by frog
Last month renowned Canadian geneticist David Suzuki used the 11th Annual Commonwealth Address to talk about the impact of 6.6 billion humans on our one little planet. The whole lecture is captivating, but I want to daw attention just to this one small bit about air. The first bit is very sciencey (well, he is a scientist), but he comes to a compelling, emotive point in the next paragraphs:
Our lungs are made up of about 300 million capsules, or alveoli, and they are clustered around an alveolar stem like grapes. We have lots of these clusters in our lungs and we need them all to provide the surface area needed to come into contact with the air. If you flatten the alveoli of our lungs out into two dimensions, they would cover a tennis court. That is about how much surface area is wrinkled up in our lungs. Each alveolus is lined by a surfactant that reduces surface tension so that the air sticks to it. Immediately carbon dioxide rushes out of our bodies, oxygen and whatever else is in the air rushes in, and haemoglobin molecules in red blood cells grab on to the oxygen so that each beat of our heart can transfer that oxygen to every part of our bodies. And when you exhale you do not exhale all the air in your lungs. If you did that your lungs would collapse. About half of the air stays in your lungs even when you exhale.
The point I am trying to make is that you cannot draw a line that marks where the air ends and I begin. There is no line. The air is stuck to us and circulating through our bodies. We are air. It is a part of us and it is in us…
We think we are an intelligent creature, but what intelligent creature, knowing the role that air plays in our lives keeping us alive and connecting us to the past and into the future, would then proceed to use air as a garbage can and refuse to pay for putting carbon and all our pollutants into the atmosphere? We have much to reflect on the way that we use this sacred substance. It hurts me when I see young couples walking with a baby in a stroller and the baby’s nose is right at the level of the exhaust pipes of our cars. You might as well put a hose on the exhaust pipe and pump that stuff right into the baby’s body. Why are 15% of children in Canada now suffering with asthma? We are using the air as a toxic dump. We are air. Whatever we do to the air we do to ourselves.
Sorry for the large cut and paste.
Published in Environment & Resource Management by frog on Thu, April 3rd, 2008
Tags: air, alveoli, Canada, Commonwealth Address, David Suzuki, science
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
fwwog say
“The point I am trying to make is that you cannot draw a line that marks where the air ends and I begin. There is no line. The air is stuck to us and circulating through our bodies. We are air. It is a part of us and it is in us…”
very poetic fwwog but air is not ‘sacred’ it is just there, you should not turn science into religion, fwwog just get in there and get your 7%,
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That was poignant Frog. Thank you.
It seems that hardly anybody realises just what kind of harm cars do to people just by running – ignoring the crashes and secondary environmental impacts. Living near to a road harms children (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6297701.stm), and no doubt adults too. Cars are toxic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Poverty is rather more toxic than cars are. People in the Third World suffer more from lung disease through exposure to smoke from open wood fires in their chimneyless huts than any Westerners do from car fumes.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sleepy, At least people in the Third World keep the smoke from their wood fires to themselves. It’s a pity more people in Christchurch and other NZ municipalities can’t be as considerate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
george, the study actually compared children living next to a road with children living within 500 metres of a freeway. It could be equally validly argued that living next to a road reduces lung damage in children. The truth, as usual, is in the middle. Most roads do not carry enough motor traffic to generate pollution levels greater than background levels.
These sorts of studies do provide further good reasons for having a hierachy of roads and road design that confine arterial traffic to arterial roads. Obviously this can and should be taken into account by prospective home owners with children.
I don’t know if school or day care hours generate enough exposure to warrant relocating such establishments if they are currently located on an arterial road. School hours coincide with the interpeak period which should also reduce exposure compared with homes. At home children tend to be most active and outdoors during the peak traffic periods.
Dare I suggest that the highest exposure away from freeways will be near schools at the start and end of the day as a direct result of the actions of parents. The very people who should be doing the most to protect the health of children.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Kevyn.
I don’t think the Third Worlders act out of consideration for their fellow men. Its due to their lack of technical sophistication.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
# SleepyTreehugger Says:
April 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
> Poverty is rather more toxic than cars are. People in the Third World suffer more from lung disease through exposure to smoke from open wood fires in their chimneyless huts than any Westerners do from car fumes.
and I imagine our parents’ generation didn’t notice the harm being done by pollution from cars in our cities, because it came at the same time as a decline in pollution from coal smoke. But, seeing as we can reduce it, it makes no sense not to reduce it just because the problem was worse in the past.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“and I imagine our parents’ generation didn’t notice the harm being done by pollution from cars in our cities, because it came at the same time as a decline in pollution from coal smoke. But, seeing as we can reduce it, it makes no sense not to reduce it just because the problem was worse in the past.”
“and I imagine our parents’ generation didn’t notice the harm being done by pollution from cars in our cities, because it came at the same time as a decline in pollution from coal smoke.”
we’ll have to go back to coal or alternatively nuclear if we’re all expected to give up our cars, because public transportation infrastructure (trolleys, light rail, electric buses) will inevitably put pressure on our power generation capacity. anyone in the green party done any figures on that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“and I imagine our parents’ generation didn’t notice the harm being done by pollution from cars in our cities, because it came at the same time as a decline in pollution from coal smoke. But, seeing as we can reduce it, it makes no sense not to reduce it just because the problem was worse in the past.”
“and I imagine our parents’ generation didn’t notice the harm being done by pollution from cars in our cities, because it came at the same time as a decline in pollution from coal smoke.”
we’ll have to go back to coal or alternatively nuclear if we’re all expected to give up our cars, because public transportation infrastructure (trolleys, light rail, electric buses) will inevitably put pressure on our power generation capacity. anyone in the green party done any figures on that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I come back, and it turns out that Kevyn didn’t even read the article.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
@Sleepy,@Kahikatea,
Exactly. There is no point arguing about third world anyway.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)