Are “safe” levels of air pollution safe?

> Taken all together, the large body of literature with consistent findings indicate there may be significant benefits to lowering the total amount of air pollutant exposure one receives over a lifetime.

Dr. Attia is someone who is willing to take -- and prescribe to his patients -- extreme and difficult measures on the expectation that they could increase longevity. In this article he mentions the benefits of using a HEPA air filter for everyday life, and I would guess that he does that.

And he is a careful researcher. So I can take some comfort that he does not feel that there's sufficient benefit to wearing a respirator in daily life. He is the kind of nerd that wouldn't be much deterred by people judging him harshly for it.

I am sure the regulators are not being totally honest. My folks in CA live in a gated condo residence, where recently Prop 65 signs in giant metal placards have been posted at the entrance, with the warning that "cigarette smoke and cooking gas" might be polluting the area and giving you cancer. No mention of open air garages under every building, the nearby highways, etc.

My point is, regulators let the businesses protect their assets, without giving people the real information.

Is air pollution homogeneous in its' health effects? It seems to be treated as being such (classified by size) but I don't think that makes sense.

I'd much rather breathe in a room with 100ug/m3 of 2.5um particles of paper than I would glass or exhaust fumes for example.

Fine particles like PM 2.5 are basically fine dust. You won't die of dust.