4 ms·

The pessimist in me likes to think this article is sponsored by the air purifier lobby. Healthier I can understand, but smarter? How do they prove smartness?

IntrepidWorm 5y ago
>In the first study, published in 2015, they had 24 white-collar volunteers spend six working days in environmentally controlled office spaces at Syracuse University’s Total Indoor Environmental Quality Laboratory. On various days the experimenters would alter ventilation rates and levels of CO2 and VOCs. Each afternoon the volunteers were tested on their ability to think analytically and react to a crisis. (One test, for example put the volunteer in the role of a small-town mayor trying to react to an emergency.) All tests were double-blind: Neither the volunteers nor the study personnel knew that day’s environmental conditions. Cognitive testing (detailed above) was used to test "smartness." I am, however, similarly pessimistic.
loonster 5y ago
It seemed like a huge fluff article for a "science" mag. I felt like I had to scroll a significant amount to get passed the bio. If anything it was sponsored by HVAC. Heat recovery ventilation units are expensive. (Would have one if a new house. Harder to justify for retrofit.)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
bpodgursky 5y ago
There's a lot of evidence that people perform worse on intellectual tasks at high CO2 and VOC levels.
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  to be precise: we perform worse in conditions dramatically different from our natural habitat. Fish also can't breathe on land, despite much higher concentrations of oxygen. What does that mean? Those studies are often mis-used as doom porn fodder, and are really only useful for occupational limits and employment liability, not some future forecasts for the next few centuries. The only constant thing about climate is that its constantly changes, and large fluctuations have happened many times in the past, and mammals survived. Some of the dinosaurs that survived (birds) even developed a whole different type of super efficient hemoglobin, and if CO2 keeps going up - so will we. Some people already retain large amounts of fetal hemoglobin, maybe that's the way? At any rate, the best view on climate change I've read online: http://timtyler.org/end_the_ice_age/ http://timtyler.org/end_the_ice_age/
- meowface 5y ago
  I'm aware what I'm about to say is a dumb non sequitur that doesn't really make sense, but: it's kind of unfortunate that we carbon-based animal lifeforms on this carbon-rich planet are so susceptible to harm from so many carbon-based molecules.
  - lmm 5y ago
    Carbon is the backbone of most complicated molecules. And of course all parasites and diseases run on the same basic chemistry as every other lifeform on earth.
    - meowface 5y ago
      Of course; that's why I prefaced it as a dumb non sequitur that doesn't make sense. It's just poetically a little woeful, especially since there's a chance it could also lead to environmental catastrophe.
      - soheil 5y ago
        I don't think it's fascinating at all. You could make the same argument about atoms or neutrinos. Nothing gets more deadly than nuclear radiation from neutrinos found in every. single. atom.
        inter_netuser 5y ago
        water will kill you if you drink 5-6 liters fast enough. Pure oxygen will burn you, and pure nitrogen will suffocate you. People love being scared. Struggle against external threats gives meaningless lives a soothing story to tell to our egos.
        meowface 5y ago
        I agree it's not fascinating. But I actually was going to initially include an addendum about how I think it's not quite the same as pointing out the harms of something as fundamental as atoms or fermions or something. Carbon isn't necessary for matter and possibly not necessary for life; just necessary for our particular implementation of it.
whalabi 5y ago
Can't Google right now but there was a story about, I think, Californian schools that installed air purifiers to deal with some kind of temporary pollution problem (fires?), and apparently they then found that after the problem had ended, the students in schools or rooms with air purifiers scored higher in some sort of testing. (Pardon the vagueness, I'll edit later if I can)
- barathr 5y ago
  It was Porter Ranch, due to a gas leak: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-air-purifiers-for-schools-near-porter-ranch-20160128-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-air-purifiers-f... (Not that leaking gas would get meaningfully filtered by the average air purifier.) This study found improvements due to the air purifiers: https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai20-188.pdf https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai20-188...
  - whalabi 5y ago
    That's the one. From the conclusion: > Indeed, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.2σ increase in test scores per $1,000 of expenditure, air filter installation is one of the most cost-effective education policies available to policymakers today. > Specifically, economically disadvantaged students disproportionately attend schools in highly-polluted regions. Given this, installing air filters in polluted regions should both raise student achievement and reduce the pervasive test score gaps that plague public education.
underwater 5y ago
The article says they had double blind cognitive tests. Seems pretty straight forward?
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
malikNF 5y ago
>>The pessimist in me likes to think this article is sponsored by the air purifier lobby. Well that makes the two of us. For an article on a website called science, there's lots of info about the person doing research, his background and his life story than the actual numbers on what they define as "smarter" In one part they mention the study was done in 2015 (no link to article) on 24 people where these people did 61-101% better on some test. But then when they did the study on 100+ people the improvement was just 26.4% Wut?? But like others have mentioned there is evidence better quality air helps with performing better on cognitive tasks. This article is just really badly written.
- adamjb 5y ago
  >In one part they mention the study was done in 2015 (no link to article) on 24% where people did 61-101% better on some test. I think this is the study https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924.pdf?sequence=1 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924... >Results: On average, cognitive scores were 61% higher on the Green building day and 101% higher on the two Green building days than on the Conventional building day (p < 0.0001). VOCs and CO2 were independently associated with cognitive scores
- wolverine876 5y ago
  > on a website called science "Science" is one of the two leading scientific journals in the world, along with Nature.
  - malikNF 5y ago
    And your point is ?
dynm 5y ago
For whatever it's worth, I spent a ton of time researching this and came to the conclusion that cleaning your indoor air is probably the first thing you should do for your health: https://dynomight.net/air/ https://dynomight.net/air/ But I suggest you DIY a purifier instead of spending a ton of money on one: https://dynomight.net/better-DIY-air-purifier.html https://dynomight.net/better-DIY-air-purifier.html
- ABCLAW 5y ago
  I like the data collection, but the design he uses for a box fan is VERY poor. You can get a large 20x20x1 filter that will cover the entire fan surface area of the box fan. Just from inspection, that should increase the total volume of air which is cleaned by a factor of 2. Just buy a box fan and slap a filter on it.
  - dynm 5y ago
    > Just from inspection, that should increase the total volume of air which is cleaned by a factor of 2. Are you aware of any data that supports this? It could be true for all I know but (contrary to my expectations as well) the experiments I've done don't really seem to support this. See the "taping" experiment here: https://dynomight.net/2020/12/15/some-real-data-on-a-DIY-box-fan-air-purifier/ https://dynomight.net/2020/12/15/some-real-data-on-a-DIY-box... You might be referring to non-HEPA furnace air filters which (by design) have much better airflow, but typically don't capture the smallest particles, which have the largest health impact.
    - simpleguitar 5y ago
      Box fan with a 20x20x1 filter makes the fan work much harder. 20x20x2 or 20x20x4 filters have much larger surface area, which is better. Creating a cube with four 20x20x2 is the best in terms of energy use and air output. And then you add a fan shroud for even more efficiency. https://www.texairfilters.com/how-to-improve-the-efficiency-of-the-box-fan-and-merv-13-filter-air-cleaner/ https://www.texairfilters.com/how-to-improve-the-efficiency-...
    - 5y ago

IntrepidWorm 5y ago

>In the first study, published in 2015, they had 24 white-collar volunteers spend six working days in environmentally controlled office spaces at Syracuse University’s Total Indoor Environmental Quality Laboratory. On various days the experimenters would alter ventilation rates and levels of CO2 and VOCs. Each afternoon the volunteers were tested on their ability to think analytically and react to a crisis. (One test, for example put the volunteer in the role of a small-town mayor trying to react to an emergency.) All tests were double-blind: Neither the volunteers nor the study personnel knew that day’s environmental conditions. Cognitive testing (detailed above) was used to test "smartness." I am, however, similarly pessimistic.

loonster 5y ago

It seemed like a huge fluff article for a "science" mag. I felt like I had to scroll a significant amount to get passed the bio. If anything it was sponsored by HVAC. Heat recovery ventilation units are expensive. (Would have one if a new house. Harder to justify for retrofit.)

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

bpodgursky 5y ago

There's a lot of evidence that people perform worse on intellectual tasks at high CO2 and VOC levels.

inter_netuser 5y ago
to be precise: we perform worse in conditions dramatically different from our natural habitat. Fish also can't breathe on land, despite much higher concentrations of oxygen. What does that mean? Those studies are often mis-used as doom porn fodder, and are really only useful for occupational limits and employment liability, not some future forecasts for the next few centuries. The only constant thing about climate is that its constantly changes, and large fluctuations have happened many times in the past, and mammals survived. Some of the dinosaurs that survived (birds) even developed a whole different type of super efficient hemoglobin, and if CO2 keeps going up - so will we. Some people already retain large amounts of fetal hemoglobin, maybe that's the way? At any rate, the best view on climate change I've read online: http://timtyler.org/end_the_ice_age/ http://timtyler.org/end_the_ice_age/
meowface 5y ago
I'm aware what I'm about to say is a dumb non sequitur that doesn't really make sense, but: it's kind of unfortunate that we carbon-based animal lifeforms on this carbon-rich planet are so susceptible to harm from so many carbon-based molecules.
- lmm 5y ago
  Carbon is the backbone of most complicated molecules. And of course all parasites and diseases run on the same basic chemistry as every other lifeform on earth.
  - meowface 5y ago
    Of course; that's why I prefaced it as a dumb non sequitur that doesn't make sense. It's just poetically a little woeful, especially since there's a chance it could also lead to environmental catastrophe.
    - soheil 5y ago
      I don't think it's fascinating at all. You could make the same argument about atoms or neutrinos. Nothing gets more deadly than nuclear radiation from neutrinos found in every. single. atom.
      - inter_netuser 5y ago
        water will kill you if you drink 5-6 liters fast enough. Pure oxygen will burn you, and pure nitrogen will suffocate you. People love being scared. Struggle against external threats gives meaningless lives a soothing story to tell to our egos.
      - meowface 5y ago
        I agree it's not fascinating. But I actually was going to initially include an addendum about how I think it's not quite the same as pointing out the harms of something as fundamental as atoms or fermions or something. Carbon isn't necessary for matter and possibly not necessary for life; just necessary for our particular implementation of it.

whalabi 5y ago

Can't Google right now but there was a story about, I think, Californian schools that installed air purifiers to deal with some kind of temporary pollution problem (fires?), and apparently they then found that after the problem had ended, the students in schools or rooms with air purifiers scored higher in some sort of testing. (Pardon the vagueness, I'll edit later if I can)

barathr 5y ago
It was Porter Ranch, due to a gas leak: https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-air-purifiers-for-schools-near-porter-ranch-20160128-story.html https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-air-purifiers-f... (Not that leaking gas would get meaningfully filtered by the average air purifier.) This study found improvements due to the air purifiers: https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai20-188.pdf https://www.edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai20-188...
- whalabi 5y ago
  That's the one. From the conclusion: > Indeed, with a benefit-to-cost ratio of 0.2σ increase in test scores per $1,000 of expenditure, air filter installation is one of the most cost-effective education policies available to policymakers today. > Specifically, economically disadvantaged students disproportionately attend schools in highly-polluted regions. Given this, installing air filters in polluted regions should both raise student achievement and reduce the pervasive test score gaps that plague public education.

underwater 5y ago

The article says they had double blind cognitive tests. Seems pretty straight forward?

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

malikNF 5y ago

>>The pessimist in me likes to think this article is sponsored by the air purifier lobby. Well that makes the two of us. For an article on a website called science, there's lots of info about the person doing research, his background and his life story than the actual numbers on what they define as "smarter" In one part they mention the study was done in 2015 (no link to article) on 24 people where these people did 61-101% better on some test. But then when they did the study on 100+ people the improvement was just 26.4% Wut?? But like others have mentioned there is evidence better quality air helps with performing better on cognitive tasks. This article is just really badly written.

adamjb 5y ago
>In one part they mention the study was done in 2015 (no link to article) on 24% where people did 61-101% better on some test. I think this is the study https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924.pdf?sequence=1 https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/27662232/4892924... >Results: On average, cognitive scores were 61% higher on the Green building day and 101% higher on the two Green building days than on the Conventional building day (p < 0.0001). VOCs and CO2 were independently associated with cognitive scores
wolverine876 5y ago
> on a website called science "Science" is one of the two leading scientific journals in the world, along with Nature.
- malikNF 5y ago
  And your point is ?

dynm 5y ago

For whatever it's worth, I spent a ton of time researching this and came to the conclusion that cleaning your indoor air is probably the first thing you should do for your health: https://dynomight.net/air/ https://dynomight.net/air/ But I suggest you DIY a purifier instead of spending a ton of money on one: https://dynomight.net/better-DIY-air-purifier.html https://dynomight.net/better-DIY-air-purifier.html

ABCLAW 5y ago
I like the data collection, but the design he uses for a box fan is VERY poor. You can get a large 20x20x1 filter that will cover the entire fan surface area of the box fan. Just from inspection, that should increase the total volume of air which is cleaned by a factor of 2. Just buy a box fan and slap a filter on it.
- dynm 5y ago
  > Just from inspection, that should increase the total volume of air which is cleaned by a factor of 2. Are you aware of any data that supports this? It could be true for all I know but (contrary to my expectations as well) the experiments I've done don't really seem to support this. See the "taping" experiment here: https://dynomight.net/2020/12/15/some-real-data-on-a-DIY-box-fan-air-purifier/ https://dynomight.net/2020/12/15/some-real-data-on-a-DIY-box... You might be referring to non-HEPA furnace air filters which (by design) have much better airflow, but typically don't capture the smallest particles, which have the largest health impact.
  - simpleguitar 5y ago
    Box fan with a 20x20x1 filter makes the fan work much harder. 20x20x2 or 20x20x4 filters have much larger surface area, which is better. Creating a cube with four 20x20x2 is the best in terms of energy use and air output. And then you add a fan shroud for even more efficiency. https://www.texairfilters.com/how-to-improve-the-efficiency-of-the-box-fan-and-merv-13-filter-air-cleaner/ https://www.texairfilters.com/how-to-improve-the-efficiency-...
  - 5y ago