13 ms·

This reeks like a con-artists rephrasing perfectly normal and mundane observations into scary-sounding situations so that people would buy the air-filter compan

This reeks like a con-artists rephrasing perfectly normal and mundane observations into scary-sounding situations so that people would buy the air-filter companies that are funding your research. I'm all for cleaner air and I don't doubt that the already well-established negative effects of high CO2 or VOC concentrations on us, but can we at least keep any discussion to non-anecdotal, strong scientific evidence? None the articles linked both here show any rigorous statistics that pinpoint cause and effects, it's all handwavy conjectures with "common sense" evidence and statistical dressing to show correlation. Correlation doesn't even necessarily mean causality. Some of the articles even have *may" in the title, you can be the judge. Probably an unpopular opinion given the large amount of anecdotal science already posted. Dust on carpet is bad and particularly if you don't clean it and let stuff grow - we all know that already and we don't need a laser pointer to show kids how scary it is. Just because you can see it doesn't necessarily mean it's worse, and just because you can't see it doesn't necessarily mean it's better. It's just insanity that everyone is suddenly a scientists with a few anecdotes or links to articles that show correlation but not causality.

paul7986 5y ago
Yes media is bought and paid for and is the boogeyman. Tuned it out May 2020 and get my news like for Covid directly from friends working in hospitals (docs, nurses, admins, etc) in various cities.
fighterpilot 5y ago
How can it not be causality when it's a double-blind intervention? This isn't an epidemiological study that is merely observing correlations in the wild. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037
- criticaltinker 5y ago
  > How can it not be causality when it's a double-blind intervention? The design of the study looks solid and results are certainly statistically significant. With N=24 and the limitations quoted below, I think it's fair to take these results with a grain of skepticism. But on balance, I found the criticism in GP's comment to be a little over the top. - "By testing on subsequent days, it is possible that effects from one condition were reflected in the scores obtained on the next day." - "The environmental factors that were not experimentally modified exhibited some variability owing to changes in outdoor conditions and participant behavior." - "This study used a controlled environment to individually control certain contaminants. Assessments performed in actual office environments are important to confirm the findings in a noncontrolled setting."
  - fighterpilot 5y ago
    It's not just N=24 because those same participants took 9 independent tests which generates more data. Also, the p-value should be considered along with the N, since the sampling variance of the test statistic will go up with a small N and this is accounted for in the test thresholds, which somewhat offsets that limitation. But, a larger N and replication studies are needed.
    - criticaltinker 5y ago
      Good points, one question - did you mean to say "6 independent tests", or am I missing something?
      - fighterpilot 5y ago
        I thought it was 9, but I might have misread the study.
raxxorrax 5y ago
I think air quality is often neglected severely. Best personal solution would probably to move to the countryside. I have no sources at hand, but some said that electric cars don't solve the worst pollution because tire wear and breaks causes the worst problems. You find many articles that state it is 1000 times worse, but they aren't too credible in my opinion. Still, the pollution is real. Dust can also come from pollen. Aside from allergies, it is probably not as unhealthy as plastic.
- elric 5y ago
  Ah yes, the countryside. Not quite sure how we're going to be housing 7+billion in the countryside. Doesn't seem like a practical solution. Not in the least because moving the countryside will increase car dependence and pollution. But I guess the view might be nicer in the short term. I agree that air quality is probably neglected. Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters seem like a net win in every dwelling. I haven't had to open a window since installing mine. Less pollen, way less mosquitos, and constant fresh air. A lot cheaper in the long term than those gimmicky devices which circulate indoor air and filter out a bit. If it's in your house, you've already inhaled it.
  - mariushn 5y ago
    Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters -- what should one look for when evaluating what to purchase? Do you recommend specific brands?
    - elric 5y ago
      I opted for Zehnder using a DIY package. If you have basic DIY skills you can install it yourself in a couple of days. Comes with semi-flexible ducting, which is super easy to use. I have fresh air delivered to the living room & bedrooms, and extraction in the kitchen/bathroom/utility room. The unit does heat recovery in winter, which ought to save a bit on the heating bill. It's early days, so we'll see how that goes.
breput 5y ago
There are legitimate studies that correlate increased CO2 levels with decreased performance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25117890/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25117890/
- learc83 5y ago
  There are also many more legitimate studies (and decades of experience) showing that submarine crews working at an order of magnitude or more of CO2 concentrations experience no cognitive effects. It’s very likely the study you linked is flawed or there is a confounder.
flybrand 5y ago
Having worked in filtration, aerosols and the built environment - this has been known for years, the challenge was creating broader understanding of the value of better iaq.
throw0101a 5y ago
> I'm all for cleaner air and I don't doubt that the already well-established negative effects of high CO2 or VOC concentrations on us, but can we at least keep any discussion to non-anecdotal, strong scientific evidence? They're so well established that there are industry guidelines, ASHRAE 62.1 and 62.2: * https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standards-62-1-62-2 https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standar... Pull/return air from places like bathrooms and kitchens, and supply air to (e.g.) bedrooms, and in between temper the filtered, fresh air you bring in from the outside with an HRV/ERV: * http://www.mnshi.umn.edu/kb/scale/hrverv.html http://www.mnshi.umn.edu/kb/scale/hrverv.html Renovating this into an older building which has less room for equipment could be a challenge though.
goodpoint 5y ago
There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers from reliable sources showing correlation between CO2, VOC, *particulate* and health issues.
kongolongo 5y ago
I agree with your point that this article does use a lot anecdotes and not enough strong evidence to back up the terrifying conclusions it suggests and throws around "may" quite a bit. I will say though, that similar to investigations on microplastics exposure and health impacts, it can be prohibitively difficult to really have "rigorous statistics" or fully control in studies when it's become so ubiquitous in nearly every environment and when the exact types of pollutants people are exposed to can be very hard to quantify. For any of the more complex compounds it will be very hard to discern what aspect of it causes what exact health outcomes. For example, with microplastics its nearly impossible to find any population without exposure to or detectable amounts of microplastics in their bodies, meaning fully controlling for it in the stats is not possible. The types of plastics people are exposed to can also be very difficult to quantify meaningfully as they don't all accumulate in our tissues and as a result it can be difficult to quantity the actual exposures people have to what pollutants, short of some very unethical experiment designs.
- abeppu 5y ago
  Yes, and maybe we should start doing the science before we make stuff ubiquitous in our environments, rather than trying to figure stuff out after the fact. Leaded gasoline is an example where it took us a long time to understand the effects, and we'll never really be able to quantify the damage caused. And the data you get later from phasing something out at a systemic level gives you only a kind of crude single crossover result, with lots of potential confounding variables. Why did crime in the US decrease in the 90s? We can't be sure. I'm not saying microplastics are like lead of course. Just that in some cases, we're pretty sure we've caused a lot of damage by filling our environment without sufficient advance consideration.
  - kongolongo 5y ago
    Yeah it's a really tough problem with no clear answers. Microplastics and other pollutants with potential long-acting health impacts are very hard to predict far in advance. Strong evidence for or against any adverse health effects would take considerable effort to gather while in the mean time they offers such clear advantages and solve so many problems. Plastics have massively reduced costs in almost every industry and have become almost irreplaceable in some applications such as medical equipment (think packaging for syringes, surgical tools, or anything that requires contamination control). With lead there were viable cost-effective alternatives, it wasn't in nearly every product we consume, and we already had pretty clear evidence that its highly toxic so the only evidence needed was to show that the low levels being used in gasoline, while not acutely toxic, could be harmful given enough exposure to it over time. I doubt anyone working on plastics early on anticipated microplastics would end up in nearly all of our food, living spaces, and even build up in our bodies. By the time there would be any alarm bells sounding, it would've been too late, the sheer number and ways it solves problems makes it far too difficult to retreat from when, due to the nature of how its potential effects could arise, wouldn't give any strong evidence that its harmful. Outside of plastics many air pollutants are similar in that manner. The processes that release them are so convenient and solve so many problems, while any health effects would be long-term and extremely difficult to gather strong evidence for.
dbsmith83 5y ago
I agree, there is a lot of already well-established knowledge on the topic. I'd also argue though that a lot of ordinary people probably don't know much about the importance of air quality in the home. I never thought about it until I had a house. I suspected something in it was making me a little ill and so I looked into it and bought an air quality testing device. The illness went away so I don't think it was sick building syndrome (unless me using all the water outlets in the house again helped make it go away), but I did find that in my basement, CO2 tends to build up quite a bit. I never knew that this was something that could happen, and that I should open the windows once in a while. So maybe articles like this might raise awareness?
jimmaswell 5y ago
I lived with some roommates for a year in a big house covered in carpet and we never vacuumed, not once. One of them allegedly had asthma too. We were all fine and I couldn't tell the difference between that place and a vacuumed place. It validated my lifelong supposition that vacuuming is truly a waste of time, a bizarre cultural neurosis we would all be better off without.
- ericwood 5y ago
  I can assure you, as an allergy sufferer, that vacuuming makes a huge difference in my well-being. Dust and pollen build up and make me miserable. Carpet is tougher to clean, and we're having wood floors installed in part to make cleaning easier.
  - jimmaswell 5y ago
    Maybe it's useful for people with allergies, but I'm not convinced it matters for people with no allergies or severe asthma or anything.
blacksmith_tb 5y ago
There are studies on AQ and classroom performance[1][2] that seem to arrive at similar conclusions. Obviously there can be conflicts of interest if the backers manufacture air filters, but I don't see any disclaimers on those, at least. 1: https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai20-188 https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai20-188 2: https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-relationships-between-classroom-air-quality-and-childrens-per https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-rela...
- koheripbal 5y ago
  Using an home air sensor in my home office, I've become keenly aware of CO2 levels during the day... Despite having a sizeable HVAC system, the absolute best way to reduce CO2 is to open the windows - which I now do when I wake up each morning. Here is a visualization of the impact of opening doors/windows in the morning: https://i.imgur.com/4Ac8QHP.png https://i.imgur.com/4Ac8QHP.png As my family of 5 wakes up, the CO2 comes down with them as their bedroom doors open (CO2 is heavier than air), and the CO2 level spikes downstairs - and can take a couple hours after opening the windows and doors to get down to the outside baseline CO2 level of about 420 ppm. Here is a visualization where I did not open the windows right away, and had to close again due to the heat: https://i.imgur.com/1alDAfB.png https://i.imgur.com/1alDAfB.png On summer days, my servers don't love the heat and humidity of outside air, otherwise I've learned to keep the windows open all day. I do seem to notice a difference in how I feel if the level goes over 1000ppm, but that's really hard to quantify. Adding plants has not had a noticeable effect.
  - blacksmith_tb 5y ago
    Yes, unfortunately houseplants don't do much for air quality[1]. But they do look nice, and they can be satisfying to take care of (unless you kill them, that is). 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-019-0175-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-019-0175-9
maceurt 5y ago
> already well-established negative effects of high CO2 or VOC concentrations on us I don't know about this. Research is mixed and the US military has tested supposed mental impairment at higher levels of CO2 in sailors inside submarines and found nothing suggesting CO2 levels can effect noticeable cognitive performance.

paul7986 5y ago

Yes media is bought and paid for and is the boogeyman. Tuned it out May 2020 and get my news like for Covid directly from friends working in hospitals (docs, nurses, admins, etc) in various cities.

fighterpilot 5y ago

How can it not be causality when it's a double-blind intervention? This isn't an epidemiological study that is merely observing correlations in the wild. https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/ehp.1510037

criticaltinker 5y ago
> How can it not be causality when it's a double-blind intervention? The design of the study looks solid and results are certainly statistically significant. With N=24 and the limitations quoted below, I think it's fair to take these results with a grain of skepticism. But on balance, I found the criticism in GP's comment to be a little over the top. - "By testing on subsequent days, it is possible that effects from one condition were reflected in the scores obtained on the next day." - "The environmental factors that were not experimentally modified exhibited some variability owing to changes in outdoor conditions and participant behavior." - "This study used a controlled environment to individually control certain contaminants. Assessments performed in actual office environments are important to confirm the findings in a noncontrolled setting."
- fighterpilot 5y ago
  It's not just N=24 because those same participants took 9 independent tests which generates more data. Also, the p-value should be considered along with the N, since the sampling variance of the test statistic will go up with a small N and this is accounted for in the test thresholds, which somewhat offsets that limitation. But, a larger N and replication studies are needed.
  - criticaltinker 5y ago
    Good points, one question - did you mean to say "6 independent tests", or am I missing something?
    - fighterpilot 5y ago
      I thought it was 9, but I might have misread the study.

raxxorrax 5y ago

I think air quality is often neglected severely. Best personal solution would probably to move to the countryside. I have no sources at hand, but some said that electric cars don't solve the worst pollution because tire wear and breaks causes the worst problems. You find many articles that state it is 1000 times worse, but they aren't too credible in my opinion. Still, the pollution is real. Dust can also come from pollen. Aside from allergies, it is probably not as unhealthy as plastic.

elric 5y ago
Ah yes, the countryside. Not quite sure how we're going to be housing 7+billion in the countryside. Doesn't seem like a practical solution. Not in the least because moving the countryside will increase car dependence and pollution. But I guess the view might be nicer in the short term. I agree that air quality is probably neglected. Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters seem like a net win in every dwelling. I haven't had to open a window since installing mine. Less pollen, way less mosquitos, and constant fresh air. A lot cheaper in the long term than those gimmicky devices which circulate indoor air and filter out a bit. If it's in your house, you've already inhaled it.
- mariushn 5y ago
  Mechanical ventilation (with or without heat/enthalpy recovery) with filters -- what should one look for when evaluating what to purchase? Do you recommend specific brands?
  - elric 5y ago
    I opted for Zehnder using a DIY package. If you have basic DIY skills you can install it yourself in a couple of days. Comes with semi-flexible ducting, which is super easy to use. I have fresh air delivered to the living room & bedrooms, and extraction in the kitchen/bathroom/utility room. The unit does heat recovery in winter, which ought to save a bit on the heating bill. It's early days, so we'll see how that goes.

breput 5y ago

There are legitimate studies that correlate increased CO2 levels with decreased performance. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25117890/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25117890/

learc83 5y ago
There are also many more legitimate studies (and decades of experience) showing that submarine crews working at an order of magnitude or more of CO2 concentrations experience no cognitive effects. It’s very likely the study you linked is flawed or there is a confounder.

flybrand 5y ago

Having worked in filtration, aerosols and the built environment - this has been known for years, the challenge was creating broader understanding of the value of better iaq.

throw0101a 5y ago

> I'm all for cleaner air and I don't doubt that the already well-established negative effects of high CO2 or VOC concentrations on us, but can we at least keep any discussion to non-anecdotal, strong scientific evidence? They're so well established that there are industry guidelines, ASHRAE 62.1 and 62.2: * https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standards-62-1-62-2 https://www.ashrae.org/technical-resources/bookstore/standar... Pull/return air from places like bathrooms and kitchens, and supply air to (e.g.) bedrooms, and in between temper the filtered, fresh air you bring in from the outside with an HRV/ERV: * http://www.mnshi.umn.edu/kb/scale/hrverv.html http://www.mnshi.umn.edu/kb/scale/hrverv.html Renovating this into an older building which has less room for equipment could be a challenge though.

goodpoint 5y ago

There are plenty of peer-reviewed papers from reliable sources showing correlation between CO2, VOC, *particulate* and health issues.

kongolongo 5y ago

I agree with your point that this article does use a lot anecdotes and not enough strong evidence to back up the terrifying conclusions it suggests and throws around "may" quite a bit. I will say though, that similar to investigations on microplastics exposure and health impacts, it can be prohibitively difficult to really have "rigorous statistics" or fully control in studies when it's become so ubiquitous in nearly every environment and when the exact types of pollutants people are exposed to can be very hard to quantify. For any of the more complex compounds it will be very hard to discern what aspect of it causes what exact health outcomes. For example, with microplastics its nearly impossible to find any population without exposure to or detectable amounts of microplastics in their bodies, meaning fully controlling for it in the stats is not possible. The types of plastics people are exposed to can also be very difficult to quantify meaningfully as they don't all accumulate in our tissues and as a result it can be difficult to quantity the actual exposures people have to what pollutants, short of some very unethical experiment designs.

abeppu 5y ago
Yes, and maybe we should start doing the science before we make stuff ubiquitous in our environments, rather than trying to figure stuff out after the fact. Leaded gasoline is an example where it took us a long time to understand the effects, and we'll never really be able to quantify the damage caused. And the data you get later from phasing something out at a systemic level gives you only a kind of crude single crossover result, with lots of potential confounding variables. Why did crime in the US decrease in the 90s? We can't be sure. I'm not saying microplastics are like lead of course. Just that in some cases, we're pretty sure we've caused a lot of damage by filling our environment without sufficient advance consideration.
- kongolongo 5y ago
  Yeah it's a really tough problem with no clear answers. Microplastics and other pollutants with potential long-acting health impacts are very hard to predict far in advance. Strong evidence for or against any adverse health effects would take considerable effort to gather while in the mean time they offers such clear advantages and solve so many problems. Plastics have massively reduced costs in almost every industry and have become almost irreplaceable in some applications such as medical equipment (think packaging for syringes, surgical tools, or anything that requires contamination control). With lead there were viable cost-effective alternatives, it wasn't in nearly every product we consume, and we already had pretty clear evidence that its highly toxic so the only evidence needed was to show that the low levels being used in gasoline, while not acutely toxic, could be harmful given enough exposure to it over time. I doubt anyone working on plastics early on anticipated microplastics would end up in nearly all of our food, living spaces, and even build up in our bodies. By the time there would be any alarm bells sounding, it would've been too late, the sheer number and ways it solves problems makes it far too difficult to retreat from when, due to the nature of how its potential effects could arise, wouldn't give any strong evidence that its harmful. Outside of plastics many air pollutants are similar in that manner. The processes that release them are so convenient and solve so many problems, while any health effects would be long-term and extremely difficult to gather strong evidence for.

dbsmith83 5y ago

I agree, there is a lot of already well-established knowledge on the topic. I'd also argue though that a lot of ordinary people probably don't know much about the importance of air quality in the home. I never thought about it until I had a house. I suspected something in it was making me a little ill and so I looked into it and bought an air quality testing device. The illness went away so I don't think it was sick building syndrome (unless me using all the water outlets in the house again helped make it go away), but I did find that in my basement, CO2 tends to build up quite a bit. I never knew that this was something that could happen, and that I should open the windows once in a while. So maybe articles like this might raise awareness?

jimmaswell 5y ago

I lived with some roommates for a year in a big house covered in carpet and we never vacuumed, not once. One of them allegedly had asthma too. We were all fine and I couldn't tell the difference between that place and a vacuumed place. It validated my lifelong supposition that vacuuming is truly a waste of time, a bizarre cultural neurosis we would all be better off without.

ericwood 5y ago
I can assure you, as an allergy sufferer, that vacuuming makes a huge difference in my well-being. Dust and pollen build up and make me miserable. Carpet is tougher to clean, and we're having wood floors installed in part to make cleaning easier.
- jimmaswell 5y ago
  Maybe it's useful for people with allergies, but I'm not convinced it matters for people with no allergies or severe asthma or anything.

blacksmith_tb 5y ago

There are studies on AQ and classroom performance[1][2] that seem to arrive at similar conclusions. Obviously there can be conflicts of interest if the backers manufacture air filters, but I don't see any disclaimers on those, at least. 1: https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai20-188 https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai20-188 2: https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-relationships-between-classroom-air-quality-and-childrens-per https://pennstate.pure.elsevier.com/en/publications/the-rela...

koheripbal 5y ago
Using an home air sensor in my home office, I've become keenly aware of CO2 levels during the day... Despite having a sizeable HVAC system, the absolute best way to reduce CO2 is to open the windows - which I now do when I wake up each morning. Here is a visualization of the impact of opening doors/windows in the morning: https://i.imgur.com/4Ac8QHP.png https://i.imgur.com/4Ac8QHP.png As my family of 5 wakes up, the CO2 comes down with them as their bedroom doors open (CO2 is heavier than air), and the CO2 level spikes downstairs - and can take a couple hours after opening the windows and doors to get down to the outside baseline CO2 level of about 420 ppm. Here is a visualization where I did not open the windows right away, and had to close again due to the heat: https://i.imgur.com/1alDAfB.png https://i.imgur.com/1alDAfB.png On summer days, my servers don't love the heat and humidity of outside air, otherwise I've learned to keep the windows open all day. I do seem to notice a difference in how I feel if the level goes over 1000ppm, but that's really hard to quantify. Adding plants has not had a noticeable effect.
- blacksmith_tb 5y ago
  Yes, unfortunately houseplants don't do much for air quality[1]. But they do look nice, and they can be satisfying to take care of (unless you kill them, that is). 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-019-0175-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-019-0175-9

maceurt 5y ago

> already well-established negative effects of high CO2 or VOC concentrations on us I don't know about this. Research is mixed and the US military has tested supposed mental impairment at higher levels of CO2 in sailors inside submarines and found nothing suggesting CO2 levels can effect noticeable cognitive performance.