The cognitive costs of air pollution • Hacker News Board

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#231

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 5:51 AM UTC

moultano wrote: post #179

WalterBright wrote: post #149

> "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 put one in my son's bedroom and was blown away. He's 3, and calls me in to sleep with him sometimes. It's a small room, and we keep the doors closed so his sister doesn't wake him up and I was blown away by how high the CO2 got with both of us in there: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/cek4dm/co%...

What did you use to measure? Unfortunately all the ones I've seen linked here are too expensive for someone like me who doesn't live in America. I wonder if there are cheap ones out there that maybe not so precise but at least measure something.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#232

Post by simonebrunozzi » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 5:52 AM UTC

I am looking for a very precise sensor to install at home. Any has experiences with these (no affiliation whatsoever)? https://www2.purpleair.com/collections/air-quality-sensors

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#233

Post by w1nst0nsm1th » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:08 AM UTC

The study didn't show any example of possible influence regarding violent behaviors. I read some times ago widespread violence in america in the second half of the 20th century, especially in the 80', were related to lead poisonning due to car exhaustion and water contamination through public lead plumbery.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#234

Post by Gibbon1 » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:23 AM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #229

Gibbon1 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trouble with passive houses is a) people open windows. b) hate fan noise. c) the designs are brittle and prone to catastrophic failure. d) energy consumption isn't going to an issue over the life of the building. e) In Europe and North America the replacement rate for housing is in the low single digits.

And f) most passive house designs have humidity/mold issues down the road, unless proper and frequent maintenance is done. (I've read about passiv haus and similar a while back).

There is a slow moving disaster in the Midwest where houses constructed in the last 25 years are rotting from the inside due to leaks and internal condensation. Problems are. Sealed construction means moisture can't escape. Think insulation hides problems until major damage occurs.

I'm also skeptical because houses we build today should be in use a 100 years from now. And it's really obvious that renewables aren't supply limited like oil and gas. But in the passive house world it's always 1980.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#235

Post by zachkatz » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:32 AM UTC

josu wrote: post #204

zachkatz wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Damn, I’m about to go to Mexico City—was planning to stay for a few months, but I hate dirty air. Is it like that all over the city, or just certain parts?

It's definitely better/worse in some areas. Condesa is probably your best option.

Cool, that’s where I’ll be staying. That’s reassuring.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#236

Post by gerbler » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:35 AM UTC

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

I'd love to set up something like this in my garden. Could I figure this out without speaking German?

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#237

Post by alexis_fr » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 6:59 AM UTC

pastor_elm wrote: post #178

WalterBright wrote: post #149

> "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 see low CO2 spaces becoming the next big thing for the privileged classes as CO2 levels rise. Weworks of the future will be advertising this as a definite selling point. Mansions with scrubbers getting it down to 200ppm

Seriously, I’ve always thought people in Sydney compared to France were taller and healthier because they have more oxygen... Not only they are outdoors often, but they also have less stuffy buildings. Classrooms in France are the epitome of “stuffy”, and it’s frequent for me to leave a theater because there is 400 people and the vents are off. The usual reaction is to imply I’m sensitive ;)

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#238

Post by lstodd » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 7:03 AM UTC

fyfy18 wrote: post #217

ip26 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other upside to sealing plus mechanical ventilation (instead of leaky-building ventilation) is that your building is always fresh. Leak-driven ventilation leads to a building that is drafty on windy days and stuffy on calm days.

Plus if the leaks involve air circulating though insulation in the cavity or attic, whatever is in there will end up in your house air. That could be dust from construction, parts of the insulation material, or decomposing rodents.

Unless the system is of exceptionally poor design, air is never moved at enough speed to pick up dust.

If it is, the whatever dust that gets picked up ends up in filters in the first week of operation.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#239

Post by lstodd » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 7:04 AM UTC

simonebrunozzi wrote: post #229

Gibbon1 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trouble with passive houses is a) people open windows. b) hate fan noise. c) the designs are brittle and prone to catastrophic failure. d) energy consumption isn't going to an issue over the life of the building. e) In Europe and North America the replacement rate for housing is in the low single digits.

And f) most passive house designs have humidity/mold issues down the road, unless proper and frequent maintenance is done. (I've read about passiv haus and similar a while back).

Mold is only an issue in hot climate. When it's never above 25C / 75F _and_ humidity is controlled, there is never any mold.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#240

Post by saberdancer » Tue, Nov 19, 2019, 7:22 AM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #149

> "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.…

Does anyone know of a cheap IoT type sensor for CO2? It can be any type, even RasberryPi or Arduino based. I'm not interested in sensors without connectivity options.

About the levels, I'm working on an IoT project and I've seen data from a public school that has heating with radiators (so no real ventilation). One classroom with the sensor would routinely rise above 1000 ppm, with peaks over 3000ppm. Then you'd observe a sudden drop in CO2 level and temperature as they would open up a window. It's insane how high it can get especially if the building lacks proper ventilation.