The health benefits of better air • Hacker News Board

Re: The health benefits of better air

#291

Post by Mauricebranagh » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:09 AM UTC

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…

And in NYC and the US in general having better health care especially for poorer workers will have much more of an effect.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#292

Post by Gravityloss » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:10 AM UTC

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #259

onion2k wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have more ozone holes now. The global ban on CFCs ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Protocol ) is working, and although there are still big holes that open and close every year we're on the way to getting back to pre-1980 levels of holes by 2060. https://public.wmo.int/en/media/news/record-breaking-2020-oz...

Maybe, if China would curtail their CFC usage perhaps. ...A recently reported slowdown in the decline of the atmospheric concentration of CFC-11 after 2012, however, suggests that global emissions have increased... We show that emissions from eastern mainland China are 7.0 ± 3.0 (±1 standard deviation) gigagrams per year higher in 2014–2017 than in 2008–2012, and that the increase in emissions arises primarily around…

That's from 2019, they have since reduced the leaks, this from 2021: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03277-w

Re: The health benefits of better air

#293

Post by Gravityloss » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:12 AM UTC

londons_explore wrote: post #286

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…

> anyone who works in the subway should be dying, what, 10 years earlier? From my ad-hoc survey of subway driver friends, this seems about true... Most die in their late 60's in a country where most people make it to 70/80. Obviously the fact their job involves sitting in a chair all day doesn't help things...

Is there a fundamental reason why the subway must be like that? I assume it's not as bad in say Hong Kong? Copenhagen metro for example is automated and there's a wall and automatic doors separating the tracks from the platform. I assume it's quite clean.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#294

Post by aetherspawn » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:14 AM UTC

thrwaeasddsaf wrote: post #225

sixstringtheory wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did that too and my brakes rusted from lack of use. Ended up having to get towed for an expensive repair..

Yes, I have owned a Prius and Corolla Hybrid and on both vehicles the front rotors always go very rusty because I only ever press the brake down enough to activate the regenerative braking (for better fuel economy). The regenerative braking power of these vehicles is about 20-30kW.

And as a side effect, I haven't needed to replace the brake pads for about 150,000 kms on the Prius. Actually the mechanic told me that they look brand new. I haven't experienced any problems from the rust yet. The front rotor on the Corolla (2020) seems to be a much better, newer design, and doesn't rust nearly as much as the Prius (2014).

endnote. For anyone considering the new Corolla Hybrid ... I rate it very highly as perhaps the best car ever designed.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#295

Post by benhurmarcel » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:14 AM UTC

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…

Can it be powered by a battery, to be portable?

Re: The health benefits of better air

#296

Post by blunte » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:14 AM UTC

that's too bad. I really liked Chiang Mai.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#297

Post by parsimo2010 » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:17 AM UTC

hannob wrote: post #251

WillPostForFood wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Extinguish candles with a lid. If you are worrying about the method by which you extinguish a candle, worrying is what's going to shorten your life, not the candle.

My first thought on the candles was: If you're worried about paritculate emissions and air quality in your flat then maybe just don't burn anything in your flat. I haven't researched that, but it always seemed entirely obvious to me that candles aren't exactly healthy in terms of air quality.

I think my follow on question would be which is better- a scented candle or a scented plug in like an Air Wick or Glade? Or are they similar and the only good choice is to have no perfumes floating in the air? I’ll gladly switch systems if there is a difference but I’d like to have something to make my house smell better.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#298

Post by blunte » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:18 AM UTC

asaddhamani wrote: post #268

darkwater wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no way an expert on the matter but by pure logic it's still amazes me how we survived (and evolved!) as a species for thousand of years without almost no shelter from direct sunlight and yet now (too much) sunlight exposure is seen as a cause of death. I know we lost almost all the body hair we used to have but still, we usually wear clothes when under the sun.

Why would sunlight cause us to lose hair but not other animals?

I don't see how sunlight would cause us to lose any animals, unless perhaps it was too bright.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#299

Post by wolfretcrap » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:19 AM UTC

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…

A lot of people don't know how to use engine braking, I guess teaching them that is going to significantly increased your brake pad life on existing vehicles in circulation.

Remember there are 3 brakes in your car, handbrake, foot brake and engine braking.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#300

Post by Denvercoder9 » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 10:20 AM UTC

steventharlow wrote: post #281

darkwater wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm no way an expert on the matter but by pure logic it's still amazes me how we survived (and evolved!) as a species for thousand of years without almost no shelter from direct sunlight and yet now (too much) sunlight exposure is seen as a cause of death. I know we lost almost all the body hair we used to have but still, we usually wear clothes when under the sun.

Evolution (and survival) only cares about if you survive to reproduce. So human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40, and humans aren't dying of skin cancer at exceedingly large numbers at those ages. If we pushed back the reproductive age we'd eventually evolve to live longer (though would have more people dying without reproducing first). This experiment has been successfully shown in fruit flies.

> So human evolution (and survival) matters only until 14-40

Not necessarily. I'd imagine it helps the survival chances of your grandchildren if you're around when they're growing up (though it probably mattered less back when children were raised by communities than in the nuclear families we have nowadays).