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

The cognitive costs of air pollution

patrickcollison.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 300 posts

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#271

Post by vonmoltke »

pliny wrote: post #265
ghufran_syed wrote: post #183

I think this is an important question to answer, but the shehab paper (the first link) provides vertically no useful information. They didn't blind the assessors carrying out the cognitive studies, which on its own invalidates their conclusion. They also didn't randomize the ordering, but appear to have "investigated for order effects", found "no statistically robust difference", then proceeded to have every particip…

Just want to say it's impossible to tell which paper you're referring to. The first link on the page isn't a paper. The word shehab doesn't appear anywhere on the page. The word shehab doesn't appear anywhere in the first paper linked. The three quoted sentences / fragments you provide don't appear anywhere in the first paper linked. I opened some of the papers and didn't see any with n=30.

Patrick quietly dropped the entire first paragraph in the examples list a few hours ago: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20191118190006/201911190530...

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#272

Post by pliny »

vonmoltke wrote: post #271
pliny wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to say it's impossible to tell which paper you're referring to. The first link on the page isn't a paper. The word shehab doesn't appear anywhere on the page. The word shehab doesn't appear anywhere in the first paper linked. The three quoted sentences / fragments you provide don't appear anywhere in the first paper linked. I opened some of the papers and didn't see any with n=30.

Patrick quietly dropped the entire first paragraph in the examples list a few hours ago: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20191118190006/201911190530...

Thank you.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#273

Post by konstmonst »

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…

George Carlin - "The Planet is fine, the people are fucked ..."

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#274

Post by JohnBooty »

gwern wrote: post #203
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.…

Previous discussions on HN debating the Allen result among others: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14738010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21237875 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18959796 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19845029 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14738010 http://lesswrong.com/r/discussion/lw/nk0/what_is_up_with_car...

In the comments on that lesswrong post from a few years back, you raised a good question that is perhaps easily answered:

    it has the same issue as Kurzban's blood-glucose/willpower
    criticism: if the brain needs more oxygen than it's getting
    why doesn't one simply breath a little more? While sedentary
    during these sorts of tasks, you have far more breathing
    capacity than you should need
Seems quite likely (or at least very possible) that we've outpaced evolution here, right?

Prior to the industrial revolution, seems our bodies would never have needed to adapt to a rapid spike in environmental CO2 levels. Our brains are necessarily good at signaling the body when they need more oxygen; they're not necessarily good at realizing when they're dealing with other issues they're not adapted to react to.

I believe there may be a common misunderstanding the relationship between CO2 levels and oxygen in one's body, at least as it was explained to me by doctors during my mom's struggles with COPD.

Blood oxygen saturation levels and CO2 levels are not inversely correlated. One of the problems with late-stage COPD and reduced lung function is that while it's relatively easy to get a person's oxygen levels up (just administer oxygen!) they still suffer the effects of excess CO2 in the blood. A late stage COPD sufferer can have > 95% O2 saturation in their bloodstream and still suffer the other effects (including cognitive issues) that result from the excess CO2.

(Apologies for responding you wrote four years ago)

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#275

Post by darkmighty »

techiferous wrote: post #206
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.…

After watching this Tom Scott video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Nh_vxpycEA I bought this CO2 monitor: https://amazon.com/gp/product/B00MB93CK8 It worked quite well and showed that I don't have anything to worry about. Now I'm trying to pass it on to someone else. I'll be willing to sell it for half price if anyone is interested.

If anyone is interested it seems you can find (more or less reliable) sensor modules for about $20, such as the MH-Z19, and read it from to an arduino or esp.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#276

Post by jonstewart »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #227
jonstewart wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the big trends in green/sustainable building is creating relatively air tight buildings in order to cut down on heating and cooling costs (see: Passiv Haus, Passive House, Pretty Good House). In order to do that, though, mechanical ventilation is needed. As a result, Heat-Recovery Ventilation & Enthalpy-Recovery Ventilation residential units can be installed for only $2k-$4K. Seems like a worthwhile investment…

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.

I think the Passiv Haus standard of 0.6 air changes per hour at 50 pascals is kinda nuts, and likely not worth it. The more relaxed "Pretty Good House" goal of 2 ACH is still pretty tight and requires ventilation, but is a bit more forgiving and acknowledges that a moderate amount of electricity for HVAC isn't so hard to come by. The catastrophe with older houses in the Midwest (where I'm from) is that they'll each put out a dozen or more tons of CO2 each winter due to fossil fuel heating.

Regardless, the point is that even if you don't have one of these super-airtight houses, you can still install an HRV/ERV for not a ton of money. I'm considering one for my vacation cabin where the primary heat is a wood stove.

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#277

Post by baxtr »

vonmoltke wrote: post #271
pliny wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just want to say it's impossible to tell which paper you're referring to. The first link on the page isn't a paper. The word shehab doesn't appear anywhere on the page. The word shehab doesn't appear anywhere in the first paper linked. The three quoted sentences / fragments you provide don't appear anywhere in the first paper linked. I opened some of the papers and didn't see any with n=30.

Patrick quietly dropped the entire first paragraph in the examples list a few hours ago: https://web.archive.org/web/diff/20191118190006/201911190530...

Oh wow. I think that is a bad style. Once your article gets that discuss you should not simply delete an entire paragraph but rather comment on it...

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#278

Post by blaser-waffle »

amelius wrote: post #169
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.…

Perhaps when we commit code, we should have a script that adds "this code was written at x ppm CO2" to the commit message :)

"Written at BAC .04 / couple of pints, no smokes"

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#279

Post by kardos »

Psychlist wrote: post #161
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 have a slightly more capable one but the results are similarly motivating. Right now I'm more concerned with the particulate counts... if 27 is bad, does 120 worse and going outside into 700+ me dumberer? inside: https://www.uradmonitor.com/tools/dashboard-04/?open=8200009... outside: https://www.uradmonitor.com/tools/dashboard-04/?open=8200011... In the office at work is better: https://www.uradmonitor.com/tools/d…

From your indoor page, CO2 min is 375 ppm. How did you get that below the atmospheric value of ~410 ppm?

Re: The cognitive costs of air pollution

#280

Post by jeffnappi »

elitan wrote: post #261
jeffnappi wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I own this one as well, it's supposed to be one of the more accurate models available for the price

Where did you get the information about this model being more accurate than other models in the same price range?

This was the article that gave me that impression iirc - https://medium.com/@dhh/air-quality-matters-but-dont-trust-f...
Post reply on HN