• Eq0@literature.cafe
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    1 day ago

    Is this really it? I thought the non smoking would be compensated by the increased pollution of everything

    • Ariselas@piefed.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      54
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      I’m sure sun exposure also plays a role, everyone wears SPF 8000 sunblock now, while they were putting on tanning oil back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s

      • Eq0@literature.cafe
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        24 hours ago

        Thanks for the informative response. I’m a bit confused by the graphs given, that track emissions and not air quality itself. Would you know why?

        • EnsignRoApologist@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          22 hours ago

          AQI is highly variable by locale and hour. It averages out in the end, but measuring regional and global emissions is a better way to compare disparate time periods, except for areas at the extremes.

            • Hoimo@ani.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              5 hours ago

              To begin, it does accumulate in the region where it is created, but of course it diffuses over time, so 10 pollution could be 7 locally and 3 globally. The heavy elements (soot) never get very far and naturally fall out of the air. Some elements are broken down by sunlight. Some bind to rain and are washed into the ground. If pollution is constant, you reach an equilibrium in the air quality. Decreasing output slowly lowers that equilibrium and improves the air quality in the end.

      • [deleted]@piefed.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        23 hours ago

        Which is funny because those diseases are still around since they flare up when people stop taking vaccines.

    • Ledivin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 day ago

      There’s significantly less air and water pollution now than the past, with the only exception being microplastics. We haven’t found many short-term impacts from that yet, though

        • StellarExtract@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          23 hours ago

          Considering back then they had asbestos, lead, etc, we’re still a lot better off now, I think. A lot of our stuff now is “this increases risk” whreas a lot of stuff then was “this causes literal organ failure”.

    • boatswain@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      1 day ago

      Pollution was probably another contributing factor; I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a lot worse in the 60s than it is now: a lot of environmental controls got put in place in the intervening decades. Remember, there was leaded gasoline everywhere, and acid rain scares and the ozone layer depletion in the 80s.

    • zewm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      23 hours ago

      It’s a combination of many factors over time. Diet, sun exposure, smoking. Lots of things we have more information about now than we did then. Medicine is better, genetics, etc.