this post was submitted on 03 Jul 2025
91 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

72414 readers
2481 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • At the charging stations, daily concentrations of dangerous air particles, known as PM2.5, ranged from 7.3 to 39.0 micrograms per cubic meter.
  • Urban sites without fast-charging stations had concentrations of PM2.5 ranging from only 3.6 to 12.4 micrograms per cubic meter.
  • The tiny particles likely come from particle resuspension around Direct Current Fast Charging power cabinets. Cooling fans designed to prevent the electronics from overheating can also stir up dust and particles from internal surfaces.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

i don't know if i would take this study as "knowledge". that map of the us? it's just a map of chargers, not of data from the study. reading the study, they were only measuring in one county. there's no categorisation of the type of fast charger they measured, just "a variety". the error bars overlap enough that this could all be errors. and why only measure at fast chargers and gas stations? why not at other high-power electrical systems like transformer yards in urban areas? they alno have fans, surely.

question is, why publish it if it is so obviously (and willfully) wrong?