/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11415614
maybe its just that living in high pollution areas is cheaper, hence poor live and study there. usually wealth requires some intelligence

All in good time, anon.
All in good time.

Well, the very small particulates cross the blood-brain barrier, so it probably does. You're also simply reducing exposure to oxygen, which is not helpful.
Whether or not you should go live in a small town instead of a city to breathe cleaner air for this reason, I'm unsure.

From what I recall, BDNF is greatly reduced when exercising in polluted air when typically it is supposed to greatly increase, and BDNF is important for forming memories etc... And we know that chronic aerobic exercise brings many neurobiological benefits, but still I do not know if living in a city is going to decrease your cognitive ability relative to living in a somewhat rural area.

>>11415614
Literature which I've read suggests that it may for people who live next to highways for their entire lives, or at least grew up next to a highway.

>>11415617
I think that these studies account for class/income. They will look at poor families next to highways, and then poor families who happen to live in areas with far less pollution.

>>11415614
Sweet fucking Jesus if that is the level of traps we're at I'll be balls deep in some boipucci by the end of the month!

It's a documented fact that US Boomers have worse impulse control and risk assessment due to exposure to lead

>>11415675
What does anyone do with the proof they've found anyway except show it to someone else?

>>11415663
It's an actual female.

>>11415689
As in biologically born with female genitalia? Well IT WOULD BE A CRYING SHAME TO NOT BREED THAT THING LIKE AN EXPONENTIAL GENERATOR FUNCTION WITH SUPERIOR GROWTH TO TREE(3)

>>11415663
Uhh based?

>>11415700
Checked OP's image again. Genuinely can't tell if that was born as a male or female, or what gender it is now. That line is so blurred it may as well come with a bottle of lube as far as I'm concerned at this point.

>>11415695
i have the satan guide my cock pic on the hdd of my old ibook g4 that i got in 2005

>>11415716

>>11415695
6.5/10

>>11415725
Which would just mean more breeding time for me with her my friend. Y'all can work in the fields while I plow the bitches!

>YA CUNTS GOTTA COME FROM SOMEWHERE!

bump

All of the studies which I see reference places with extreme air pollution like Mexico City, Los Angeles, Paris; I doubt that it is a concern in most places.

It is obvious, frankly.

https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Fulltext/2013/03000/Subclinical_Effects_of_Aerobic_Training_in_Urban.6.aspx

It is terrible for us, at any time.

bump

>>11415728
You couldn't sound more like a virgin if you tried.

>>11415614
>>11415614
>>11415614
SAUCE?

>>11418751
You have to go back.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6132565/
Yes

>>11415705
Looks like a chick to me. The angle makes hard to judge the hand size, which is admittedly pretty suspect, but the cleavage, taper of the forearm, female nose bridge is all saying biological female to me.

>>11418753
I NEED IT

>>11418759
Expertise needed to survive the Cyber favellas of 2020

>>11418776
This is the bleak future that William Gibson couldn't have predicted. In an era of menacing transcel mafias taking hold of our communities, there needs to be a few to act as sexquisitors to act as judge, jury, and executioner passing biological sex judgement where there would otherwise be seeds of doubt sown in the minds of the young.

>>11415614
Probably not. I mean there's probably some non-zero amount that air quality effects cognitive ability, especially in very highly abnormal levels of pollution but for average people living in cities with decent ecological standards that's probably not the explanatory factor. Might contribute some small amount but I'd guess that lifestyle choices typical of urban populations and genetic tendencies probably has a much larger impact.

>>11418992
>>11415614
Lock yourself in a room and let the CO2 levels rise. Then tell me air quality doesnt affect cognitive ability.

I would like to know at which concentrations do we see negative effects? If this is a linear-no threshold model, then we should just wear masks at all times to protect ourselves. If 9 μg/m^3 is okay but going beyond 12 presents these problems then I'd like to know. Cities like Boston, Portland, and Seattle do not have the extremely poor air quality of Mexico City or LA, so yes we know that those concentrations are going to hurt you, but at what concentration is it not a concern? I'm guessing that 5 μg/m^3 is safe but I do not know.

Mexico City is a literal hellscape.

>>11415663
>>11415695
>>11415700
>>11415705
>>11415716
>>11415722
>>11415728
>>11415725
>>11418751
>>11418759
>>11418767
>>11418776
>>11418783
should not be allowed to post here

>>11415614
>>11415617
>>11415632
>>11415649
>>11415656
>>11415675
>>11417202
>>11417241
>>11418755
>>11418992
>>11419081
>>11419509
>>11419576
should be allowed to post here

>>11419081
Did you even read what I said? Certainly through oxygen deprivation (which happens at very high CO2 concentrations in ambient air) you end up with cognitive issues but aside from ultra-massive metropolitan areas and third world industrial cities, you generally don't see that sort of thing. E.g. Chicago is the third largest city in the country and also has a significantly below national average IQ in many districts (and yes before you go all Taleb I'm aware that IQ isn't a perfect measure of intelligence but it's a decent enough heuristic when you're talking 10-15+ points in mean difference) while having a higher air quality than many cities 1/10th the size. Meanwhile Los Angeles And Mexico City do have very significant air quality issues so maybe localized to those cities air quality is an important factor in urban decay problems.

Basically all I'm saying is that air quality matters but you actually need to show a demonstrable local link for it to be a factor that is worth considering. Many cities within the west have very good air quality while still having many of the same problems as cities with lower air quality so it's probably not the air quality that's THE explanatory factor. It could be a factor, but it's very unlikely to be the main one worth addressing unless you live in an area with especially poor air quality.

>>11419708
Well, it is probably the air. We find the constituents of exhaust fumes in the brain. These ultrafine particulates are absolutely collecting in our bodies. We know that the left is bad, but the right, who knows.

>>11419724
In Mexico City, it might very well be the air. You're going to need stronger evidence to actually convince anyone that it's the air everywhere else. Especially when you have many cities in America like Chicago with significant issues with indicators of cognitive issues (e.g criminality, tendencies towards corruption, low average literacy etc.) while having generally pretty low levels of air pollution.

>>11419738
Chicago has a low air quality. That is for 2018, 2017, 2016, and 2015.

>>11419738
>you have many cities in America like Chicago with significant issues with indicators of cognitive issues (e.g criminality, tendencies towards corruption, low average literacy etc.)
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm........

>Chicago
> low levels of air pollution
what makes you think this?

>>11419738
>>11419775
>never replied
oh no no no no....

I can attest heat leaves me dumb. It isn't about air quality, that's about being so fucking hawt you sweat enough to drench your sheets while you sleep at night. It gets better with 20 minutes under air conditioning.

>>11420321
Heat worsens air pollution.

>>11415614
>but wouldn't that show some kind of obvious decrease in intelligence for all urban populations, and rise in dementia?

If only you knew how bad things really were.

>>11419775
That's the weighted mean per 24hr of what exactly? That certainly is a table but that highlighted column doesn't mean a whole hell of a lot to me. Pretty much every government measure of Chicago air quality shows it to be utterly unremarkable in terms of pollutants or Ozone contamination.

>>11419809
Chicago does have by all objective measurements fairly low levels of air pollution. Literally look at the EPA data for air quality from 2018. The standards for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, particle pollution and ozone are almost never exceeded.

>>11420531
It is PM2.5 over 4 years. Those measurements are not good.

>>11420546
The EPA standard for PM2.5 shows the threshold for low air quality to be 12.0 ug/m3 averaged over the course of 3 years. There were no counties in the state of Illinois that exceeded the 3 year mean threshold and there were only two counties in the last three years which exceeded the 24 hour threshold for concern (35 ug/m3) and each of them only had a single occurrence between 2015-2018 measurement period. I'm sure that air quality in Chicago isn't as good as in an undisturbed forest but for a city of almost 3 million people, you're making a big deal out of pretty much nothing. Of all the problems Chicago has, air quality isn't on the top of their list.

Literally download and look at the Illinois EPA 2018 report. It's really nothing going crazy over.

>>11420583
Anything above 5.0 is harmful. The EPA standard is a bare minimum, one step away from Los Angeles, which is the subject many of these studies on the effects of poor air quality.

>>11415614
More localized, there's a lot of evidence that homes, offices, classrooms and other enclosed public places have insane levels of C02. High enough to cause recordable mental decline.
On average, a typical participant’s cognitive scores dropped 21 percent with a 400 ppm increase in CO2.
250-350 ppm is the average outdoor level. In surveys of elementary school classrooms in California and Texas, average CO2 concentrations were above 1,000 ppm, a substantial proportion exceeded 2,000 ppm, and in 21% of Texas classrooms peak CO2 concentration exceeded 3,000 ppm.

>>11420583
>It's really nothing going crazy over
We do not know that. I cannot find a study which compares concentrations. 5+ is when we begin to have a problem. 12+ is a serious problem. That is the only thing I can conclude so far.

>>11420961
>We don't know that so we should just assume it's dangerous at my arbitrary threshold until proven otherwise

There's been a lot of investigation into relative increases in PM2.5 and various pulmonary/cardiovascular conditions but most of these have not found any significant relationship between PM2.5 and presence of cardiovascular/pulmonary disease below a mean of 12ug/m3. The main thing they find is that when you get beyond 15 for an extended period of time, your prevalence of pulmonary diseases and their mortality increases with every 10ug/m3 increase in a 24 hour exposure period. These increases are generally small, and often the statistical methods they use to make these decisions are a bit of a reach. For example Zanobetti 2011 intentionally excluded any particle measurements that were less correlated than r = 0.8 with their neighbors but still included hospitalization data from those regions where they rejected the measurements. Their rationale was that anything less than a 0.8 local correlation would be a localized pollution source, but it also very much so works in the other direction. When you're rejecting measurements done in local national parks because they're too clean but still including the hospitalization numbers in those regions in the total countywide admissions, you're going to skew the data towards higher prevalence of disease by introducing diseased individuals with no known connection to the measured PM2.5 into your sample.

Basically, yes there have been studies on relative increases in PM2.5 and prevalence of disease, but I haven't found a single thing which would indicate a baseline threshold of 5ug/m3 to be dangerous. You can believe that if you'd like, but understand that you're basically talking out of your ass.

>>11421344
How could you not see that we should follow a linear-no threshold model? The inflammation markers do not suddenly appear at 12+. I use a baseline of 5 as frankly it is effectively the background concentration. Very few places, cities especially, exist with such a low concentration. The cardio/pulmonary issues are not my concern, but the cognitive issues are, and we know that they exist at concentrations in places like Mexico City and Los Angeles, so we know that by 12, it's a serious problem.

>>11419081
lol

>>11415614
Uh oh, that picture's back, making me question my trap detector again.

Must be some boipucci out there in the world desperate for my attention for it to have to meme itself on 4chan.

>>11415689
>It's an actual female.
There's no way this is true.

>>11423517
I'm open to be proven wrong but it does look like a dude and a chick at the same time. It's one of those 'are at least 2 holes available?' moment.

>>11423753
Who cares? I’d fuck them either way

>>11423757
Well if only ONE hole then they're gonna be a boring lay because a one-hole individual reduces all their sexual complexity to 1d possibility.

With 2d you get at least a few different approaches and points of submission.

Getting 3 is basically convincing God that they better shut up and do what daddy says if they want to be kept in perpetual trinary-ternary dick-gifted bliss.

>>11423770
I prefer anal pussy is a sideshow

>>11423781
Me too, but only feminine butts.

>>11423781
Like, if it wasn't born close to a pussy then it doesn't get to learn all those cool tricks like beg and behave.

According to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_quality_index

The EPA considers 0.0-12.0 PM2.5 (μg/m3) as "Good" or 0-50 on the AQI. I'm not sure how that is possible if LA is considered awful yet it is close to 12.

>An increase in estimated annual exposure to PM 2.5 of just 5 μg/m3 was linked with a 13% increased risk of heart attacks.
>Particulate matter studies in Bangkok Thailand from 2008 indicated a 1.9% increased risk of dying from cardiovascular disease, and 1.0% risk of all disease for every 10 micrograms per cubic meter.

EU annual limit is 25 while US is 12. That's ridiculous.

>>11415614
>Does poor air quality lower cognitive ability in adults?
I wouldn't expect this to be the case since rural areas tend to correlate with cleaner air and lower IQ.

>>11419081
co2 is actually a very healthy substance to have in the body, the closed room effect is because of oxygen depletion

and curiously, CO2 is responsible for O2 transport and uptake, I believe the hypoxia related to hyperventilation is due to excessive exhalation of CO2. Try hyperventilating until you notice symptoms, then stopping. Then do the same thing again an hour later, then instead of just stopping you start breathing normally in a bag, the increased CO2 you rebreath will quickly stop the effects of hyperventilation.

>>11425353
You need co2 to maintain proper blood PH. A very specific threshold, it's not like more co2 = better.

>>11425297
what

>>11425959
the question is, how hard is it to reach optimal Co2 and how hard is it to pass it? obviously at some point you will explode like a balloon