Are We Measuring the Air Nobody Breathes?

Started by Atheesh Kandepan · 3 weeks ago · Board: General

Thread starter

Atheesh Kandepan · 3 weeks ago

I noticed something that caught my eye while I was looking through a NASA dataset. It was tracking pollution across 200+ countries from 2003 to 2018, it mentions that a country's average air quality and what people actually breathe every day can tell completely different stories. Pollution clusters where people live will be full of pollutants compared to the countryside, so a nation can look clean on paper while its cities are choking. At the end of the day, population-weighted exposure is the true number, as it looks at where people actually are. So why are we still letting national averages drive the headlines?

Back to board Log in to post

John Bradley · 3 weeks ago

Atheesh Kandepan wrote:
I noticed something that caught my eye while I was looking through a NASA dataset. It was tracking pollution across 200+ countries from 2003 to 2018, it mentions that a country's average air quality and what people actually breathe every day can tell completely different stories. Pollution clusters where people live will be full of pollutants compared to the countryside, so a nation can look clean on paper while its cities are choking. At the end of the day, population-weighted exposure is the true number, as it looks at where people actually are. So why are we still letting national averages drive the headlines?

National averages flatten everyone. They mix the forest with the freeway and call it a country. But pollution pools where people live, and the number a country reports is not the air a person actually breathes.

Population-weighted exposure is not a more complicated number. It is a more honest one. It asks where people actually are, and measures the air there.

Atheesh Kandepan · 2 weeks, 6 days ago

That's exactly my point. I feel like it comprimises peoples health, and that's where it stops being a data problem and becomes a policy one. If governments report the national average, they can technically hit their targets on paper while millions of people in cities are still breathing bad air every day, and being harmed. The number sets a standard, but if it is off the mark people think their health is better then what it may be.

Thaarakan Arulruban · 2 weeks, 5 days ago

Also I feel like there is also the question of fairness. But when you look at the national average, who is it really impacting? Inevitably poorer urban communities will have been exposed. “It’s not just a technical issue, it’s an issue of fairness.

Leo Roche · 2 weeks, 2 days ago

A long time ago I lived in Pittsburgh very close to the river. I will never forget the thin layer of coal dust that would settle on everything if I left a window open overnight. Due to this I always kept my windows closed in the summer and relied on AC, which of course uses more electricity. It seems to be a cycle.

I do wonder sometimes if air quality on a neighborhood level would be more telling of future health issues & how it ties into income inequality and learning issues.

Atheesh Kandepan · 2 weeks, 2 days ago

Leo that's a perfect real life example, the national average meant nothing for what was actually landing on your windowsill. And you're right, this means it stops being just a health issue and becomes an inequality one too. I find it crazy that living a healthier lifestyle is more expensive, such as organic foods, led lightbulbs which are more efficient then incandescent bulbs, and being forced to use AC instead of leaving your window open.