HN Reader

There are 10k+ air sensors that publish their pm2.5 measurements every 10 mins to https://aqicn.org/

In my forthcoming O'Reilly book, the first project is to build a ML model to predict air quality at the location of one of those sensors:

Book:

https://learning.oreilly.com/library/view/building-machine-l...

Code:

https://github.com/featurestorebook/mlfs-book/

If I live in a polluted city, is there any facial mask that is proven to filter some—most?—of the pollution?

Let's say that moving out is not an option :)

> Air Pollution May Contribute to Development of Lung Cancer in Never-Smokers

No. This can't be true. Everybody knows that _only smoking_ causes lung cancer. /s

I heard that pollution has no influence on one's health. Especially when the pollution is created by a big corporation (see DuPont).

fake news, thank you for your attention to this matter! /s

May?

Asia does need to do something about this, so many beautiful countries there. I greatly enjoyed my time there but I did notice the air quality difference. It affects all differently but to see what is occurring on a more material level in the human body is startling.

But meanwhile keep focusing on CO2....

And the bill that passed just yesterday will help exacerbate this problem, the bill includes provisions that reduce royalties on oil and gas extraction from federal lands, extend tax breaks for fossil fuel production, and weaken regulations on drilling and mining.

Also exposure to aristolochic acid, a group of chemicals found in certain Chinese herbal medicines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristolochic_acid

The key finding here is that air pollution specifically triggers EGFR mutations in never-smokers, which is mechanistically different from how smoking causes lung cancer.

There was a study 5-10 years ago on Cannabis use and lung cancer, showing #1 cigarette smokers, #2 non-smokers and #3 cannabis smokers. Seems to be a ratio of healing properties combined with carcinogens that determine some of this? Then of course genetics, that seems broad as well.

Achim, founder of AirGradient here.

This article is super interesting as it shows that one of the key features (showing air pollution as cigarettes equivalent) on the new AirGradient Open Source Map [1] is actually scientifically backed.

This new map app is as a central component of our Clean Air Advocates Program, building on the foundation of data generated by thousands of our open-source air quality monitors [2].

To effectively visualise the impacts of air pollution, one of the first features we aim to implement is the "cigarettes smoked equivalent" [3]. This feature will help users understand the health implications of local air quality in a tangible way, reinforcing the program's goal of empowering individuals to understand and improve their local air quality.

We already have quite a big community behind this project [4], and I would love to see more people involved. So if you are interested, please get in touch with me or just start contributing!

[1] https://github.com/airgradienthq/airgradient-map

[2] https://www.airgradient.com/

[3] https://github.com/airgradienthq/airgradient-map/issues/100

[4] https://www.airgradient.com/open-source-initiative/

How is this even news? I'd think that century-old health data would make it bleedin' obvious that heavy air pollution increases the incidence of lung cancer.

LOL at "may" - we are not really at this stage anymore for quite some time now.

Do ya think so?