The cognitive costs of air pollution • Hacker News Board

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#71

Post by gnode » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

glofish wrote: post #57

gnode wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The original post doesn't mention IQ. IQ is a terrible metric for studying short-term cognitive effects.

IQ has a bad rap (rightfully so, thus no disagreement there). In the cited works they use tests that in the past were called IQ tests - though here all are called cognitive-scores. Why wouldn't IQ tests be great for studying short term cognitive effects? I would trust their values for these type of studies the most: how does lack of sleep, being drunk, after exercise, etc affect your ability to solve abstract problem…

> Why wouldn't IQ tests be great for studying short term cognitive effects?

IQ testing is designed to test for intelligent behaviour, which is largely based on long-term neurological development. The connections in the brain, densities of neurons, and long-term potentiations don't change greatly on a short-term basis. Measures which fluctuate based on spot-performance factors are typically deemed unreliable for the purpose of IQ testing.

Cognitive deficits caused by exposure to drugs and other substances tend to impact functioning of the neurons, and are detrimental to measures of intelligence, but are more appropriately measured by more specific tests, which focus on factors such as reaction time, or motor accuracy. Consider the cognitive tests performed by police when driving under the influence of alcohol is expected, for instance. Such cognitive tests also help provide a clearer picture of how a substance affects the brain.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#72

Post by dredmorbius » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:46 PM UTC

PeterStuer wrote: post #44

So does this mean we can now expect populist politicians to crank up PM2.5 emitters at a massive scale prior to elections?

Rolling coal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#73

Post by Richard_East » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:47 PM UTC

rahuldottech wrote: post #17

This really bothers me. I live in a VERY polluted place, and unfortunately moving away won't be an option for me for at least half a decade. What can I do to minimise the health effects of such an atmosphere? I'm planning on getting an indoor air filter for my home.

Its not difficult, firstly buy a monitor which tracks CO2, PM2.5, VOC:

https://www.aliexpress.com/item/32887570197.html?spm=a2g0s.9...

Tracking CO2 is very useful for internal spaces.

And an Air purifier: https://www.amazon.com/Purifier-Display-Formaldehyde-Sterili...

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#74

Post by rbavocadotree » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

cowsandmilk wrote: post #54

rbavocadotree wrote: post #42

From the original source: > Stock market returns are lower on polluted days. I don't want to dismiss the entire article, but I think this points to possibility that there is some bad statistics going on here. I don't see how daily stock returns are proof of, or even related to, cognitive ability on a daily basis. This is exactly the type of finding you'd expect with p-hacking.

Read the linked journal article; the authors don’t actually claim it is about cognitive ability, they attribute it to lower risk taking on those days.

As someone who works for a quantitative hedge fund, you wouldn't believe how many similar results I see of researchers showing a statistically significant predictor of stock market returns. Almost every single one of them is garbage.

But your point stands. The paper has nothing to do with cognitive ability. So why is it being used as evidence?

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#75

Post by ng12 » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

Scene_Cast2 wrote: post #8

How do you all monitor air quality? I personally have a couple of devices (an Awair and a Flow). They seem to under-report PM2.5 compared to purpleair, airnow, and waqi.

I have an Awair. I don't really trust the baseline values but I do trust the deltas. I mostly use it to inform me when I should open a window or turn the air purifier or humidifier on.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#76

Post by swiley » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

bryanmgreen wrote: post #34

I wish the argument against pollution would be the simplest one. Go to a massively unpopulated area and just breath. Feel the difference? Isn't it intoxicating? Who gives a crap if umpires make worse calls? Just fight pollution because it's obvious pollution is bad for humans and the planet. Normally I'm all for extra evidence, but in a situation like this come on. It's basically like immaterial evidence against geno…

We need to quantify how bad pollution is exactly. How many people should be allowed to die because the ICE ambulance can’t reach them or the doctor isn’t able to travel to the hospital or food isn’t able to be delivered for a reasonable price etc.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#77

Post by OnlineGladiator » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:54 PM UTC

rbavocadotree wrote: post #74

cowsandmilk wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read the linked journal article; the authors don’t actually claim it is about cognitive ability, they attribute it to lower risk taking on those days.

As someone who works for a quantitative hedge fund, you wouldn't believe how many similar results I see of researchers showing a statistically significant predictor of stock market returns. Almost every single one of them is garbage. But your point stands. The paper has nothing to do with cognitive ability. So why is it being used as evidence?

> As someone who works for a quantitative hedge fund, you wouldn't believe how many similar results I see of researchers showing a statistically significant predictor of stock market returns. Almost every single one of them is garbage.

Are you able to share any that aren't (or weren't) garbage?

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#78

Post by cameldrv » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 6:56 PM UTC

4ec0755f5522 wrote: post #27

rahuldottech wrote: post #17

This really bothers me. I live in a VERY polluted place, and unfortunately moving away won't be an option for me for at least half a decade. What can I do to minimise the health effects of such an atmosphere? I'm planning on getting an indoor air filter for my home.

Find one that can filter nano particles. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20191113-the-toxic-killer...