Billions of People Still Breathe Unhealthy Air: New WHO Data (who.int) 55
An anonymous reader shares a report:
Almost the entire global population (99%) breathes air that exceeds WHO air quality limits, and threatens their health. A record number of over 6000 cities in 117 countries are now monitoring air quality, but the people living in them are still breathing unhealthy levels of fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, with people in low and middle-income countries suffering the highest exposures. The findings have prompted the World Health Organization to highlight the importance of curbing fossil fuel use and taking other tangible steps to reduce air pollution levels.
Released in the lead-up to World Health Day, which this year celebrates the theme Our planet, our health, the 2022 update of the World Health Organization's air quality database introduces, for the first time, ground measurements of annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a common urban pollutant and precursor of particulate matter and ozone. It also includes measurements of particulate matter with diameters equal or smaller than 10 um (PM10) or 2.5 um (PM2.5). Both groups of pollutants originate mainly from human activities related to fossil fuel combustion. The new air quality database is the most extensive yet in its coverage of air pollution exposure on the ground. Some 2,000 more cities/human settlements are now recording ground monitoring data for particulate matter, PM10 and/or PM2.5, than the last update. This marks an almost 6-fold rise in reporting since the database was launched in 2011.
Released in the lead-up to World Health Day, which this year celebrates the theme Our planet, our health, the 2022 update of the World Health Organization's air quality database introduces, for the first time, ground measurements of annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a common urban pollutant and precursor of particulate matter and ozone. It also includes measurements of particulate matter with diameters equal or smaller than 10 um (PM10) or 2.5 um (PM2.5). Both groups of pollutants originate mainly from human activities related to fossil fuel combustion. The new air quality database is the most extensive yet in its coverage of air pollution exposure on the ground. Some 2,000 more cities/human settlements are now recording ground monitoring data for particulate matter, PM10 and/or PM2.5, than the last update. This marks an almost 6-fold rise in reporting since the database was launched in 2011.
Re: (Score:3)
"exceeds WHO air quality limits", where does that say poison? May mean something that significantly increases your chance of dying from some nasty lung disease 10 or 50 years from now.
Re: (Score:3)
https://www.axios.com/urban-ai... [axios.com]
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The transition to clean energy is worth it for global warming but it's also worth it for this.
Clean energy and PM 2.5 pollution don't necessarily overlap.
For example most transportation related pollution is from brakes and tires not combustion. EVs weigh something like 1000lbs more than comparable ICE vehicles which increase particulate pollution.
The solution is better control over emission sources which may or may not have anything at all to do with the production of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
"most transportation related pollution is from brakes and tires not combustion", let's see your cite.
Re: (Score:1)
"most transportation related pollution is from brakes and tires not combustion", let's see your cite.
https://uk-air.defra.gov.uk/as... [defra.gov.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
Fail. Obviously there are non-exhaust emissions, so what?
"most transportation related pollution is from brakes and tires not combustion", let's see your cite.
Re: (Score:3)
Fail. Obviously there are non-exhaust emissions, so what?
The reason for the reference is it supports my assertion most transportation related 2.5 pollution is NOT from combustion.
"Data from the UK National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory
indicate that particles from brake wear, tyre wear and road surface wear currently constitute 60% and 73% (by mass), respectively, of primary PM2.5 and PM10 emissions from road transport"
Re: (Score:1)
Supports no such thing. I am not your penpal.
Re: (Score:2)
Supports no such thing. I am not your penpal.
I disagree. More interesting quotes from referenced report.
"Without any NEE abatement this trend is predicted to continue so that by 2030, the non-exhaust sources will contribute to 94% of total UK road transport emissions of PM10 and 90% of PM2.5"
"On the other hand, Timmers and Achten (2016) report that the lower energy storage density of electric batteries compared with liquid fuels contribute to a ~24% increase in mass of electric vehicles compared with equivalent conventional vehicles, although mass in
Re: (Score:1)
"94% of total UK road transport emissions of PM10 and 90% of PM2.5"
So nothing.
"most transportation related pollution is from brakes and tires not combustion", let's see your cite.
Re: (Score:2)
"by 2030", "total UK" only, and "PM10 and 90% of PM2.5" emissions only. You have cherrypicked a report that doesn't even assess all current emissions, and does not address pollution effects in countries that are not densely populated like the UK. The WHO report clearly focuses on NO2, which does spread for considerable distances and is generated from burning fossil fuels.
"most cities have trouble with nitrogen dioxide"
"About 4000 cities/human settlements in 74 countries collect NO2 data at ground level. Agg
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good point: EVs do produce more particulate pollution. That's one of many reasons why I think EVs are not going to do much to save us from environmental degradation. In cities at least, a more effective response would be better public transport & infrastructure, & better urban planning for new builds, e.g. no more sprawling suburbs that lock residents into using cars as the only viable means of living there.
I think it would be best to control harmful emissions at their source such that all vehicles benefit from changes. Buses emit the same 2.5 pollution. People standing outside waiting for the bus are especially vulnerable to exposure to high levels. From studies I've seen the same applies to underground subway systems where people are routinely being exposed to high levels of PM 2.5.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Excess deaths seems a poor way to communicate chronic problems. After all, without the problem a similar number of people would have survived from previous years to die this year, and the total would be about the same (assuming a stable population size). Life is a wasting disease with a 100% mortality rate. It's not possible to save lives, only extend them.
A more meaningful statistic would be the change in life expectancy. That lets you assess reasonably accurately assess what price people pay for expos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because people in low and middle-income countries don't have the benefit of government enforcement of clean air regulations. And in those same places, burning trash that contains plastics and rubber is common for disposal, and super shitty for air quality.
Re: (Score:2)
Pollution triggers asthma [asthma.org.uk]
Heart attacks also reduced during the pandemic due to less pollution and people wearing masks. [medicalnewstoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Quite amazing that "99%" of the world's population is breathing poison and not keeling over.
Or maybe the limits are a tad more idealised than can be readily provided in this imperfect world.
Actually the average person does keel over about 2 years sooner than they would otherwise [phys.org]. I don't know what the effects to quality of life are... but I don't imagine they're great either.
If we mastered biofuels to the extent that gas vehicles were carbon neutral then we'd still need to rapidly transition to electric cars just to cut down on city air pollution.
Re: (Score:3)
If we mastered biofuels to the extent that gas vehicles were carbon neutral then we'd still need to rapidly transition to electric cars just to cut down on city air pollution.
Nope. It is clear you do not understand the chemical process combustion. Clean burning fuels that are efficiently burned (with good fuel/air ratios) will not output anything more than CO2 and H2O. In fact, if you removed all the shit additives they put into gasoline, the reaction would look like this:
C8H18 + O2 = H2O + CO2
Gasoline + Air = Water + Carbon Dioxide
Before anyone comments on the pollution CO2 causes, hold your breath. CO2 is what you breathe out as well. So does your dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and it turns out that biofuels have additives too [acs.org] because running a modern combustion engine is more complicated than a simple equation.
Nope. You don't understand how fuels work either? (Assuming the AC is quantaman)
There are blends in fuel to prevent hexane (most prevalent hydrocarbon in gasoline) from prematurely combusting, but C8H16 is not Hexane (thats C6H14). Octane is C8H16. If you put pure octane in your car, you will not knock your engine, or fail it, so long as it is unleaded (which is what we are trying to get to anyway, just pure fuel. You probably do not believe me, so... read this [flowracers.com]. It will spell it out. Essentially it is wa
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, and it turns out that biofuels have additives too [acs.org] because running a modern combustion engine is more complicated than a simple equation.
Nope. You don't understand how fuels work either? (Assuming the AC is quantaman)
There are blends in fuel to prevent hexane (most prevalent hydrocarbon in gasoline) from prematurely combusting, but C8H16 is not Hexane (thats C6H14). Octane is C8H16. If you put pure octane in your car, you will not knock your engine, or fail it, so long as it is unleaded (which is what we are trying to get to anyway, just pure fuel. You probably do not believe me, so... read this [flowracers.com]. It will spell it out. Essentially it is way more expensive, with no performance gain, but nothing wrong with an engine burning nothing but Octane. Gasoline is just a blend of various hydrocarbons that when burned will make some some parts CO2 and some parts H2O. The additives are for fuel stability over time. There are some other additives for cold climates, various detergents to handle impurities, and (the worst ones) oxygenate blending, which reduce carbon monoxide emissions in poorly tuned engines that run "fuel rich" rather than oxygen rich, or "lean" .
I saw nothing in that article about biofuels or even high octane fuels significantly reducing particulate emissions. I've looked around a bit myself and really that article I included seemed to be the best one for your case.
Certainly there's going to be some reduction, but even if it's 75% (far higher than anything I've seen) that's still a major air quality issue in cities. I don't see any evidence that a switch to biofuels means we can have ICE cars that don't create (non CO2) air pollution.
Re: Amazing! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but not because of the gasoline. Because of the shitty engines that run them.
All engines are shitty by that definition.
If engines were always tuned (or self-tuning like a Mercedes Bens S-class saloon),
Oh my fucking god. You think that only Mercedes are self-tuning? You absolute fucking noob, you know literally nothing about cars, please fuck off from talking about them immediately. Literally every car is self tuning. They literally build new fueling maps from observations of performance. These multi-dimensional maps take into account around a dozen sensors on the average vehicle.
But, either way. The point remains. You cant say burning more is worse, and then say the poorer countries are hit harder.
Poorer countries need better technology more because burning more is fucking killing
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's basically impossible to make a clean-burning engine. You can't practically run at stoichiometric ratio or leaner with a petrol engine because the mixture needs to be richer than that to ignite reliably, so you have to run the engine rich and hope unburned and partially burned fuel completes combustion in the catalytic converter. Also, running leaner produces more NOx, which you're also hoping the catalytic converter will clean up, or relying on something like diesel exhaust treatment fluid. You
Re: (Score:3)
>C8H18 + O2 = H2O + CO2
That's the ideal chemistry formula, reality isn't so tidy. In reality even without any additives it's all but impossible to get complete combustion, even in an ideal laboratory setting, much less inside a mostly-neglected engine. Instead you get a lot of shorter partially burned hydrocarbon chains, some of which end up linking up with each other in all sorts of complex shapes. End result, you get lots of soot and tar and other weird organic molecules in the exhaust. That's one
Re: (Score:2)
This is the time I wish Slashdot had react emojis so I could record my laughter at your comment more rapidly.
Perfect combustion never actually occurs, so you're completely and totally off-base. Also, all ICEs burn oil. Literally all of them. It literally cannot be avoided. They all do it all the time. And in order to function, especially in modern engines, lubricant oil needs all kinds of additives.
As for gasoline, most of what they put in it today is ethanol, which in a perfect world would burn very cleanl
Recursive stupidity (Score:1)
> Quite amazing that "99%" of the world's population is breathing poison and not keeling over.
It just makes them dumb and thus makes them vote for dumb politicians who make the problem worse.
Hot Air Solution (Score:2)
"Hey, if you guys are worried about people breathing in bad air, why not just recommend everyone wear a mas.."
*SMACK* *SLAP* *SMACK* *PUNCH*
"exceeds WHO air quality limits" (Score:2)
I doubt that unless you're 12,000 feet above sea level that there are many places in the world that would meet this so-called standard.
Another Dog Whistle like the IPCC and anything else the UN dreams up and we have to wind up paying for.
Here's an idea, stop having so many damn kids!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Deal with the top 50 on this list. [worldpopul...review.com] and then bitch.
Isn't Dyson making a mask for this? (Score:1)
I was thinking, why not invest in Dyson, since they've got a product for this exact reason [slashdot.org]. Alas, it's not to be, a quick Google search revealed there's no stonks. Another investment opportunity foiled by the company being private. I guess we're not going to the moon today.
I wonder if we can convince GameStop to get into air filters, since physical gaming media is pretty much on the out these days?
Re: (Score:2)
No one was going to wear that Dyson Bane mask. Not statistically, but literally.
Someone needs to make a breathing mask that looks cool. So far, no good.
Really? (Score:3)
And the bosses wants us to return to the office and pollute for hours stuck in traffic?
For twice the price than before the pandemic?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see blue states* pass laws against requiring people to come into the office every day of the week unless there's a clear reason that can't be reasonably worked around.
At my workplace I could work from home at least 2 days of the week without a notable productivity loss.
Maybe a carrot to give to industry is that employers can pay say 3% less for the telework days. It's not really a loss to employees because they generally save on commute costs.
* I already know red states will balk loudly, I've wr
Re: (Score:2)
The money I save on commuting by working from home is roughly balanced by the extra electricity costs, and is about 0.5% of my salary.
Re: (Score:1)
A day of working a PC costs about the same as driving a car for about an hour? That makes no sense.
Who are the lucky 1%? (Score:2)
If 99% of people are breathing unhealthy air, who are the lucky few who aren't? And how does their life expectancy compare?
Re: (Score:2)
The ones not breathing unhealthy air, are the ones not breathing. They are dead. They have passed their life expectancy.
I'm Dead Then? (Score:2)
No-one I have ever known has suffered from air pollution, although, collectively, they have had plenty of other ailments. Pretty sure I am not in the 1% area either.
And CO2? (Score:2)
It's quite telling that the elephant in the room is entirely missing from the study: CO2.
Our body is designed for 300ppm CO2, and we're now at 400ppm. There are studies showing that part-time exposure to 800ppm causes cognitive deficits. But to the best of my knowledge, there are no studies investigating the effect of 24/7 lifelong exposure to 400ppm+.
The WHO should/could make itself useful and urgently call for or conduct themselves these studies.
PMs and nitric acids of course are important too, but an
Re: (Score:3)
Our body is designed for 300ppm CO2, and we're now at 400ppm. There are studies showing that part-time exposure to 800ppm causes cognitive deficits. But to the best of my knowledge, there are no studies investigating the effect of 24/7 lifelong exposure to 400ppm+.
CO2 has been studied for decades in specialized settings (aircraft, submarines) and buildings with concentrations literally over an order of magnitude higher. Thus far the available evidence shows it is safe with no ill effects. Short term "cognitive deficits" disappear as people acclimate. Although there have been surprises for example on ISS CO2 was eventually limited to 500ppm due to minor issues specific to weightlessness.
The standard default for building climate control systems is typically 800ppm n
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for your valid points, but I'm not convinced.
Do you have a citation that the cognitive effects disappear with acclimatization, and the
ISS limit?
We'd really want to be sure that the high concentration is safe for *everyone*, including young
kids, old and/or sick people. Exposure in aircraft is only short, and in submarines you'll mostly
find healthy young males. Not representative.
I maintain that proper evaluation would require lifelong exposure and careful observation and comparison
in a sample size i