Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Air Pollution in Our Homes

newyorker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 137 posts

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#121

Post by kaybe »

hoorayimhelping wrote: post #82
pdog wrote: 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.

I feel it changes the humidity and smell, that's not nothing.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#122

Post by orloffm »

pdog wrote: 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…

Surprisingly, these are the exact same plants that are ubiquitous in all post-Soviet governmental institutions.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#123

Post by kaybe »

e40 wrote: post #38
macNchz wrote: post #36

I've found many houses I've been in to be extremely stuffy and stale inside...I think most American homes fall into a bad middle ground for indoor air quality: well enough sealed to trap indoor pollutants, but lacking the more sophisticated HVAC systems that can efficiently exchange fresh air. Additionally, it seems that many Americans also really hate opening their windows (and indeed the climate often doesn't reall…

Agreed, but many houses in the Bay Area were built in the 1920's (both the houses I've owned were). The windows in my house are not sealed well. The double-hung sash windows have space for the rope and I can feel a draft on windy days. All this talk of CO2 recently has made me value that my house is drafty.

It would be nice to have a house where you can regulate the draftyness better. In some seasons, draftyness is a feature, not a but, in others, not so much.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#124

Post by hcurtiss »

simple_phrases wrote: post #111
hcurtiss wrote: post #104

I've been exposed to air toxics risk assessments through my work. The problem, in my mind, is not the toxics we're facing in our homes (or even outdoors). It's that humans are really bad at understanding risk. Let's imagine an annual Thanksgiving dinner presents an excess lifetime cancer risk of 2 (made up number -- probably much lower). Many people would find that unacceptable. But why? Many activities we engage in…

> For instance, this article says the odds of dying in a car crash are approximately 10.7 per 100k. That is 10,000 in a million. There are ~30k automobile deaths in the US per year. Your figure is off by several orders of magnitude.

I would point you to the quote in the article I cite: "'Motor vehicle traffic' deaths in the U.S. in 2013, the most recent full year of data available, totaled 33,804, for a death rate of 10.7 per 100,000, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." I believe the denominator is confined to drivers. No matter, there are dozens of other good examples to support my point that ordinary activities are much riskier than the levels of risk we talk about in the context of air toxics.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#125

Post by jly »

salex89 wrote: post #89
jly wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tho…

Looking at the link, this device measures formaldehyde in mg/m3. You'll need to convert this to ppm, just FYI.

1 ppm in air = 1.24 mg/m3 @ 25° C

If you're measuring 0.1 on the meter, that's about 0.08ppm (still pretty high).

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#126

Post by jly »

mirkules wrote: post #109
jly wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

That’s interesting, but they have 133 badges. Which one did you use?

https://acsbadge.com/product/formaldehyde-vapor-monitor-f-50...

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#127

Post by coolgeek »

hcurtiss wrote: post #124
simple_phrases wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> For instance, this article says the odds of dying in a car crash are approximately 10.7 per 100k. That is 10,000 in a million. There are ~30k automobile deaths in the US per year. Your figure is off by several orders of magnitude.

I would point you to the quote in the article I cite: "'Motor vehicle traffic' deaths in the U.S. in 2013, the most recent full year of data available, totaled 33,804, for a death rate of 10.7 per 100,000, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." I believe the denominator is confined to drivers. No matter, there are dozens of other good examples to support my point that ordinary activit…

The problem was with your math. 10.7 per 100k != 10,000 in a million.

10.7 per 100k == 1.07 per 10k == 107 per 1000k (1m)

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#128

Post by hcurtiss »

coolgeek wrote: post #127
hcurtiss wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would point you to the quote in the article I cite: "'Motor vehicle traffic' deaths in the U.S. in 2013, the most recent full year of data available, totaled 33,804, for a death rate of 10.7 per 100,000, according to data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." I believe the denominator is confined to drivers. No matter, there are dozens of other good examples to support my point that ordinary activit…

The problem was with your math. 10.7 per 100k != 10,000 in a million. 10.7 per 100k == 1.07 per 10k == 107 per 1000k (1m)

You're correct. Moving too quick. And that, in turn, is still two orders of magnitude greater than 2. I think my point still stands. Thanks for the help.

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#129

Post by vram11 »

nextos wrote: post #56
martey wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/03/indoor-p... Recently, Waring and his colleagues reanalyzed all 195 studies that have examined whether houseplants can filter the air. They found that some types of plants can remove higher amounts of VOCs than others. But once you factor in the effects of working in a large room, none of the plants are able to do much. Waring told me to imagine a small office,…

That is spot on. The only solution is to build houses with better materials that release less VOCs and/or use an air filter with a good activated carbon stage. Carpets have become very popular. But cheap ones release tons of VOCs due to fire retardants and anti-stain treatments. I've switched to a house built in the Scandinavian style, with oiled wooden floors and simple soap-treated furniture. Not only beautiful, bu…

Interesting. Why oiled and soap-treated?

Re: Air Pollution in Our Homes

#130

Post by Trivoyage »

pdog wrote: 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…

Mums are on NASA’s list of top air-purifying plants.
Post reply on HN