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

161–170 of 471 posts

Re: The health benefits of better air

#161

Post by jansan »

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…

Brake dust is a bad example for EVs that make use of recuperation.

But tire abrasion is arguably worse for EVs due to the higher initial torque. Does anybody know if there is any difference between EVs and ICEs?

Re: The health benefits of better air

#162

Post by lm28469 »

modeless wrote: post #122
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…

EVs drastically reduce brake dust.

Probably not in the city, regenerative breaking doesn't fit most scenarios, especially seeing how people tend to drive high torque vehicles.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#164

Post by lm28469 »

PurpleFoxy wrote: post #26
briefcomment wrote: post #14

This is a good list. One other important thing to do if you can help it is to never live near a road. Any road, even infrequently driven on ones. If there's only one car per day on a road, but you live ten feet from it, and occasionally the wind blows the exhaust in your direction, you're breathing that in. Walls don't help. Live at least one mile in a straight line from highways.

Ironically, following this advice makes the problem even worse as you now require a car to do anything. IMO, cities should just ban almost all car traffic from the centres so people can live car free without being poisoned.

I mean, the article only provides individual tips to fight the global problem of air solution. Extinguishing candles with a lid and avoiding incense won't do shit in the grand scheme of things. It's like putting a bandaid on an open leg fracture.

> IMO, cities should just ban almost all car traffic from the centres so people can live car free without being poisoned.

This would have a much greater impact on the problem for sure, but sadly nobody likes that, some people think owning a car is freedom while it's slavery.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#165

Post by smolder »

adrianN wrote: post #133
clairity wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

put urban roads (and parking) underground, and use industrial scrubbers at air exchange. expensive but worth it. tax fossil fuels/carbon to subsidize this and internalize the environmental costs.

Where I live it takes several years to paint a pedestrian crossing. Even if we decided to put all traffic underground, nobody alive today would see that project finished.

Often things are said to the effect of it being weird that we're capable of spaceflight, but infrastructure is too hard and expensive. The lack of fluidity in the labor market, i.e. pinning people to a field or worse, a company, for a lifetime creates a lot of that inefficiency, I think.

I know the idea is that specialization is good for everyone, and people doing certain kinds of work should be good at it, but I think allowing more diversity in the types of work people do, more intermingling, and more fluidity are realistic goals with a lot of advantages. We already have a big problem in matching qualified people with jobs efficiently. If we get substantially better at that, we can do it more rapidly, and allocate resources much more intelligently, since demands change in every profession as things develop. I would actively welcome breaks in my knowledge work to do the many types of "dumb labor" I can do when it's useful. It's something to ponder.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#166

Post by ac29 »

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…

> or that a daily commute between Newark and NYC takes half a year off your life.

As compared to an "average" US city taking off a quarter-year. I think the commuting thing is a red herring, and they just mean living/working in the NYC metro area, which as a densely populated area likely has slightly worse air than an average US location.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#167

Post by colechristensen »

fomine3 wrote: post #157
colechristensen wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is how much CO2 can I fix with a reasonably sized apparatus and really I would prefer a continuous system (which is why electrolysis) rather than a batch system. Also I would prefer levels lower than outside, obviously air exchangers will necessarily be worse than just being outside.

Really prefer co2 levels lower than outside? What's your outside environment?

Before the industrial revolution the CO2 levels outside were around 250ppm or at least less than 300.

Current levels outside as measured by my device just now are about 450ppm.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#168

Post by globular-toast »

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…

> According to this logic, anyone who works in the subway should be dying, what, 10 years earlier? Which is obviously not happening.

Why is this obvious?

Re: The health benefits of better air

#169

Post by ac29 »

ahaucnx wrote: post #114
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…

Thank you for all of you interested in getting the PCBs. To send me a message please go to https://www.airgradient.com/diy/ and send me a message with the orange chat button. Thanks!

There was a bit of interest last time I remember you posting on here as well - have you thought about putting up a batch on something like crowd supply? I think it would sell well enough to make it worth your time, and fire season is coming up again soon.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#170

Post by blackoil »

Our body should have >0 capacity to cleanup the toxins absorbed. Considering we shed billions of cells every day and generate replacement for them. So the smoke absorbed from blowing the candle may be exhaled/shit/farted sometime before next candle.

Also, one thing these stats miss/don't bring out is the quality of life. e.g. living in Delhi may reduce your life only by 3 years, but may substantially impact health in the last 15 years of your life.

Post reply on HN