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

351–360 of 471 posts

Re: The health benefits of better air

#351

Post by shlant »

stared wrote: post #288
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…

When it comes to ultrasonic humidifiers, they do generate a lot of PM 2.5, see: https://blog.getawair.com/awair-investigates-how-your-humidi... It is NOT certain that these particles are as bad as ones from dust or combustion. All in all, when small droplets evaporate, what remains is water-soluble salts, rather than anything more reactive or harder to remove, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922954/…

this page from the same site as the OP has links to more studies: https://dynomight.net/humidifiers/

Re: The health benefits of better air

#352

Post by quietbritishjim »

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…

Sorry for the pendantry: it sounds like you mean linear interpolation, rather than extrapolation. Extrapolation is where you project outside the range of previously collected data, and is particularly likely to result in false conclusions. Interpolation is where you estimate a value inside the range of collected data from points around it, and is usually a lot less dangerous. But I agree with your point that, in this case, it does seem pretty baseless.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#353

Post by shlant »

xaduha wrote: post #308
stared wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When it comes to ultrasonic humidifiers, they do generate a lot of PM 2.5, see: https://blog.getawair.com/awair-investigates-how-your-humidi... It is NOT certain that these particles are as bad as ones from dust or combustion. All in all, when small droplets evaporate, what remains is water-soluble salts, rather than anything more reactive or harder to remove, see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3922954/…

That's why you gotta use them with reverse osmosis filtered water. And not one that remineralizes, you can do that later on your own. I have a ultrasonic humidifier, reverse osmosis water filter and air quality sensor, it's all good.

is there a downside to just using an evaporative humidifier?

Re: The health benefits of better air

#355

Post by scythe »

shlant wrote: post #353
xaduha wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why you gotta use them with reverse osmosis filtered water. And not one that remineralizes, you can do that later on your own. I have a ultrasonic humidifier, reverse osmosis water filter and air quality sensor, it's all good.

is there a downside to just using an evaporative humidifier?

The power draw at the humidifier will be larger, but the net power cost is about the same assuming a constant indoor air temperature. I always use filtered water for the US humidifier, but I'm reconsidering it now.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#356

Post by learnstats2 »

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.

On the contrary, that sounds extremely credible.

If you divide life expectancy stats just by gender and race, you already see more than 10 years difference.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#357

Post by quietbritishjim »

wolfretcrap wrote: post #299
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.

I'm completely not a car mechanic, so the following is essentially a question phrased as a statement. But I'm a bit skeptical about this idea.

I assume you mean the engine break in a manual tranmission car (AKA stick shift in the US). But that relies on your clutch, which is still a friction based mechanism. Admittedly if you're breaking you're probably going to change gear either way, but the amount of friction depends on the difference in revs between the two parts coming into contact, which is presumably going to be larger if you're using it to engine break. So it seems to me that you're reducing wear on your brake pad but just switching that to increase wear on your clutch - with similar effects on air quality.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#358

Post by batmansmk »

Correlation does not imply causation.

Being rich gives you an extra 14.6 years: more money usually correlates to better food, better environment, better healthcare, etc. Owning a Tesla Model Y, indirect marker of wealth would be good for you otherwise.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#359

Post by majani »

shlant wrote: post #340
phantom_oracle wrote: post #336

Micro-managing your life to this extent is probably why all dystopian books/movies involve some well-meaning technical person who thinks we should be doing XYZ to prolong our lives. While these things may (anecdotally) prolong your life, does anybody really want to be 102 and having to be nursed for all the basic needs like bathing yourself? Combine this article with the many(many) others that tell you how to micro-m…

I never understood perspectives akin to "why would I want to add years to my life when I'll just be old anyways?". I think many people don't realize that if you take care of your body (especially eating well and movement) you not only extend your lifespan but your quality of life as well in the later years. Anecdotally, my parents exercise regularly and take decent care of themselves compared to their friends (I even…

What age are your parents? I find it hard to believe that you can live past 80 years with a high quality of life, barring having 1 in 100 age-related genetics

Re: The health benefits of better air

#360

Post by airhead969 »

FridayoLeary wrote: post #331
airhead969 wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if smokers multitask, like making your contact cleaner solution in the factory or making your delivery food. IMO, all cigarettes should have cyanide added to them to reduce the costs to society by speeding-up the slow suicide and excess harm to others.

should all diesel cars have lead fumes pumped into the cockpit? Should all alcoholic drinks contain methanol?

Frivolous response.

Diesel vehicles are extremely hazardous causing great harm to millions but go under regulated because of money. ICEs should die.

Alcoholic drinks don't directly harm anyone else in their consumption and the QALY/micromorts involved are small.

Do you have any other rude, unscientific arguments?

Post reply on HN