Scientists stunned by children's lung recovery in ultra low emission zone

ddabinat about 3 hours ago 31 commentsRead Article on bbc.com

ES version is available. Content is displayed in original English for accuracy.

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion Sentiment

71% Positive

Analyzed from 657 words in the discussion.

Discussion (31 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews

ecshafer•about 2 hours ago

Anecdata I was living very close to a busy highway, and my young daughter was wheazing when she had a cold, we had to give her medicine via a nebulizer. When we moved out to the country more, far away from any major roads, these issues all disappeared within a couple months.

nathancahill•about 1 hour ago

Doctors used to prescribe a "change of air" in the 18-19th centuries. Maybe they still should.

dyauspitr•30 minutes ago

As long as the country doesn’t involve large scale farms because the glyphosate sprayed on them causes serious issues.

roughly•about 1 hour ago

A friend of mine does research on air pollution from cars - the TL;DR is you should not live within a third of a mile of a highway. The falloff is pretty sharp, but you don't want to be in that zone.

sasaf5•3 minutes ago

What about the vicinity of large or uphill streets inside a city? I am curious how the data compares with highways.

lazide•30 minutes ago

Notably, most major cities have been building tons of housing (especially ‘affordable housing’) right next to highways, as it is the only areas that aren’t already built out with tons of high value houses.

Surprise surprise.

energy123•25 minutes ago

It's a dumping ground for poor people.

ggm•3 minutes ago

s/stunned/pleased/

stuaxo•about 2 hours ago

I've needed my inhaler way less since the ULEZ came in.

Visiting London used to mean blowing your nose to black snot for a week afterwards, these days living in London it's pretty good.

glenngillen•about 1 hour ago

I've not lived in London for more than a decade. I always thought the black snot was from the Tube. Is it not?

lazide•30 minutes ago

It is, but not just from it.

satvikpendem•about 2 hours ago

Using scientists being "stunned" should take the same amount of relevance as someone being "slammed" in article titles.

Nition•36 minutes ago

It's a direct quote from one of the scientists:

'"I was absolutely stunned when I first saw the results," Prof Chris Griffiths, a senior author on the study, at Queen Mary University of London, told the BBC."'

dabinat•21 minutes ago

The BBC should have put it in quotes in the headline; I kept the HN title faithful to the original article.

bryanlarsen•about 1 hour ago

Smokers don't magically undo the damage they did to their lungs after they stop smoking. Stunned might be hyperbole, but it is at least a little bit surprising.

zdragnar•41 minutes ago

"Stunned" isn't really a scientific term. It's the sort of editorializing you should expect to come from people who aren't the scientists themselves. More than hyperbole, it is classic click bait.

Also, quitting smoking definitely eases a number of symptoms, especially if you're not at the point of chronic emphysema. The reduction of inflammation triggers alone after a bit of time is fairly significant. Less coughing, less mucus buildup, etc.

Nition•34 minutes ago

But this isn't that at all. "Stunned" is used here because it's the word one of the study's authors actually used.

'"I was absolutely stunned when I first saw the results," Prof Chris Griffiths, a senior author on the study, at Queen Mary University of London, told the BBC.'

powerpcmac•about 2 hours ago

I'd like to imagine the stunned scientist is a scientist from another field, they show some medical findings to a guy who looks at snail butts all day and he's the one "stunned" by the findings

Nition•34 minutes ago

The scientist who used the word "stunned" is one of the study's authors.

bilekas•34 minutes ago

> strongest evidence yet that local clean air zones could help reduce some of the harm caused by pollution during childhood.

It's incredible this is even in debate. It's one of those intuitive things well known since the reduction of coal burning and smog during the industrial revolution in London?

OutOfHere•about 1 hour 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_•39 minutes 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.

energy123•18 minutes ago

You have activated carbon to filter out the VOCs?

XorNot•about 2 hours ago

So punchline, probably a good idea to electrify all the cars yeah?

mellosouls•35 minutes 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.

jimbob45•about 2 hours ago

That doesn’t solve brake and tire particles. Although…rail might solve those?

cousinbryce•about 2 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•about 1 hour 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.

mhandley•about 2 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.