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

421–430 of 471 posts

Re: The health benefits of better air

#421

Post by wing-_-nuts »

goodpoint wrote: post #401
sharken wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what is a better measure ?

BFP is the real deal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_fat_percentage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_mass_index#Limitations (however the statistics on BMI vs mortality as still completely valid)

Great now let's figure out how to measure BFP across the entire population the way we can with BMI. Every guide i've seen either uses expensive displacement equipment or trained professionals with calipers. That doesn't scale nearly as well as a height / weight calculation

Re: The health benefits of better air

#422

Post by abarringer »

Is there any evidence that people who live in areas with better air have better health outcomes overall?

Hong Kong average life expectancy is 85. Iceland is 83. Hong Kong has poor air quality and Iceland has some of the best.

I'm for better air quality but it's just part of the puzzle.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#423

Post by Someone1234 »

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?

They have mold/bacterial growth problems (and use more electricity).

But both types have easy solutions to their respective problems:

- Use distilled water in the ultrasonic.

- Regularly clean/replace wick in your evaporative (or use a water stabilization agent).

Even the article at the top says they measured "0" particles when distilled water was used.

Until reading this thread I thought using distilled water in them was common knowledge. I believe that is what the manual with mine even said.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#424

Post by quietbritishjim »

the_pwner224 wrote: post #407
quietbritishjim wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The clutch is only actuated when changing between gears. Engine braking happens when in gear, and at that point the clutch plates are compressed together and spin as one unit - no dust being generated. Any significant slipping of the clutch would make it burn up very quickly, since cars use dry clutches which cool down by radiating heat into the air. Engine braking happens because engines have very high internal resi…

Interesting, thanks!

Re: The health benefits of better air

#425

Post by jairofloress »

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." And you know this how?, Where YOUR numbers and conclusions come from?

Re: The health benefits of better air

#426

Post by TedDoesntTalk »

kgwgk wrote: post #242
globular-toast wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Because you would see all the time commercials on tv letting you know that if you, or a late loved one, worked in the subway you may be entitled to financial compensation.

Not unless data has first been collected and analyzed. There was a long period of time between people suspecting cigarettes were unhealthy and actual data showing it

Re: The health benefits of better air

#427

Post by derefr »

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/…

I’m curious whether you’d get the same effect from living/working near a waterfall / other natural source of vaporized water droplets.

Do the hospitality staff at Niagara Falls get sick more often than other people in hospitality?

Re: The health benefits of better air

#428

Post by zionic »

lupire wrote: post #367
probablypower wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I literally just have some planting trays with a half-inch of gravel that I pour water into every couple of days. Works wonders, is cheap, and easy to clean. Evaporation happens for free if you let it.

Maybe works for one small location, but that doesn't put nearly enough water in the air for common humidifier use cases of a gallon a day or more.

This seems crazy to me. I have to dehumidify my home to keep it at 35%. Humidity is a constant battle. I couldn’t imagine paying to dump water in my air and promote mold.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#429

Post by energ8 »

jk7tarYZAQNpTQa wrote: post #260
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…

> and an appliance (or messy bench-top device) to remove CO2 from the room continuously and exhale outside There are these things called "plants"... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Clean_Air_Study

From my armchair-research, there are scale challenges with plants.

Algae is commonly the go-to for CO2 scrubbing for it's relative efficiencies. Algae might scrub 1-3 grams of CO2 per liter per day (https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1485133).

Humans exhale approximately 1kg CO2 per day.

I consider 300-1000 L of algae scrubber tanks per person a lot of volume.

Re: The health benefits of better air

#430

Post by xaduha »

airhead969 wrote: post #378
xaduha wrote: post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I modified my original comment. > My home system takes 45 ppm water and reduces it to My tap water is around 227 and filter is just recently installed, there's still some air in the system. I don't think it will go that low ever, but it's good enough for me. I plan to remineralize it a bit for drinking anyway, so it's all a bit moot.

Filters and RO systems rarely remove dissolved gases. Try making ice from RO water vs. lab DI water.

I don't need it to remove air from water, I need it to stop mixing air that was in the empty spaces around filters when they were installed into said water. Tap water doesn't have much air in it I don't think, it will sort itself out eventually. Right now I have very small air bubbles that are still visible when filling up a glass, they are created when air and water pass through RO membrane. After you let it sit for a while PPM number drops.
Post reply on HN