of particles 2.5 micrometer or smaller in size.
A good HEPA filter will remove most of this.
theweightoflostlove t1_ixgfy8o wrote
Stunned to see that level of infiltration. Poor little lymph nodes.
Present-Still t1_ixj6xa8 wrote
Yup I’m 90% sure I’m not having kids and gonna try to enjoy the ride out on this crazy journey
West coast fire summers are bad. Our index was over 500 within the last few years (550-650) which is off the scale. I can’t imagine anything to mitigate health risks in my life will be helpful compared to the damage from smoke
alwayspissedoff t1_ixh25l9 wrote
You want candidates for lifetime exposure to pollution, you go to New Delhi. 40+Million people with AQI beyond tolerable levels for months.
AutoModerator t1_ixer0pj wrote
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[deleted] t1_ixewtki wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixfgoi0 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_ixfil7a wrote
[removed]
Jaqosaurus t1_ixh1g8d wrote
I'd be interested to see a comparison where adults have lived their lives in different areas (urban vs rural) for example.
erc_82 t1_ixi5t2m wrote
I grew up in a farming community, and cancer among parents at my very small high school was unusually common. I've brought this up to others who grew up in similar areas and found this to be the case for as well . I know this is super anecdotal, but felt it is worth mentioning. Rural, out in the mountains/woods probably isn't the same as rural farming areas due to pesticides and other factors
[deleted] t1_ixh7vis wrote
[removed]
Forsaken_Violinist71 t1_ixfv8xq wrote
Like it or not: thanks elon for make Tesla the revolutionary company that started the true EV car revolution (not that leaf Toyota joke).
aecpgh t1_ixfwj1w wrote
Tire and brake dust makes up the vast majority of car related air pollution and the emphasis on cars in general reduces resources for mass transit which are much more efficient in terms of reducing pollution.
BigBadBossLady t1_ixfxlyk wrote
This. Why do we all need cars if we could just have efficient public transit or trains?
aecpgh t1_ixg2op2 wrote
check forsaken violinist's post history--it's probably a bot
MRCHalifax t1_ixhmp8y wrote
We don’t all need vehicles. But we probably do need some vehicles as a society. When my brother wants to haul in soil or haul out yard waste, or when I want to get furniture from IKEA, we’re going to want a truck. But there’s no reason for either of us to own a truck for those things we do only a few days a year. Some combination of rentals, a car/truck share program, or an Uber style of thing fills out needs. And on the other hand, my father needs to haul a large trailer full of equipment around the province on a daily basis - he absolutely needs a truck.
London in the 1850s had about 10,000 private vehicles for a population of 1,000,000. People took the autobus, the trains, or just walked. If we could get to the point where less than 5% of the population had a personal vehicle, we’d be doing pretty good and could cut out a lot of CO2 emissions.
Strazdas1 t1_ixgu0w8 wrote
because american car companies have sold the ideo to the people.
InternetSam t1_ixfzj0t wrote
Because I need to haul equipment for work and I’m not loading up a bus or train with music equipment. I’d love better public transport for the majority of people who almost exclusively use a car to haul themselves, combined with a robust rental car system when someone wants to go on a road trip or needs to haul occasionally.
BigBadBossLady t1_ixfzpsu wrote
Yeah for sure certain people need private vehicles. I'm just saying if things worked a little better many more ppl would use public transport.
r4vster t1_ixgmwyd wrote
Cars will always be a thing. Unfortunately cities have been designed around them and a lot of people don't have quick and easy access to public transport. I would love to see a shift to trains/bikes/walking but I don't have high hopes
Strazdas1 t1_ixgu29i wrote
then you need a work hauler, not a personal car.
InternetSam t1_ixhhqx7 wrote
What does that even mean? To carry 3 guitars and a PA I need a separate vehicle?
[deleted] t1_ixfwrri wrote
[removed]
snookers t1_ixfya5n wrote
Electric vehicles rarely apply traditional brakes, unfortunately their weight does seem to mean a bit more frequent tire replacement. I wonder how close to neutral these are in comparison to ice cars.
aecpgh t1_ixg0vxx wrote
About 2000x more particulate pollution comes from tires than from combustion exhaust. Of course there are things that are uniquely bad about exhaust like NOx etc, but I don't think switching to EVs will make much of a dent in particulate pollution specifically
filosoful OP t1_ixer6gu wrote
The diminished power of the immune system in older adults is usually blamed on the aging process. But a new study by Columbia immunologists shows that decades of particulate air pollution also take a toll.
The study found that inhaled particles from environmental pollutants accumulate over decades inside immune cells in lymph nodes associated with the lung, eventually weakening the cells’ ability to fight respiratory infections.
The findings—published Nov. 21 in Nature Medicine—offer a new reason why individuals become more susceptible to respiratory diseases with age.
>Older people are particularly susceptible to infectious and neoplastic diseases of the lung and it is unclear how lifelong exposure to environmental pollutants affects respiratory immune function. In an analysis of human lymph nodes (LNs) from 84 organ donors aged 11–93 years, we found a specific age-related decline in lung-associated, but not gut-associated, LN immune function linked to the accumulation of inhaled atmospheric particulate matter. Increasing densities of particulates were found in lung-associated LNs with age, but not in the corresponding gut-associated LNs. Particulates were specifically contained within CD68+CD169− macrophages, which exhibited decreased activation, phagocytic capacity, and altered cytokine production compared with non-particulate-containing macrophages. The structures of B cell follicles and lymphatic drainage were also disrupted in lung-associated LNs with particulates. Our results reveal that the cumulative effects of environmental exposure and age may compromise immune surveillance of the lung via direct effects on immune cell function and lymphoid architecture.