[dead]

The best thing you can do is to get a good quality indoor air filter for your home, office and if you have one, personal vehicle. And change the filters as appropriate.

You need FFP3/N99 respirators for best protection (unless you're willing to don on a full gas mask, which is doubtful). I've been using 3M respirators for years, and although they're sold as disposable, they usually last for at least a week.

E.g. https://www.3m.co.uk/3M/en_GB/p/dc/v000265948

It's snow white out of the box, and after using it for a few hours outside even in relatively clean air, it turns gray (and then dark gray if rubber straps hold for long enough).

The thing with these respirators (and also HEPA filters) is that they become better at filtering out particulates as they get dirtier, not worse; but their resistance to air also grows, so it gets more difficult to breathe over time. The rubber straps usually break before the respirator is very dirty anyway.

Note that these won't do anything against other pollutants (like nitrogen oxides), you need proper gas masks with special filters against those, they cost a lot and only last for a few hours.

I use this [0] GVR mask when working around concrete dust, and I've found it to be very comfortable and effective.

That doesn't directly answer your question about urban particulates and PM 2.5, but if you read its specs and it sounds appropriate, I can recommend the product.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/Respirator-replaceable-reusable-filte...

A well fitted N95, and good air filters at home.

If they said it definitely did, they would be going beyond what is possible to prove with empirical science.

Why was this downvoted? It summarizes the part of the article that wasn't already summarized in the headline.

There are many alternative explanations (aside from 'healing powers'), including that people with pre-existing lung issues which correlate with lung cancer (such as emphysema) are less likely to smoke marijuana.

Because people will start driving around more for no reason just because gas is cheaper?

Or what's your reasoning for the correlation to higher future air pollution?

Thankfully Donald will tariff evil european and japanese cars with their good mileage

Yes, CO2 will kill more people overall.

In the article, which I read, it says that they can now definitively prove that the way it causes cancer is different from the way smoking causes cancer

A century ago, the idea that smoking causes cancer was quite new and was decades away from being conclusively proven.

Gene: Ooh! I forgot about casino smell!

Bob: old cigarette smoke? Kids, this is how everything used to smell.

Century old? Did they have enough data on non smokers at that time to draw any hard conclusions?

We are still desperately trying to convince 30% of voting adults in the US that pollution is bad

Second hand smoke. Stop to think for 10 seconds before replying.

Your comment should disqualify you from ever making a HN comment again for the rest of your life.

I don't think that's implied in the quote? Lung cancer in non-users is on the rise is the point, presumably the decline in tobacco is mentioned as falling lung cancer due to tobacco use can mask rises in lung cancer from other factors.

Secondhand smoke?

Respond to this comment in the manner of an account that never posts here again.