Environmental pollution

[Ridgerunner]

I’ve read up on this before and the premature deaths are virtually all attributed to people with severe lung conditions, severe allergies, etc, not the common man. Normal dust and spring pollen also causes premature death with these people. What they need are HEPA air filters in their hospital rooms, so they can live another week, or year longer.

Not arguing here, but I have sometimes wondered about pollutants that we don’t think of as pollutants. For example, if one drives through an upscale urban neighborhood, one observes perfect lawn after perfect lawn, block after block after block. That effect is largely obtained chemically through the use of chemical fertilizers, insecticides, and herbicides. Then, the lawn gets mowed, and particulates are tossed into the air. Despite the wide use of fertilizers and herbicides in the countryside, it may be noted that allergies and asthma are more common among urban children than among rural children. I don’t think anybody really knows why.

Not to say rural life is without pollutants. Lots of herbicides, pesticides and herbicides in use there too, just in a different way and usually not right up against the dwelling houses.

And, of course, all of us eat all kinds of vegetation that has been heavily doused with those chemicals.

There could well be forms of “pollution” that are not generally recognized as such, but might be very harmful.

 

[frobert]

Perhaps we ought to make some distinctions here.

Good, lets make a distinction of what we are discussing

Theo brought in a graph with longevity that was outdated and an inadequate representation of longevity in the US. My point was that longevity, when compared with developed countries, the US is not doing nearly as well as Theo alledges.

A point which Theo never addressed.

Second, “longevity” is a statistical thing. The older a population is, the longer is its longevity on average. That’s because a person who is, for example, now 70 years old has excaped all the hazards of the first 70 years of life.

What is your point? Are you saying it is not valid to use projections to plan for the future?

Also, if China is accepting all kinds of waste from the U.S. for recycling, and if that recycling is polluting, then that, in itself, shows an attitude of low concern about pollution and it’s reasonable to believe the attitude also affects what it does in its non-recycling endeavors.

Ahhhhhhhhhh. Here is what I posted.

China Bans Foreign Waste–but What Will Happen to the World’s Recycling?

The impact of this will be far-reaching because China is the dominant market for recycled plastic

I hope you are right that the tech is available to clean up the pollution because we will soon need it to clean up the rubbish that we have been sending to China.

Another point that Theo fails to address.

Theo is resenting an inaccurate picture that pollution in the US is less than China’s because the US has tech. When I countered the reason China has more pollution is that they are the world’s factory and waste dumping ground, Theo goes quiet. I like to hear his ideas on how the US is going to cope with all our waste pollution that China will no longer accept.

Here is just one example of US pollution compared to the rest of the world.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[Theo520]

There could well be forms of “pollution” that are not generally recognized as such, but might be very harmful.

Yes, we will regular discover new pollutants that are being used in industry. Or maybe harms we didn’t predict.

 

[Theo520]

Theo brought in a graph with longevity that was outdated and an inadequate representation of longevity in the US. My point was that longevity, when compared with developed countries, the US is not doing nearly as well as Theo alledges.

A point which Theo never addressed.

Thought I did address.

The increasing longevity in every country we’ve discussed shows that whatever we are doing is delivering benefits in extended life, not shortened. The increases are especially pronounced in both China and India. These two countries were rapidly extending the life span of their citizens in spite of also increasing their use of pollutants.

Face the facts, you posted some useless agenda driven research. People are living longer. The good benefits from what we are producing clearly outweighs the harms from their pollutants.

 

[frobert]

Your graph is quite instructive. The 1970s was the beginning of outsourcing of our manufacturing to China, a time when China likely had little pollution and the US had quite a bit.

Bad News/Good News
The bad news lose of thousands of jobs and the Rust Belt

The Death of American Manufacturing | theTrumpet.com

The good news : “The Silver Lining of Industrial Decline: Rust Belt Manufacturing’s Impact on Participates.”

Reduced industrial activity leads to improved local air quality. Using plant level micro data from the
Census of Manufacturers, I explore how county particulate levels vary for counties that feature different
manufacturing activity levels and that differ with respect to manufacturing’s capital vintage, plant size
and SIC industry classification. These estimates are used to simulate the benefits of reduced
manufacturing activity. The magnitude of the social benefits of increased local public goods is compared
to the aggregate private costs suffered by workers displaced to the low wage service sector.

Can you point to any tech that lowered US pollution as much as or more than outsourcing thousands of manufacturing jobs?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Second, “longevity” is a statistical thing. The older a population is, the longer is its longevity on average. That’s because a person who is, for example, now 70 years old has excaped all the hazards of the first 70 years of life.

What is your point? Are you saying it is not valid to use projections to plan for the future?

My point was that “longevity” is a statistical thing that does not actually tell us how long people live. A 70 year old has a longer life expectancy than a one year old simply because the one year old has 70 years in which to die of the hazards of life before catching up to the 70 year old.

As to life expectancy at birth, which is a different thing, I think the further out we project, the less likely the projection will probably hold true.

 

[Theo520]

Your graph is quite instructive. The 1970s was the beginning of outsourcing of our manufacturing to China, a time when China likely had little pollution and the US had quite a bit.

Nope, we didn’t start outsourcing to China extensively until the late 80’s after NAFTA and other trade deals were implemented. Export manufacturing in southern China didn’t jump until the early 90’s. I used to visit Shenzhen on a regular basis then.

Don’t you remember the ad with the crying Indian, and when that river caught fire? Pollution reductions in the 70’s were all about us recognizing we had an issue and making changes to reduce it. This was when we reduced smog from cars and required power plants to install scrubbers and reduce their particulate pollution. The EPA did many great things during their early days.

 

[frobert]

frobert:

Second, “longevity” is a statistical thing. The older a population is, the longer is its longevity on average. That’s because a person who is, for example, now 70 years old has excaped all the hazards of the first 70 years of life.

What is your point? Are you saying it is not valid to use projections to plan for the future?

My point was that “longevity” is a statistical thing that does not actually tell us how long people live. A 70 year old has a longer life expectancy than a one year old simply because the one year old has 70 years in which to die of the hazards of life before catching up to the 70 year old.

As to life expectancy at birth, which is a different thing, I think the further out we project, the less likely the projection will probably hold true.

I agree, the nature of projections, make them subject to error, but you seem to be saying that, because of the potential for error, projections are not a valid in planning for the future.

 

[frobert]

frobert:

Your graph is quite instructive. The 1970s was the beginning of outsourcing of our manufacturing to China, a time when China likely had little pollution and the US had quite a bit.

Nope, we didn’t start outsourcing to China extensively until the late 80’s after NAFTA and other trade deals were implemented. Export manufacturing in southern China didn’t jump until the early 90’s. I used to visit Shenzhen on a regular basis then.

Don’t you remember the ad with the crying Indian, and when that river caught fire? Pollution reductions in the 70’s were all about us recognizing we had an issue and making changes to reduce it. This was when we reduced smog from cars and required power plants to install scrubbers and reduce their particulate pollution. The EPA did many great things during their early days.

Your graph shows a progressive lowering of pollution starting in the 1970s. Of course other things came into play in the early 1970s like the creation of the EAP and the Clean Air Act as well as the oil embargo that was responsible for a conservation effort.

Of course there were some new tech that helped but you still haven’t pointed to any US tech that has has as much of an impact o US pollution comparable to outsourcing.

 

[Theo520]

Your graph shows a progressive lowering of pollution starting in the 1970s. Of course other things came into play in the early 1970s like the creation of the EAP and the Clean Air Act as well as the oil embargo that was responsible for a conservation effort.

You still haven’t pointed to any US tech that has has as much of an impact o US pollution comparable to outsourcing.

Please stop playing games.

Particulate and NOX scrubbers on the exhaust of plants delivers a significant reduction in air pollution. Implementing this tech would greatly improve air quality in the developing world, at modest cost. Europe also saw such benefits (they may even have invented the tech)

Trying to lay all your defense on outsourcing is a red herring. Though it helped reduce our pollution, it was not the primary cause. It’s irrelevance to the OP is shown in that life spans in the recipient countries seems to have improved dramatically in spite of their rapid increase in absorbing these industries.

 

[frobert]

frobert:

Your graph shows a progressive lowering of pollution starting in the 1970s. Of course other things came into play in the early 1970s like the creation of the EAP and the Clean Air Act as well as the oil embargo that was responsible for a conservation effort.

You still haven’t pointed to any US tech that has has as much of an impact o US pollution comparable to outsourcing.

Please stop playing games.

Particulate and NOX scrubbers on the exhaust of plants delivers a significant reduction in air pollution. Implementing this tech would greatly improve air quality in the developing world, at modest cost. Europe also saw such benefits (they may even have invented the tech)

Trying to lay all your defense on outsourcing is a red herring. Though it helped reduce our pollution, it was not the primary cause. It’s irrelevance to the OP is shown in that life spans in the recipient countries seems to have improved dramatically in spite of their rapid increase in absorbing these industries.

Of course they do. And when you have less factories to put those scrubbers on you also have much less pollution (see chart below). I never said that tech was not not important. China will experience much less pollution as they incorporate more tech, as they phase out coal plants and as they stop recycling waste pollution and the US is likely to experience more pollution as they have to deal with waste pollution that China is no longer accepting.

 

[Theo520]

Here is another way of looking at the issue.
Our industrialization, even with it’s pollutants has led to a marked reduction in early childhood deaths as well as extended lifespan. I expect even people susceptible to death from air particulates (the OP) have also seen similar benefits to their death curve.

But in the end, something is going to get you and most of us do die prematurely of some cause or another. Very few live to the max human life span without some disease finally causing a premature death.

 

[Theo520]

Of course they do. And when you have less factories to put those scrubbers on you also have much less pollution (see chart below). I never said that tech was not not important. China will experience much less pollution as they incorporate more tech, as they phase out coal plants and as they stop recycling waste pollution and the US is likely to experience more pollution as they have to deal with waste pollution that China is no longer accepting.

But you do acknowledge that China, India etal are seeing rapid increases in their lifespans, in spite of absorbing our high pollution industries.

The OP is just bad agenda driven research which sheds a light on nothing, expect for some people really should plug in a HEPA air filter, so they can live a bit longer.

Maybe the OP also indirectly shows how far we’ve come in reducing deaths from war, famine and disease, so that being susceptible to particulates is rising to the top of the cause of death list.

 

[Ridgerunner]

I agree, the nature of projections, make them subject to error, but you seem to be saying that, because of the potential for error, projections are not a valid in planning for the future.

I don’t think they are totally invalid, but I think the further we push them into the future the less and less predictive they are. And I think that’s particularly true when it comes to things about which we don’t know or can’t well predict the (name removed by moderator)uts. Imagine, for example, what the 1870 population of Ireland would have been projected to be in 1845. It would have been massively wrong because the big (name removed by moderator)uts of famine death and emigration would not have been predictable in 1845.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Here is another way of looking at the issue.
Our industrialization, even with it’s pollutants has led to a marked reduction in early childhood deaths as well as extended lifespan. I expect even people susceptible to death from air particulates (the OP) have also seen similar benefits to their death curve.

But in the end, something is going to get you and most of us do die prematurely of some cause or another. Very few live to the max human life span without some disease finally causing a premature death.

Implicit in this argument is a false dichotomy. Either we accept modern industrialization along with the pollutants that presently accompany it, or we reject modern industrialization along with the benefits of longer life that you cite here. What is missing is to have a revised form of modern industrialization with fewer pollutants and possibly reduced efficiency. Modern industrialization is a many-faceted thing. Not every facet contributes to longer life. It may turn out that only 30% of the aspects of modern industrialization are all that is necessary to realize 99% of the benefits to longer life. The other 70% is going to the manufacture of jet skis, etc., that have no positive effect on longevity.

I am making no explicit claim about the nature of an improved industrialization. I only want to raise awareness of its possible existence to refute these false dichotomy arguments.

 

[Theo520]

Implicit in this argument is a false dichotomy. Either we accept modern industrialization along with the pollutants that presently accompany it, or we reject modern industrialization along with the benefits of longer life that you cite here. What is missing is to have a revised form of modern industrialization with fewer pollutants and possibly reduced efficiency. Modern industrialization is a many-faceted thing. Not every facet contributes to longer life. It may turn out that only 30% of the aspects of modern industrialization are all that is necessary to realize 99% of the benefits to longer life. The other 70% is going to the manufacture of jet skis, etc., that have no positive effect on longevity.

I am making no explicit claim about the nature of an improved industrialization. I only want to raise awareness of its possible existence to refute these false dichotomy arguments.

The OP article completely ignored the other part of the equation. I did not present a false dichotomy, just that there was another side.

I also think my posts supported a middle path, that you can have industrialization and control pollution.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The OP article completely ignored the other part of the equation. I did not present a false dichotomy, just that there was another side.

I also think my posts supported a middle path, that you can have industrialization and control pollution.

OK, understood. (need to add a few more characters to satisfy the 16 character minimum)

 

[frobert]

But you do acknowledge that China, India etal are seeing rapid increases in their lifespans, in spite of absorbing our high pollution industries.

I agree that medical and economic advances are offsetting some of the negative effects of industrial pollution. Imagine how much better their lifespans would be without industrial pollution. Perhaps that was the OP’s point.

If you go back to my original posts you will find that my point was that the US and other developing countries were benefiting from exporting their manufacturing and industrial pollution to China which accounted for some of the improvement in life expectancy.

 

[Theo520]

I agree that medical and economic advances are offsetting some of the negative effects of industrial pollution. Imagine how much better their lifespans would be without industrial pollution. Perhaps that was the OP’s point.

If you go back to my original posts you will find that my point was that the US and other developing countries were benefiting from exporting their manufacturing and industrial pollution to China which accounted for some of the improvement in life expectancy.

If you look at their rapid increase in life spans, the data indicates that industrialization vastly increases their lives vs the neg impacts of industrialization. If your premise was true, they would have shown a pronounced dip or at least flattening of the curve as they absorbed those nasty industries we exported.

As I said in an earlier post, I’m for the middle path, industrialization with pollution control.

The OP article is still useless agenda driven research. Air quality in the US is very good, only people with special conditions need to be concerned. And these same people are also being killed early by natures air pollution - dust, pollen, etc.

 

[frobert]

If you look at their rapid increase in life spans, the data indicates that industrialization vastly increases their lives

You are positing an industrialization/life expectancy correlation in isolation. Correlation does not prove cause and effect.

Consider other factors that correlate highly with life expectancy with or without industrialization, such as:

1. good sanitary facilities
2. access to clean water
3. the average supply of food calories per day
4. expenditure on health care
5. good infectious and parasitic diseases control
6. low infant mortality
7. political stability
8. absence of violence