Top
Best
New

Posted by dabinat 14 hours ago

Scientists stunned by children's lung recovery in ultra low emission zone(www.bbc.com)
339 points | 287 commentspage 4
XorNot 12 hours ago|
So punchline, probably a good idea to electrify all the cars yeah?
simonsquiff 9 hours ago||
100%, and not just due to no emissions / minimal break dust. The noise reduction is a massive dividend. I used to live in london 10+ years ago, and when I come back I’m stunned by the noise difference, it really is so much quieter especially in central london. EVs everywhere especially replacing the horribly noisy diesel black cabs and buses. Very noticeably different and much more pleasant, and improving all the time as EV adoption continues to accelerate, hooray
Aozora7 2 hours ago|||
Noise reduction benefit is marginal. Most of the noise comes from tires rather than the engine. At 30 km/h tires are louder than the engine, so an EV driving at 50 km/h, which is the typical city speed limit, isn't any quieter than an ICE car.
jabl 9 hours ago||||
Absolutely.

It's annoying though that EV's need that extra Darth Vader on wheels sound to warn pedestrians, I'd prefer them to be as quiet as possible.

garbawarb 2 hours ago|||
A lot of jurisdictions have laws that say electric cars must emit thatbnoise while driving. Which is basically because you might not be able to hear them over the louder sound of gas cars. I hope that that requirement can go away if we get to near 100% electric.
adonovan 7 hours ago|||
You can switch it off, or make it play one of several different ridiculous sounds.
dotancohen 7 hours ago||
On which vehicles can the humming in reverse gear be switched off? I understand the Tesla (my car) and the BYD (expires car) can not turn that off.
zekrioca 3 hours ago|||
That, and even better when coupled with good public transportation.
mellosouls 11 hours ago|||
Probably a much better idea first to have a decent public transport and electric car support network throughout the country first.

We don't all live in the city.

hdgvhicv 5 hours ago||
And those of us who don’t can just plug in at home.
cryptopian 4 hours ago|||
London's also been putting effort into improving safe bicycle routes lately. I visit London every few weeks and if I'm going somewhere in central, I'll often just grab one of the Santander hire bikes instead of the tube. Well, most of London (looking at you, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea)
ZeroGravitas 5 hours ago|||
Yes, and...

In some areas of London the ULEZ has been so successful that the measured NOx is now coming mostly from gas boilers used for heating, probably mostly old large commerical units.

So shifting from gas boilers to heat pumps and from gas ovens and stoves to electric/indusction is also beneficial.

jimbob45 12 hours ago|||
That doesn’t solve brake and tire particles. Although…rail might solve those?
jillesvangurp 10 hours ago|||
EVs use regenerative braking. So they hardly produce any brake particulates. And the tire particulates are heavy so they don't stay airborn for nearly as long. At low speeds, tires don't wear out as quickly.

Europe has quite a few cities where traffic is increasingly discouraged from going to the inner cities. Cities like Paris and London are much transformed from what they used to be and it shows in the health statistics.

It's not just the particulates but also nitrous oxides (nox) produced by combustion engines. Nox is correlated with lots of health issues. Take it away and you see lower rates of chronic lung issues, cancer, development issues with kids, etc.

But yes, tires are also an issue. But a fairly minor one to anything coming out of a combustion engine.

Mass transit indeed is nice in big cities. Removes the need for taking the car.

6LLvveMx2koXfwn 9 hours ago||
There is a generator at the end of my street in a shipping container sized metal box, it also has a mini office and loo, and is used by the construction workers digging holes in the road. It has company spiel written on the side, promoting the box's environmental credentials, including the punchline: 'Zero NOX when generator not in use'.

No shit Sherlock.

throwaway89201 9 hours ago|||
Might instead refer to a start-stop / battery backup kind of system, where idling-but-on doesn't burn any fuel, but sudden loads can still be serviced.
testing22321 9 hours ago|||
I look forward to the day coke is marketed as “zero fat!”
cousinbryce 12 hours ago||||
https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-... Rail, bike, even busses are better. Cars are uniquely bad transportation in urban environments
mhandley 12 hours ago||
Do the numbers in that article make sense? 5.8g/km for tyre wear? Generally my tyres last maybe 25000 miles. So at that rate they would lose 230kg. Seems high.
danparsonson 11 hours ago|||
"Non-exhaust emissions (NEE) are particles released into the air from brake wear, tyre wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust during on-road vehicle usage."

I guess they mean total non-exhaust particulates.

lazide 11 hours ago|||
They might be counting trucks?
masklinn 9 hours ago||||
> That doesn’t solve brake and tire particles.

Regen braking means significantly less brake dust, especially at city speeds and with blended braking.

> Although…rail might solve those?

Trains still have brakes. Some can regen brake but because they usually don’t have batteries they need the rail or overhead gantry to support inputs.

But on a passenger-mile basis, I expect an electric train produces essentially no particulates compared to a car, even a light rail on tyres. I do not however have numbers.

Symbiote 8 hours ago|||
The usual brake on a train that can't do regenerative breaking is a big grid of resistors to dump the energy as heat.

It's much less wear and tear than friction brakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamic_braking

rsynnott 6 hours ago||
And diesel hydraulic trains (and some buses) usually use these: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retarder_(mechanical_engineeri...
jurip 9 hours ago|||
I believe at least subways tend to have lousy air:

https://engineering.nyu.edu/news/subway-air-pollution-dispro...

But I expect it's much better in open-air rail systems.

masklinn 7 hours ago||
I was thinking open-air yes, tunnels do indeed have major issue. With pollutant concentrations, road tunnels are the same (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13619...).

For all that I did not care for them originally this is probably something full-height platform screen doors help with, assuming the trains themselves are also filtered that would keep the pollutants clear of drivers and users, although it does not exactly resolve the question of managing their presence in the tunnels themselves (and track / tunnel maintenance personnel should probably already be wearing respirators if not full breathing apparatus), and I could see things get pretty dire in case of breakdowns.

rsynnott 6 hours ago||
Impossible to retrofit, of course, but what helps more are big tunnels. Modern ~9m diameter single tunnel systems are a lot better for this than old 3.5m diameter double tunnel systems.
mhandley 12 hours ago|||
Tyre, no, but regen braking almost eliminates brake particles at the speeds I drive in London. But mostly I take the train. Unfortunately the highest I measured on my particulate sensor is not near the roads, but in the tube.
Gibbon1 8 hours ago||
Electric vehicles are stills cars. But better than gasoline and especially diesel cars.

So yeah.

That said not clear to me about PM2.5 is I've never seen anything legit seeming that tries to characterize the harm based on the type/source. Though it seems agreed diesel is especially bad.

OutOfHere 12 hours ago||
I use air purifiers mounted on my windows, running continuously except in the deep summer and deep winter. This makes my air contain 50-100x fewer particulates than the outdoor air. In contrast, the best I can achieve with floor air purifiers as people have them is a 5-10x reduction. The window purifiers also keep excess CO2 and VOCs out.
Terr_ 11 hours ago||
> The window purifiers also keep excess CO2 and VOCs out.

I assume you mean that the increased air-exchange (purified or not) helps CO2 that originates inside the house to leave promptly? (Equalizing it with the outdoors.)

Literally "keeping CO2 out" is a much trickier and more-expensive proposition.

OutOfHere 7 hours ago||
You are quite correct on both counts.
bad_username 8 hours ago|||
Health improvements are not measurable any more if you go below 5 mcg/m2 average level of PM2.5 particulates. For 50x reduction to be beneficial, you need to live in an area where the pollution is 250 mcg/m2, which is an extreme level found only in a few unfortunate places on Earth. 5-10x reduction is reasonable almost everywhere.
OutOfHere 7 hours ago||
I know precisely the subjective difference between a 5x reduction and a 50x reduction. Only the latter feels sufficiently good to me, and my brain operates better with it. You will know it when you experience it. Maybe it's my middle-aged brain that needs the extra support. I live in an urban area near traffic. Lately there intermittently also has been wildfire smoke coming down from Canada.
energy123 11 hours ago||
You have activated carbon to filter out the VOCs?
OutOfHere 7 hours ago||
Yes, the filter absolutely has an activated carbon layer in it in addition to a HEPA layer. I understand that activated carbon doesn't last long. I have been changing the filter every two months.

Note that because this purifier is mounted at the window, it filters incoming air from outside, not the indoor VOCs that are already in the residence. The indoor VOCs will simply have to get exhausted from elsewhere due to the air pressure.

What I am suggesting is that my need for activated carbon is slightly less because I am rapidly pushing the VOCs out in the resulting exhaust.

scotty79 5 hours ago||
Who knew that populating Earth with mechanical horses that shit into the air is not such a great idea.
ggm 10 hours ago||
s/stunned/pleased/
4ndrewl 7 hours ago|
Rtfa. "Stunned" is the actual word the scientist used.
14 10 hours ago||
I live in British Columbia so we have fairly good air quality. But with the yearly fires lately summer air some years is poor. So one year with the fires smoking and air quality getting poor I got an air purifier for my kids room and the living room. It is only anecdotal but right away if felt like he had better sleeps. The smoke wasn't thick as it was from fires hundreds of miles away and it wasn't like any of us were hacking or coughing crazy but in hindsight I felt that my young son who would have been effected the most slept better and his breathing at night seemed quieter and easier.
rimworld 7 hours ago||
cease all travel and live to 88
Havoc 5 hours ago||
And yet we’ve still got people cutting down the enforcement cameras with angle grinders at night
inigyou 3 hours ago|
Shame they're not doing it to Flock cameras.
marsven_422 4 hours ago||
[dead]
Aeolun 7 hours ago||
Scientists stunned healthy living is healthy?
noelwelsh 7 hours ago|
Pointless anti-intellectualism.

There is a big difference between believing something is true, and demonstrating it is true and measuring the effect. One is a vibe. The other can drive policy.

userbinator 10 hours ago|
Short-term gains are likely to produce long-term negative effects.

Hormesis and natural selection have been driving factor of evolution for a long time.

rsynnott 6 hours ago||
Are you suggesting that it would be advantageous for humanity to evolve to live in London circa 2000?

Larry Niven played with this in one of his stories; a time traveller from the far (and highly polluted) future has to use mechanical breathing assistance, because the levels of CO2 in the air in the past weren't high enough to prompt the breathing response properly (human breathing is controlled largely by blood CO2 levels).

alansaber 10 hours ago|||
What is this, eugenics from first principles?
inigyou 3 hours ago|||
Anything you can do externally will tend to evolve out. That's why humans can't make their own Vitamin C and half of them need glasses. Keeping a trait in the population does require keeping up the selective prrssure, which is eugenics.
sublinear 8 hours ago||
Asthma is so common that this is not only easy to test, but has been. That's what the article was about.

Anyway, by your own line of thinking, wouldn't sensitive lungs be an advantage? The incentive to find cleaner air is also breaking away from the pack. Since humans are social creatures, that's more likely to look like new leadership for followers who have their own reasons to break away.

Every civilization in history has started out that way. It takes more than mere brute force to beat the competition. Survival is just as much about picking your battles and working smarter.