You've probably seen those photos of Beijing on a bad pollution day. Such days come and go, but the effects of even small amounts of increased pollution may linger in a population for a long time. Several studies have established that different air pollutants reduce people's lifespans.
In a new study, a team of international scientists estimated how many people die each year from the effects of air pollution all over the world. This map shows their numbers.
The map's colors don't actually show absolute numbers of deaths. Instead, they say how many more people in a region died from air pollution in 2000 than in 1850. The colors indicate the number of increased deaths per 386 square miles, an area about the size of Dallas. That means that in the worst parts of northern China and India, there are now 1,000 more deaths from air pollution per Dallas-sized area than there were in 1850.
There are a few places around the world in which air conditions were better in 2000 than they were in 1850. One big improved patch includes the U.S.'s southeastern states, where Antebellum farmers used to burn vegetation to clear the ground, throwing a lot of particulate matter into the air. Improved areas in India and Africa are likely due to climate change, which can alter the rate at which different chemical reactions occur in the air and how the atmosphere circulates.
Ah, smell the fresh air!
Signature: You should love you country as you love you children. And when you feel you children they are wrong, you should tell them so as you should your government.
Glad to see that the air is still fresh where I live. :)
"Do not try and bend the spoon. That is impossible. Only try and realize the truth - there is no spoon."
D49, This map is not per capita. There probably aren't enough people in your area for an increase of thousands in the death rate. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The air still sucks.
Time for a Hydrogen Economy.
We are almost in Hydrogen Economy. Hydrocarbon we burn everyday contain a lot of hydrogen like their name implies. There is as much water comming out of our tailpipes than CO2. ;-)
For the pessimists, sorry to lighten your gloomy mood. In the United States and virtually every modern, post-industrial nation, PM 2.5 and ozone is declining. In other words, the air quality is getting better. For example, in the U.S.:
EPA website, Air Quality Trends
EPA website, Particulate Matter
The environment's number one enemy is human poverty. Wealthy nations can afford to--and do--clean up their air and water and protect public resources like forests, wetlands, and wildlife refuges. The quickest way to clean up the environment is to promote free markets, free governments, and protection of property and human rights which is the surest way to lift people out of poverty.
As for the assumptions made in this specific study, there's lots of data available from air quality monitoring stations and epidemiological data on diseases caused or exacerbated by ozone and particulate matter air pollution; however the use of computers to model best-guesstimates of how "environment change" affects air chemistry and thus respiratory diseases should be taken with a grain of salt.
RE: preceding comments, I meant to say "climate change" not "environment change."
Yah hydrogen is a pipe dream, it's either one of the worst batteries or one of the worst fuels. To make hydrogen via electrolysis then ship it to your car is a horrible idea. The more common way to get hydrogen is to break apart natural gas, discard the carbon and collect the hydrogen. This is also terribly inefficient doubly so considering running a car of natural gas is easier, cheaper, and much further advanced infrastructure wise. Some people fill up their cars right from home, and natural gas is usually a regulated market and is much less susceptible to abuse by futures markets, giant multinationals, cartels, other skimmers it even resists inflationary pressures from the fed making up money to give to banks which is the real cause of our $4/g gas.
Switchgrass and every other carbon rich substance such as garbage can be turned into biogases through gasification which can be compressed and used instead of cng.
Would you like to know more?
my co-worker's mom makes $77 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for 7 months but last month her pay check was $15344 just working on the laptop for a few hours. his explanation www.jobs35.com
Well, it looks like this is about the last article on PopSci that'll allow comments. In a height of irony, I was going to comment that pseudo-science sites like this are one of the main reasons air pollution has been thrown to the wayside in recent years, because when the entire field of environmentalism has been discredited by pushing such hoaxes as man-made global warming, then 'honest' concerns like air pollution get included in the mix.
Then I read that deaths from air pollution:
"are likely due to climate change"
And there's your height of irony.
If they can't even lot go of the AGW hoax even in an article about air pollution -- something that's been around LONG before coal plants and SUVs were invented, then it doesn't really matter if they allow comments or not. They're not listening, anyway.
Very sad that popsci is shutting down comments. However, we at USAY understand why, as we battle the same b0ts and sp.ammers that they do. However, you can comment on ANY STORY on this website (or any site in the world) with one click on USAY (usaynet.com).
As an example of how it works, go to the below link to comment (no registration required) on this story.
See you there!
I would just like to know what constitutes an "air pollution death". I mean, how do they know if someone died from air pollution or simply liked sitting close to camp fires every night? Or perhaps worked in an unhealthy environment and failed to use the proper precautions, like a lot of dry wall hangers I know that don't use masks when they sand.
On another note: Poopsci's explanation for not allowing comments anymore is adding to global warming because its just a whole lot of hot air. The fact is, that instead of dealing with the problem by going back to real science, they've decided to just stop everyone from discussing their 'topics' and perhaps swaying some people into the truth of things. You see, they don't want people like myself talking against their propaganda machine and pointing out alternatives and opposing views and articles. They want people to believe that their word is the only truth. And since no one can publicly comment, all those who don't know any better will just say..... "ohhhhhhhh, wow, I didn't know that", without realizing that poop sci distorts their views by promoting one side of an ongoing scientific debate. I guess they realized that they were hurting their cause by allowing us to oppose their word. Nazism at its finest. You can shut us up, poop sci, but you can't make us dumber. Unfortunately, the editors of this once proud magazine has taken a tactic from that bastion of democracy in the white house they so eagerly promote. How arrogant of them to say that we aren't smart enough to debate science. We can't handle it so let's just take it away. If that isn't liberal thinking I don't know what is. You've done nothing but proved your agenda once and for all.
Unreal, they even took away our "comments" link in our profile. We're not allowed to play with that anymore lmao.... Poop sci... the nanny state doesn't like it when we talk.
my parents in law just got an awesome twelve month old Mercedes-Benz M-Class SUV by working online at home... see this .......................... goo.gl/IhKSDZ
my neighbor's mother-in-law makes $67 hourly on the laptop. She has been fired from work for nine months but last month her payment was $21816 just working on the laptop for a few hours. look at these guys ...................jobs64.com
my neighbor's step-aunt makes $73/hr on the internet. She has been laid off for 9 months but last month her check was $12471 just working on the internet for a few hours. find here>>>>>. www.jobs25.com