[HN Gopher] Heatwaves kill more Americans than hurricanes, torna...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Heatwaves kill more Americans than hurricanes, tornadoes and floods
        
       Author : hhs
       Score  : 180 points
       Date   : 2022-09-05 14:26 UTC (8 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (www.economist.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (www.economist.com)
        
       | photochemsyn wrote:
       | Hurricanes and floods do far more infrastructure damage on large
       | scales (tornado effects being more localized) than extreme
       | heatwaves do, however - and decaying infrastructure is a huge
       | problem across much of the United States.
       | 
       | Why exactly the USA has such a huge infrastructure problem is
       | debatable. Maybe it's the concentration of wealth and political
       | power in fewer locations, i.e. some regions of the West and East
       | Coasts? Maybe it's too much money being earmarked by Congress to
       | military-industrial projects in their home districts, leaving
       | little for things like rebuilding water supply systems, railroads
       | and bridges, improved electricity grids, etc.? A decreased
       | overall tax base due to a steep reduction in tax rates
       | (particularly on the wealthiest) since the 1960s?
       | Financialization of the economy and a resulting lack of
       | engineering expertise and interest in infrastructure development?
       | 
       | As far as infrastructure for heat waves, termite-mound-inspired
       | architecture would be the way to go. Build bunkers with large
       | capacity that people can retreat to, with built-in cooling
       | mechanisms.
       | 
       | https://wyss.harvard.edu/news/termite-mounds-could-inspire-n...
       | 
       | > "The team's observations show that thin, outer channels of the
       | mound heat up rapidly during the day when compared to the deeper
       | tunnels in the mound, which causes air to circulate in a closed-
       | loop convection cell. During the day, air moves up along the
       | outer channels and down the center. At night, the flow is
       | reversed. This reversal flushes out the carbon dioxide from deep
       | inside the mound, and the gas then diffuses through the porous
       | walls."
        
         | rootusrootus wrote:
         | > Why exactly the USA has such a huge infrastructure problem is
         | debatable.
         | 
         | I thought it's because we didn't build it nearly from scratch
         | about 70 yers ago.
        
           | amanaplanacanal wrote:
           | Most of the infrastructure in the US was built after WWII,
           | including the entire interstate Highway system and almost all
           | of suburbia.
        
             | ceeplusplus wrote:
             | A substantial amount of housing, especially on East and
             | West Coast, was built prewar or only just postwar. That
             | housing has the potential to have toxic chemicals like lead
             | and asbestos, poor plumbing, lack of insulation, and poor
             | ventilation. It almost certainly doesn't have AC/central
             | heating in places that don't require it year-round to be
             | livable.
        
         | Metacelsus wrote:
         | >Maybe it's the concentration of wealth and political power in
         | fewer locations, i.e. some regions of the West and East Coasts?
         | 
         | Well here in Boston our transit infrastructure is falling apart
         | . . . and we don't lack for political influence especially
         | among elites.
         | 
         | I am not certain of the cause, but cost disease seems to be a
         | related phenomenon.
        
         | Retric wrote:
         | Heat waves do cause massive infrastructure damage, it's simply
         | less focused. You can model how much faster say a single
         | streetlight fails when the temperature reaches 105f vs 95f, but
         | it's all abstract without the visceral impact of obviously
         | broken stuff.
         | 
         | Further preparing for heat waves is also quite expensive, as
         | you need more power generation capacity that sits unused 99% of
         | the time etc.
        
           | mellavora wrote:
           | only because you've built a society based on air
           | conditioning.
        
             | Retric wrote:
             | Just the opposite, it's equipment left outside that needs
             | to deal with the heat.
        
           | zibby8 wrote:
           | You gotta have a better example than lightbulbs. Maybe rail
           | lines buckling?
        
             | Retric wrote:
             | I was referring less obvious damage rather than just
             | lightbulbs/LED's etc. So yes stuff not designed for the
             | heat may fail like sagging power lines, but the real damage
             | is less obvious.
             | 
             | Even paint degrades faster with heat, as does just about
             | everything else. Individual Solar panels don't show any
             | obvious issues, but multiply a little damage by 10's of
             | billions of dollars worth of panels and it adds up.
             | 
             | PS: Rust seems like a counter example because water and
             | salt dramatically speed things up, but all things being
             | equal heat does increase the rate stuff rusts.
        
               | zibby8 wrote:
               | My point was more that if there was really significant
               | damage being done, then you'd be able to provide a better
               | example than lightbulbs. For instance, a hurricane taking
               | down a street light also destroys the bulb, and a whole
               | lot more. Even if it's true that lightbulbs burn out
               | faster due to heat waves, it seems like it'd be hard to
               | generate a lot of sympathy with a statement like
               | "heatwaves are as bad as hurricanes because heatwaves
               | cause light bulbs to burn out faster."
               | 
               | Also, society generally designs things with the knowledge
               | that light bulbs go bad, exposed metal rusts, etc. Unless
               | a heatwave were to shorten the lifespan of things by an
               | order of magnitude, it's likely that a slightly shorter
               | lifespan is within the designed limits of many things.
        
               | Retric wrote:
               | Why would you assume significant damage must be obvious
               | at the time? You don't notice the specific genetic damage
               | that actually caused cancer, and it's killed vastly more
               | people than bullets.
               | 
               | Hurricanes are infrequent and don't inflict devastation
               | over nearly as much area as heat waves can. Hurricanes
               | are obvious like bullets, but add up the numbers globally
               | and average over a decade and they're not that big a
               | deal.
        
               | zibby8 wrote:
               | > You don't notice the specific genetic damage that
               | actually caused cancer
               | 
               | Actually we do notice stuff like that. Which is why it is
               | advised that you don't inhale asbestos particles, wear
               | sunscreen, avoid smoking, etc.
               | 
               | My point still stands: it's understandable that heatwaves
               | aren't considered as serious as hurricanes if the only
               | impact of a heatwave you can point to is that lightbulbs
               | theoretically burn out more quickly during a heat wave.
        
               | desmosxxx wrote:
               | If there are enough lightbulbs impacted then why not. We
               | should measure these things and then compare them.
        
         | jandrewrogers wrote:
         | Most regions have good infrastructure for their local endemic
         | disasters. If you live in areas with relatively frequent
         | hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, etc there
         | are plans and infrastructure in place to deal with them when
         | they occur. Where I live in the US we have visible disaster
         | plans for lahars[0] because there is a severe lahar risk; most
         | Americans don't even know what a lahar is.
         | 
         | Parts of the US where heatwaves are endemic rarely have serious
         | issues with heatwaves, they've learned how to live with them
         | for a long time and the local customs and infrastructure
         | reflect that. Like in Europe, much of the human hazard from
         | heatwaves is in areas where extreme heat is rare such that
         | appropriate infrastructure has never been needed. As an example
         | from the US, the extreme heatwave that hit the Pacific
         | Northwest in 2021 was bad in part because it is a rare region
         | of the US where few people have air-conditioning. It is a
         | wealthy region with some of the cheapest electricity in the
         | world so lack of air-conditioning was not a failure of
         | infrastructure or spending, there was no good reason to invest
         | in it.
         | 
         | If you live in a place that has regular heatwaves, no one needs
         | to "retreat to bunkers". Almost _all_ of the infrastructure is
         | built with the assumption that heatwaves will occur at
         | relatively low cost. The only implication for infrastructure is
         | that it can stress power generation and distribution systems,
         | but that isn 't specific to heatwaves or natural disasters
         | generally.
         | 
         | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahar
        
           | leaflets2 wrote:
           | Interesting about lahars, thanks for the link
        
       | zosima wrote:
       | Still seems to be about twice as many dying from cold weather.
       | 
       | https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
       | 
       | https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indica...
        
         | baybal2 wrote:
        
         | legulere wrote:
         | part of that are infectious diseases which is more an indirect
         | effect of staying more inside and not having enough fresh air
         | inside compared to with warmer temperatures.
        
         | tpmx wrote:
         | Globally: About 4x more dying from cold than from warm weather.
         | 
         | https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6...
         | (March 2022)
         | 
         |  _Global mortality burden attributable to non-optimal
         | temperatures_
         | 
         |  _They report that 2.98% of deaths globally could be attributed
         | to non-optimal temperatures in 2019; 2.37% of deaths from low
         | temperatures and 0.63% of deaths from high temperatures._
        
         | hitpointdrew wrote:
         | Yup. No one wants to talk about this though. We need to get
         | cheap reliable energy to as many people as quickly as possible
         | to help prevent this. Everything should be on the table,
         | natural gas, fracking, nuclear.
        
           | vincnetas wrote:
           | I would prefer that we consider power efficient housing
           | first. Use more insulation and less energy to keep
           | comfortable temperatures inside never-mind if it's too cold
           | or too hot outside.
        
           | hpkuarg wrote:
           | Similarly, a lot of people think it's inherently wasteful (at
           | least in terms of climate change-related sensitivities) to
           | live in the southern US where it's commonly accepted to run
           | air conditioning for many months of the year, whereas nobody
           | blinks twice at the number of oil-fired furnaces in New
           | England.
        
             | galangalalgol wrote:
             | Keeping your house at 80F when its 115F outside would seem
             | to use less energy than keeping your house at 60F when it
             | is -1F out. Maybe humidity makes it closer to even? For me
             | one bill was gas and one was electric, so harder to
             | compare. I'll ask some coworkers with only a heat pump.
        
               | [deleted]
        
               | dahfizz wrote:
               | Yes, but a lot of that heat comes "for free" from
               | cooking, your fridge/computer/apliances, hot water usage,
               | body heat, etc.
               | 
               | I have a heat pump for heating and cooling, and my
               | electric bills are only slightly higher in winter
               | (5-10%).
        
               | pdonis wrote:
               | _> Maybe humidity makes it closer to even?_
               | 
               | If the humidity is high enough, it can take it past even.
               | But you won't find that out by comparing summer and
               | winter numbers in the same location, because there aren't
               | a significant number of locations that have both summer
               | and winter conditions severe enough to push the numbers.
               | You would want to compare, say, Canada in winter with
               | south Florida or south Texas in summer (or, for even more
               | extreme, northern Scandinavia in winter with southeast
               | Asia or equatorial Africa in summer).
        
               | galangalalgol wrote:
               | Scandinavia in winter won't usually be a heat pump to air
               | though right? Don't they heatpump from geothermal?
               | 
               | Even just locally here the 25 degree F differential with
               | ~50% relative humidity in summer would be interesting to
               | compare to the 60 degree F differential in winter. Maybe
               | those ultra efficient hygroscopic dehumidifiers will
               | finally enter production.
               | 
               | And heat pumping to geothermal for summer might help too.
               | I know some people locally do that. Big investment
               | though.
        
               | yesbabyyes wrote:
               | Sweden can range from -25 to 35 degC. Heat pumps are
               | common, both downhole heat exchangers (rock heat we call
               | it) and air source heat pumps, among home owners.
               | 
               | Central heating is also common and often heated by
               | garbage.
        
               | bombcar wrote:
               | Part of it is everything creates waste heat - so a well
               | insulated house can take a looooong time to cool (my
               | furnace died in the winter and I didn't notice for over a
               | week).
               | 
               | And you can survive "unaided" quite low (sleeping bags
               | rated to -30deg?) but there is a heat point where _you
               | die_ if you cannot escape it somehow.
        
             | ricardobayes wrote:
             | Or wood-fired, surprisingly common still in parts of
             | Europe. Related, but sad news is e.g. in Hungary, they
             | removed protection from basically all forests to be used as
             | firewood. We will pay dearly for this hubris. Can you
             | imagine chopping up Redwood national park for firewood?
             | This is what is happening currently in Europe.
        
               | ChuckNorris89 wrote:
               | Same in rich Austria. I saw many apartments around the
               | million euro ballpark in the older posh city center
               | buildings, that are still heated by firewood stoves and
               | many countryside houses are still heated by oil. Heat
               | pumps? Ha! Never saw them anywhere around here.
               | 
               | It all feels incredibly dirty and inefficient to me for
               | such a rich country.
        
               | tpmx wrote:
               | Well, oil is cheaper than electricity now*.
               | 
               | *) Depending on time and location of course, but it's the
               | case surprisingly often.
               | 
               | As a Swede, the more I learn about about how central
               | Europe has been heating their homes the more disgusted I
               | become. Like, the way e.g. Germany seems to think of
               | burning gas as "clean". I mean, maybe compared to coal,
               | but... you shut down nuclear plants with a plan to
               | replace with (Russian) gas? You do understand burning
               | this causes CO2 emissions, right?
               | 
               | That was the many-billion-Euro German green energy
               | revolution your environmentalists wouldn't stop talking
               | about a decade ago?
               | 
               | And now our electricity in southern Sweden (which is what
               | we generally use to heat our houses, in contrast to most
               | of Europe, since it used to be very cheap and clean here,
               | just a year ago. Most use an air-to-air/water heat pump
               | or three) is insane costly, because of a combination of
               | idiotic leftist politicans/voters _also_ shutting down
               | nuclear plants while at the same time building export
               | power connections to Europe.
               | 
               | It's like everyone is doing the opposite of what's sane.
               | /rant over
        
               | ChuckNorris89 wrote:
               | _> building export power connections to Europe_
               | 
               | Those export connections are there to benefit Germany
               | industry who basically shut down some domestic
               | production, because "green", and is instead importing its
               | deficit from the others, raising the prices for everyone.
               | 
               | Portugal and Spain together are the only ones not
               | connected to the shared grid and now have the cheapest
               | energy prices in Europe, with Germany mumbling about it
               | that this should change. Well done guys.
        
               | tpmx wrote:
               | > Portugal and Spain are the only ones not connected to
               | the shared grid
               | 
               | (More believable.)
               | 
               | Source?
        
               | ricardobayes wrote:
               | We are connected, but were allowed to detach electricity
               | prices from natural gas prices. It was dubbed the
               | 'iberian exception' at the time.
        
               | tpmx wrote:
               | That would be something us in the north would need right
               | now. Most house owners need like 1500-2000 kWh/month in
               | the 6 cold winter months (november-april). With projected
               | prices, we're looking at average family heating costs
               | around EUR 1000-1500/month for 6 months. It will be
               | extremely tough for homes with a single income. (That's
               | about all of the average monthly pension.)
               | 
               | At the moment this is leading to a quite a lot of
               | resentment towards the EU (and Germany) here amongst
               | people.
        
               | the_third_wave wrote:
               | Yes, it is insane and it makes clear once more the only
               | real solution to this conundrum it to become as much
               | energy independent as possible. We heat our house with
               | two wood-burning stoves - a 4.5 kW one in the kitchen
               | ('vedspis' or wood-burning kitchen stove, another item
               | the 'green' party wanted to ban by the way) and a 12 kW
               | one in the living room. The large brick chimney warms up
               | the second floor together with some venting to release
               | warm air to move upstairs at the end of the evening. With
               | 15 kW of solar panels on one of the barn roofs we're set
               | for the months the sun makes itself known but in winter
               | that doesn't help all that much which is why I'm looking
               | into developing a combined heat-power system for small-
               | scale (domestic, farm) use to solve the power + heat
               | problem when there is no sun to be had.
               | 
               | Even if the nuclear plants the 'greens' forced to shut
               | down were started again this probably will not bring down
               | the power prices very much since the demand from
               | neighbouring states will keep them up. As an aside and
               | since you're in the south, would you have any idea why
               | the wind park at Lillgrund (off the coast of Malmo) is
               | not being used [1] when power costs 5.70 SEK/kWh? It is
               | not because of a lack of wind as the linked video - which
               | is taken from a boat sailing at ~8 knots past the wind
               | park - clearly shows.
               | 
               | [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxOgmXJ5NiU
        
               | ricardobayes wrote:
               | This comment reads weird after France just vetoed again
               | Spain's proposal to export natural gas to Germany through
               | France - the medgas pipeline.
        
               | tpmx wrote:
               | I think people here are mostly upset about Germany
               | shutting down their nuclear plants. Also Germany is seen
               | as nation that controls the EU.
        
               | ChuckNorris89 wrote:
               | Sorry, I got some facts wrong.
        
               | MichaelCollins wrote:
               | What would you have Hungarians do? The comment above
               | yours seems to suggest that it's ecologically
               | irresponsible to live in hot climates where AC is
               | required, but also ecologically irresponsible to live in
               | cold climates where heating is required. Hungary has a
               | temperate climate, but the summers there still get
               | dangerously hot, and the winters dangerously cold.
               | 
               | Why did Hungary remove protection for forests to allow
               | people to collect firewood? Presumably because they think
               | it's necessary. So what would you have them do instead,
               | abandon their country?
        
               | galdosdi wrote:
               | > Presumably because they think it's necessary.
               | 
               | For people who have studied the history of how countries
               | and their leadership make decisions, even just
               | superficially (eg, you've followed the news for 20
               | years), this is actually a very strange presumption.
               | 
               | It is historically just as plausible that it's not
               | thought necessary for society as a whole, but is simply
               | profitable for some special interest, such as (just an
               | example, not an actual suggestion) a large forest land
               | owner.
               | 
               | I thought this was obvious, unless one is very young
               | still or one has never taken any interest in history or
               | current events.
        
               | MichaelCollins wrote:
               | How do you think Hungarians should heat their homes this
               | winter?
               | 
               | Not, _' What could they have done five years ago?'_ or _'
               | What could they do five years from now?'_ I want to know
               | how Hungarians can heat their homes _5 months_ from now.
               | That 's the question the government of Hungary is forced
               | to address.
        
               | jjav wrote:
               | Since burning forests to heat homes is not sustainable
               | nor renewable (at a timescale that makes sense), it's not
               | a rational solution. What will they do 5 years from now
               | (or however many years that all forests are gone)?
        
               | MichaelCollins wrote:
               | > _What will they do 5 years from now (or however many
               | years that all forests are gone)?_
               | 
               | Solar panels and heat pumps seem like a good long-term
               | solution, but that can't be done in time to keep people
               | warm this winter. So for this winter, what would you have
               | them do? Freeze? Travel back in time a few years and come
               | up with a better solution?
        
               | d0mine wrote:
               | Europe essentially banned cheap energy sources.
               | 
               | The winter is coming. Despite global warming, somebody
               | (starts with U, ends with S) will make a pretty penny. It
               | will teach those EU socialists (healthcare, education,
               | functional public transport) how to do business. Fixing
               | somebody's problem that you yourself created--Godfather
               | would be proud.
        
               | MichaelCollins wrote:
               | > _Europe essentially banned cheap energy sources. The
               | winter is coming. Despite global warming, somebody
               | (starts with U, ends with S) will make a pretty penny._
               | 
               | Ah yes, the country of Urussias. Or perhaps you mean
               | Unorways. Or Ualgerias? Or Usaudi Arabias?
               | 
               | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_policy_of_the_Europe
               | an_...
        
               | finiteseries wrote:
               | That graphic needs to be updated to reflect an entirely
               | different new world, it's from 2016, the same year the US
               | lifted a 40 year old ban on oil & gas exports.
               | 
               | It's now the largest LNG exporter in the world in 2022,
               | though that hardly benefits the country directly in terms
               | of making a pretty penny.
        
               | MichaelCollins wrote:
               | > _LNG_
               | 
               | LNG only accounts for a small portion of the EU natural
               | gas imports, most of their gas is imported in gaseous
               | form.
               | 
               | Main extra-EU partners for imports of natural gas, 2021:
               | Russia: 39.2%         Norway: 25.1%         Algeria: 8.2%
               | United States: 7.3%  <-- The one you're blaming.
               | United Kingdom: 6.5%
               | 
               | All natural gas import, LNG and gaseous combined, only
               | account for 24.9% of EU energy imports. In 2021, 61.8% of
               | EU energy imports were crude oil.
               | 
               | Main extra-EU partners for imports of petroleum oil,
               | 2021:                   Russia: 24.8%         Norway 9.4%
               | United States: 8.8%  <-- The one you're blaming.
               | Libya: 8.2%         Kazakhstan: 8.0%
               | 
               | https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-
               | explained/index.php...
        
               | kuboble wrote:
               | Though there is a sense of hypocrisy here.
               | 
               | Europe used to be a one big jungle and the western Europe
               | was first to chop it all and build their wealth on it.
               | 
               | If now we regret it then those who did chop off all their
               | forests should share part of their wealth if they don't
               | want others to follow suit.
        
             | 1-6 wrote:
             | We can't let politics run the nation's energy policies. The
             | decision makers need to be a neutral body of elected
             | officials.
        
               | PraetorianGourd wrote:
               | An elected official is by definition not neutral. I think
               | representative government is as good as it gets, but it
               | will never be neutral or bereft of politics.
        
               | hpkuarg wrote:
               | Neutral and elected are mutually exclusive. ;-)
        
               | 8note wrote:
               | Neutral and decisions are mutually exclusive, even
        
               | pessimizer wrote:
               | The usage of the word "politics" has somehow become so
               | distorted that people are begging for non-political
               | government.
        
           | bequanna wrote:
           | Thanks for the sanity. The key word in your post being
           | _reliable_.
           | 
           | There are 1001 ways to generate electricity but with no good
           | storage options we need to prize reliability over all other
           | attributes when considering what we invest in.
        
             | [deleted]
        
           | zibby8 wrote:
           | Is it really preventable though? Isn't it pretty much a basic
           | law of nature that resources will be consumed maximally? If
           | you increase the amount of available energy, it too will be
           | used up until a point where people on the fringes are left
           | wanting. Not sure how you solve that short of some version of
           | population control.
        
             | delecti wrote:
             | That is often true, but isn't necessarily always true, and
             | certainly not always true for every resource. Total
             | electricity use in the US has been fairly flat for the past
             | 20 years, and that's despite increasing in population by
             | about 50million over the same period.
        
           | ClumsyPilot wrote:
           | > We need to get cheap reliable energy
           | 
           | We nees to address social problems too. You energy policy
           | won't help a homeless person
        
           | ajross wrote:
           | > Everything should be on the table, natural gas, fracking,
           | nuclear.
           | 
           | That's a misinterpretation. Those are global numbers. Those
           | people dying are dying primarily from exposure due to housing
           | shortfalls, it's not an energy distribution problem. And it's
           | _absolutely_ not a problem due to (as you seem to imply)
           | inappropriate regulation of fuels, which isn 't happening
           | anywhere anyway.
           | 
           | If you want to keep these people alive then cut a check to a
           | global housing construction NGO. Letting GE build a reactor
           | or BP dill a well does nothing.
        
       | OOIE wrote:
       | The overall problem with climate talking points is that it has
       | become a trendy political topic, which often deduces into a
       | battle between two sides instead of a civil discussion on the
       | scope of a potential threat and logical solutions.
       | 
       | I admittedly don't pay much attention to it since I live pretty
       | minimally anyway. Though, I cannot tell you how many homes in my
       | area have "Climate Action" signs in front of their unnecessarily
       | large homes. One home in particular has one right next to a gas
       | guzzling jeep.
       | 
       | It's sad that so many human issues have fallen into the political
       | spectrum where they are weaponized for power rather than resolved
       | for the common good.
        
         | kortilla wrote:
         | > Though, I cannot tell you how many homes in my area have
         | "Climate Action" signs in front of their unnecessarily large
         | homes. One home in particular has one right next to a gas
         | guzzling jeep.
         | 
         | Better than one next to a Prius that commutes 50 miles every
         | day.
        
           | juve1996 wrote:
           | Not sure I get this joke. What would you rather them do?
           | Commute 50 miles in a gas-guzzling SUV?
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | 8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote:
         | It's interesting to observe this moral panic pattern repeat
         | itself in so many areas of debate. I wonder if this is an
         | immutable part of living in a society, or just an externality
         | of the media's business model.
        
       | jliptzin wrote:
       | The difference is heat usually kills the weak and elderly, so no
       | one cares
        
         | Aachen wrote:
         | This is what I'm wondering. How many years of life are really
         | being taken by a heat wave compared to a hurricane or flooding
         | that can also kill a 15-year-old just as easily? There's a word
         | for this, something like disability-adjusted years of life
         | expectancy (because living without eyesight or your legs is
         | also annoying, and should be taken into account when comparing
         | badness of some health-affecting issue).
        
       | progrus wrote:
       | Almost seems like the worst thing we can do is compromise the
       | durability of our energy grid...
        
       | petre wrote:
       | I'm quite sure obesity gives a helping hand as well.
        
       | barney54 wrote:
       | Interestingly, cold may kill more than heat (but it's
       | complicated) https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Which-Kills-More-
       | People-Ex...
        
       | hollywood_court wrote:
       | From 4th grade until I left home at age 16, I lived in a single
       | wide mobile home in lower Alabama. My mother had a window unit AC
       | in her bedroom but other than that, there was no cooling.
       | 
       | Looking back now, I have no idea how I survived. My pet
       | chinchilla died one summer because it was too hot in my bedroom.
       | 
       | I could never imagine allowing my own son to grow up on such
       | conditions.
       | 
       | I suppose I have regressed and I am now weaker. But I couldn't
       | possibly live without AC now.
        
         | selimthegrim wrote:
         | The advent of termites put paid to traditional New Orleans
         | house designs that would passively cool. It looks like we are
         | all in the same boat.
        
           | hollywood_court wrote:
           | It's quite a coincidence that you mention passive cooling. I
           | moved to the Caribbean after high school, and I never once
           | had AC during the 10 years I spent there. But the windows
           | were always open and the fans were always on. The Caribbean
           | doesn't suffer from the humidity of the Deep South, and there
           | was most always a breeze. It was much more bearable even
           | though the temps were often just as high as those I
           | experienced in Alabama.
        
       | enviclash wrote:
       | How comprehensive is the data source? E.g. are all such events
       | recorded? And, is there clustering, in relation to weather events
       | or lack of response policies?
        
       | IngvarLynn wrote:
       | Why look at the very bottom of mortality list? (llYs a s sYt
       | @snao@q)
       | 
       | Second-hand smoke kills almost 100 times more Americans.
       | 
       | https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/seco...
        
         | bequanna wrote:
         | We can't talk about one problem because some other problem
         | _exists_?
         | 
         | Perfect is the enemy of good.
        
           | peteradio wrote:
           | Then what is the point of doing a relative comparison to any
           | other causes of death?
        
             | bequanna wrote:
             | For context.
        
           | IngvarLynn wrote:
           | It would be quite unwise to talk about spoiled food when your
           | house is on fire.
           | 
           | >Perfect is the enemy of good.
           | 
           | Agree. Looking at the bottom of mortality list is
           | perfectionism.
        
             | bequanna wrote:
             | Wrong and somewhat naive.
             | 
             | If you have a list of problems you don't only focus on
             | solving the one with the largest impact. You need to
             | balance resource allocation between how the problem
             | negatively impacts AND ability to solve.
             | 
             | If we followed your logic, we would stop trying to cure
             | cancer and just focus all healthcare resources exclusively
             | on developing life extension drugs.
        
           | ejb999 wrote:
           | wasting limited resources on initiatives that save less lives
           | per dollar spent vs other initiatives that save more lives
           | and/or cost less per lived saved IS the enemy of the good.
           | 
           | my own example - I live in a tiny town at about 1700 ft
           | elevation, nowhere near the ocean, no bodies of water than
           | can flood, not anywhere near the ocean, just 1 tornado in the
           | past 80+ years, and no hurricanes above a cat 1 in a century
           | (which caused almost no damage)- i.e. almost zero immediate
           | 'environmental threats' - the town was given a $120K
           | state/federal grant to "prepare" for climate change effects.
           | 
           | What do you think would save more lives in my little place in
           | the world? - giving out free car seats to all newborns, free
           | smoke detectors every few years to every residence, free CO2
           | monitors, and tackling obesity and unhealthy lifestyle
           | choices such as drugs thru more education or recreational
           | opportunities for kids etc - or 'studying' the possible
           | effects of climate change in nowhereville USA?
           | 
           | My money is on the former.
        
             | juve1996 wrote:
             | Unfortunately arguments like these are meant to deflect and
             | then nothing gets done. It's almost always a tactic to
             | undercut, not advance meaningful measures.
        
             | Johnny555 wrote:
             | _giving out free car seats to all newborns, free smoke
             | detectors every few years to every residence, free CO2
             | monitors, and tackling obesity and unhealthy lifestyle
             | choices such as drugs thru more education or recreational
             | opportunities for kids etc - or 'studying' the possible
             | effects of climate change in nowhereville USA_
             | 
             | There are already government programs and charities that
             | give out free car seats, and car seats are required by law
             | for infants in every state. There's not much more the
             | government can do to get more babies in car seats.
             | 
             | Most areas require hardwired smoke detectors in new
             | construction, as well as in rental units. The Red Cross and
             | other charities (and some fire departments) provide free
             | smoke detectors to those that can't afford them.
             | 
             | Spending money now to prepare for worse climate in the
             | future sounds like a good investment since many mitigations
             | can take years or decades to fund and complete. (like
             | building generator backed community cooling centers,
             | building or improving levees, etc).
        
             | bequanna wrote:
             | We should be continuously discussing and evaluating how to
             | solve all real problems humanity faces.
             | 
             | Your criticism of the Federal Grant you mention is valid.
             | It would have been great if you could have expressed that
             | thought _before_ they wrote that check, right?
             | 
             | That's what this entire comment section is: People
             | discussing a specific problem. Not the other problem, this
             | one.
        
               | drdec wrote:
               | Part of discussing the problem is placing it in context
               | with similar problems.
        
       | VLM wrote:
       | Obesity has a large effect on heat wave damage but the tornado
       | will kill you just as effectively thin or fat, so its no surprise
       | there's been an intense coordinated media push on the dangers of
       | heat as obesity rises death rates will rise.
        
         | amanaplanacanal wrote:
         | I'm guessing climate change is also on most peoples minds.
        
       | metadaemon wrote:
       | Down at the lake with my family one year, we watched a guy mowing
       | his lawn collapse. My dad went to go help, but the guy ended up
       | dying from heat exhaustion. Over exerting yourself in the heat is
       | never a good idea, please remember to always stay hydrated.
        
       | ejb999 wrote:
       | >>"Yet some local governments are still not taking extreme heat
       | seriously"
       | 
       | Given that extreme heat is not even close to being at the top 50
       | ways that Americans die on an annual basis, it seems to me that
       | there is much better bang for the buck having federal state and
       | local governments focusing on those things that kills the most
       | people first - if the goal is saving lives (which it should be),
       | than attack those societal/public health problems that kill the
       | most people first.
       | 
       | Basic triaging is necessary - if you don't have unlimited
       | resources, and you can't save everybody (both of those things are
       | objectively true), then the best benefit to society is to attack
       | the problems that will save or extend the lives of the most
       | people.
       | 
       | The top ten causes of death alone account for 1.5 million USA
       | deaths per year; extreme heat is less than 1/10 of 1% of just
       | those top 10 - I want the government to prioritize making
       | progress on those things first.
       | 
       | Just having a healthier population alone would probably cut way
       | down on # number of people that die from extreme heat - a
       | healthier person will almost certainly fare better in extreme
       | heat than someone that already has 2-3 comorbidities.
        
       | swader999 wrote:
       | Cold weather is probably worse. Lot of heart attacks that don't
       | necessarily register as cold related. It is more difficult for
       | the heart to pump the blood.
       | 
       | https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2021/12/14/fac...
        
         | hitpointdrew wrote:
         | Not probably, certainly. Way more people die from cold than
         | from heat, it's not even close. There is no dispute the data is
         | very clear here.
        
         | dagmx wrote:
         | What percentage of America has to deal with freezing weather
         | versus heatwaves though?
         | 
         | Also, it's much easier to warm up in cold weather than it is to
         | cool down in hot weather.
        
           | [deleted]
        
           | bluejekyll wrote:
           | One thing I was surprised to learn, mostly because growing up
           | I always thought of AC as extravagant, it's more energy
           | efficient to cool a building than it is to heat it.
        
             | bugbuddy wrote:
             | If you flip your windows AC unit around, then you get the
             | exact amount of heat energy removed by the AC in the form
             | of hot air going into your room. This is called a heat
             | exchanger. It was just cheaper to use gas furnace heater
             | when most home was built and it is still true in many
             | places.
        
               | [deleted]
        
             | icegreentea2 wrote:
             | That's both a function of technological efficiency (direct
             | heating vs heat pump), and the temperature deltas we need
             | to achieve. Using my Southern Ontario reference point,
             | typical cooling needs are only 10-20 degrees C, while
             | typical heating needs would be closer to 20-30 degrees.
             | 
             | As use of heat pumps increase, and average temperatures
             | continue to climb, the balance between heating and cooling
             | costs will shift (this is obviously a very regional
             | phenomenon).
        
             | throwaheyy wrote:
             | A reverse-cycle air conditioner is equally efficient at
             | heating a building as cooling one.
        
           | drivers99 wrote:
           | This map shows the average annual low temperature (in zones
           | divided by 10 degrees F). It's designed for plants but should
           | give you a good idea of where it reaches freezing temperature
           | (like, all of Florida until you get to Palm Bay or Tampa but
           | only on the coast, for example; and all of Texas except the
           | tip by Brownsville, and the coast by Corpus Christi).
           | https://planthardiness.ars.usda.gov/
        
           | hpkuarg wrote:
           | > it's much easier to warm up in cold weather than it is to
           | cool down in hot weather
           | 
           | May be true for the human body, but when you're talking about
           | heating a living space to a comfortable temperature versus
           | cooling the same, in the majority of places (at least in the
           | US) it takes way less energy to accomplish the latter.
           | 
           | Even in a hot place like Dallas, TX with an average daytime
           | high of 97 degrees Fahrenheit in the hottest month, it's only
           | a 20-degree differential to bring it to 77 degrees indoors,
           | vs. an average overnight low of 38 degrees in the coldest
           | month, where you would need to bring it up 30 degrees and
           | might still feel cold inside.
           | 
           | This is not to mention how much more energy-efficient air
           | conditioning (which just moves heat around) is compared to
           | furnaces (which generate heat from fuel).
        
             | pdonis wrote:
             | It's not the heat, it's the humidity. For typical summer
             | conditions in Dallas (even more so in, say, Houston or
             | Brownsville), if I'm remembering the numbers from my time
             | as an automotive HVAC engineer correctly, it takes 5 to 6
             | times as much energy to dehumidify the air as to cool it.
             | And those are by no means the worst conditions on the
             | planet: try southeast Asia or equatorial Africa.
             | 
             | It's true that you can claw some of that back from the fact
             | that A/C can have a coefficient of performance greater than
             | 1, but COP also gets worse (i.e., closer to 1, less of an
             | advantage) as the conditions get more extreme.
        
               | SoftTalker wrote:
               | Yes, because dehumidification involves a phase change
               | (water vapor to liquid) and the heat of vaporization is
               | much higher than needed to effect a simple temperature
               | change in dry air.
        
           | irrational wrote:
           | No idea. I live in the PNW where we have freezing
           | temperatures about as often as heat waves (not very often),
           | but grew up in south Florida where we never had freezing
           | temperatures but everyday felt like a heat wave.
        
             | ghaff wrote:
             | People do acclimatize to greater or lesser degrees. But
             | what I'd call a heat wave in New England is pretty much
             | just "summer" in a big chunk of the US.
        
               | [deleted]
        
           | bombcar wrote:
           | Something that affects the cold north where only idiots and
           | moose live is boring and nobody cares.
           | 
           | But if Silicon Valley gets slightly uncomfortable for a week
           | it's the end of the worlds.
        
         | ghaff wrote:
         | Clearing snow, especially from roofs, is probably also one of
         | the more energetic things that a lot of people do.
        
           | peteradio wrote:
           | Wet sloppy snow is known as "heartattack snow" around these
           | parts.
        
       | blablabla123 wrote:
       | This makes me actually wonder how the daily peak temperatures
       | changed over the years
        
       | SoftTalker wrote:
       | The headline doesn't really quantify the problem.
       | 
       | Lots of things kill more Americans than hurricanes, tornadoes,
       | and floods. Hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods can be quite
       | destructive, but they don't really kill a lot of people in the
       | grand scheme of things.
        
       | Broken_Hippo wrote:
       | https://archive.ph/xwKRl
        
       | exabrial wrote:
       | Tornadoes don't kill many people to start with... and nearly all
       | of them are preventable in this day and age... but that point
       | withstanding
        
       | immmmmm wrote:
       | latest paper on the topic:
       | 
       | https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-021-01092-9
        
       | bena wrote:
       | This feels like one of those things that sounds interesting until
       | you take a minute and think about it.
       | 
       | Hurricanes don't come from nowhere. You can evacuate for a
       | hurricane. And the actual hurricane is over relatively quickly.
       | I'm also not sure how knock-on deaths are counted. Hurricanes
       | cause flooding, spin off tornadoes, and can disable services
       | during some of the hottest months of the year. So a hurricane
       | will make you susceptible to floods, tornadoes, and heatwaves.
       | But still. We know what to do when hurricanes come.
       | 
       | Tornadoes are violent, but quick. You usually have some amount of
       | time to clear out of the path if necessary.
       | 
       | Floods come in many forms. A lot of them are less lethal. Water
       | slowly rising 4 feet over several hours is a different scenario
       | than water rising 4 feet over several seconds.
       | 
       | Heat. Heat is different. There's no real indicator that there's
       | too much of it. Yeah, you got hot, but you get hot a lot of
       | times. It's fine. "Just got to finish this lawn, this run, this
       | game, etc." And heat usually covers a huge area, enough that it
       | could take over a day just to drive out of the affected area.
       | 
       | We respect violence, and heat is not violent.
        
         | mellavora wrote:
         | > Hurricanes don't come from nowhere. You can evacuate for a
         | hurricane.
         | 
         | Actually, we can't realistically evacuate Miami/Dade county.
         | There is only one highway leading north, and no other direction
         | to go.
         | 
         | Ask Pakistan about floods.
         | 
         | But yes, you are right about heat. My theory is that it is the
         | fourth rider of the apocalypse. Covers a huge area and just
         | kills everyone.
        
           | bena wrote:
           | We're given a lot of warning with hurricanes. The biggest
           | hurdle with evacuation is that a lot of people don't have the
           | means. Either a lack of transportation or lack of funds to
           | secure shelter.
           | 
           | Yes, that's why I said there are different types of floods. I
           | explicitly acknowledged that floods come in several
           | varieties. Pakistan is notable for a lot of reasons. It's
           | also notable because even for a flood, it is out of the
           | ordinary.
           | 
           | You tried to pick edge cases to try and say the typical
           | doesn't apply. It still does. The issue is that the typical
           | heatwave is different from the typical variety of other
           | disasters.
        
           | selimthegrim wrote:
           | Alligator Alley is not an evacuation route?
        
       | olalonde wrote:
       | Makes me wonder if this is also a problem in countries that get
       | those kinds of temperatures much more frequently (e.g. Qatar). Or
       | have they learned to deal with this?
        
         | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
         | It's a problem because so many Americans are unhealthy and more
         | easily succumb to environmental conditions. It doesn't help
         | that these same people flock to areas where they're more
         | vulnerable.
         | 
         | There's lots of bad reporting on the increase in heat related
         | deaths since the 1950s which glosses over the fact that few
         | people were fat back then and air conditioning was exceedingly
         | rare. A fraction of the people were living in the hottest areas
         | of the US and those that were could handle it.
        
         | nine_zeros wrote:
         | They have learned and forgotten due to western influence.
         | During heat waves, cross ventilating wind allows for cooler
         | temperatures indoor. Building architectures in a lot of middle
         | east is designed for cross ventilation. Newer modern buildings
         | appear to have forgotten this ancient technology though.
        
           | selimthegrim wrote:
           | Do they have termites in the Middle East?
        
       | hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
       | I feel like we need a better metric to use when something "kills"
       | people. When heat waves kill people, the vast majority of the
       | time it means these people already had major health problems that
       | (a) let the heat do more damage and (b) prevented the person from
       | seeking help in the first place. To be clear, I'm not saying that
       | heat wasn't the final cause, but I think it's a fair assumption
       | that most of these people didn't have much healthy life ahead of
       | them regardless.
       | 
       | Compare that to, say, a tornado that wipes out a family with 2
       | young kids and 2 middle-aged adults. That to me feels orders of
       | magnitude worse, both in the violent manner of death, and the
       | fact that these people had years and years of healthy life left.
       | 
       | And, to hopefully kill this anticipated straw man, I am _not_
       | making the assertion that  "it's no big deal" if elderly or sick
       | people die. I am only commenting on the _comparison_ to other
       | forms of death, and arguing that I think it 's fair to think
       | those other forms are death are much worse if you look beyond
       | just "number of people killed".
        
         | serial_dev wrote:
         | One more, pretty sad, reason that extremely hot and extremely
         | cold weather don't get that much attention that (at least my
         | assumption) it mainly kills the poor, whereas hurricanes and
         | tornadoes do not "discriminate" based on income to that extent.
         | 
         | If you and your family are well off, you can be reasonably sure
         | that hot or cold weather will not affect you so dramatically.
        
         | robertn702 wrote:
         | We do have a better metric. It's "years of life lost" (YLL) and
         | it is a commonly used metric for the exact reasons you
         | mentioned. My guess as to why you rarely see it being used
         | outside of the scientific community is because "number of
         | deaths" drives more clicks.
         | 
         | https://www.who.int/data/gho/indicator-metadata-registry/imr...
        
           | umvi wrote:
           | I remember COVID deaths being compared to WW2 deaths by the
           | media a few years ago. If YLL were used instead I think (but
           | don't know for certain) that WW2 would be much more
           | egregious.
        
             | watwut wrote:
             | WW2 happened to kill significantly more civilians then
             | soldiers. And among those, old, sick, poor and weak died
             | the most. Babies and small kids too, so it is not entirely
             | clear how exactly it would cut.
        
               | bombcar wrote:
               | The majority of covid deaths would be toward the elderly
               | range.
               | 
               | Almost every soldier death would be 18-25. I suspect the
               | civilian would lean older but I don't think it would
               | entirely offset it.
        
               | watwut wrote:
               | > Almost every soldier death would be 18-25.
               | 
               | Absolutely not true. The age at which countries recruited
               | were up to 45 normally (united states) or even 60
               | (Germany UK) and in Germany every able bodied male
               | eventually ended in some kind of unit - if only home
               | defense. Starting with 14 actually.
               | 
               | The ration of civilians to soldiers killed is 3:2 to 2:1.
        
               | bombcar wrote:
               | British average was 27in ww 1. I was off by a few years.
               | 
               | http://wp.lancs.ac.uk/greatwar/ages-of-the-dead/
               | 
               | Certainly lower than 55+, though ww2 could be moderately
               | higher than 27 I doubt it.
        
               | watwut wrote:
               | Average being 27 and almost all being in 18-25 range are
               | massively different statements.
               | 
               | The civilian to soldier death ration in wwi was
               | different. The civilians were not directly targeted the
               | way they were in wwii. The ideologization was lower and
               | population itself was not the enemy the way it was in
               | wwii.
               | 
               | Also, both Amrica and UK sent soldiers away to fight. UK
               | was bombed, but did not had large displacement of
               | population or ethnic cleansing or retaliation for those
               | going on in their territories.
               | 
               | Modern wars kill more civilians then soldiers.
        
               | dasudasu wrote:
               | The average age of an American soldier in WW2 was 26.
        
               | SoftTalker wrote:
               | Is that just combat soldiers or is that all military
               | including the officer ranks?
        
               | watwut wrote:
               | I would guess all given those two options. Officers are
               | involved in combat situations. More importantly, huge
               | amount of soldiers is needed for logistic - it can be
               | over 50% or even more for logistics.
               | 
               | Excluding officers and keeping in logistics would not
               | make much sense. (Tho logistics does not mean safe
               | either).
        
       | kirse wrote:
       | I was recently in one of these hot climates at peak times and did
       | a lot of research on this while pushing my limits as an athlete.
       | So many factors play into human adaptability to heat even
       | including things like how exposed your veins are (phlebotomists
       | love you!). People think areas like Vegas are hot, but cities
       | like Dallas can have higher wet-bulb temps (WBGT) due to
       | humidity. WBGT is the gold standard for performance
       | considerations in hot climates:
       | 
       | Current WBGT - https://www.weather.gov/tsa/wbgt
       | 
       | Fahrenheit - https://arielschecklist.com/wp-
       | content/uploads/2017/01/CHART...
       | 
       | Celsius - https://arielschecklist.com/wp-
       | content/uploads/2017/01/CHART...
       | 
       | WBGT Work Recs - http://blog.mesonet.org/agriculture/wp-
       | content/uploads/sites...
       | 
       | These are good guides but don't let this info plant anxiety in
       | your mind either. Heat can kill you over time, but if you get
       | into a situation where you feel heat exhausted, stay calm and
       | stick to a single plan to unwind and rest. Carry around a frozen
       | water bottle or two if you're headed somewhere hot for awhile.
       | Neck + palms are one of the best ways to cool core temps [1].
       | Pre-hydration is also important, water + electrolyte intake days
       | before exertion affects performance.
       | 
       | [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palm_cooling
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2022-09-05 23:01 UTC)