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

A study on the extent of global air pollution

scienceswitch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 73 posts

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#31

Post by cmews »

My wife has severe astma and when traveling this is something that worries me all the time. At home we have blue air machines and plants to filter the air, but astma attacks still happen (when she didn't use her medicines enough) when she travels from work to home on bad air quality days in Amsterdam. The astma medication is something that comes with a lot of trade-offs/health complications if you use it too much. Hope this will improve in future, but prevention would be even better.

I looked up the amount of people in the Netherlands that have health issues connected with air quality and it isn't negligible at all (1+ million on a 17,53 million population), but I don't understand why politically it doesn't get the attention it deserves.

Unfortunately I can't create this kind of machine (software eng, no hardware skills), but I think there is a very big market for portable masks with safe air to breath temporary when you are outside. Especially with all the research that has been done on how much air quality impacts your health.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#32

Post by Tade0 »

moneywoes wrote: post #4

Lets say I'm living in one of these areas ( and can't help it) besides wearing a kn95 when going out, is there anything that can be done?

I live in an area that has harmful amounts on PM2.5 during the winter(80ug/m3+, double that a few days of the year).

You'll need an air filter, but not just any other one - it has to be oversized for the living space and spin up at a low threshold - air filters commonly only actually start when the measurements indicate more than 25ug/m3.

Also nice if it has an ionizer - my experience is that it generally increases effectiveness even though that's not exactly its purpose.

Aside from that it's important to seal all windows properly. Even a large filter won't do much against draft.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#33

Post by peteradio »

rootusrootus wrote: post #23
Jorchime wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If critical levels of "unhealthy stuff" is exceeded, it's not safe. Your spectrum is on the threshold of "unhealthy stuff"

So there is a magic point, greater than zero, where it simply switches from healthy to unhealthy? That seems improbable. Edit: Downvotes but no comments. That's a pretty low effort way of admitting your position is faith-based, not scientific.

Why? Here is a model that would make sense: your body is capable of clearing x ug/day and anything over that causes inflammation. Well then stay below that level and it is

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#36

Post by [deleted] »

rootusrootus wrote: post #23
Jorchime wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? If critical levels of "unhealthy stuff" is exceeded, it's not safe. Your spectrum is on the threshold of "unhealthy stuff"

So there is a magic point, greater than zero, where it simply switches from healthy to unhealthy? That seems improbable. Edit: Downvotes but no comments. That's a pretty low effort way of admitting your position is faith-based, not scientific.

[deleted]

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#37

Post by bumby »

andsoitis wrote: post #9
bumby wrote: post #6

“The health impacts of exposure to PM2.5 are significant” I think they need to elaborate on this to put the funding in greater context. Statistically significant? Significant in terms of actual impact on one’s life?

From the article: “The health impacts of exposure to PM2.5 are significant and include respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, lung cancer, and premature death.”

Yes, that’s what I quoted too. I’m drawing a distinction between what is “statistically” significant and what is pragmatically significant.

An example is the processed foods study from a few years back that showed a statistically significant increase in cancer risk. But if you look harder at the data, it increases your risk from 1.0% to 1.18%. A relative difference of 18% sounds huge, but the absolute difference is very small. That’s not really much difference in the grand scheme of mortality risk.

You can measure very small statistically significant differences with large data sets. It doesn’t necessarily mean it should drive people to change their behavior for every “significant” scientific finding.

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#38

Post by bumby »

weird-eye-issue wrote: post #10
bumby wrote: post #6

“The health impacts of exposure to PM2.5 are significant” I think they need to elaborate on this to put the funding in greater context. Statistically significant? Significant in terms of actual impact on one’s life?

Right, since there is no research on this topic already...

So they should quote it to put it in context. Otherwise, it comes across as click-bait and out-of-context

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#39

Post by runnerup »

Tade0 wrote: post #32
moneywoes wrote: post #4

Lets say I'm living in one of these areas ( and can't help it) besides wearing a kn95 when going out, is there anything that can be done?

I live in an area that has harmful amounts on PM2.5 during the winter(80ug/m3+, double that a few days of the year). You'll need an air filter, but not just any other one - it has to be oversized for the living space and spin up at a low threshold - air filters commonly only actually start when the measurements indicate more than 25ug/m3. Also nice if it has an ionizer - my experience is that it generally increases e…

> Also nice if it has an ionizer

I'd be concerned that the ionizers generate trace ozone. Am I wrong about this?

Re: A study on the extent of global air pollution

#40

Post by Traubenfuchs »

graeme wrote: post #17
Traubenfuchs wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Buy and maintain an air cleaner for your home. That's the one and only realistic change you can make.

The average home in a mildly polluted area will actually generally have clean indoor air without filtration. Even with windows open. Don't ask me how this works, but I've verified it using a PM 2.5 monitor, a laseregg 2. With indoor and outdoor measurements on the same day. I recommend indoor filtration for other reasons (allergies, diseases, cutting down pollution from cooking). But if someone already isn't producin…

No one but the most concerned loonies are gonna start wearing a mask though and how do you select for a car with good filtration among the countless other decision parameters for a car?
Post reply on HN