Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 175 posts

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#101

Post by JohnBooty »

HenrikB wrote: post #74
jvm___ wrote: post #48

How bad does our bedroom air quality get? or how much CO2 do two adult humans produce in a 10x10 closed room overnight? Is it enough to push the CO2 high enough to have an effect? I've noticed I sleep better when I sleep separately from my wife. I'm the more violent sleeper, so it's not movement related, so I'm wondering if it's air quality related.

Yes, the amount of CO2 each person produces is noticable, especially in such a small room. If possible, keeping a bedroom window a bit open makes a noticable difference. Avoid closing bedroom door too. Similarly, if you work from home, make sure to create a draft once in a while. We got an Aranet4 CO2/humidity/temperature sensor mostly out of curiosity two months ago. Outdoors it's ~430 ppm CO2. 500-1000 ppm indoors…

Agree. I got a CO2 monitor for my office a few ago and it was a real eye-opener.

It has made me notice "stuffy" air more keenly and helps me avoid it. If I'm stuck in a physical meeting room at work I take lots of walks and breaks. etc.

I haven't tried the CO2 sensor in the bedroom. We like to sleep with fans on and the bedroom door open, which I suspect helps somewhat (depending on how drafty one's house is overall) although is obviously not as effective as having a window open.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#102

Post by holy_based »

whateveracct wrote: post #92
aqme28 wrote: post #41

Why is a mostly-incorrect* analysis of candles on the frontpage? Just because Carmack is saying it? *: Wattage might be the same, but the effect on air quality is different. Humans don't exhale carbon monoxide and smoke.

"because Carmack is saying it" has been a guaranteed upvote party since HNers were still on Digg

[dead]

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#103

Post by Gordonjcp »

fastball wrote: post #30
Gordonjcp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) to avoid gas stoves Surely you mean avoiding dangerous electric stoves, which emit hazardous electromagnetic radiation? Edit: Yup, everyone bit. Christ you're a bunch of dafties.

Is non-ionizing radiation hazardous?

Put your hand on the cooker ring and tell me.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#104

Post by Gordonjcp »

kadoban wrote: post #35
Gordonjcp wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) to avoid gas stoves Surely you mean avoiding dangerous electric stoves, which emit hazardous electromagnetic radiation? Edit: Yup, everyone bit. Christ you're a bunch of dafties.

> Surely you mean avoiding dangerous electric stoves, which emit hazardous electromagnetic radiation? The "electromagnetic radiation" from stoves has not been shown to be harmful in the amounts absorbed during cooking. Particles in the air _have_ been shown to be harmful, even ignoring CO and gas leak risks from gas stoves.

> even ignoring CO and gas leak risks from gas stoves

Right, but they don't generate CO and they don't leak. If they do, they are faulty and should be repaired or replaced.

Don't you have safety inspections where you are?

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#105

Post by rsynnott »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #13
LinuxBender wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they produce soot As my bathroom walls can attest to. It took a long time to clean that up. I don't use candles for scent any more. Now I just keep them as one of many sources of emergency light and heat.

The chemical alternatives don't exactly give me confidence (though who really knows what's in a modern candle?). At least candles are a known-known even if non-optimal.

I mean, cooking with wood fires is a known-known and we've been doing it forever... but it's the biggest cause of death by air pollution.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#106

Post by msla »

oliveshell wrote: post #53
LinuxBender wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they produce soot As my bathroom walls can attest to. It took a long time to clean that up. I don't use candles for scent any more. Now I just keep them as one of many sources of emergency light and heat.

If you do decide to burn a candle on occasion, in case the following wasn’t obvious: Keeping the wicked properly trimmed to ~1/4 inch makes a huge difference in keeping soot emissions down. There’s a reason store-bought candles always tell you to trim before burning! If the flame starts to jump and flicker (in calm air), the wick is too long. You can see big sooty plumes be thrown off when this happens if you look.

> Keeping the wicked properly trimmed to ~1/4 inch makes a huge difference in keeping soot emissions down.

I bet this was widespread cultural knowledge in the era when candles were the primary method of indoor lighting.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#107

Post by tristor »

delecti wrote: post #14
h2odragon wrote: post #3

People concern for "air quality" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything they could smell was doing to them. Perhaps we should be encased in sterile bubbles at birth, with all inputs filtered for purity and consistency. Surely that would be the best way to avoid all the dire consequences of the pollutants surrounding us.

> how in the world humanity survived to this point By outbreeding the fact that we also died a bunch for unknown reasons. And I think this tweet is actually a fairly calming view on things. I wouldn't hesitate to share a room with a couple extra people, so I won't worry about a few candles occasionally, because they're a nice benefit to the space. Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) t…

> Meanwhile it's an absolute no-brainer (for me and many other people) to avoid gas stoves, because they don't have any ambience benefits and my local power grid is quite stable.

Except that all the concern around gas stoves is mostly BS. The issue with cooking is not the heat source, it's actually the fumes from cooking itself. The ONLY safe way to cook from an indoor air quality perspective is to have a properly installed externally vented range hood (and makeup air if needed). It doesn't matter if you use induction, radiant, or coil electric, they all produce just as much cooking fumes as gas, and the gas burning has a negligible impact. I've confirmed this myself many times over with calibrated sensors.

The worst thing about indoor air quality in the US is that the US doesn't require external venting in kitchens by code, and it should. The PM2.5 spikes in nearly every American household the moment someone starts cooking, and to dangerous levels for the person doing the cooking. American houses also have horrible ventilation generally, with newer houses being even worse as they get better sealed for efficiency, but without being required to provide active ventilation. It should be legally required that every home, including rental apartments, be constructed with an externally vented range hood and an energy recovery style active ventilation for fresh air exchange.

I challenge folks to improve their indoor air quality and see how much it benefits them by simply opening your windows up at least once a day (which unfortunately isn't the most energy efficient thing to do), and finding a way to actively ventilate your kitchen when you cook (if nothing better, a box fan in an open window is not a bad way to go. recirculating range hoods do nothing).

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#108

Post by Cyberdog »

maxbond wrote: post #55
Cyberdog wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very odd take to compare gas stoves to systematic murder, if that’s what you’re doing.

That's not what I'm doing. They're referencing this poem: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_ ... A lament about systematic murder and the complicity of the speaker.

Oh, right. My bad.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#109

Post by h2odragon »

guntherhermann wrote: post #44
slickdork wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

h2odragon in 1890: People concern for "Germs" lately has me wondering how in the world humanity survived to this point, in utter ignorance of the horrid damage everything they could touch was doing to them. Perhaps we should wash our hands with soap, with all inputs filtered for purity and consistency. Surely that would be the best way to avoid all the dire consequences of the pollutants surrounding us.

While I agree with you, it's possible to write this comment without the snarky, reddit-style tone. I think re-writing your comment to be less snarky and more patient would lend itself to a better website experience. Cheers.

Well said.

> snarky, reddit-style tone.

I share the blame there. Sorry. I'd like to make the point in a better way, but im busy and my hands hurt, so i said this and hope some are amused as much as annoyed.

Re: A candle produces roughly the same amount of energy as a resting human

#110

Post by Cyberdog »

dasv wrote: post #95
Cyberdog wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I think we can all agree now that humans are a dangerous vector for viruses, filth, and general unpleasantness, and the world would be a safer, more pleasant place if we eradicated them entirely.

Do you frequently have problems with CAPTCHAs?

I find them quite organic-normative.
Post reply on HN