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

The health benefits of better air

dynomight.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 471 posts

Re: The health benefits of better air

#141

Post by fifteenforty »

colechristensen wrote: post #108
ahaucnx wrote: post #9

Thank you for this extensive resource on air quality. Yes, it needs to get more attention as it is one of the main drivers of mortality of environmental risks. One thing one has to bear in mind is that often when you optmize your home for low PM (e.g. with air purifiers and fixing of air leackage) your CO2 will get very high causing headaches and reduce cognitive performance. So it always makes sense for indoor air q…

I have an AirVisual Pro, which is quite expensive, but my half finished air quality monitor project had been on the bench for much too long. I have windows open all the time, air conditioning on too often, and dehumidifiers and HEPA filters as well. It is not efficient or particularly environmentally friendly... but I want a CO2 level My next half baked idea is figuring out a way to have a sealed home and an applianc…

You are describing an anaesthesia circle breathing system, otherwise known as a rebreather scuba set. :-)

You would need to consider the occupant oxygen consumption. A typical human respiratory quotient is 0.8 (0.8 mole of CO2 produced for every 1 mole of O2 consumed). You’ll get a net inward movement of gas into house all things being considered.

Anyway, don’t do if. If you do it ‘right’ the argon will slowly build up and you’ll asphyxiate. Thankfully achieving that level of seal is very difficult.

If you are really worried about PM2.5, just wear a PAPR.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#143

Post by cozzyd »

nitrogen wrote: post #69
clairity wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, but this way, we could have our (expensive) cake and eat it too. we could free up the above ground streets for electric buses, pedestrians, bikes, malls/parks, and the like, make cities denser/more walkable, remove asphalt/concrete to lower the heat island effect, add trees/plants everywhere, and all sorts of human centered stuff. it’s not so realistic (though the boring company may help with that), but what a v…

Aren't parts of Chicago already kind of like this, with two tiers of streets?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_streets_in_Chicag...

To some extent yes. I remember one of my first experiences in Chicago taking the Metra Electric from Hyde Park to downtown and getting out at the north entrance which dumps you out at Lower Water Street, which is very disorienting if you are not familiar with the area.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#144

Post by freddie_mercury »

14 wrote: post #132
colechristensen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an AirVisual Pro, which is quite expensive, but my half finished air quality monitor project had been on the bench for much too long. I have windows open all the time, air conditioning on too often, and dehumidifiers and HEPA filters as well. It is not efficient or particularly environmentally friendly... but I want a CO2 level My next half baked idea is figuring out a way to have a sealed home and an applianc…

Could you get a few more plants around the house? Plants can remove things like benzene, formaldehyde, xylene, and toluene. Maybe not the fastest but certainly don't cost much once you have them.

Unfortunately this myth, which I also once believed, has been debunked. You just need waaaay too many plants to actually have an effect. The tests the myth were based on all assumed a closed system, which just isn't realistic.

From one randomly googled article on the myth of house plants cleaning the air:

"To remove toxins, you would need at least 10 plants per square foot."

Re: The health benefits of better air

#145

Post by colechristensen »

14 wrote: post #132
colechristensen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an AirVisual Pro, which is quite expensive, but my half finished air quality monitor project had been on the bench for much too long. I have windows open all the time, air conditioning on too often, and dehumidifiers and HEPA filters as well. It is not efficient or particularly environmentally friendly... but I want a CO2 level My next half baked idea is figuring out a way to have a sealed home and an applianc…

Could you get a few more plants around the house? Plants can remove things like benzene, formaldehyde, xylene, and toluene. Maybe not the fastest but certainly don't cost much once you have them.

If you think about it you have to grow an amount of plant matter comparable to the amount of food you eat in order to maintain levels (considerably less of course because a lot of carbon goes down the toilet, but still a fixed fraction, this would take full sun an a considerable area, like a fraction of an acre)

Re: The health benefits of better air

#146

Post by fsh »

dcolkitt wrote: post #98

The biggest pitfall I see with this is we’re extrapolating from large doses of air pollution to very tiny ones. Clearly we have enough evidence to say that smoking a pack a day or living in a smog-filled city will cut years off your life. But we would need truly gigantic samples to show that blowing birthday candles or broiling fish once a week will cut weeks off your life. Instead these conclusions are being derived…

Could you give some citations for studies on radiation workers? The permissible doses in most countries are extremely low and there are not that many people working in the industry. This makes me wonder they manage to achieve statistically significant results.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#147

Post by erosenbe0 »

colechristensen wrote: post #108
ahaucnx wrote: post #9

Thank you for this extensive resource on air quality. Yes, it needs to get more attention as it is one of the main drivers of mortality of environmental risks. One thing one has to bear in mind is that often when you optmize your home for low PM (e.g. with air purifiers and fixing of air leackage) your CO2 will get very high causing headaches and reduce cognitive performance. So it always makes sense for indoor air q…

I have an AirVisual Pro, which is quite expensive, but my half finished air quality monitor project had been on the bench for much too long. I have windows open all the time, air conditioning on too often, and dehumidifiers and HEPA filters as well. It is not efficient or particularly environmentally friendly... but I want a CO2 level My next half baked idea is figuring out a way to have a sealed home and an applianc…

What about acetone or ethanol or whatever else we exhale that builds up?

Re: The health benefits of better air

#148

Post by [deleted] »

crazygringo wrote: post #130

This article seems to make fantastic jumps from the believable -- mortality from overall air pollution (e.g. in Delhi) to the frankly unbelievable -- your ultrasonic humidifier supposedly reducing your life by nearly an hour each night, or that a daily commute between Newark and NYC takes half a year off your life. According to this logic, anyone who works in the subway should be dying, what, 10 years earlier? Which…

[deleted]

Re: The health benefits of better air

#149

Post by sixstringtheory »

heipei wrote: post #119
emptybits wrote: post #92

EVs reduce tailpipe exhaust near roads but it's worth noting that brake abrasion dust isn't going away anytime soon and it's considered very bad to breathe, possibly in the same league as diesel emission particles.[1] I guess regenerative braking on an EV reduces this somewhat. Tire dust is also concerning.[2] [1] https://academic.oup.com/metallomics/article/12/3/371/595624... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2264…

Anecdotal, but since recently getting a plug-in hybrid I've only been using regenerative braking except for the most abrupt stops. Whenever you approach a red light or junction it's not hard to stay within the regen braking zone.

I’ve always made it a game to see how little I can use my brakes, whether in bumper-to-bumper traffic or more wide open suburban roads. I never understand why people need to race up to red lights just to do a hard brake. I take solace thinking they probably replace their brakes 20% more frequently.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#150

Post by colechristensen »

fifteenforty wrote: post #141
colechristensen wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have an AirVisual Pro, which is quite expensive, but my half finished air quality monitor project had been on the bench for much too long. I have windows open all the time, air conditioning on too often, and dehumidifiers and HEPA filters as well. It is not efficient or particularly environmentally friendly... but I want a CO2 level My next half baked idea is figuring out a way to have a sealed home and an applianc…

You are describing an anaesthesia circle breathing system, otherwise known as a rebreather scuba set. :-) You would need to consider the occupant oxygen consumption. A typical human respiratory quotient is 0.8 (0.8 mole of CO2 produced for every 1 mole of O2 consumed). You’ll get a net inward movement of gas into house all things being considered. Anyway, don’t do if. If you do it ‘right’ the argon will slowly build…

Oh I'm not interested in hermetically sealing my apartment, there are no worries of normally constructed buildings being able to withstand a meaningful difference in oxygen pressure between inside and outside. CO2 pressure though can easily be increased by a large factor (5x is easy) and maintained with humans inside and closed doors and windows.

PM2.5 is easy to maintain with HEPA filters.

CO2 is not easy to maintain without forced ventilation, and really I would like to try inside levels lower than outside levels. (say 300 ppm)

Post reply on HN