3 ms·
The decrease in particles with the smoking ban doesn't prove or disprove what I'm asserting, which is that (a) bleed air into the cabin was reduced and (b) filt
by noduerme 4y ago
The decrease in particles with the smoking ban doesn't prove or disprove what I'm asserting, which is that (a) bleed air into the cabin was reduced and (b) filters were replaced less often, after the tobacco ban. In fact, what I'm saying is that the airlines leveraged the tobacco ban and commensurate reduction in measurable PM(2.5) as a legal excuse to reduce filtration of air five-fold, resulting in much higher levels of viral particles recirculating.
- scrollaway 4y agoReplacing filters that aren’t near end of life doesn’t result in higher air quality, any more than me replacing my pasta strainer more often would result in better pasta.
- liamYC 4y agoAs a non smoker, I’d much rather breathe on a plane today than potentially next to someone smoking. How do you know if the reduction in filters / bleed air causes more people to get sick? Filters would naturally require less replacement since they don’t have to take away as many toxins. Couldn’t that allow filters to free up more viral particles?