Comment 114469

By CharlesBall (registered) | Posted October 30, 2015 at 09:30:25 in reply to Comment 114462

Is there really a scientific way to distinguish who, amongst all the people who die from respiratory ailments, are directly and specifically linked to one form of pollution v. another, to one particular human induced hazard v. another, to genetic fallibility v. environment exposure etc. etc.?

If a person smokes and lives in an environment where there is no cars, will he really live longer?

There are specific hazards, asbestos to those who are genetically per-disposed to mesothelioma, peanuts to people who suffer peanut allergies, and such where elimination of the hazard have a direct link to life expectancy. Is that true in the same way for pollution from auto's as opposed to say fireplaces, factories or the other 96% of things that contribute to air pollution?

In other words, it it fair to say that if you eliminated automobiles completely, there would be a reduction in deaths by 4%? And if so, what does that mean?

If building and using automobiles has increased life expectancy by,say, 20 years since 1900 with its contribution to industrialization, would eliminating it increase life expectancy further?

I can see that replacing carbon based transportation with non-carbon based transportation would have the dual benefit of meeting the needs of private transportation and encouraging human development.

Is it as simple as saying that because cars contribute 4% to air pollution that 4% of deaths from respiratory ailments are the result of cars or is it a far more complex algorithm?

Comment edited by CharlesBall on 2015-10-30 09:33:20

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

There are no upcoming events right now.
Why not post one?

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds