MudMan comments on Inhalers drive carbon emissions equivalent to 530,000 cars each year, study shows

Inhalers drive carbon emissions equivalent to 530,000 cars each year, study shows (phys.org)

submitted 1 year ago by throws_lemy@lemmy.nz to c/publichealth@mander.xyz

43 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Inhalers are the frontline treatment for asthma and COPD, but they come with a steep environmental cost, according to a new UCLA Health study—the largest to date quantifying inhaler-related emissions in the United States.

Researchers found that inhalers have generated over 2 million metric tons of carbon emissions annually over the past decade, equivalent to the emissions of roughly 530,000 gas-powered cars on the road each year.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 2 points 1 year ago (11 children)

This is a very weird post, in that my only recourse is to point you back to the post I already made. Did you only read the first line and posted the rest of it without reading anything else? The argument of the post you're responding to isn't about the number of cars being high or low, it's why reporting the number in relation to the number of cars at all isn't good practice.

Seriously, go back and treat the previous post as your response. It will do wonders to understanding why its "breaking my brain" (it's not) and why I'm "dogpiling" (I'm not).

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 11 child comments

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago* (4 children)

First off, you, finite: this is the definition of dog-piling. There is obviously an emotional reaction people are having to this headline and people are trying to find a way to take fault in it.

The headline as reads perfectly fine and if it weren't for peoples clearly reactionary response, this wouldn't even be a thread.

Reporting something like emissions in a count of vehicles is a perfectly reasonable way to do so, at least something people can their heads around. Elsewhere in the thread people have made it about the number, or that we shouldn't care because oil tankers, or the phrasing of the headline. But none of that takes away from the point the headline makes, which is immediately understandable.

Again, I don't understand your issue with the headline and why it offends so. A car is probably the most relevant thing a person who isn't in the specific sciences of carbon estimation would have. If not cars what should they have done it in?

I think finite criticism is pretty emotional and reactionary: they don't like the conclusion so they take issue with the phrasing. And you, are here, as part of the dog pile, pushing back on that.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago (3 children)

OK, so for a start, it's one thing for multiple people to disagree with you and another for them to be dogpiling. Given that the original poster is not hostile to the headline, I'd say the reaction is... fairly genuine? I can definitely tell you I'm not particularly emotional about it... you're just wrong on the technicalities of the headline, so people telling you that isn't that surprising. I'd argue the framing of the headline is actively seeking that outcome, it's arguably ragebaiting.

Also, I get that you don't understand why the headline is problematic, but I'm telling you that's you not understanding how to make a good headline. I'm trying to explain how framing shapes the message, particularly with a headline and particularly online. This isn't some esoteric thing, it's something journalists actually study and train about. This headline is meant to cause a reaction and frame the issue a certain way by providing a misleading comparison. That's bad form.

The conclusion of the paper being reported on is neutral: inhalers emit some amount of pollutants, most of those emisions are caused by a specific type of inhaler, there's some incentive to find a less pollutant alternative. All good so far, as often with these problems the study itself is fine.

The headline takes that neutral takeaway and frames it a certain way. I actually would believe that the journalist that messed it up did so because they thought "cars are understandable to most Americans" and didn't think it through. Mistakes happen. Being less charitable, but likely more realistic, the journalist probably thought framing it in terms of "your asthma is as bad for the environment as road traffic" was a deliberate way of increasing impact by providing an out-of-context statistic to generate more traffic. Either way, if I were an editor here I would have asked for a revision to avoid causing that bit of friction and misinformation.

It's okay to not get that because... well, the flipside of that being a bit of a technicality is that it's fine to not be cued in enough to know. But it's weird to double down on how the undesirable outcome they are causing (people are mad at the framing) is what justifies the mistake in the first place. After a few goes around the loop that just comes across as willfully ignorant.

Also, it's weird that you are asking how they should have phrased it when my first post already provided alternatives. You keep coming across as not having read the stuff you're responding to, which doesn't help with the whole "willfully ignorant" thing.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 3 child comments

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (2 children)

You’ve said the headline is “misleading,” but you haven’t identified how. Misleading would mean one of:

a) the number is wrong,

b) the unit conversion is wrong, or

c) essential context is omitted that would change the conclusion.

Which is it?

Using “annual vehicle emissions” as a proxy is a standard way to translate CO2e for lay readers. The headline maps the study’s quantified impact into a familiar unit. That’s not a "mistake". You claiming it to be a mistake is an emotional response, exampled by:

Being less charitable, but likely more realistic, the journalist probably thought framing it in terms of “your asthma is as bad for the environment as road traffic” was a deliberate way of increasing impact by providing an out-of-context statistic to generate more traffic.

What I’m seeing in this thread isn’t a technical objection so much as an emotional one: people who like inhalers don’t like that the impact, when expressed in familiar terms, sounds big. If you think the framing is sensationalist, point to the clause or number that creates a false impression and show the correct one.

If the issue is grammar, name the rule or ambiguity. If it’s sensationalism, show the exaggeration. If it’s “phrasing,” specify the alternative phrasing that would be more accurate and why.

Otherwise, the headline remains both technically accurate and reasonable, and your response is largely an emotional one. Disliking something because it make you feel a way isn’t a rebuttal.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 point 1 year ago (1 child)

OK, I'll give you one more go around this loop because the self contradiction is too obvious and I want to see how you parse it, then I'm calling it.

So... why did you say "sounds big"?

Here:

What I’m seeing in this thread isn’t a technical objection so much as an emotional one: people who like inhalers don’t like that the impact, when expressed in familiar terms, sounds big.

Why do you think people are mad that the number "sounds big"?

Is the number big or small?

The headline makes it sound big, we both agree on that. A lot of the response is putting it in perspective: actually, 530000 cars is a small part of the new cars sold in one year (about 5%) and a tiny part of the total car pool (about 0.2%). So why does it sound big? If the implied comparison is with car emissions, shouldn't it sound small?

The reality is the number isn't big or small, it is some amount. And the study's big takeaway isn't that the emissions are big, so much as that, of the multiple models of inhalers one generates signficant emissions and others don't, so the emissions from one type may be unnecessary.

So why does the headline make the number sound big?

You spend a lot of time setting arbitrary rules for what is or isn't misleading, and all of that is entirely fallacious bullshit. Misleading means what it means, you don't set the parameters for what is misleading.

But the interesting part is you accidentally, explicitly explained why the headline is misleading (i.e. it creates an emotional response about the scope of the problem that is disproportionate to its own unit of measurement, presumably to deliberately generate more engagement with the content). That is a technical objection, not to the number being reported but to how its being reported. It's an objection on the headline writing technique, which is what people are complaining about.

Now, you won't acknowledge this, because you're in too deep and arguing with multiple people about this and you're not going to just go "huh, I guess that's a thing" and move on with your day, so there'll be some mental gymnastics about it. But come on, you do get it, right? At this point it's not that hard and you have implied that you get it already.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago*

You still haven’t answered the core question. You called the headline “misleading,” but you have not shown:

a) the number is wrong b) the CO2e to cars conversion is wrong c) missing context that would change the conclusion

Your replies keep circling the same move: you dislike that the article points out something bad about inhalers, so you attack the framing. That is an emotional reaction, not a technical critique.

Shifting denominators after the fact, tone policing, and guessing intent, ad hominem about the author or myself: None of that shows a defect in the headline.

If you think it is sensationalist, quote the exact clause that creates a false impression and provide the corrected wording and denominator. If you cannot do that, then you have not supported “misleading.” Dislike is not an argument, which is all you've offered so far.

And "in too deep" bit: Bruh. Its like two days later. You can't have it both ways.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

[+] finitebanjo@piefed.world -1 points 1 year ago (5 children)

[deleted]

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 5 child comments

[–] TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

Well you are just a troll then that goes around claiming any one that disagrees with you is a bot. The headline is a good headline and emphasizes the strong point the original article was making.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 4 child comments