What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up-Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
64 Comments
- allowners, on 11/14/2008, -3/+35And in related news, reducing automobile use would simultaneously reduce air pollution, decrease deaths due to accidents and generally lead to a healthier lifestyle.
- casbar, on 11/14/2008, -3/+13See, this is why I smoke. If you breathe with a lit cigarette in your mouth, the tobacco and filter keeps back all the air pollution you would otherwise be inhaling.
- EatingPie, on 11/14/2008, -3/+10Certainly I believe air pollution has caused respiratory-related deaths...
HOWEVER.
In 2005/2006, Southern California came off of a terrible fire season. This increased the particulate matter massively. In 2007, the exact same thing occurred again. With that in mind, here's the relevant quote:
"To illustrate its point, the study noted that the California Highway Patrol recorded 2,521 vehicular deaths in the San Joaquin Valley and South Coast Air Basin in 2006, compared to 3,812 deaths attributed to respiratory illness caused by particulate pollution."
No citation of the SOURCE of that particulate matter. And no long-term study correlated with brush fires and pollution content. This needs to be done to justify these findings. One year, following severe brush fires, leads to a questionable statistic.
I personally experienced multiple cases of respiratory distress due to *brush fire* smoke during the 2005/2006/2007 fire seasons. I have direct correlation (and the city released statistics on increased ER visits after the fires). So that is why it's imperative this is taken into account.
Yes, pollution causes respiratory-related death. But ACCURATELY tell us all the causes and effects. That way we can measure progress (or lack of) in continuing pollution control and legislation.
-Pie - BossKey, on 11/15/2008, -0/+5This is just like the disproportional fear of terrorism. Yes, it kills, but many more ordinary things kill more, but our governments only want us to see the problem that lets them control us through fear.
- wagnerboi, on 11/15/2008, -2/+6Hello. kimsun, science. Science, kimsun. Talk amongst yourselves.
- acrodev, on 11/15/2008, -0/+4So one way or the other, people should drive less.
- lohphat, on 11/15/2008, -0/+4Growing up in the LA basin in the 70's was tough -- stage three smog alerts (the worst) would cause recesses in schools to be canceled and visibility was less than 4 miles. With the advent of catalytic converters and factory emission controls you rarely have stage one alerts.
- idavidtang, on 11/15/2008, -0/+3Sweet home California.
- inactive, on 11/14/2008, -2/+5Because tort reform is so much more important than three million kids in SoCal with diminished lung capacity.
- inactive, on 11/14/2008, -0/+3On a day like today, I believe it.
On a clear day, I can see the Hollywood sign and even the Griffith Observatory from my home in San Pedro. Today, I can't even make out the skyline. Lousy Santa Anas. - codyman, on 11/15/2008, -3/+6one volcano alone puts out enough crap into the air to count for God only knows how many cars...
BAN VOLCANOES '09 - threat42, on 11/15/2008, -0/+3What does this mean for the world's dirtiest air in China and India? Are their saturated populations destined to die as they round the corner into the next generation?
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -0/+3Increasing automobile deaths, would decrease drivers, which would decrease air pollution, which would save lives. I propose we remove all speed limits and impose mandatory text messaging while driving.
- MorganMghee, on 11/14/2008, -0/+2It's not the first such report. You can bet this and similar reports are behind the recent, some say radical and others timely, environmental regulation push. As the land of the lawyers, CA gets a preview of civil lawsuit trends.
- doitchinkstyle, on 11/15/2008, -1/+3i like how you think.
- zephc, on 11/15/2008, -4/+6Southern California sucks. I live in Northern California, and I'm telling you, it's great here. The air is clean. The water's clean. Even the dirt... is clean. Bowling averages are way up. Mini-golf scores are way down. And we have more excellent waterslides than any other state we communicate with. I'm telling you, this place is great.
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2Now who's going to laugh when they see me driving with surgical masks? Well, that probably won't change any time soon.
- akchrs, on 11/15/2008, -3/+5If someone in California lives North of you that makes you a Southern Californian.
- zephc, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2no
- MWeather, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2in related news .... you live too far from work and stores. Move.
- Barackalypse, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2Don't forget that it has lower mileage and is actually more polluting to the groundwater!
- mrsteveman1, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2Hey if i want to die dressed up like a schoolgirl with a McDonalds bag over my head in the middle of walmart i should have that right, and all this pollution is getting in the way of my dreams
- Swivelstick, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2Asthma and related allergies are increasing at an alarming rate but many will ignore it just like the obesity issue till the costs far outweigh doing something about it. I'm one of those who thinks we've past this point. As to your point of simple air pollution I agree up to a point as we also poison our food and waterways but stating oversimplification is an excuse often used to ignore the issue.
- thedrue, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2It seems like no matter what is going on, decreasing it would save the lives of someone...
At what point do we simply accept the risks associated with living? Don't get me wrong, everyone is entitled to doing what they can to increase their quality of living, but isn't that what got us into this mess in the first place? - MicrosoftBob, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2Don't forget the increase of organ donors.
It's a win-win! - Barackalypse, on 11/15/2008, -0/+2This becomes bad when our own citizens with agendas, like the environmentalists, promote that fear because they want the Government to intervene to promote or prevent actions based on their political agendas. Its why we have reformulated gasoline, that is more expensive and gets worse mileage in your car than regular gas (its also more polluting to groundwater, which they don't bother mentioning).
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1have a seat.
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1I don't think they are just assuming. I'm sure when they take air samples,it is analyzed for what kinds of particulates there are and where they came from. If the particulates were mostly wildfire related, I'm sure they would say so.
- 1smartguy, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2This doesn't really have anything to do with the litigious nature of our society. The San Joaquin Valley has the worst air quality in the Nation. It mostly comes from San Francisco and Los Angeles. California is one of the most progressive states in the world, let alone the U.S. California consistently sets new standards for air Quality, and the rest of the U.S. and Europe follows. By that I mean emissions standards for anything with an ICE. emissions from any kind of flue including restaurant hoods, painting facilities, dust control, etc. It's a damn shame though that any suggestion of 0 population growth is a no no.
- MrSlumberjack, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1...stupid comment system
Cities in China and India have some of the worst air quality in the world, and some may not be in wildfire prone areas. I'm sure the wildfires do contribute to the air quality, but with such a dense population in CA, why would you blame the majority of the problem on anything else but human caused pollution? - Richandler, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1And in random news, people tend to find new ways to do die anyway.
- Richandler, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Maybe they do understand.
- EricSchC1, on 11/15/2008, -3/+4I think its funny how even with studies like this, we still can't effectively enact legislation to make health care OR stricter environmental regulation more easily attainable.
I'm sorry but this is one instance where "loosely socialist" principles towards healthcare should be a good thing for this country. The "have mores" (i.e.: a wealthy person and their Hummer, a factory/business owner, etc.) make a bigger contribution to the amount of pollution in this world than the "have nots" (i.e.: a low-income person who would more likely bike, walk or drive their compact economy car), but everyone shares the resulting pollution-borne medical issues the same, regardless of which social group they belong to. Not to take away any valid points from staunch capitalists, but this is a horribly unfair incongruity.
(Waits for obligatory "AHHHHHH!! socialism!?!?" responses and bury brigade.) - tamman2000, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1I believe that most deaths due to particulate polution are from chronic problems rather than acute... So it seems that a few bad fire seasons wouldn't have that big of an impact...
But you are right, we should want accurate numbers, but even if the numbers are inflated because of the fires, do you see a downside to reducing emissions? - inactive, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2No, there are studies that show diminished lung capacity in Los Angles school kids. LA is a coastal plain surrounded by mountains, hence the trapped smog. I don't know what the 'something' is that's telling you your opinions, but it's not research.
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -2/+3Healthier lifestyle? How unpatriotic of you.
It's an American's right to do what they want, when they want, and how they want to whomever they want regardless of the consequences. - norman619, on 11/15/2008, -3/+4And in other news, eating a healthy diet and regular exercise would save even more lives than simply cuting down on air pollution. Imagine that!
Don't you love these stories which do not put things into proper perspective? - norman619, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1nick111:
Since you pollute why not stop using modern tech and live off the land like our hunter-gatherer ancestors did? Yeah...
STFU please. - dball48, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2Maybe because studies like this are complete *****. If you really think it's safer to drive in California than it is to breathe the air, then you are a moron.
- trogdor282, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Fat chance. Pun intended.
- inactive, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Believe the opposite of everything this tyrannical, fascist, corrupt, police state gov't tells you, and you will know the truth.
- nick111, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Well, no... if you pollute, then you're killing people other than yourself.
- bipolarruledout, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Yes, the modern world is killing us all.... but isn't it great to have such nice shinny things to play with?
- uclaith, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1I live in culver city & I cant even imagine living out in the valley...
inland empire fail - badtz, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Southern California does not "suck". I've lived all throughout California, and highly prefer Southern California ;)
- norman619, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1sodade:
I grew up in So Cal. So you are saying since some days can get bad you shouldn't get regular daily exercise? Are you REALLY trying to say that? - reyalp, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1We're all going to die.
- Dralha, on 11/15/2008, -1/+2The toxic industrial wasteland of China also contributes to CA's air pollution.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business/worldbu ... - minuslars, on 11/15/2008, -0/+1Remember though, smoking marijuana cures cancer. And so California is in equilibrium.
-
Show 51 - 69 of 69 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is