The cognitive costs of air pollution • Hacker News Board

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#141

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:14 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.

Do you live in Beijing?

We got an expensive swedish air purifier but it still sucked hard (noisy, made the air smell very stale). You might be able to mitigate some of the effects, but not all of them. And if young kids are involved (or you are expecting), screw the career, move.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#142

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:20 PM UTC

mc3 wrote: post #114

Sydney is having a bad day :-( https://aqicn.org/city/sydney/

We would call 159 a clean air day in Beijing.

Forest and bush fires suck. Even Seattle air can smell bad when the wind blows in smoke from a big forest fire up in BC.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#143

Post by danenania » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:25 PM UTC

dmos62 wrote: post #59

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.

I'm not sure what _VERY_ polluted means, but you might consider taking up more physical activity. On GCN youtube cycling channel they argued (including interviews with some health professionals) that even if you live in a city with considerable pollution, the positive effects of commuting on a bicycle outweigh the negative effects of air pollution. They were primarily talking about Britain-scale pollution of course.…

Any physical exertion that makes you breathe harder will cause you to take in more pollution, worsening the effects. Even if exercise helps to offset the damage, your best bet in a polluted place would be to do it inside.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#144

Post by umvi » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:30 PM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #137

yagurastation wrote: post #122

Anyone interested should also check out the open source citizen science project https://luftdaten.info/en/ Build your own inexpensive sensor, contribute to the global network. See also https://github.com/opendata-stuttgart

For people living in the US like me, this is where you find US pollution maps: https://usa.maps.luftdaten.info/

Holy cow, that must be a German project; Germany has nearly 100% coverage, the USA has almost none.

I was expecting China and India to be dark purple

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#145

Post by novok » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:40 PM UTC

umvi wrote: post #144

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For people living in the US like me, this is where you find US pollution maps: https://usa.maps.luftdaten.info/

Holy cow, that must be a German project; Germany has nearly 100% coverage, the USA has almost none. I was expecting China and India to be dark purple

If you want a more international / american version, check out purple air: https://www2.purpleair.com/

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#146

Post by georgeburdell » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

learc83 wrote: post #43

zionic wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because a test might have some component you can vaguely articulate as having some cultural influence does not make the test itself invalid for comparison across cultures. Claims that basic pattern recognition is somehow not a valid means of assessment across cultures are dubious at best.

>does not make the test itself invalid for comparison across cultures If you can't accurately quantify the cultural component, then yes it does. >Claims that basic pattern recognition is somehow not a valid means of assessment across cultures are dubious at best. Basic pattern recognition isn't the only thing that's being measured--that's the problem. Even something as simple as how often a student has been exposed t…

If it’s the best thing we have, then it’s worth using. You are proposing no alternative.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#147

Post by OJFord » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:50 PM UTC

Richard_East wrote: post #73

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...

Why is the first step to monitor it, not 'get a HEPA filter & fan / purifier'?

Monitoring seems like it's interesting to do if you want to, but if you already know it's an issue, just start addressing it?

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#148

Post by mrandish » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 9:58 PM UTC

pkaye wrote: post #24

I thought IQ was not a reliable measure of anything?

It depends on how one defines intelligence and what specific things are considered material to the measurement. IQ tests measure the things that IQ tests measure. The challenge is that the things we often want to determine in trying to assess "intelligence" are multi-dimensional, multi-variate and have complex interactions.

Personally, I consider most typical assessments of a person's general "smartness" to approach zero utility.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#149

Post by WalterBright » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

> "Exposure to CO2 and VOCs at levels found in conventional office buildings was associated with lower cognitive scores than those associated with levels of these compounds found in a Green building." – Allen et al 2016. The effect seems to kick in at around 1,000 ppm of CO2.

The last time this came up I bought a CO2 meter for my office. I was quite surprised how often it went over 1,000. Outside air runs around 450.

I increased the duty cycle of the house fan, and open a window when it reaches 800. Right now I'm at 505.

Buying the meter was a really good investment.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#150

Post by lekanwang » Mon, Nov 18, 2019, 10:02 PM UTC

ketzo wrote: post #130

QuanticSausage wrote: post #106

I don't know you, but in every lecture in college that was done in a room with no air flow, I got distracted every five minutes or so. If the proportion of C02 had a cognitive effect that I could feel, then I wouldn't be surprised if other kinds of contaminants do the same.

Can’t find a source, but there’s a similar thing with long meetings — after two hours in a conference room, you’ve added enough CO2 to affect cognitive function.

I think you may be referring to this publication: https://energyanalysis.lbl.gov/publications/co2-indoor-pollu...