The health benefits of better air

Post by throwaway0a5e » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:33 PM UTC

parsimo2010 wrote: post #297

hannob wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:34 PM UTC

ehnto wrote: post #214

Eric_WVGG wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the particular bit about the subway may be informed by very recent news that the air pollution in the New York subway stations is far in excess of what anyone had inspected. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/10/subway-a... As for actual subway workers… I mean it’s not exactly a coal mine, but I would be pretty surprised if their mortality wasn’t at least somewhat measurably lower than, say, tha…

Just to point out how why this is a fairly nuanced topic, a shepherd may be breathing clean air but they're also exposed to UV radiation all day. They may have a higher morbidity due to increased skin cancer rates.

Post by throwaway0a5e » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:36 PM UTC

Denvercoder9 wrote: post #300

steventharlow wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Post by astura » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 12:55 PM UTC

darkwater wrote: post #239

ehnto wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just to point out how why this is a fairly nuanced topic, a shepherd may be breathing clean air but they're also exposed to UV radiation all day. They may have a higher morbidity due to increased skin cancer rates.

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.

Post by Caprinicus » Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 1:00 PM UTC

quietbritishjim wrote: post #357

wolfretcrap wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 depe…