Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
Sean is always cool, but I wonder how Thomas would look had he been smoking a pack a day for 20 years too.
Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
Sean is always cool, but I wonder how Thomas would look had he been smoking a pack a day for 20 years too.
Eq0@literature.cafe 2 weeks ago
Is this really it? I thought the non smoking would be compensated by the increased pollution of everything
Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
I’m sure sun exposure also plays a role, everyone wears SPF 8000 sunblock now, while they were putting on tanning oil back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s
BallShapedMan@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Image
CapuccinoCoretto@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’ll buy that for a dollar!
dalekcaan@feddit.nl 2 weeks ago
Really? I thought sunblock was pretty over the top in Connery’s day.
An image of a woman coated in gold from the James Bond film Goldfinger, which started Connery as Bond
Ariselas@piefed.ca 2 weeks ago
now that’s a golden tan!
undree@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Air pollution was worse in the last century ourworldindata.org/outdoor-air-pollution
Eq0@literature.cafe 2 weeks ago
Thanks for the informative response. I’m a bit confused by the graphs given, that track emissions and not air quality itself. Would you know why?
EnsignRoApologist@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
AQI is highly variable by locale and hour. It averages out in the end, but measuring regional and global emissions is a better way to compare disparate time periods, except for areas at the extremes.
someguy3@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Pollution was worse back then, look up smog in the 70s. We’ve introduced catalytic converters, emissions standards, etc. Most people now question why we need clean air laws because we have clean air, much like people thinking we don’t need vaccines because those diseases aren’t around.
snooggums@piefed.world 2 weeks ago
Which is funny because those diseases are still around aince they flare up when people stop taking vaccines.
Ledivin@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
There’s significantly less air and water pollution now than the past, with the only exception being microplastics. We haven’t found many short-term impacts from that yet, though
Eq0@literature.cafe 2 weeks ago
I was thinking of PFAS, pesticides, ultra-processed food and such
StellarExtract@lemmy.zip 2 weeks ago
Considering back then they had asbestos, lead, etc, we’re still a lot better off now, I think. A lot of our stuff now is “this increases risk” whreas a lot of stuff then was “this causes literal organ failure”.
Hanrahan@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
theguardian.com/…/un-expert-human-rights-climate-…
boatswain@infosec.pub 2 weeks ago
Pollution was probably another contributing factor; I’d be surprised if it wasn’t a lot worse in the 60s than it is now: a lot of environmental controls got put in place in the intervening decades. Remember, there was leaded gasoline everywhere, and acid rain scares and the ozone layer depletion in the 80s.
zewm@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
It’s a combination of many factors over time. Diet, sun exposure, smoking. Lots of things we have more information about now than we did then. Medicine is better, genetics, etc.
Lemmyoutofhere@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Oh ya, because removing lead from the air made it so much worse. /s