* Population-weighted findings. Air pollution is a bigger public health threat than (say) tobacco and alcohol not because it's worse for you individually (although it's terrible), but because the regions most affected are so densely populated
* Regulatory policy really works. "After periods of industrialization led to pollution that choked Europe and the United States decades ago, the two regions have largely been successfully creating and enforcing strong pollution laws. In the United States, legislative measures like the Clean Air Act have helped to reduce pollution by 64.9 percent since 1970, extending the average lifespan by 1.4 years" and similar improvements began in Europe 25 years ago, and even in China 10 years ago
Is that really the case? The article says "Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Pakistan are in order the top four most polluted countries". While there are certainly "0.1%" people in those countries, I highly doubt they're responsible for a meaningful amount of the pollution. For one, rich people use far less polluting technologies. Cooking and heating with electricity causes far less pollution than the poor burning biomass or coal. Furthermore, their population is small by definition, so even if they somehow pollute 10x more than average, their contribution is only 1%.
A week or so ago there was news about a research article[1] about greenhouse gases and how in the USA, the top 10% of households by earnings can be linked to a much higher carbon footprint. The headlines mentioned that 40 percent of USA’s GHG emissions can be attributed to the top 10%. Granted, it seems like they aren’t emitting directly, but it is linked by how they earn their money, and how they spend and invest it.
In India the biggest source of air pollution is people burning wood for cooking and the like, mainly in the poorer countryside. Previous poster is talking rubbish.
I think it’s more a result of affluent professionals’ changing political affiliations and the need to reshuffle the line between good guys and bad guys.
What? Have you looked at the science on this? Those in the RF/EMF science field opining that RF is perfectly safe, are a minority fringe. Example: ICNIRP, the private club that sets the limits most countries choose to follow, is a tiny, self-selected group, many with ties to telecoms business interests [1,2].
On the other hand, there are hundreds of independent research scientists in the RF/EMF field that agree [3] that the current limits are far outdated and based on assumptions of safety, not proof.
It's very well written and illustrated.
Big takeaways:
* Population-weighted findings. Air pollution is a bigger public health threat than (say) tobacco and alcohol not because it's worse for you individually (although it's terrible), but because the regions most affected are so densely populated
* Regulatory policy really works. "After periods of industrialization led to pollution that choked Europe and the United States decades ago, the two regions have largely been successfully creating and enforcing strong pollution laws. In the United States, legislative measures like the Clean Air Act have helped to reduce pollution by 64.9 percent since 1970, extending the average lifespan by 1.4 years" and similar improvements began in Europe 25 years ago, and even in China 10 years ago