 |
| Historically, the southern part of California's central valley has the highest levels of PM2.5 |
Apologies for the different scales. The people who published these graphics chose color scales that "spanned" the data with the image of the continental United States being deep red at 20 micrograms/m^3 of very small particulate matter PM2.5
In this image of Communist China, every region that is not one of the two most saturated shades of green would be deep RED if the graphic used the same scale as the one used for the image of the United States.
Furthermore, the most intense shade of red on the image for Communist China is seven-and-a-half times more polluted than the same shade on the US image.
Wuhan's PM2.5 rating is 65 micrograms/m^3
The PM2.5 particles are biologically important because
Airborne fine particulate matter (PM2.5) attracts more and more attention due to its environmental effects. The immune system appears to be a most sensitive target organ for the environmental pollutants. Inhaled PM2.5 can deposit in different compartments in the respiratory tract and interact with epithelial cells and resident immune cells. Exposed to PM2.5 can induce local or systematic inflammatory responses. Source
We have been lied to from day one about the US data and the ChiCom data I wouldn't believe or trust.
ReplyDeleteSince this is a respiratory disease, it was speculated early on that it was more severe in China because of the pollution (great parts of the country still cook at home with coal) and the Chinese smoke like chimneys.
Matthew
ReplyDeleteGoing back all the way to the seminal anti-smoking ‘research’ in 1947 it has been proven, not just known, that smoking has a ‘protective effect’ with regards to inhalation related illness (be it pathogen or particulate related). [The 1947 research showed conclusive proof that rather than causing the then increase in lung cancers, it actually significantly reduced the numbers even when exposed to, the real culprit, radioactive particulates. The increased mucocilliary clearance (smokers cough) was speculated as a mechanism, but no research has been ‘allowed’ since. The research was manipulated to show smoking as the culprit, to hide and prevent the uproar against the ‘necessary/essential’ nuclear research needed for the Cold War. In other words, they lied].
Remember the, very swiftly smothered and memory-holed, research showing smokers being less susceptible to the coof? The same mechanism was suggested as the reason.
Most of the ‘real’ research shows ‘spikes’ of cancers (especially lung, liver and mouth/throat, as well as leukaemias) dependent on rates of exposure to inhaled … diesel fumes. [hot-spots surrounding all major traffic routes and junctions].
They ‘knew’ the whole coof fraud would work, because they’d already succeeded in duping/manipulating everyone about smoking, with people not only accepting the government/pharma/medical restrictions, exclusions, demonisation/othering, tyranny and, let’s not forget, money and power for them. But people had even asked for more.
I can almost predict the response, a statement of knowing someone, even a family member, who became sick, or died as a result of smoking. But you only know/believe that because they told you. Rates of cancer, and even heart disease, are identical between smokers and non-smokers (fact – it’s why they had to invent the mythical second-hand smoking to explain why so many non/never smokers get cancer at the exact same rates as smokers). It’s long been known that genetics and exposure to certain virus’ (e.g. Coxsackie B for lung, HPV for mouth/throat) or carcinogenic substances (like diesel) actually decide who ‘gets’ cancer.
I worked oncology for a few years, and it’s common, but never ever stated, knowledge (care to check the rates of smoking in oncology doctors and nurses, it’s not just higher than average for the population but higher than other doctors/nurses. So those who know the ‘research’ the best, are the most likely to ignore it completely).
Not (categorically) stating it is ‘good for you’, but it isn’t even vaguely as bad as they pretend, and not even close to how lethal living/working near a busy road is.
I just quit smoking after a 2 pack a day habit for the last 40+ years. I think you're right about smoking not causing the Big 'C', but to say that smoking isn't bad for you is disingenuous at best and a down right lie at worst. There's Emphysema and COPD, both diseases that affect smokers. There's more susceptibility to lung infections and Bronchitis.
DeleteSmoking is a mixed bag. It's probably protective against Parkinson's disease for those at high risk.
DeleteDon't forget that much of China has poor health care and atrocious sanitation practices, so almost any disease hits them hard.
ReplyDeleteThe regions of China hit the hardest were also the regions with rampant selenium deficiency due to selenium poor soils.
ReplyDelete