Jump to content

Talk:Air pollution/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

AQI scale used by US EPA

  • www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=aqibasics.aqi
Air Quality Index (AQI) Basics
"The AQI is an index for reporting daily air quality. It tells you how clean or polluted your air is, and what associated health effects might be a concern for you. The AQI focuses on health effects you may experience within a few hours or days after breathing polluted air. EPA calculates the AQI for five major air pollutants regulated by the Clean Air Act: ground-level ozone, particle pollution (also known as particulate matter), carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and nitrogen dioxide. For each of these pollutants, EPA has established national air quality standards to protect public health .Ground-level ozone and airborne particles are the two pollutants that pose the greatest threat to human health in this country."
  • www.airnow.gov/index.cfm?action=airnow.calculator
AQI Calculator - AQI to Concentration and Concentration to AQI for five pollutants

Please add info about the AQI scale used by the EPA in the US.-71.174.186.40 (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions/Comments

An additional section could describe how air pollution has changed since pre-industrial revolution, or how it has affected global warming. Also, it might be beneficial to further describe greenhouse gases. Overall, the structure is very organized and easy to follow. The 2014 World Health Organization report mentioned in the opening section could also work well in the health effects section! Amcgoo (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Air pollution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Air pollution and intelligence

It was mentioned on the Today programme on 28 August 2018 can reduce intelligence - does any one think this could go in the article?Vorbee (talk) 07:53, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Better to go to the original research here or a text media review of it as at here.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

"Fluctuating" CO2

Brian Everlasting, I don't know what you are playing at. But anyone trying to describe this graph as "fluctuating or changing" rather than "accelerating" is either a dyed-in-the-wool climate change denier (and thus has no business editing this article) or incompetent at interpreting graphs (and thus has no business editing this article). Stop it. Your contributions have been almost uniformly bad, and you seem determined to keep up the record. The next block is not going to be far away with this behaviour. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2019

Check Real-Time AQI For India Gyane Haobijam (talk) 07:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 08:05, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Critique

Restructure Intro

Under the title there is a small paragraph referencing different articles that relate to some of the topics incorporated in the article. Instead of being the first thing the reader sees, this paragraph should be broken up into its respected topics of air pollution and placed under the corresponding subsection. For example, the link to medical theory of bad air should be put at the bottom of “Health effects,” this way the reader can easily find and reference it.

Regulation: Rename & Add Info

Under regulations there are two sections “Canada” and “Germany.” Under the subtitle “Canada” is a detailed explanation of Canada’s air quality health index with clear charts and graphics. While the section is cohesive it should not be under the “Regulation” section because it doesn’t discuss or provide any information on the regulations Canada has in place for air pollution. It only explains the levels of the AQHI and the pollutants it measures. Additionally, in the next subsection titled “Germany” there is only one sentence which is linked to a different wikipedia webpage. If the author had no intention on including Germany’s air standards and index then the subsection should have been deleted entirely. Also, there is no reasoning as to why the author chose Canada and Germany as the two examples for air quality laws, nor does the author mention the actual air pollution laws of either country even thought the section is titled “Regulations.” The section should be renamed, “Air Quality Index” and Germany should either be deleted or more countries should be listed so the reader can compare indexes among different countries.

Expired Link

Under the section “Pollutants” the bullet point “Particulate matter / particles” is linked to a webpage that no longer exists. The information should be updated.


Jbohey (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Intro sentence

"Air pollution is a broad term applied to all chemical substances, physical and biological agents that modify the natural characteristics of the atmosphere."

I removed "substances, physical" above since there are no physical substances that modify something yet are inert. Koyaanis Qatsi

But energy can affect the atmosphere (ie.: radiation) user:ChaTo Thursday, July 18, 2002.
Particulates damage lungs through their physical presence, rather than chemistry, and are a significant element of air pollution.Will McW 23:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

ATTENTION: The only thing that I see when I view this page is the words "GOD WILL SAVE!!!!" I do not know how to fix this but figured that it was worth mentioning, seeing as probably no one can view this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.69.98.18 (talk) 04:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 April 2019

I noticed that there is an it's that should be its Builtlikegod (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Where? Ctrl+F shows no instances of "it's" on this article Cannolis (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd argue that BreezoMeter's Air Pollution Heat Map has the highest and most accurate resolution (up to 500m according to them) showcasing air pollution around the globe, here is an example link for the Paris area: https://breezometer.com/air-quality-map/city/paris --Damsel of Death (talk) 08:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 July 2019

Under the subtitle ‘Cities’, the text currently reads:

Air pollution is usually concentrated in densely populated metropolitan areas, especially in developing countries where environmental regulations are relatively lax … by the local university in Sheffield, UK.

I would like to add the following paragraph:

Quarmby et al (2019) conduct a review of the evidence behind air quality strategies and technologies, with a focus on road transport in urban areas, because air pollution tends to be worse in cities, and the main source is fossil fuel vehicles. They draw on the environmental science and policy literature to provide interdisciplinary insight into the most effective air quality policy measures. The most promising initiatives include active travel infrastructure, roadside barriers, low emission zones, and low speed limits. Technologies which remove pollution from the air largely remain unproven, especially at the scale needed to make a significant impact. The combinations of policies from three cities which rank highly for air quality are reviewed; one important finding is that policies are most effective when they are a part of a mutually reinforcing suite of measures. Policies consistent across the cities studied are good public transport coverage, a good cycle network, and financial incentives for electric vehicle purchase.[1] Palihue (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Quarmby, S., Santos, G. and M. Mathias (2019), ‘Air Quality Strategies and Technologies: A Rapid Review of the International Evidence’, Sustainability, doi: 10.3390/su11102757 https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/11/10/2757
 Not done - Per WP:UNDUE. Also, this is a paragraph about a review and how great it is, and does not actually provide much meaningful content for the readers. Also, please read our guidelines on WP:COI. All of your contributions so far have been to try to add references to Santos to Wikipedia. - MrOllie (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2019

thumb Mark König (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Please state what change you wish to make. Vsmith (talk) 11:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Effects on fetal health

This might just be a single study and so not yet ready for inclusion in the encyclopedia, but a subject worth watching or possibly researching the scientific consensus about if anyone's interested. -- Beland (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Carcinogenicity to humans

In 2013, the World Health Organization recognised outdoor air pollution (as well as particulate matter in outdoor air pollution specifically) as carcinogenic to humans.

Could someone add this to the article ? For instance in legend of the first picture ?

Sajak Géomédia (talk) 20:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC).

What proportion of air pollution is caused by humans?

I would appreciate it if there were an additional source measuring the contribution of each of the man-made and the natural sources to the total amount of air pollution.

Melaneas (talk) 12:35, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Content about Rossby waves and surface air pollution?

This content was in pollution but I am wondering if it should be included in air pollution instead?

Rossby waves and surface air pollution

Air pollution fluctuations have been known to strongly depend on the weather dynamics. A recent study developed a multi-layered network analysis and detected strong interlinks between the geopotential height of the upper air ( 5 km) and surface air pollution in both China and the USA.[1] This study indicates that Rossby waves significantly affect air pollution fluctuations through the development of cyclone and anticyclone systems, and further affect the local stability of the air and the winds. The Rossby waves impact on air pollution has been observed in the daily fluctuations in surface air pollution. Thus, the impact of Rossby waves on human life is significant and rapid warming of the Arctic could slow down Rossby waves, thus increasing human health risks.EMsmile (talk) 03:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Y Zhang, J Fan, X Chen, Y Ashkenazy, S Havlin (2019). "Significant Impact of Rossby Waves on Air Pollution Detected by Network Analysis". Geophysical Research Letters. 46 (21): 12476–12485. arXiv:1903.02256. Bibcode:2019GeoRL..4612476Z. doi:10.1029/2019GL084649. S2CID 119060513.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

"Premature deaths on average of 1 year"

@Zefr: There seems to be a mistake in this edit here: it states that air pollution causes "premature deaths on average of 1 year" [sic], without describing the number of deaths per year. Jarble (talk) 22:33, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Found that the WHO url needed repair, and an additional BBC source, with some editing here. Zefr (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Air pollution

You should add the causes also 2409:4042:70E:A7D0:F064:DA0A:3B28:719D (talk) 17:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You should read the article, particularly this bit. -Roxy the dog. wooF 17:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dy1001.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 18 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jbohey.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Diagram needs updating

Just a note that the diagram about air pollution in cities that refers to EU limits and WHO guidelines (this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Air_pollution_exposure_in_cities_-_EU_limits_vs_WHO_guidelines.svg) needs updating in line with the revised 2021 WHO guidelines. 45154james (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Atmospheric pollution

Is air pollution and atmospheric solution same? 110.235.237.244 (talk) 09:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - SU22 - Sect 202 - Tue

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 July 2022 and 16 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Wl2671, XChen0219 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FULBERT (talk) 15:48, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 200 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): VenusL (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by VenusL (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - FA22 - Sect 201 - Thu

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 September 2022 and 8 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sssara7 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Sssara7 (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

What factual inaccuracy in the lead?

There is a tag but what is it for exactly please? If it has been fixed please remove the tag Chidgk1 (talk) 07:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah I see there was a minor mistake in the tagging I have now fixed Chidgk1 (talk) 07:21, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

C02 not a Pollutant

"As the source of available carbon in the carbon cycle, atmospheric CO2 is the primary carbon source for life on Earth", according to our own article on the subject.

It is a slanderous false equivalence to place this along with sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and other actual pollutants.

If you wish to mention it as a greenhouse gas, that should be a separate assertion, and WP:DUE credit should be given before its reputation is smeared, which distracts from the urgent problem. Jaredscribe (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Its a slander against CO2, not against a person. Jaredscribe (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi there... Air pollution is all about concentration. CO2 is certainly a pollutant (and toxic) at high enough concentrations - something like 100 times normal atmospheric concentration, which means tens of thousands of ppm (compared to the background value of hundreds of ppm). See this reference for a table of different values and health effects: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2020-08/Carbon-Dioxide.pdf For interest, see also the article about Lake Nyos, which documents a well-known incident of mass CO2 poisoning that killed thousands of animals/people. It's also clearly explained in Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity. 45154james (talk) 10:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC) [Minor edited to correct lack of indenting/formatting and possible confusion 45154james (talk) 15:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)]
First, thanks for the information about carbon dioxide, which few people would have heard of. :) Well... actually I do have reservations with the notion that it's all about concentration. Drinking too much water can kill, but I really can't imagine water becomes a pollutant. Too much water on the land kills too. But we just call it flooding, a natural disaster rather pollution. However, I do understand the concern that we are producing too much carbon dioxide. And in fact, most of the time it is produced together with other really toxic and really unwanted pollutants, e.g., particulates when burning fossil fuels. Also, currently the amount of CO2 produced seems to be an indicator for policy makers to understand to what extent are we polluting the world. So it seems to me that it is still worthy to have some discussion about carbon dioxide in the Air pollution page, though it should be the "main character" of global warming rather than air pollution. Dustfreeworld (talk) 03:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I think you've exposed a bigger problem with this article, which is that it attempts a very broad and inclusive definition of air pollution that also includes greenhouse gases as pollutants. Now we can certainly define pollution that way, but it risks confusing what we traditionally mean by air pollution (poor air quality) with all the stuff about climate change. It's difficult and complex because the two things (air quality and climate change) are obviously intimately related and have common causes (notably fossil fuel burning). My own view is that there is a great deal of stuff on wikipedia about climate change and the climate impacts of carbon dioxide should be covered mostly there. This article should mention it more briefly? It is difficult, however, because (in the US at least) it's politically very contentious and there have been arguments about whether and how to treat CO2 as a pollutant. A bit of a can of worms unfortunately! 45154james (talk) 20:35, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed the ‘factual dispute about lede’ tag as it seems this has been resolved. If not feel free to put back the tag and continue discussion here. I don’t know what other people at Wikipedia:WikiProject Climate change think but I would have no objection to removing the words ‘carbon dioxide at high concentrations’ from the lead. The lead is too long anyway I think. If you continue discussion please could you let us know at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree with 45154james. And thanks Chidgk1 for the comment. Dustfreeworld (talk) 10:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Yes, it could be removed from the introduction altogether. We don't have to list everything there. 45154james (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
Done.Dustfreeworld (talk) 12:04, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
And my deleted comments which will be guiding me in my future edits can be found here. Please feel free to leave your comments on how to edit the pollution pages here or in my talk page. Thanks.Dustfreeworld (talk) 13:28, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
I removed your long post as off-topic, per WP:NOTFORUM. Article talk pages are for discussions directly relating to article content, rather than for essays on how to fix the planet. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Your explanation post above (and this post of mine?) should better go to my talk page but not here. It's off-topic ;) Dustfreeworld (talk) 15:31, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the removed post is not about how to fix the planet. No. It's more about "don't try to fix the planet". Don't try to fix the planet. The planet will fix itself if we do less harm to it (e.g. we won't need reforestation if there's no deforestation). Trying too hard to fix it sometimes may cause problems. Dustfreeworld (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Air_pollution/Archive_2&oldid=1220706710"