Air Pollution Can Drive Devastating Forms of Dementia, Research Suggests (theguardian.com) 105
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Fine-particulate air pollution can drive devastating forms of dementia by triggering the formation of toxic clumps of protein that destroy nerve cells as they spread through the brain, research suggests. Exposure to the airborne particles causes proteins in the brain to misfold into the clumps, which are hallmarks of Lewy body dementia, the second most common form of dementia after Alzheimer's disease. The finding has "profound implications" for preventing the neurodegenerative disorder, which affects millions worldwide, with scientists calling for a concerted effort to improve air quality by cutting emissions from industrial activity and vehicle exhausts, improving wildfire management and reducing wood burning in homes.
The researchers began by analyzing hospital records of the 56.5 million US Medicare patients. They looked at those who were admitted for the first time between 2000 and 2014 with the protein damage. Armed with the patients' zip codes, the scientists estimated their long-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution, airborne particles that are smaller than 2.5 thousandths of a millimeter. These can be inhaled deep into the lungs and are found in the bloodstream, brain and other organs. They found that long-term exposure to PM2.5 raised the risk of Lewy body dementia, but had less of an impact on rates of another neurodegenerative brain disease that is not driven by the toxic proteins. Lewy bodies are made from a protein called alpha-synuclein. The protein is crucial for healthy brain functioning, but can misfold in various ways to produce different kinds of harmful Lewy bodies. These can kill nerve cells and cause devastating disease by spreading through the brain.
To see if air pollution could trigger Lewy bodies, the team exposed mice to PM2.5 pollution every other day for 10 months. Some were normal mice, but others were genetically modified to prevent them making alpha-synuclein. The results were striking: in normal mice, nerve cells died off, leading to brain shrinkage and cognitive decline. The genetically modified mice were largely unaffected. Further work in mice showed that PM2.5 pollution drove the formation of aggressive, resilient and toxic clumps of alpha-synuclein clumps that looked very similar to Lewy bodies in humans. Although the work is in mice, the findings are considered compelling evidence. The work has been published in the journal Science.
The researchers began by analyzing hospital records of the 56.5 million US Medicare patients. They looked at those who were admitted for the first time between 2000 and 2014 with the protein damage. Armed with the patients' zip codes, the scientists estimated their long-term exposure to PM2.5 pollution, airborne particles that are smaller than 2.5 thousandths of a millimeter. These can be inhaled deep into the lungs and are found in the bloodstream, brain and other organs. They found that long-term exposure to PM2.5 raised the risk of Lewy body dementia, but had less of an impact on rates of another neurodegenerative brain disease that is not driven by the toxic proteins. Lewy bodies are made from a protein called alpha-synuclein. The protein is crucial for healthy brain functioning, but can misfold in various ways to produce different kinds of harmful Lewy bodies. These can kill nerve cells and cause devastating disease by spreading through the brain.
To see if air pollution could trigger Lewy bodies, the team exposed mice to PM2.5 pollution every other day for 10 months. Some were normal mice, but others were genetically modified to prevent them making alpha-synuclein. The results were striking: in normal mice, nerve cells died off, leading to brain shrinkage and cognitive decline. The genetically modified mice were largely unaffected. Further work in mice showed that PM2.5 pollution drove the formation of aggressive, resilient and toxic clumps of alpha-synuclein clumps that looked very similar to Lewy bodies in humans. Although the work is in mice, the findings are considered compelling evidence. The work has been published in the journal Science.
close to home (Score:2)
One of my Uncles passed away last year with Lewy Body Dementia. He worked in downtown LA for decades.
He knew he had dementia and he knew he had lost most of his abilities. He was unhappy and he felt like a burden on everyone. All he talked for the last few months was how he wanted to just die.
I left Los Angeles because of the smog (Score:3)
Electriification massively helps (Score:5, Insightful)
Electrification does not completely solve this problem. But it makes a huge difference, because:
- Roughly half of PM2.5 comes from fossil fuel combustion (transport, industrial combustion, power generation, residential heating)
- Another 15% comes from wood burning
- Another 10% comes from non-tailpipe transport emissions, of which about half is brake dust
It’s crucial to remember that gaseous byproducts of fossil fuel combustion react in the atmosphere to form particles (eg SOx becomes surface particles).
Electrification substantially helps with all of this. It also helps cut noise pollution, which is another cause of significant morbidity and mortality.
Re: Electriification massively helps (Score:2)
Re: Electriification massively helps (Score:4, Informative)
No one is ignoring tire pollution - its bad for sure - but to claim tire pollution is worse than exhaust fumes is disingenuous and ignoring everything outside of PM2.5, and is yet another argument pushed by people with an agenda (oil companies and anti-green conservative types). Since I'm tired (heh) of making this argument, here is a refutation - https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/56783/do-car-tires-create-more-pollution-than-exhaust-fumes [stackexchange.com]
Re: (Score:3)
On top of that, tyre pollution is largely PM10 and not PM2.5, while brake dust actually is PM2.5 and is tiny bits of metal and so particularly bad for you. Tyre particles, because they’re heavier, stay suspended in the air for much less time than combustion byproducts, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. Air pollution is the main reason i got an EV.
How often do you change your tires now that you have an EV? Ever wonder where all the little tire bits end up? Into the air as PM 2.5 pollution.
With my first EV, I accelerated fast a lot and had to change my tires after 20k miles. With my next two EVs, I drove like I did with gas cars, and the tires lasted just as long. Now, looking at brake dust, all my EVs had significantly less brake wear.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey,
less than 2.5 micron you cannot see.
camp fires and wood stoves are not the problem
poke your head next to you tailpipe when the engine is under load, high rpm or very hot. what do you smell? your smelling the invisible less that 2 micron particulate from the various catalysts. Man up and tell us if you feel ill after 30 days.
do you really feel all mobile transportation needs a scrubber plant attached to the vehicle to clean up the tailpipe emissions? how much extra fuel does it take to run this scrub
Re: (Score:2)
I have absolutely no idea what that was all about. It wasn’t clear if you were agreeing or disagreeing with me, or why you were stating the bleeding obvious, such as PM2.5 particles being invisible to the naked eye
Re: (Score:1)
Itâ(TM)s crucial to remember that gaseous byproducts of fossil fuel combustion react in the atmosphere to form particles (eg SOx becomes surface particles).
So much of future electricity production is planned to be natural gas. Natural gas produces much less SOx and CO2 emissions than coal or oil but it's still higher than other sources. Here's a couple articles I could find showing the scale of how much natural gas generation is planned.
https://www.powermag.com/hundr... [powermag.com]
https://carboncredits.com/us-p... [carboncredits.com]
What I found notable in that last article was California plans 9 GW of new natural gas generation soon. Apparently they justify this as the new power plants a
Re: (Score:2)
"Another 10% comes from non-tailpipe transport emissions, of which about half is brake dust"
Electric cars almost never brake, Jay Leno told last week that his 14 year old Tesla's break pads look almost new.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that was my point. We can address the 5% of non-tailpipe transport emissions that come from brake dust by shifting to EVs.
Re:Electriification massively helps (Score:5, Informative)
No, EVs are better for brake emissions too as they use regenerative braking. This means the brake pads last much longer. They may be a bit worse on tyres but not massively so - EV drivers aren't buying new tyres every few months.
Re:Electriification massively helps (Score:4, Insightful)
It is really incredible that it’s 2025 and these people either have never heard of regen themselves, or think there’s an audience they can reach who haven’t heard of regen. On Slashdot
If they actually gave a fuck about tyre dust, they’d all be switching to superminis from their SUVs and pickups, walking and cycling much more and making fewer car journeys, and pushing for more investment in public transport. But they don’t give a shit about tyre dust, they just look for bullshit reasons to critique EVs as a means to carry on driving their giant dirty noisy trucks
Re: (Score:3)
It is really incredible that it’s 2025 and these people either have never heard of regen themselves, or think there’s an audience they can reach who haven’t heard of regen. On Slashdot
If they actually gave a fuck about tyre dust, they’d all be switching to superminis from their SUVs and pickups, walking and cycling much more and making fewer car journeys, and pushing for more investment in public transport. But they don’t give a shit about tyre dust, they just look for bullshit reasons to critique EVs as a means to carry on driving their giant dirty noisy trucks
Reminds me of the early days of Compact fluorescent lamps, when the stasis crew whined about mercury contamination. Often from an office with hundreds of 4 foot fluorescent tubes.
The EV tire dust hand wringing is just a dumb-ass talking point like EV fires. It's like IC vehicles don't have rubber tires or ever catch on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it’s just such an obvious and desperate ploy. It’s like when they talk about noise and say that tyre and wind noise is akshully louder than engine noise above 20mph, and roundly ignore:
1. That the combination of tyre/wind and engine noise is louder than tyre/wind noise alone
2. Most people live in urban settings where speeds are frequently below 20mph, so engine noise is more important
3. Large vehicles (vans and above) are disproportionately noisy and their switchover point between tyre/wind
Re: (Score:2)
IIUC, EV fires actually are a serious problem. Not a massive one, but a serious one. Serious enough that I read of a shipping line refusing to carry EVs.
Re: (Score:2)
If by serious, you mean that when an EV fire happens, it burns hotter and needs alternative methods to extinguish it, then sure. But risk = frequency times severity, and the frequency of EV fires is so much lower that the overall risk is much lower too.
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of the early days of Compact fluorescent lamps, when the stasis crew whined about mercury contamination.
It wasn't just that. I can recall going nearly insane wondering about what was keeping my IR remotes from working. The problem appeared at random. I could not blame it on dead batteries. Clearly the sun wasn't shining on the sensor to block out the signal. It turned out that it was the CFL I put in my lamp. I replaced that with LED and all was better.
Then is issues like the delay in coming to full brightness, early death from being put in anything but a well ventilated application like a table lamp, and the terrible color of light. There was plenty to hate about CFL.
I was happy to replace them when LED bulbs came out. Cold weather, even mounting angle could be a problem. But my point was that the stasis crew was saying that CFL's used Mercury, so should not be used.
Often from an office with hundreds of 4 foot fluorescent tubes.
Offices with 4 foot fluorescent tubes have maintenance staff trained in keeping these tubes out of the trash.
I worked for two places that did no such thing. They even replaced every tube on a 2 year service,
They will also have a contract with a solid waste company that can haul this away with minimal hassle.
Didn't happen in the cases either. They put the tubes in a bin, smashed them to reduce volume, and a
Re:Electriification massively helps (Score:5, Insightful)
An interesting point here is that this applies to hybrids and especially plug in hybrids, which are not much heavier than ICEs but also use regenerative breaking. I guess they may be closer to ICEs than thought.
Motor braking (Score:2)
Note: I'm not playing the devil advocate to say that EVs are a bad idea(*) compared to ICE.
I am merely playing the devil's advocate to point out that there's a kernel of truth underneath these poor arguments.
(*): Private cars in general are a bad idea compared to having an efficient and well designed public transport system.
Even an ICE bus would be more efficient than all its passengers each driving their own private car, and it only gets better with trolley bus, tramway, trains, etc.
But that requires have
Re: (Score:2)
Playing the devil's advocate:
ICEs (specially with a manual transmission as found often here around in Europe) also have ways to slow down without using the brakes, but instead having the wheels drag the motor:
motorbraking.
A long time ago when I asked my auto mechanic friend about the relative merits of downshifting instead of using brakes, he gave me a weird look and then asked me if I would rather change my brakes or my clutch. I stopped downshifting after that.
The Simpsons... (Score:2)
The Simpsons were prescient about this...although in elementary students.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
JoshK.
Never about smokers (Score:1)
These studies are almost always about outdoor air pollution, sometimes indoor, and never include smokers. The author of this one is Chinese and fully half of Chinese men are smokers. Here in the neighborhood of TSMC Arizona, most of the Chinese (Taiwan & occasional mainland spy), and many of the non-Chinese are all heavy smokers.
My guess is the rapid pace of C-suites & their supporters practically falling over themselves to legalize pot and get all that money is short-circuiting that. In my home sta
Re: (Score:2)
and indirectly inhaled by friends and family.
This is something that I think laws in Europe against smoking in public places has really changed. Smokers now expect to go outside to smoke and do it much less in front of their families, which is good.
Re: (Score:3)
There are 38 authors. The lead authors have Chinese names but are based in US medical schools, and I have not investigated whether they’re Chinese-born. In any event, lots of the other authors aren’t Chinese, and the study was of US citizens, not Chinese citizens, and the authors are actual scientists do actual science work, so they will have taken account of confounders.
Big Oil strikes once again (Score:4, Insightful)
Big Oil has made trillions selling a product that poisons the air and shortens lives. Burning gasoline and diesel spews fine particulates, nitrogen oxides, and carcinogenic compounds into every city on Earth, driving asthma, heart disease, and premature deaths. Oil refineries blanket nearby neighborhoods, usually poorer ones, with benzene and sulfur dioxide. The industry knew this decades ago, yet instead of warning the public, it spent millions funding doubt, blocking stricter emissions rules, and lobbying against cleaner alternatives.
This isn’t just pollution, it’s calculated harm. While governments struggle to clean up the mess, Big Oil continues to profit, externalizing the health and environmental costs onto everyone else. The technology to transition away from oil exists; what’s missing is the political will to break the grip of an industry built on selling poison as progress.
What a crock (Score:2)
"Big Oil has made trillions selling a product that poisons the air and shortens lives"
Big Oil provides the energy that people want, nothing more. What would you prefer, we all still burn coal and have steam engines, or maybe we all revert to a medieval lifestyle and travel around on horses?
"Burning gasoline and diesel spews fine particulates"
And who is driving all those vehicles? Clue - its you and me.
Yes, theres an issue with the pollution burning fossil fuel causes and we're doing something about that now
Re: (Score:2)
"Big Oil has made trillions selling a product that poisons the air and shortens lives"
Big Oil provides the energy that people want, nothing more. What would you prefer, we all still burn coal and have steam engines, or maybe we all revert to a medieval lifestyle and travel around on horses?
"Burning gasoline and diesel spews fine particulates"
And who is driving all those vehicles? Clue - its you and me.
Yes, theres an issue with the pollution burning fossil fuel causes and we're doing something about that now, but to imply that oil and its derivatives is nothing but bad is a juvenile mentality. Without oil you and I probably wouldn't have been born as the world would be a very different and backwards place.
Exactly. There is a subset of humanity who hates modern life while using every advantage it supplies.
There are issues that often need fixed, but they always seem to back themselves into a corner that requires a return to times where people lived to their early thirties - an age where people now feel like starting a family is the right time.
Re: (Score:2)
Big Oil is among the most unethical industries of the modern era because its business model depends on externalizing enormous social and environmental costs for private profit. For decades, major oil companies have known that burning fossil fuels destabilizes the climate, raises sea levels, and amplifies extreme weather events. Instead of warning the public or shifting to cleaner energy, they funded misinformation campaigns to cast doubt on climate science, lobbied against regulations, and delayed global ac
Re: (Score:2)
Remind us what the oil is used for.
Don't want Big Oil (whoever that is) to have Big Profits? Maybe for starters persuade your fellow americans not to drive around in pointless 3 ton pickups with gas guzzling v8 engines just to go shopping.
Re: (Score:1)
Remind us what the oil is used for.
Most is used for fuel but something like 15% is used for lubricants, fertilizers, plastics, and so much else. There's petroleum products in our food and medicine, and I don't mean micro-plastics, they are there intentionally.
While "synthetic oil" for lubricants are popular the raw material is still petroleum. To remove the influence of "Big Oil" we'd need technology to replace petroleum. Because Big Oil knows their income could end if the petroleum doesn't have a replacement soon enough they are the peop
Re:It's not a crock but your argument is (Score:2)
Your argument completely overestimates Big Oil’s willingness or capacity to drive a genuine transition away from petroleum. While it is true that petroleum is embedded in fuels, plastics, lubricants, and even pharmaceuticals, the claim that Big Oil is “most motivated” to find replacements ignores the structural incentives of the industry. Their profits come overwhelmingly from selling petroleum products; disruptive alternatives threaten those profits, not just gradually, but catastrophical
Re: (Score:1)
Finally, the notion that we need âoepeople with deep pocketsâ to beat Big Oil misses the point that regulatory frameworks, subsidies, and public investment are far more effective in creating systemic change than waiting for corporations motivated by profit to do the right thing voluntarily. History shows that transformative technological shiftsâ"renewable energy, electrification, plastics alternativesâ"rarely occur purely through existing industry incentives.
What is in place that keeps anyone from developing renewable energy, electrification, or plastic alternatives? I've seen people try to argue that ending subsidies on solar power was somehow an impediment. If solar power needs government money to be developed then that is just an indication of a lack of faith in the technology by private investors. I can't blame them, solar power development funds has not been giving the same kind of return on investment like it did in the past. It's almost like we are h
Re: (Score:2)
You’re just framing this in a way that ignores how technology actually matures and how markets actually behave. You speak as if innovation simply happens in a vacuum, free from policy, path dependency, or incumbents with massive lobbying power, but that’s not reality. First, you ask what keeps anyone from developing renewables or alternatives. You do realize that entrenched fossil fuel interests, the ones sitting on trillions in assets, actively lobby against competition, right? You don’t
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize that entrenched fossil fuel interests, the ones sitting on trillions in assets, actively lobby against competition, right?
They can lobby, that doesn't mean they get what they asked for.
Second, your dismissal of subsidies shows selective blindness. Fossil fuels have received, and still receive, enormous government subsidies, far larger and longer-lasting than what renewables get.
How much are these subsidies compared to energy output in BTU, KWh, or whatever unit you prefer? I've seen some numbers, nothing compares to the subsidies that solar power gets. Solar power is guaranteed a profit by the government while fossil fuels, nuclear fission, and most else have to fight for it.
To say that solar requiring temporary support implies weakness is either naÃve or dishonest. Every transformative technology, railroads, aviation, the internet, had government backing in its scaling phase. Economies of scale and infrastructure transitions are expensive, the payoff isnâ(TM)t instant. Pulling the plug midstream and then calling the technology âoeuncompetitiveâ is a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Okay, set the conditions on when the subsidies should end.
I've seen solar power get very generous subsidies for decades. A quick web search lea
Re: (Score:2)
For decades, arguments about energy have been warped by selective accounting and your relying on that and continuing it I see. Fossil fuel defenders always whine about “endless subsidies” for renewables while ignoring the trillions in hidden costs dumped on everyone else. Yes, governments have supported solar and wind, estimated to be about $15.6 billion in U.S. federal subsidies in 2022, but fossil fuels have enjoyed a far bigger, quieter subsidy: externalities. Air pollution, climate-driven di
Re: (Score:1)
If you need to reference my sources, I just googled everything so they're all easily found.
I'm tired of being told to "Google it" when it would have taken the slightest of effort to paste the links to sources.
I can Google something and get results that are completely different. One reason can be that by posting a comment on some topic the comment shows up in the results than the source referenced originally. I've seen it happen. Someone posts a comment, I search on what they want me to "Google", and their comment shows up in the results. Clearly the results change with time, and if it is a po
Re: (Score:2)
You’re complaining loudly, but the irony is that you’re proving the very point you claim to oppose: you’re demanding rigor from others while refusing to hold yourself to the same standard of basic intellectual discipline. You seem to think that if someone doesn’t hand you links on a silver platter, their argument is automatically worthless. That’s childish. Arguments stand or fall on their logic and evidence, not on whether someone spoon-fed you a clickable URL. You also confla
Re: (Score:1)
You seem to think that if someone doesnâ(TM)t hand you links on a silver platter, their argument is automatically worthless. Thatâ(TM)s childish. Arguments stand or fall on their logic and evidence, not on whether someone spoon-fed you a clickable URL.
You are not providing evidence though, you are asserting facts without evidence. You make an assertion, if I question that then I'm told to do my own research. How do you believe I got to where I am in my thinking without doing some research? The evidence doesn't have to be a clickable URL but as this is a web forum that would be the expected way to lead people to supporting evidence.
This isn't childish to ask for a source, if it were then it would not be cause to get marked down on classroom assignments
Re: (Score:2)
You’ve written a wall of text defending what boils down to an expectation that the burden of curiosity should always fall on someone else. You act as if asking for sources is a sacred right that absolves you from doing any legwork of your own, and you’re dressing it up as intellectual rigor. It isn’t. It’s you trying to outsource the cost of thinking.
You say you’ve “done the research,” but if that’s true, then you already know what evidence exists to challenge
Re: (Score:1)
So why the tantrum?
You are the latest of many on Slashdot to come with the same bullshit about how burden of evidence works. I'm venting publicly in the hopes some people will read it and learn, even if that is an audience of one. It's also an exercise to see how you and people like you think debate is supposed to be done online.
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that you’re frustrated and trying to make a point, but dismissing others as “the same bullshit” doesn’t advance the conversation. Debate online works best when people engage with ideas rather than venting at the messenger. If your goal is to have anyone, including yourself, reflect on how evidence and argumentation function, framing your critique around the substance of what’s said will be far more effective than attacking the person delivering it.
Re:Big Oil Is Evil (Score:2)
here we go with the trolling again.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.offshore-technolog... [offshore-technology.com]
https://oilprice.com/Energy/En... [oilprice.com]
https://www.vice.com/en/articl... [vice.com]
https://www.icij.org/investiga... [icij.org]
https://www.pressreader.com/us... [pressreader.com]
https://climateintegrity.org/l... [climateintegrity.org]
https://www.theage.com.au/inte... [theage.com.au]
https://www.economist.com/the-... [economist.com]
https://politicsofpoverty.oxfa... [oxfamamerica.org]
the list goes on
talk about denial, are you complicit in this, is that why you defend it?
Re: (Score:2)
So what? Any multinational trillion dollar industry would have the same issues. Don't want all this? Don't drive a car, use a diesel bus, fly anywhere, use any clothes made of synthetics, take any medicines unless made from herbs someone picked on foot etc etc etc. Oh, and that computer you're using , where do you think the plastics came from, not to mention most of the energy used in its production, Pixieland?
Grow up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Your argument sounds reasonable at first glance, but it quietly bakes in a false dilemma and leans on fear rather than facts. Yes, fossil fuels powered industrialization and mechanized agriculture but citing that past unethical and unsustainable contribution as justification for dragging our feet now is completely misleading. Nobody credible is suggesting we “stop cold turkey”; the real issue is that entrenched fossil fuel interests keep lobbying to delay action far beyond what science says is s
Re: (Score:1)
This isnâ(TM)t just pollution, itâ(TM)s calculated harm.
That's right, calculated.
They calculate the harm of the diesel trucks, trains, and buses. They calculate the harm of food, clothing, medicines, and people, not getting to where they are needed. Then they compare the harm of one to the harm of the other and find that the lesser harm is with the diesel vehicles.
I believe there will be a shift to diesel-electric in large vehicles on the road just as we've seen diesel-electric become popular with rail transport, get scaled up for ships and other vehicles, whi
Re: (Score:2)
Calculations that kill people and destroy ecosystems are unethical and unsustainable, those aren't calculations, those are exploitations and this is pseudo-conservatism. We don't gain anything by destroying it, not only that, not we're in an untenable situation and most of us are in complete denial about it, obviously.
This is already bad and it's getting worse and people refuse to take responsibility. Time to wake up and realize it's already too late and this is the age of consequences. The ship sank, there
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is shallow, fatalistic and conveniently absolves individual and political responsibility. Yes, humans are self-interested, but treating that as immutable absolves the very systems that can influence behavior: law, incentives, social norms, and public policy. Population dynamics are not entirely “uncontrollable”; fertility rates respond predictably to education, access to contraception, and economic opportunity. Ignoring that because “people will fuck and reproduce” is b
Re: (Score:2)
Your argument is riddled with obvious contradictions and selective reasoning, you dismiss responsibility as irrelevant while simultaneously lamenting political inaction, which exposes your own inability to connect human behavior with systemic influence, you reduce complex social dynamics to fatalism while simultaneously asserting technological inevitability, you claim tree hugging and marginal policies are irrelevant yet ignore that collective incremental action shapes markets, social norms, and political p
Re: (Score:2)
Calculations that kill people and destroy ecosystems are unethical and unsustainable, those aren't calculations, those are exploitations and this is pseudo-conservatism.
We do these calculations all the time. An extreme example is the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Estimates on people dead from that bombing can reach 250,000. The alternative was to continue fighting Japan as they were and see millions die.
If we are to consider options to fossil fuels then consider how many people die from putting up solar panels. Accidents happen and as much care as we take to avoid them people still die as a result.
I can think of a conversation I had while at university. My roommate a
Re: (Score:1)
You are conflating moral relativism with pragmatism. Dropping atomic bombs is not the same as installing solar panels or building houses; equating deliberate mass killing with industrial risk is morally and logically wrong. Accepting deaths as “inevitable” does not make you an adult, it makes you cynical. Your appeal to evolution to devalue men’s lives is reductionist and ethically dangerous. Caring about preventable harm isn’t childish; it’s responsible. True adulthood is not
Re: (Score:1)
You are conflating moral relativism with pragmatism. Dropping atomic bombs is not the same as installing solar panels or building houses; equating deliberate mass killing with industrial risk is morally and logically wrong.
It is the same thing. At least as Ben Kenobi said, "from a certain point of view."
There's no doubt that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan was intended to kill people, or at least there was no doubt that the destruction of factories and seaports would have had an inevitable high count of dead. It appears you missed the bombing was intended to avoid a far more deadly invasion of Japan by Allied forces. I have no doubt that there's people that will debate the morality of this attack until the end of
Re: (Score:2)
One wrong never justifies another. Decent people don't need to resort to violence in order to solve problems. Canadians have it good with universal healthcare. There's nothing quite like not having to worry about medical expenses and the taxes seem more than manageable. Some burdens are best shared.
Fusion or fission, it's all corporate malfeasance. Big energy just moves us further away from self-sufficiency and feeds corruption and control. Both contribute to cooking the planet by upsetting the equilibrium.
Re: (Score:1)
Canadians have it good with universal healthcare.
Have you met an actual Canadian? I'm guessing not.
I've seen Canadians, Britons, and so many others say they come to the USA for our healthcare. They warn Americans about taxpayer funded medicine. In large part because if they could not come to the USA then they'd not have much choice on where to go. Part of it is having a shared language. What other English speaking nation could they go to? India maybe?
Some people just never learn.
Yep. Oh, are we not talking about universal healthcare any more? Some people don't learn from hist
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Canadian, from Alberta, near Banff. Nobody goes to the US for healthcare unless they want to jump to the head of the que and they're in the upper class. No Canadian would ever trade our healthcare system for yours. Just ask any Canadian. Geez, language isn't the barrier you make it out to be. What I see from you is typical US nationalism, like America is actually a world leader. The only thing Americans excel at is putting people in jail and how much you spend on your military. By every other metric,
Re: (Score:1)
America Is the Greatest Country in The World
Then which country is the greatest in the world? Belgium?
I'm not sure the rest of your points are exactly something the USA should be ashamed about. Not without more context, such as what is the ideal to strive for. If you can't define the greatest country in the world, and defend that position, then... maybe America is the greatest after all. Being the best doesn't mean being perfect, it means being the "more perfect union" that we desired to be. If people can't believe their nation is the best then
Re: (Score:2)
the country you're in is good enough, comparing where you're at to other places is pointless because there's always better and or worse places, it's not where we're at, it's what we're making with what we have and where we are. A place is just a place
the USA can be good or not, but so can any other place
place is irrelevant, what's relevant is how you are in the place you're at
Re: (Score:1)
A place is just a place
American is not a place, it is an idea. A lot of people don't understand that, including many Americans.
Many nations define themselves by the land they share, the genetics they share (as in a nation is a kind of family clan), and indeed a shared culture and history. America is all about that shared culture and history. To take Britain as an example there's no becoming a Briton, either you are born a Briton or you are not. Anyone can become an American. Certainly a large part in becoming an American is
Re: (Score:2)
every country has ideals, America is no different and certainly not special in that regard, what you're describing is nationalism and regionalism
these are isms
it does not matter where you are but what one makes of where one is at, everyone people strive for high ideals and life is full of heroism
we are all children of the universe, no less than the trees or the stars
don't confuse this with thinking that where one lives somehow makes one special, that's just the road to arrogance and egoism
it's a mistake to
Re: (Score:2)
Decent people don't need to resort to violence in order to solve problems.
Sometimes it does and I find it deceitful and cruel to propose otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes it does and I find it deceitful and cruel to propose otherwise.
Violence is always the last and sometimes the first resort of the incompetent. Do you teach your kids that physical or emotional violence is the way to solve their problems? Only the violent try to justify the use of violence.
Re: (Score:2)
You talk like violence is some pure, final logic and as if the only language the “irrational” understand is death. But that’s a dangerously simplistic way to excuse brutality and erase responsibility for escalation. You frame it as if people are either “rough men” who kill, or cowards who feed others to the alligator. That’s childish absolutism dressed up in borrowed wisdom quotes. You’re ignoring a whole world of statecraft, intelligence, deterrence, containment, p
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me when leaded gas was tied to crime rates.
https://www.motherjones.com/en... [motherjones.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly on point but worse because it's not just lead or even other pollutants, Big Oil has corrupted our public institutions and our society itself. They crippled us in so many ways and are part of the classist situation that's turned most of us into economic slaves and the rest into an irresponsible, unethical and entitled elite.
The ship is sinking and the owners have all the lifeboats.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly on point but worse because it's not just lead or even other pollutants, Big Oil has corrupted our public institutions and our society itself. They crippled us in so many ways and are part of the classist situation that's turned most of us into economic slaves and the rest into an irresponsible, unethical and entitled elite.
The ship is sinking and the owners have all the lifeboats.
That is a pathetic lie. It is not Big oil but left wing communists and socialists that corrupt out public institutions and society itself. Look at the mental health institutions. The left wing nutcases have let people like you out of institutional care and now you post every day to slashdot the Daily Caller.
Re: (Score:2)
You could have continued to ride your horse... judging by your UID I suspect you were one of the kids who couldn't wait to buy their first car and show it off to your friends. Is that Big Oil's doing, or some idiot customer who buys a product only to set it on fire?
The industry knew this decades ago, yet instead of warning the public
I love this blame game. *We* have known about this for decades, it's been no secret, yet here we are with leaders actively trying to kill the EV industry, with leaders actively continuing to subsidise the oil and gas industry, and yet even here o
Re: (Score:2)
You’re just trying to hand-wave systemic corruption as if human nature justifies corporate deceit and that’s deliberately sloppy reasoning. You talk like consumer demand magically appeared in a vacuum, as if marketing, lobbying, disinformation, and regulatory capture didn’t deliberately steer society into oil dependency. That “idiot customer” didn’t invent the car culture, industries, governments, and PR firms engineered it, while actively burying public transit, alternat
Key points I got from it (Score:3)
Key points from abstract:
- Lewy Body Dementia is #2 most prevalent type of dementia
- This study proves strong causal link to PM 2.5 particles causing alpha synuclein to misfold and create toxic clumps (Lewy bodies) which are strongly linked to Parkinsons
- Mice smothered in PM 2.5 got sick with LBD, but those genetically modified to not create alpha-syn were protected (but, they probably didn't have very healthy brains without alpha-syn..?)
- Alpha-syn is critical to neuronic function. So unfortunately we can't just get rid of it. But we can reduce PM 2.5. Time to mask up again!
Re:Key points I got from it (Score:5, Informative)
Key points from abstract: - Lewy Body Dementia is #2 most prevalent type of dementia
Plus one to the study authors for precise language, but minus five for misleadingly precise language. Sorry to be the grammar police, but Lewy body dementia is the THIRD most common form of dementia, after Alzheimer's and Vascular. I had to look it up to be sure.
Most readers will not notice the absent comma in "the second most common form of dementia after Alzheimer's", nor will they be aware of its significance. This construction does actually mean it's the third most common form, presuming the common knowledge that Alzheimer's is the most common. It would have been MUCH more clear if the authors simply wrote "the third most common form of dementia". Or "the third most common form of dementia, after Alzheimer's and Vascular dementia."
Though as MDs and PHDs, writing for a scientific journal, perhaps the authors presumed high responsibility and knowledge from their audience. In which case we might blame the anonymous reader who posted the article for not translating this key point for general readership. But the poster perhaps thought Lewy body is the second most common form. Or likely doesn't care anyway. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
My question, which the abstract doesn't answer, is how large was th
Regulation (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations mean nothing. Regulations are just a set of rules. The question is how meaningful the regulations are in relation to the topic under discussion, and the answer is not very. US cities, especially near industrial regions are fucking feral when it comes to particulate emissions. Just ask all the people who roll coal what rules are failing to prevent them from doing so.
Re: (Score:2)
Regulations mean nothing. Regulations are just a set of rules. The question is how meaningful the regulations are in relation to the topic under discussion, and the answer is not very. US cities, especially near industrial regions are fucking feral when it comes to particulate emissions. Just ask all the people who roll coal what rules are failing to prevent them from doing so.
It's a question of enforcement. Most large cities actually do a good job of it. I only see people "rolling coal" in rural areas with minimal law enforcement.
So why are dementia rates in NYC than LA/CA? (Score:2)
I'd be curious as to how it varies. By their logic, Dem
My state says otherwise (Score:2)
I have terrible air pollution in my state, due to geographical constraints. My state has lower dementia than other states, so its either a really low effect or it's not a big deal.
Re: (Score:1)
I have terrible air pollution in my state, due to geographical constraints. My state has lower dementia than other states, so its either a really low effect or it's not a big deal.
Interesting.
I'm reminded of various claims on how a Mediterranean diet is supposed to be ideal, or something. It's likely ideal for people that descended from those that lived near the Mediterranean Sea for generations. A diet rich in fish, vegetables, grains, and dairy might be great for them but those with ancestry from Asia and Africa tend to be lactose intolerant, among other issues with that diet.
Oh, and red wine, that's part of the Mediterranean diet too. Drinking some red wine is supposed to be go
Watch the adjectives (Score:2)
You always have to tread lightly when you see headlines like this because of the improper use of adjectives to make what is supposedly scientific discovery.
I can't think, at the moment, of any form of dementia that is not "devastating". It reminds me of Faucci's excuse to shutdown all of society for almost 3 years because 2 million deaths are "atrocious". Phooey. Stick to the facts and let the reader make their own judgments.
This also reminds me of 1800 century London which by all our accounts must have
Re: (Score:1)
Congress-Critter: Hi there, welcome to the hearing on dementia. The witness has been sworn in and we are eliding the opening remarks by him and the panel because they are waste of everyone's time. Witness, why do we have such a large proportion of dementia patients.
You: Everyone knows it is because of air pollution.
CC: How does everyone know this? What is the particulate density above which we get 30% of people age 65 with dementia?
You: Fuck, I don't know, it is just bad.
CC: Yes, that nice, its bad. But we
Re: (Score:1)
If you escort out all the dementia patients out of Congress then how many congresscritters would be left?
Not that this is from air pollution, for all of them age would be the primary factor. The average age of a US senator is somewhere between 65 years and dead. We can't find more people to run for Congress that are younger? I can understand that many people might find being in Congress to be something of a second career, a job to take after retirement, which can push up the average quite a bit. That st
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, who to side with on this important question, the study authors or rando on Slashdot who thinks they’re incapable of conducting the analysis needed to account for confounding variables. I mean, it’s tough. It’s not like this was published in Science or anything, or that adjusting for confounders is absolutely standard practice for epidemiological studies and specifically air pollution studies using Cox regression etc, or that the link hasn’t also been demonstrated in multiple oth
Re: (Score:2)
Yes of course it does, you idiot. And I call bullshit on the idea that most epidemiological studies don’t adjust for confounders. Here, for example, is a UK biobank study which adjusts for confounders. It’s routine to do so: https://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/pu... [ukbiobank.ac.uk]
And did you really just say “mice are not humans” as though this were some kind of clever point? FFS, dude, the use of, and careful interpretation of, animal models, is an absolutely basic part of medical science. We all fucking k