A new study has raised the disturbing question of whether we are substantially under-estiminating the annual death toll from air pollution, which currently stands at around 3.4 million a year. The reason is the failure to measure the lethality of nitrogen dioxide (NO2), emitted during fossil fuel burning.
The fact that we underestimate the deaths seems clear. Current estimates focus on deaths linked to fine particles, less than 2.5mm in diameter (PM2.5) have been estimated.
I have discussed before how people still do not associate air pollution with real numbers of fatalities. When we debate pollution controls, we measure concrete numbers of jobs and taxes but rarely put a figure on the resulting deaths associated with rising pollution. Indeed, those numbers are rising. The 3.4 million deaths found by the Global Burden of Disease study from the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington in Seattle was an increase from 3 million in 1990. That is just from outdoor pollution. When you add indoor pollution, the number rises to seven million a year according to the World Health Organisation (WHO).
In Europe alone, some 500,000 people die prematurely as a result of air pollution every year without even considering N02. It seems to me that, whatever we decided about the acceptable levels of pollution, we should be unified in our demand for more accurate and holistic figures of the estimated cost in health and fatalities. There are real health impacts associated with air pollution that are left as mere generalities in our public debate. The lack of solid figures makes the cost-benefit arguments rather artificial and superficial. It also suggests that, putting aside the need to address global warming, pollution abatement has direct, measurable and immediate benefits for the population at large.
Source: Guardian
Does that little backwater even HAVE a team?
So how are Connecticut’s teams doing?
Ari, Well those alumni were misspending their money back then. LOL! Yesterdays game was a classic. Go Badgers on Monday! BTW, There’s a great 30 for 30 on ESPN titled, I Hate Christian Laettner.
Well, one could try to steal Wisconsin’s glory for themselves, but I will be happy to point out the numerous times that person bashed Wisconsin. Never heard a good word about Wisconsin out of that maw.
I don’t care if ANYONE cheers on the Badgers, except for those who hate Wisconsin and can’t seem to say one good word about it. Those people have NO right to share in our joy. Hate Wisconsin so much? Don’t live here, you don’t get to brag about OUR teams.
Inga – did somebody die and leave you in charge? I would think you would be so far down the list the whole state would have to be wiped out before you got to be in charge,
What is this thing called “Basketball?”
PS: when I was a student at Wisconsin those I knew in the b-ball community always went back to their rooms, or motel rooms, post game to pick up their alumni envelopes….then went out to party down. But I shant cheer U of W because I am not a Wisconsinite…never mind I went to school there. 🙂
A professor @ UNC did a expose on their basketball program. Basketball is where the most blatant abuses are. But, Bo Ryan runs a clean program and his kids graduate. I love the guy and program.
Paul, We’re talking Kentucky basketball, they are notorious.
Spinelli,
Someone who hates Wisconsin so much has NO right to brag about it. You’re not a Wisconsinite.
Screw all this small potatoes horseshit. WISCONSIN just beat Kentucky. Student/athletes beating professional players who never even see a classroom. Good triumphed over evil.
Nick – couple of things 1) since they lost to Wisconsin it will cost them some money in the signing bonus. 2) Most colleges require their student athlete to go to class. When I was at ASU they had someone who would check the roll at the undergrad classes to make sure the students were there.
Paul
Heavy wind turbines are cost effective when coupled with the right conditions. Wind turbines have been around for a long time and if you research the issue you will see an increase in power from a third of a megawatt to a common 2.5+ megawatt with 5 megawatts being installed and 10 megawatts coming on line. The increase of thirty times the output between the early, not so efficient, models to what is envisioned is the main factor in their cost efficiency. Another thing to consider is the historical fact that in the beginning a new technology is nothing compared to when it reaches the point where it becomes cost efficient. The Hybrids Toyota built lost the company 7K a pop during the first few years. Then with advances in technology and numbers the Prius is one of Toyota’s money makers.
I have posted my two reasons for supporting wind and solar energy before. Firstly it is the right thing to do vis a vis the environment as well as the geo-political ramifications of where the fuel comes from and who needs it. Perhaps the bad guys would not be so powerful if they didn’t have all that oil. Secondly, as was seen in the past several economic surges, they depended on new technology. From the Industrial Revolution through transportation and most recently the technical revolution, the economies of the countries involved benefited along with many other aspect of society. The transfer from fossil fuels to renewable energy will generate wealth.
Regarding subsidies, regard the subsidies the oil, coal, and gas industries get. Regard the subsidies the nuclear energy industry received. Regard the public expenditures resulting in most of the hydro electric facilities. Put it in context and it is and will be the next new thing. The US is late to the game due to the availability of fossil fuels, the status quo controlled by big business, and the American propensity for the ‘If it ain’t broke, why fix it.’ argument. Have you noticed that the drive for fuel efficient cars seems to spurt forward when gas prices rise and ease off when they decline, but only in America. Perhaps that’s why the US auto industry is in decline and the Japanese, European, and Korean industries are booming. They see the future more clearly and don’t have oil and gas reserves.
issac said …
At issue is intelligence and the evolution of alternative energy. In this case Denmark far outstrips the US. More people, more commuters, more money is irrelevant.
Will you please explain why those facts are irrelevant? Population density is always relevant to power generation. I have no objection to alternative sources of energy, just the silly subsidies that make them noticeable before they’re even slightly mature. As I mentioned I have experience with hydro-power and the cooperation with regular energy grids. Then hydro-power is a mature science the rest is in its infancy. And yes, I am aware that hydro-power originally had federal sponsorship, and in some places still does…but that is infrastructure related not experimental science. Changed a few huge rotors in my time (assuring the lifts were safe and sound) and repaired several others. Been there, done that…show me something new that only requires structural support at most….not boondoggle money.
Why does anyone really read the gibberish the government posts as they have an agenda for sure. The one thing they pointed out that was true was the Nitrous Oxide was far more dangerous and it is. It mixes with sulfur Dioxide and makes Acid Rain which is killing the Fish and eats the paint off of cars. It still is a problem
I posted a link above that I don’t know if everyone ignored but it said 73 percent of the Nitrous oxide comes from the Fertilizer that is spewed everywhere and why we cannot use more natural fertilizers to combat this I don’t know.
The CO2 is actually not as big of a problem as made out to be and they are using Carbon Capture and have been since 2009 No one says it’s not a problem but we are doing things……… The big oil companies are also That is what the problem is overseas right now.
http://loe.org/shows/segments.html?programID=09-P13-00026&segmentID=3
So, I wish that the Liberals here would stop with the propaganda the government spews and get it together. We are also getting it together as far as the hole over Antartica. My friend is going to have her grandson do an article on it as the propaganda from common core is that it is still growing.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29152028
The 1987 Montreal Protocol that banned or phased out ozone-eating depleting chemicals, including chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) once widely used in refrigerators and spray cans, would prevent two million cases of skin cancer annually by 2030, according to UNEP.
It would also help prevent damage to wildlife, agriculture, peoples’ eyes and immune systems, the agency added.
Paul
I made the argument. It escaped you. I elaborated and made the argument more specific. It escaped you again. Last time. Regarding alternative energy and the future Denmark exhibits a greater intelligence than the US. With its resources the US should be exporting wind turbines but the Danes are, to the tune of 40% of all heavy wind turbines. The US is buying wind turbines from the Danes. The Danes are not buying wind turbines from the US. The Danish company Vestas is recruiting and training Americans to service their turbines in the US. The fact that the Danes are more intelligent vis a vis the wind turbine and alternative energy evolution should not escape a guy of your intelligence.
issac – all the evidence shows that turbines are not cost-effective. We no longer have heavy industry here so it is not uncommon for use to go to other countries to buy things we do not have. If it were my druthers, we would not be buying it though.
And it has nothing to do with intelligence. It has to do with seeing a niche in the market and filling it.
Paul
To see an opportunity and initiate, develop, and profit, especially when it is good for not only the opportunist but the world, is intelligent. To protect a harmful yet profitable position successfully is merely clever. At least that is how I see intelligence and cleverness.
You fell victim to the ‘Oh yeah, well we fight all their battles’ routine, kind of dilutes what you say on other issues.
issac – you have yet to make an argument for Denmark’s intelligence. And good is in the eye of the beholder.
At issue is intelligence and the evolution of alternative energy. In this case Denmark far outstrips the US. More people, more commuters, more money is irrelevant. The US may have more intelligence in other areas: aircraft carriers, space flight, and other stuff that Denmark doesn’t make, but in the world of the future of energy, because they are faced with no fossil fuel reserves they are way ahead of most of the rest of the world.
The strength of a people is their ability to understand their weaknesses. I’m not ‘hatin’ on the US, only the stupidity found in the US. Thank goodness that the US is evolved enough to be able to afford the mistakes it makes. I also have faith in the US that it will evolve and take its proper role as a leader in the development of alternative energy. But just like in some past experiences, it will be a dogfight given the percentage of ‘not so intelligent’ members of the club.
issac – Denmark does not need much of an army because WE protect their ass. And none of this has to do with intelligence. That is just a silly argument.
Denmark has a population just over 5 million people. There are more “intelligent people” in the NYC metro area than the entire country of Denmark. Hatin’ on the US causes you to make laughably stupid comments.
Nettles said …
Government is simply hundreds of millions of little guys, consumers, parents, and children, …
With that remark I am very certain you’ve never worked in government, at least not very long…as I have for decades.
Correct me if I am wrong, but please name the agency(s) with all these little guys, etc. I might have missed them, so I’ll listen.
Haz said…
Is global death due to air pollution even a real thing? The answer defies use of any scientific method, because it is not possible to create an extra-global control group against which the theory can be tested.
As usual, Haz says it simply and accurately.
I’m sure that in some dreadful zones pollution causes pre-mature death. Others promote exceptional long lives. Whether this extrapolates to a global level is more than a little bit dubious due to the lack of a control group, as Haz has said.
Uncontrolled statistics are like modeling clay…create any shape you want, any conclusion your hypothesis requires.
Paul
Denmark has more intelligent people. Take a moment and study the way government works in other countries and then compare it to the mess we have. The US is the most oligarchical of all Western democracies. And pollution, why that’s just the smell of success.
I got my grip a long time ago.
issac – doesn’t Denmark still have a monarchy?
issac – in 10-20 years the Valley of the Sun will surpass the population of Denmark.