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

First clean water, now clean air

finmoorhouse.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 149 posts

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#41

Post by photochemsyn »

Clean air and water issues are not limited to biological contamination with pathogenic microbes and viruses, and some of the suggestions (ensuring good ventilation) run into problems when external air quality is dangerously bad (when health agencies tell people to keep their windows closed).

It's not entirely unlike water issues, for example the Thames was used to dispose of wastes from animal slaughtering, leather tanning, production of dyes from coal tar, alcohol distillery wastes as well as for human excrement. Cleaning up air quality requires addressing these issues as well (coal power plants, diesel truck emissions, agricultural dust, etc.).

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#42

Post by giraffe_lady »

bsenftner wrote: post #23
isp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if we want to do something, I think the first step is really to get visibility to the problem A sensible first step would be to very visibly display CO₂ monitors in buildings (e.g., throughout office buildings, schools, etc) Once the CO₂ levels become visible, this in itself creates an incentive to improve. Related from UK (2021): "All schools to receive carbon dioxide monitors" - https://www.gov.uk/government/n…

In Japan, it is common to see CO₂ monitor displays outside contained meeting spaces, such as theaters. My wife purchased an Aronet CO₂ monitor, and I took it with me on a business trip last week. The CO₂ while on the flight was in the 3000's range. The CO₂ at my client's office was in the mid 2000's range, as well as the hotel. Opening the hotel window the allowed 2 inches reduces CO₂ to the 600 range in 10 minutes,…

No, there won't be any battle. If there were going to it would have been during covid, with improved indoor ventilation being one of the major components of an in-depth mitigation strategy.

There was no meaningful attempt or debate about changing ventilation standards then when it would have tangibly saved lives, there certainly won't be now.

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#43

Post by anecdotal1 »

throw0101b wrote: post #5

> Ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI) Please do not do/use this. Generally anything that is 'active', like UV lamps or ozone emitters, is not a good idea: * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSFQQpgvgeo&t=6m1s * Interviewee: https://civmin.utoronto.ca/home/about-us/directory/professor... All that's needed for good indoor air quality (IAQ) is an ERV/HRV which exhausts stale indoor air and brings in fresh outdoor a…

Reme Halo is what you want. That's what I put in when I installed my ERV.

Reme uses UV against titanium dioxide which releases airborne peroxides which takes out bacteria/viruses/yeast/mold

This is the same tech used in self-cleaning concrete -- just add titanium dioxide and let the sun do the work

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#44

Post by btbuildem »

bsenftner wrote: post #23
isp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if we want to do something, I think the first step is really to get visibility to the problem A sensible first step would be to very visibly display CO₂ monitors in buildings (e.g., throughout office buildings, schools, etc) Once the CO₂ levels become visible, this in itself creates an incentive to improve. Related from UK (2021): "All schools to receive carbon dioxide monitors" - https://www.gov.uk/government/n…

In Japan, it is common to see CO₂ monitor displays outside contained meeting spaces, such as theaters. My wife purchased an Aronet CO₂ monitor, and I took it with me on a business trip last week. The CO₂ while on the flight was in the 3000's range. The CO₂ at my client's office was in the mid 2000's range, as well as the hotel. Opening the hotel window the allowed 2 inches reduces CO₂ to the 600 range in 10 minutes,…

Seems like yes, we are. A good proportion of people abhor change, even if it would make their lives better.

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#45

Post by graeme »

c3534l wrote: post #8
sergioisidoro wrote: post #2

I bought a CO2 monitor, and although the effects of CO2 in cognition and energy levels are debatable[1], it shocked me and raised awareness to how poor my indoor ventilation is. We live in a small apartment, and just being 30 min with 2 people in the room raises the CO2 ppm from 400 to >1000. Opening a window quickly lowers it. Never-mind doing some light activity like yoga or similar. So if we want to do something,…

> , it shocked me and raised awareness to how poor my indoor ventilation is. Do you want indoor circulation? Wouldn't that just mean your apartment loses heat/AC?

Sure, but it's not nearly as costly as you'd think. We pay for all kinds of things. Including, compared to the past, much warmer air in the winter and much cooler air in the summer.

Growing up we used to put on sweaters, wear shorts, use fans, have the windows open in a car.

Changing our heating/cooling preferences to get rid of all that costs money. People don't mind.

But somehow, spending a small bit to breathe well and avoid indoor pollution/viruses is beyond the pale.

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#46

Post by hammock »

bsenftner wrote: post #23
isp wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So if we want to do something, I think the first step is really to get visibility to the problem A sensible first step would be to very visibly display CO₂ monitors in buildings (e.g., throughout office buildings, schools, etc) Once the CO₂ levels become visible, this in itself creates an incentive to improve. Related from UK (2021): "All schools to receive carbon dioxide monitors" - https://www.gov.uk/government/n…

In Japan, it is common to see CO₂ monitor displays outside contained meeting spaces, such as theaters. My wife purchased an Aronet CO₂ monitor, and I took it with me on a business trip last week. The CO₂ while on the flight was in the 3000's range. The CO₂ at my client's office was in the mid 2000's range, as well as the hotel. Opening the hotel window the allowed 2 inches reduces CO₂ to the 600 range in 10 minutes,…

When driving, does running the air (not on recirc) not exchange enough air?

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#47

Post by clairity »

sergioisidoro wrote: post #2

I bought a CO2 monitor, and although the effects of CO2 in cognition and energy levels are debatable[1], it shocked me and raised awareness to how poor my indoor ventilation is. We live in a small apartment, and just being 30 min with 2 people in the room raises the CO2 ppm from 400 to >1000. Opening a window quickly lowers it. Never-mind doing some light activity like yoga or similar. So if we want to do something,…

> "although the effects of CO2 in cognition and energy levels are debatable"

it's really not debatable. the feeling of stuffiness is a function of many things, but environmentally, it's mostly temperature and humidity (we humans are hot and breathe out lots of humidity). there are no cognitive/energy effects until you get into the 10's of thousand of ppm, as the mechanism of action is competing out oxygen, not some intrinsic maladaption to CO₂, which is actually vital to life on earth. it's fashionable to hate on carbon right now (it's mediopolitical), and that's really all there is to it.

particulates, VOCs and chemical off-gassing, on the other hand, do have known mechanisms of harm, and that's something you should be more concerned about, but not yet alarmed. most of that pollution comes from cars and coal/gas power generation, so long-term, we should move toward more efficient habitation (e.g., denser cities, public transit) and cleaner power generation (including nuclear) if we really care about our collective health.

practically no one should be worried about CO₂ in their daily lives. it's thoroughly a red herring.

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#48

Post by kazanz »

As others of posted the big difference here - and also the big challenge - is that indoor air is a definitively NOT a public service.

It requires a slew of regulation, enforcement bodies, and - from a US perspective - profitability for litigation attorneys.

Again with a US slant, ADA is the obvious legislative model for similar clean air regulations.

So it's possible, just more challenging than public sewage.

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#49

Post by xmdx »

Other than the obvious benefits like avoiding a pandemic this hits close to home. My dad passed away 2 weeks ago from Pulmanory Fibrosis. A respiratory disease without a cure and one where we know very little about the causes. Better air quality would drop cases, relive strain on the health system and just let people live longer. Its something I want to help with where I can. I hadn't even thought about the obvious step of raising awareness about air quality.

Re: First clean water, now clean air

#50

Post by gumby »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #39
ct0 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm starting to think that having a better night's rest while sleeping in a tent is not from the ground you sleep on, but the fresh air you've had all night.

It'll depend on the tent, I don't immediately associate tents with good ventilation.

A tent with poor ventilation rapidly becomes soggy.
Post reply on HN