Etcetera

We've killed the air, now it's killing us.

shane.

Posted to Etcetera on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 02:31:36 PM EST (promoted by port1080). RSS.

Air pollution kills 2.4 million people each year.

In Canada there are 6000 yearly deaths due to do short-term exposure to air pollution (here is more discussion of the Canadian stats - by contrast, air pollution is estimated to cause about 70,000 excess deaths a year in the US).   Air pollution can cause such health issues as asthma, heart attack, stroke, bronchitis, emphysema and it also results global warming!  Sources of air pollution include automobiles, factories, oil sands, marine vehicles, military vehicles, wood heated homes and more.   The biggest contribution is from automobiles. A [2006] study examined the economic value of reducing the health effects of air pollution by introducing cleaner vehicles and fuels in Canada.  This study found that the economic value of avoiding these health effects was $24 billion over a period of 24 years,  compared to a cost of $6 billion to implement the program.  

Given all this what are you doing to reduce air pollution?

Tags: edited by Port1080, written by shane, environment, air pollution (all tags)

This story: 13 comments (7 from subqueue)
Post a Comment
5

From the subq

Lou.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:33:18 PM EST

4.80 (interesting, funny, interesting)

I had to chuckle at Z's comments and their implication that  40 or 100 deaths per 100,000 is no big deal.  I look forward to something from Gordon saying that more people die from smoking pot or aids or whatever.

Perhaps the folks who see a problem when the air and seas turn against us are wearing blinders.  If we want to get the business uber alles folks on-board perhaps we should be parsing this information in terms of lost productivity.  That's right...forget about the lost lives.  Think about how much it would cost to re-train each person lost in such a manner...or to hire a new replacement while the victim is slowly dying.  I would be curious to see how profit would be lost as a result of this trend.

Lost profits, slower productivity, fewer people buying things...that's how to get their attention.  Human suffering?  Not so much.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

10

^ 5

Re: From the subq

zyxwvutsr.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 07:11:47 PM EST

4.33 (funny, funny, funny)

I'm concerned aboot our Canadian friends. There are only 2-3 million of them all told, and they can't afford to lose 6,000 a year from airborne particulates.

4

I'm smoking, that's what I'm doing

Steve Urkel.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:28:40 PM EST

4.66 (interesting, interesting, interesting)

The 6,000 deaths due to short term exposure can be comapred to the 1,000 deaths caused by long term exposure to second hand smoke (or is it 800 deaths? Or is it 2000?). Given how much more deadly automobiles are just from pollution (let alone when they run people over), cars should be banned for health reasons.  It also shows, as researchers in Japan where the medical establishment does not have such an anti-smoking bias, that the effects of SHS are easily outweighed by background pollution.

6

^ 4

Re: I'm smoking, that's what I'm doing

delete me.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:39:01 PM EST

4.00 (funny, funny, funny)

My youngest sister went to go see our siblings in Japan and Okinawa a few years back. My family there pretty much all chain smoke. They took a look at the content list of her American brand cigarettes and remarked on how her cigarettes were going to kill her.

I guess the moral of the story is that all you smokers should save yourselves and switch to Mild Sevens or something.

- derumi (del-me)
"Bobby Fischer? Man, that guy is crazy!" - Mike Tyson

7

^ 6

Re: I'm smoking, that's what I'm doing

Steve Urkel.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:45:44 PM EST

4.00 (funny, interesting, astute)

I don't think Mild Sevens are any better for you. Besides, they taste funny.

9

^ 6

Re: I'm smoking, that's what I'm doing

thefadd.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 05:05:17 PM EST

3.66 (astute, interesting, interesting)

galouise blonde. second hand smoke from a marlboro gives me a crippling headache, let alone actually smoking an american cigarette. roll your own tobacco on organic paper or light up one those and I feel virtually refreshed.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

12

^ 4

cars

skeptic.

Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 09:35:01 AM EST

4.00 (interesting)

It is not necessary to ban cars in order to bring an end to the air pollution that cars are currently generating; there are non-polluting car engines available, either electric or hydrogen powered.  Of course, the electricity or the hydrogen still have to be generated or produced, and those processes can be just as polluting as the gasoline engines which they are intended to replace - but they don't have to be.  We can use benign sources of electric generation (solar power is the most benign although there are others; nuclear power does not produce air pollution except in the case of accidents, which hopefully can be avoided by running the power plants more carefully).  And hydrogen can be created benignly as well, electrically.  So technically, it can be done.  All we need is the will to do it.

13

^ 12

Re: cars

JimmyHavok.

Sun Feb 10, 2008 at 09:09:47 PM EST

4.50 (interesting, interesting)

A fixed power generation facility can also afford to have a lot larger and more effective pollution-scrubbing system than an engine that needs to be carried around.  For instance, there's no way you could set up a practical carbon-sequestering system on a car, but you could theoretically do it on a generator.

2

Better Cars

thefadd.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:18:51 PM EST

4.50 (astute, interesting)

European car companies are already suggesting that cars gaining less than 35mpg be banned from manufacture there. I fully expect cars to be significantly, significantly cleaner within 10 years. Another 8 years of an administration friendly to the concerns of the environment and the market demand is already there to make some serious progress in environmental affairs. We're by no means out of the woods yet (at least there are still woods) but I think the markets really are aligned to cut emissions in the developed world. Southeast Asia is another matter.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

1

Re: We've killed the air, now it's killing us.

jwb.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:06:57 PM EST

4.40 (astute, interesting, brilliant)

Compare and contrast the number of people who have died from causes attributable to nuclear power.

3

^ 1

Re: We've killed the air, now it's killing us.

shane.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 03:21:45 PM EST

4.00 (astute, interesting, interesting)

Compare the half life of nuclear waste to that of air pollution.

8

^ 3

Re: We've killed the air, now it's killing us.

jwb.

Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 04:16:33 PM EST

5.00 (astute, astute, interesting)

Indeed, compare it.  Given current levels of CO2 and rates of CO2 output, the seas will be absorbing CO2 and increasing in acidity for at least the next 25000 years.

11

Re: We've killed the air, now it's killing us.

skeeter1.

Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 08:58:14 AM EST

4.00 (astute, astute)

Well, here in Ohio, we've got a shit-load of coal-burning electric plants.  My small contribution so far has been to convert most of my lights to CFLs,  29 of them in total.  It's a start, and my electric bill has gone down by ~$20/mo. as well.

One of these days, my big-assed Oldsmobile is going to need replacing, and I'm thinking along the lines of a Honda Fit.  Four doors, seating for four adults, and fast enough.  That's all I require.  I really don't need the Cadillac Northstart engine any more (but it has been fun).

At any rate, I'm very conscious of the environment around me and doing my part to preserve it, one step at a time.

there's only one way to find out...

This story: 13 comments (7 from subqueue)
Post a Comment