Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Probably worth adjusting the title -- air quality is not just a measure of pollution. In this case, both SF and Portland are filled (unfortunately) with wildfire smoke, rather than a man-made pollutant...


Why do you want the title adjusted? It’s sadly just a fact that the air pollution is bad in SF today.

If bad air pollution is caused by factories do people in those towns come and make similar arguments?


I assumed the title meant man-made pollutants. That's colloquially what pollution refers to. It's pretty clearly misleading.


because the title is no longer correct? it's no longer the worst. not denying that pollution is bad in SF.


That’s just semantics, it was the worst very recently?


Is smoke not considered a pollutant? The list is just a ranking of current PM2.5 AQI levels.


Generally when people are talking about pollutants they're talking about man made pollutants.


WHO includes smoke in their overview page on air pollution as does Wikipedia.

- https://www.who.int/health-topics/air-pollution

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution#Sources


Most smoke that is air pollution is caused by farmers burning crops.

You can include smoke in air pollution numbers, while not considering wild fires to be pollution.


As climate change was a key driver of these fires and those in Australia earlier this year, then I feel like it's perfectly reasonable to say this is man made pollution.

Coal and oil are also a "natural" fuels, but we burn those too and we say it's man made pollution.


the fire was man-made




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: