you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 82 points 4 days ago (23 children)

Sean is always cool, but I wonder how Thomas would look had he been smoking a pack a day for 20 years too.

  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 26 points 4 days ago (22 children)

    Is this really it? I thought the non smoking would be compensated by the increased pollution of everything

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 4 days ago (5 children)

    I'm sure sun exposure also plays a role, everyone wears SPF 8000 sunblock now, while they were putting on tanning oil back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 4 days ago (5 children)
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago (4 children)

    Thanks for the informative response. I’m a bit confused by the graphs given, that track emissions and not air quality itself. Would you know why?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    AQI is highly variable by locale and hour. It averages out in the end, but measuring regional and global emissions is a better way to compare disparate time periods, except for areas at the extremes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 4 days ago (2 children)

    I would expect emissions to cumulatively impact air quality, is that not the case?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 4 days ago (1 child)

    To begin, it does accumulate in the region where it is created, but of course it diffuses over time, so 10 pollution could be 7 locally and 3 globally. The heavy elements (soot) never get very far and naturally fall out of the air. Some elements are broken down by sunlight. Some bind to rain and are washed into the ground. If pollution is constant, you reach an equilibrium in the air quality. Decreasing output slowly lowers that equilibrium and improves the air quality in the end.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 31 points 4 days ago* (1 child)

    Pollution was worse back then, look up smog in the 70s. We've introduced catalytic converters, emissions standards, etc. Most people now question why we need clean air laws because we have clean air, much like people thinking we don't need vaccines because those diseases aren't around.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_Air_Act_(United_States)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 4 days ago (3 children)

    There's significantly less air and water pollution now than the past, with the only exception being microplastics. We haven't found many short-term impacts from that yet, though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 days ago

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/may/07/un-expert-human-rights-climate-crisis-economy

    An estimated 7 million people worldwide die prematurely from air pollution each year.

    In his final interview before handing over the special rapporteur mandate, Boyd said he struggles to makes sense of the world’s collective indifference to the suffering being caused by preventable environmental harms.

    I can’t get people to bat an eyelash. It’s like there’s something wrong with our brains that we can’t understand just how grave this situation is.”

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 4 days ago

    Pollution was probably another contributing factor; I'd be surprised if it wasn't a lot worse in the 60s than it is now: a lot of environmental controls got put in place in the intervening decades. Remember, there was leaded gasoline everywhere, and acid rain scares and the ozone layer depletion in the 80s.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 4 days ago

    It’s a combination of many factors over time. Diet, sun exposure, smoking. Lots of things we have more information about now than we did then. Medicine is better, genetics, etc.

  • source
  • parent