3 ms·
> You seem to have relatively clean air already. I probably wouldn't even bother with air purifiers in such a situation. By my estimates, a lifelong exposure t
by dynm 5y ago
> You seem to have relatively clean air already. I probably wouldn't even bother with air purifiers in such a situation.
By my estimates, a lifelong exposure to 33 µg/m³ rather than 0 µg/m³ would on average result in a loss of around 1 disability adjusted life year.
https://dynomight.net/air/#a-heuristic-to-quantify-harms https://dynomight.net/air/#a-heuristic-to-quantify-harms
Obviously this is very hard to estimate and you shouldn't trust this as anything more than at most a rough order of magnitude estimate. But it does suggest that the ambient levels they are experiencing are worth reducing if you can do it easily.
- fighterpilot 5y agoMight those numbers might be exaggerated a bit due to confounders? Specifically, the high density and traffic causing stress.
- dynm 5y agoIt's entirely possible! But my perspective is that there's a very one-sided risk. It's extremely unlikely that particles are beneficial. Thus, given the uncertainty I think it's good decision theory to run a purifier, especially given how easy it is relative to other lifestyle changes that could plausibly have a benefit of the same magnitude.
- emn13 5y agoRunning a purifier does cause noise however, which isn't healthy; assuming your purifier is close by. (No idea at what point those two effects are of similar impact.)