Air pollution can cause lung cancer in people who have never smoked | Hacker News Reader

Air pollution can cause lung cancer in people who have never smoked

independent.co.uk

And what's the news? Did anyone think that air polution is healthy? It's obvious that any kind of pollution is causing health issues and air pollution has been a major source of health issues. The sooner we get rid of the fossil fuels the better. Then we can focus on food poisoning/pollution.

Well, getting rid of fossil fuels is extremely difficult. The main issue is batteries and we need another revolution in technology.

Not just fossil fuels. Burning wood is also significant source of particulate air pollution. And switching from natural gas (fossil) to wood (renewable) for heating makes air pollution situation much worse.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t a merely academic musing. The connection has profound implications on our society and economies:

“Another EPA study of the Clean Air Act36 found that a more complete accounting of health care costs would lead to greater reductions in the annual costs of respiratory and cardiovascular hospitalizations by up to $488 million for respiratory and $809 million for cardiovascular hospitalizations (in 2006 dollars).”[1]

Those costs are now worth well over $1 billion in 2022 dollars. If invested, that would alone pay for transformative amounts of renewable energy. What if instead of fintech bros piling their millions into the next get-rich-quick crypto scheme, we could think of ways to invest prior to chronic yet foreseeable health conditions? Some long-term investments for a cleaner and healthier future.

1-https://www.healthaffairs.org/doi/10.1377/hlthaff.2020.00081

Perhaps one day it will be common sense that for decades we've been breathing an atmosphere poisoned by a billion automobiles around the world, burning petrol and pumping toxic exhaust into the air. Generations of children are growing up in cities that are known to be cancer-causing environments.

Tyres brakes and road wear are also a big contributer.

We need more green track trams.

As someone who grew up with leaded gas and carburated cars, I don't really miss them. I pull up in traffic these days behind an old restored muscle car (which are awesome, don't get me wrong), and the smell of unburned gas makes my eyes water. It's hard to believe that all cars were like that.

I think the article is mostly referring to diesel emissions though, since they refer to the PM-25 particle size, commonly produced as soot from diesels. The new diesel exhaust fluid (DEF), particulate filters, and computer controls have come a long way in reducing the soot produced. But they're complex systems that tend to have a lot of problems. And as we saw with Volkswagen, they can be gamed.

PM2.5 can come from any kind of combustion engine. It also comes from rubber-road contact, among other sources.

Even as the technology improves with decades of R&D, it’s inevitable that fine particulate matter results and potentially enters our bloodstream.

https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/particulate-matter-pm-basic...

Is this meant to be a novel idea? I’m genuinely perplexed at why anyone would call this study “revolutionary”. As far as I know it’s been well accepted that car exhaust fumes are carcinogenic.

It is not a novel idea. Even living next to a freeway (or other heavily traveled road) is linked with increases in cancer rates. Can't wait for the studies (not sunk by Monsanto) to show food grown next to highways is also linked. The science isn't widely accepted enough to have a legal impact, yet. Maybe this generation will start making more forward strides.

I do feel like the world has gotten a lot more focused on what science tells us about health as a separate pronged attack on average lifespan.

It is revolutionary for the fact that they’ve identified genetic activity associated with what has been suspected all along: inhaler aromatics are carcinogenic.

Somewhat off topic, but I’ve been wondering: has anyone noticed that areas with a lot of scooters and motorcycles have particularly bad air? Like, Victorian England bad. Some European cities are much worse than an LA freeway during rush hour, and that seems odd to me.

Is it a design constraint, or are scooters just not subject to the same emissions regs?

A lot of them are 2-stroke engines, which burn a mixture of gasoline and oil. Usually badly tuned with poor fuel/air metering. They pollute like crazy.

The US EPA has not yet banned 2-strokes, but emissions on them have been tightened, and there are different allowances[0] for 2-stroke engines with aftertreatment technology vs. without.

2-strokes are commonly used in lawn equipment, chain-saws, snow blowers, jet-skis, etc. And famously in the East German Trabant 601 automobile (called "little stinker" by the West Germans)

[0] https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-40/chapter-I/subchapter-U...

Also in a lot of older trucks and busses

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detroit_Diesel_Series_71

I think it's that the requirements not being as strict as cars, hence motorcycles not having the same emissions control systems. A lot of bikes on the road today still use carburettors, which we replaced in cars because fuel injection is more efficient and burns cleaner.

It's a combination of looser regs, older equipment, more ways to find loopholes (no use measuring emissions at 5500rpm if the motorbike revs to 12k when taking off from the lights), and a culture of modifying exhaust/intake systems

Have we really gone from a public debating if smoking causes cancer to people thinking only smoking causes cancer?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com