3 ms·

I mean, yes, toxins in the air are worse than non-toxins in the air. I don't think anyone will really debate that. The banal answer to your question is you me

by taeric 2y ago

I mean, yes, toxins in the air are worse than non-toxins in the air. I don't think anyone will really debate that. The banal answer to your question is you measure what is easy to measure. And it is easier to build a device that can measure size of particles than one that can enumerate all of the types. Especially since you will take the same actions regardless? Put up a filter and run it.

hollerith 2y ago
>Put up a filter and run it. It's not that simple because any filtration media that will filter out, e.g., diesel exhaust or pollen will lyse the bacteria that are always floating in the air, thereby adding to the air that leaves the filtration device the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) toxin that without the action of the filtration device would remain relatively-safely inside the bacterium. Yes, even without any air purifiers, you will absorb some LPS toxin from the bacteria in the air you breath, but running an air purifier approximately doubles the dose. I claim to be able to tell the difference in that when I'm in a small room with an air purifier running at high fan speed, I am much more likely to feel a certain kind of non-severe, but not-good headache-like feeling. I.e., you don't want to run an air purifier that removes very small particles from the air when you don't need to -- at least if you are as sensitive to LPS as I am. And you don't want the fan speed of the purifier's being higher than necessary.
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  I'm gonna need a source on that, as the only relevant thing that comes up on a search for "lipopolysaccharide toxin air filter" is a single study [0] that tested a single air purifier (whose filter had not been changed in a year) in a single room. It includes the telling phrase: "The conclusions here, however, should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size here." [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202031833X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
  - hollerith 2y ago
    >I'm gonna need a source on that Sadly, I was unable to find a link to the study I got my info from after searching my notes for about 7 minutes.
- taeric 2y ago
  It can be more complicated, yes. I assert that it usually isn't. You don't spend time worrying as much about what the contaminants are, you just drive them to zero. I grant the point that you don't want to just stir up the air. Which is why you don't just run a fan, necessarily.

by taeric 2y ago

hollerith 2y ago

>Put up a filter and run it. It's not that simple because any filtration media that will filter out, e.g., diesel exhaust or pollen will lyse the bacteria that are always floating in the air, thereby adding to the air that leaves the filtration device the lipopolysaccharide (LPS) toxin that without the action of the filtration device would remain relatively-safely inside the bacterium. Yes, even without any air purifiers, you will absorb some LPS toxin from the bacteria in the air you breath, but running an air purifier approximately doubles the dose. I claim to be able to tell the difference in that when I'm in a small room with an air purifier running at high fan speed, I am much more likely to feel a certain kind of non-severe, but not-good headache-like feeling. I.e., you don't want to run an air purifier that removes very small particles from the air when you don't need to -- at least if you are as sensitive to LPS as I am. And you don't want the fan speed of the purifier's being higher than necessary.

InitialLastName 2y ago
I'm gonna need a source on that, as the only relevant thing that comes up on a search for "lipopolysaccharide toxin air filter" is a single study [0] that tested a single air purifier (whose filter had not been changed in a year) in a single room. It includes the telling phrase: "The conclusions here, however, should be interpreted cautiously due to the small sample size here." [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202031833X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016041202...
- hollerith 2y ago
  >I'm gonna need a source on that Sadly, I was unable to find a link to the study I got my info from after searching my notes for about 7 minutes.
taeric 2y ago
It can be more complicated, yes. I assert that it usually isn't. You don't spend time worrying as much about what the contaminants are, you just drive them to zero. I grant the point that you don't want to just stir up the air. Which is why you don't just run a fan, necessarily.