Live data from Hacker News

Air Pollution in Our Homes

newyorker.com

81–90 of 137 posts

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#81
post #61
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently borrowed a similar device, and this one also measures formaldehyde. To be honest I'm quite anguished by it, because I can't find any indoors object with formaldehyde concentration less than 0.1ppm, which is the "safe" (by some legal standards) margin. Only outside or in a room with a wide open window it comes down under. It's even borderline higher in buildings not recently renovated. I've tried researc…

I'm now curious enough to want to get one of the meters. The reason being that everyone at work swears by the new wave of "mattress to your door" mattresses that you can buy online. Buy I insisted on getting a "real" mattress filled made of cotton, wood and springs. I'm still looked at like a caveman because I didn't go for the extruded oil hipster mattress and would like to be vindicated by evidence from an impartia…

I was also curious, as an owner of a box mattress and laminate flooring.

I used https://acsbadge.com/ to do a highly-accurate one time test of my home and was happy with the results. Piece of mind to determine if you have a potential issue or not. They also give guidance on how to interpret the numbers and what 'safe' means (results are in ppm concentration accurate to 0.002 ppm).

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#82
post #42

If you're concerned about indoor pollution, I highly recommend house plants. In NASA research[1], common house plants were found to remove toxic agents such as benzene and formaldehyde from the air. Some of the best air purifying plants: Chlorophytum comosum (spider plant), Dracaena reflexa (song of India), Nephrolepis exaltata (Boston fern), Sansevieria trifasciata (snake plant), and Chamaedorea seifrizii (bamboo pa…

This is the key line from that Wikipedia page:

>but was conducted under sealed space station conditions and research conducted since has shown mixed results in the home or office

I love houseplants, decorating an indoor space with them provides me a huge psychological boost. But it's not doing anything physically.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#83
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Student volunteer" probably refers to undergrad students who are working on their theses.

Ah, then it's okay not to pay the going rate for the labor.

A lot of students benefit from this unpaid labor. I know many people who volunteered in labs to get real experience that they translated into high paying jobs else where.

Those people would not be able to get the job if it was paid

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#84
post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Re foobot, did you see this? https://mobile.twitter.com/dhh/status/928661125327069184 Airthings looks interesting. I'm curious to know of any reviews of their accuracy.

thanks! i had not seen that particular tweet, though i'd heard dhh was into this stuff generally. i'm a little less concerned about accurate co2 levels, since mitigation is straightforward (open a window). even imperfect co2 readings are good enough to signal when to open a window (around 800-1000 ppm, or ~2x ambient co2 levels). voc's and particulate matter are more my nemesis, as my lungs are more sensitive to that…

Thanks! Got a link to that report you mentioned on the foobot, incidentally?

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#85

> CTRL+F "smoke" > CTRL+F "smoking" > 0 results The dominant source of air pollution for almost all of human history has been smoke of one sort or another (see: historical dramas that show indoor light/heating with candles and fireplaces, https://samharris.org/the-fireplace-delusion/ ), to the extent that I personally doubt banning secondhand smoke indoors would have made much difference to non-smokers' health before…

lol. cigarette smoking pales in comparison to emissions from vehicles.

worrying about second hand smoke (unless you're literally trapped in a room like a bar, etc.) is almost laughable.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#86
post #31

I got a laseregg 2, and highly recommend it or a similar monitor. It's been very eye opening to see how various scenarios affect air pollution: * frying indoors generally swiftly puts things in the unsafe range. Especially if it led to browning. * a neighbour's bbq would do the same if the window was open * idling truck on the street for construction? Unsafe range * surprisingly, the toaster would raise levels if it…

i bought a wave-plus[0] on a whim, and it's also been eye-opening. it doesn't measure particulate matter directly, but has a VOC meter (and radon, which is their strength) that similarly spikes for all sorts of things, including closing the windows at night. it's battery-operated and connects to a phone app via bluetooth (which then can sync to their cloud dashboard if you choose). i may buy a foobot[1] one day, as i…

For everything non-Radon, I'd trust Awair (http://getawair.com) honestly. I feel like I'm shilling for them at this point. Outside of DHH's recommendation, I read somewhere that their sensors are certified (plus their 2nd Edition does PM2.5 and CO2, unlike the foobot one). I've looked into smart things, but I'm not concerned about Radon, so wasn't going to pay the extra $75.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#87
post #3

I've always tried to air my home out as much as I can while cooking. Pretty much all windows are open. Article reaffirms my core avoidance of things like toasters/microwaves.

The article does mention toasters as a particularly bad culprit, but the word `microwave` doesn't appear anywhere in the text. Curious how you have arrived at this connection between two very different devices.

I would have to think a microwave would be rather clean, considering it is hard to really "burn" something in one.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#88
post #72

I have serious food allergies and celiac disease in addition to allergies/sensitivities to ingredients of cleaning products. I have problems entering are staying in a lot of environments, pretty much anywhere that I don’t have control over the air or access to fresh air. The results on the toaster are not surprising. I’ve worried about toast smoke in coffee shops before because small amounts of gluten or allergens ca…

It’s amazing how casual people are about this Only if you think of it that way really, considering a) the majority of people don't have problems and b) long-term effects of those products are sometimes not known at all, let alone known by the general public. Don't forget things like allergy information for food etc are fairly recent developments even in the western world. And studies showing/hinting at links between…

Sure, I distinguish between my specific problems and everyone else. Of course the common food items I’m allergic to are all over. That’s no surprise.

What I’m really objecting to is the needless chemicals and fragrances. There is growing awareness that fragrances bother some people. There’s a growing trend of fragrance free workplaces, for instance the entire state government of Oregon.

City of Portland: “Fragrance Free Workplace Employees who are sensitive to perfumes and chemicals may suffer potentially serious health consequences, triggered by exposure to scented products. Consequently, employees are asked to refrain from the use of personal scented products in the workplace where the sole purpose is to produce a scent, such as perfume, after shave, and cologne and to avoid the use of strongly scented personal hygiene products such as laundry soap, dryer sheets hand lotion, powder, hair spray, and deodorant. All City managers and supervisors are expected to enforce this rule. An employee who is experiencing health consequences due to another employee’s use of scented products should report the problem to their supervisor to ensure appropriate action is taken.”

We can divide fragrance problems into allergies, sensitivities, and the mere fact that fragrance is distracting. In the bar example, I’m there to consume an expensive spirit that supposedly has a price based upon the flavor. Spraying a bunch of chemical cleaner in the air with a distracting fragrance right when I’m about to consume in my drink is a poor choice in that regard. You also see this in cannabis stores – some of them burn incense. When they are charging sometimes three times as much for certain products, mostly based on the aroma and flavor, why would the store be filled with fragrances that coat everything, dominate the air, and even soak into the product? If you were attending a winetasting, and there’s a heavy air freshener scent or somebody there is wearing an extremely strong cologne, it distracts from the entire purpose of the event, which is tasting wine, not perfume. It’s like shining a light and someone dies when they’re trying to read.

I woman I dated for years used to have problems with her mother blasting the bathroom with some sort of Clorox cleaner. She would complain of headaches and watery eyes. Her mother paid absolutely no attention, as if her headaches and watery eyes were somehow less important then sanitizing the bathroom floor. I don’t understand that attitude. Now that more testing has been done on cleaners like that, it’s not that question at that concentration of toxic chemicals in the air exceeds safety levels in such a situation. It baffles me that common sense doesn’t tell people this, too. Reading the label would help. The concept claimed by manufactures that people use things like raid and roundup in accordance with labeling is ludicrous.

As far as premature death, there is a long way to go from healthy to dead. The spectrum in between is a wide range of discomfort and illness. Studies have long showed a correlation between use of indoor cleaners and fragrances and respiratory problems such as asthma. Also, the trend of natural and non-toxic cleaners has been on the rise for years. So, there should be some awareness in the average person that certain consumer products pose a hazard if not for everyone for some people.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5773620/

But yes, the general population is definitely not aware of the dangers. I would say that’s for many reasons. Certainly manufactures are not seeking to spread information they would expose them to liability or make them change their formulation. Instead they do things like cover up severely toxic contaminants in their products and lobby against labeling. And then, given the propensity of society to engage in activities that everyone knows can be harmful such cigarette smoking, alcohol, speeding, eating fried foods, fast food and so forth, it’s clear that most people don’t heed warnings of well-known dangers. Cigarette smoking causes all sorts of illness, impairment and discomfort before death, but to hear people talk, the only risk is death. Social pressure and marketing are stronger.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#89
post #79
post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've recently borrowed a similar device, and this one also measures formaldehyde. To be honest I'm quite anguished by it, because I can't find any indoors object with formaldehyde concentration less than 0.1ppm, which is the "safe" (by some legal standards) margin. Only outside or in a room with a wide open window it comes down under. It's even borderline higher in buildings not recently renovated. I've tried researc…

0.1 ppm is quite a high indoor concentration of formaldehyde. Most homes will not air exposure levels this high. Just for reference, NIOSH recommends 0.016 ppm as the max exposure limit for a workday. CARB recommends a max safe level of 0.05 ppm. WHO recommends max level of 0.08 ppm for 30 minutes, etc. 0.3 ppm is extremely high for chronic exposure.

The meter is this one: https://www.amazon.com/Air-Pollution-Formaldehyde-Detector-T...

After these words I'm seriously starting to doubt the correctness of the device. I can't believe I wasn't able to find any indoor location with a low enough concentration for below 0.1 ppm, or only outdoors. I mean, these are rooms where I, my colleagues, friends and family are non-stop, we should all be good as one by now with those concentrations.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This. We evolved in an environment with plenty of particulate matter. It's the exotic stuff that has no analog from the time when we evolved that causes problems.

As opposed to acrylic?

Without knowing for sure, I imagine acrylic to be inert and most like any other dust on the time scale it takes for our bodies to expel it. But I could be wrong. Certainly, there are modern dangerous materials which do affect us, such as asbestos and heavy metals.
Post reply on HN