Interesting article about cyclists inhaling 2.3 times more black carbon than walkers
Newest excuse to avoid cycling
I know the test is inconclusive and need more research and tests on more people, but I have felt from time to time that I inhaled some bad air from vehicles exhausts. I do have felt that I am having a bit more trouble breathing. At first, I thought it was allergy (which have never hit me this hard before), but after reading this, I may have to rethink this.
Maybe have some kind of face masks like the one depicted in the article?
Views: 361
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Melanie K on
-
"The study was done by Professor Jonathan Grigg from Barts and the London School of Medicine who tested five pedestrians and five cyclists."
I can believe cyclists inhale more exhaust and carbon than pedestrians since we are directly in traffic, but to actually publish an article when the test sample was of 10 people seems a bit ridiculous.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Zumwalt on
-
It's because we're exercising. I'd bet rush hour on the freeway results in more inhalation over the life of a driver than a biker.
No people studied.
-
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on
-
I don't know enough about academia in the UK to understand why this happens, but there appears to be some sort of game where conducting a study with a tiny sample and half-assed methodology and then publicizing the crap out of the controversial results results in some sort of gain or advantage for the researchers (increases the likelihood of funding somehow maybe? Or just gets their name in lights for 5 minutes?).
Same crap with the beaten-to-death study where Dr. Ian Kookbiscuit rode in traffic with a wig, and conculded that drivers are more likely to hit you if you're wearing a helmet:
http://www.bath.ac.uk/news/articles/archive/overtaking110906.html
There was never any follow-up, and this goofy little science project gets referenced in every helmet thread.
-
Permalink Reply by Dave Jacque on
-
Yah, too small a sample size to be scientifically valid. And I would suggest that the health benefits of the exercise *far* outweigh any speculative harm from the additional particulates.
Note that mold counts have been off the charts lately; much more likely the cause of your breathing difficulty, Will.
-
Permalink Reply by Carly on
-
I don't think the article has a sound argument. 10 participants? seriously? And besides, auto drivers are breathing that same traffic air too, at least a cyclist is exercising their lungs instead of letting them sit in black carbon. I know my lungs have gained tons of capacity compared to before I started cycling.
-
Permalink Reply by Eric R on
-
"Advantage: cycling" - according to the article in the Tribune.
This is why I smugly suggest people should drive with their windows up, especially on "air pollution alert" days, don't want motorists inhaling all the exhaust they emit.
Something like this - http://www.respro.com/products/urban-commuting/cycling/city_mask/ - could help filter "pollution" but it would probably just get grody from condensation, coffee breath and sweat.
-
Permalink Reply by S on
-
10 might be significant if the difference is large enough. It really depends on the statistics. I think the cyclists come out worse in this study. Because they're active, they're moving more air in and out of their lungs and getting exposed to more carbon black. The people in cars aren't breathing as much and they probably get some filtration as the air goes through their air conditioners/heaters/air system in their cars.
Carly said:
I don't think the article has a sound argument. 10 participants? seriously? And besides, auto drivers are breathing that same traffic air too, at least a cyclist is exercising their lungs instead of letting them sit in black carbon. I know my lungs have gained tons of capacity compared to before I started cycling.
-
Permalink Reply by Juan 2-3 or more mi. on
-
I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.
-
-
The study looked at carbon black and not second hand smoke. Also pedestrians are further away from traffic and probably don't exert as much energy as cyclists so it'd make sense that their exposure is reduced. In balance cycling is probably better for you than walking or driving but to claim that any study that shows that cycling may have downsides to be biased is frankly showing the same type of bias that you seem to be against.
Juan said:I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.
-
-
I think that the article is biased against cycling. Although they mention this to be an ongoing study, having only ten participants does not warrant a published article. I've done science experiments in grade school that had more factors than that. I want more information. Different cities, times of day, and times of the year at least. The article was sarcastic in saying somewhere "And you thought cycling was healthier." Also, the title refers to this as being a "downside" that anyone could add to the list of other "downsides"; cars are scary, it rains sometimes, but I really need to look nice today, and etc... I got the absurd connotation that it may be wiser at times to drive to work to protect yourself from black carbon. Well, maybe its more of a reason for people not to drive to work.
S said:
The study looked at carbon black and not second hand smoke. Also pedestrians are further away from traffic and probably don't exert as much energy as cyclists so it'd make sense that their exposure is reduced. In balance cycling is probably better for you than walking or driving but to claim that any study that shows that cycling may have downsides to be biased is frankly showing the same type of bias that you seem to be against.
Juan said:I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.
-
-
There's a difference between the authors of the study and the authors of the gizmodo article that was linked in this thread. The gizmodo authors may have been biased against cyclists but that doesn't say anything about the study's authors. In fact, looking at the press releaseput out by the study's authors, their conclusion appear to be fairly unbiased. Also, it looks like at least one of the researchers conducting the study is an active cyclist.
Carly said:
I think that the article is biased against cycling. Although they mention this to be an ongoing study, having only ten participants does not warrant a published article. I've done science experiments in grade school that had more factors than that. I want more information. Different cities, times of day, and times of the year at least. The article was sarcastic in saying somewhere "And you thought cycling was healthier." Also, the title refers to this as being a "downside" that anyone could add to the list of other "downsides"; cars are scary, it rains sometimes, but I really need to look nice today, and etc... I got the absurd connotation that it may be wiser at times to drive to work to protect yourself from black carbon. Well, maybe its more of a reason for people not to drive to work.
S said:
The study looked at carbon black and not second hand smoke. Also pedestrians are further away from traffic and probably don't exert as much energy as cyclists so it'd make sense that their exposure is reduced. In balance cycling is probably better for you than walking or driving but to claim that any study that shows that cycling may have downsides to be biased is frankly showing the same type of bias that you seem to be against.
Juan said:I imagine pedestrians get it just as bad from all the second hand smoke of other pedestrians. It seems like another biased study to make cycling undesirable.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Schwab on
-
It is even worse for motorist. The passenger cabin prevents pollution from being blow away and they get 4times as much pollution as bicyclist.
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
