• Ariselas@piefed.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 days ago

    Sean is always cool, but I wonder how Thomas would look had he been smoking a pack a day for 20 years too.

    • Eq0@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 days ago

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

        • Eq0@literature.cafe
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          3 days 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
            0
            ·
            3 days 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
                1
                ·
                2 days 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.

      • Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        3 days 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