4 ms·

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9851491/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9851491/ There is no safe level of air pollution. If you haven’t inv

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9851491/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9851491/ There is no safe level of air pollution. If you haven’t invested in a home air filtration system then you might want to consider it.

schiffern 7mo ago
Even with no permanent install there are lots of good options out there, especially the new PC fan air purifiers. If you're just starting out check out HouseFresh for their excellent air purifier reviews.[0] If you don't mind a slightly nerdy appearance and just want the "Engineer's Filter," Airfanta has a PC fan cube with a good cost-performance ratio. Tl;dr coverage per device is 300-400 square feet = 28-37 square meters or one room, whichever is smaller. Just run it 24/7 on 50-70% depending on noise comfort. Power draw is 9 watts. That's sized based on ASHRAE's 5 air changes per hour guideline, which is intended to quickly filter pollution as it leaks through cracks in a building. Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1] [0] https://housefresh.com/best-air-purifiers-we-tested/ https://housefresh.com/best-air-purifiers-we-tested/ [1] https://dynomight.net/air/ https://dynomight.net/air/
- resoluteteeth 7mo ago
  > Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1] While I think that the things the person lists on that site are good precautions (although I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers), I think that saying that doing these things is "is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health" is too strong, because while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.
  - schiffern 7mo ago
    >I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers That's a common misconception. They still atomize bacteria from the tank because nobody ever cleans & sterilizes their dehumidifier tank often enough. Distilled water users still report high indoor particle counts when it runs, which is how you know it's an ineffective prevention. The cost of distilled water every year (even making it at home) means ultrasonic humidifiers are the most expensive option too. Just use an evaporative pad humidifier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHeehYYgl28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHeehYYgl28 >while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health. Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health. This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
    - resoluteteeth 7mo ago
      > Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health. > This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane." A proposed intervention like air purifiers that have no direct evidence but are plausible because they reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes is the opposite of something like parachutes that we directly know work. This is a completely bizarre comparison and it's like saying that skepticism of an Alzheimer's drug targeting amyloid plaques is like doubting parachutes work because we know that amyloid plaques are correlated with Alzheimer's.
      - schiffern 7mo ago
        > reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes Are you suggesting the link isn't causal? Because your argument only makes sense if you think air pollution particles aren't actually the cause of lung damage, which is the opposite of the scientific consensus. The fact that you have to bring up amyloid plaques is especially a red flag, since this is famously a rare example of the failure of scientific consensus.

schiffern 7mo ago

Even with no permanent install there are lots of good options out there, especially the new PC fan air purifiers. If you're just starting out check out HouseFresh for their excellent air purifier reviews.[0] If you don't mind a slightly nerdy appearance and just want the "Engineer's Filter," Airfanta has a PC fan cube with a good cost-performance ratio. Tl;dr coverage per device is 300-400 square feet = 28-37 square meters or one room, whichever is smaller. Just run it 24/7 on 50-70% depending on noise comfort. Power draw is 9 watts. That's sized based on ASHRAE's 5 air changes per hour guideline, which is intended to quickly filter pollution as it leaks through cracks in a building. Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1] [0] https://housefresh.com/best-air-purifiers-we-tested/ https://housefresh.com/best-air-purifiers-we-tested/ [1] https://dynomight.net/air/ https://dynomight.net/air/

resoluteteeth 7mo ago
> Better air quality is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health.[1] While I think that the things the person lists on that site are good precautions (although I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers), I think that saying that doing these things is "is one of the best (and cheapest) ways to improve overall health" is too strong, because while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health.
- schiffern 7mo ago
  >I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers That's a common misconception. They still atomize bacteria from the tank because nobody ever cleans & sterilizes their dehumidifier tank often enough. Distilled water users still report high indoor particle counts when it runs, which is how you know it's an ineffective prevention. The cost of distilled water every year (even making it at home) means ultrasonic humidifiers are the most expensive option too. Just use an evaporative pad humidifier. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHeehYYgl28 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHeehYYgl28 >while there are lots of studies showing population level correlations between pm2.5 particles and health problems, I don't think there is currently evidence specifically showing that things like using air purifiers actually improve health. Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health. This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
  - resoluteteeth 7mo ago
    > Air purifiers reduce PM2.5 concentration, so if PM2.5 is bad for health then air purifiers are good for health. > This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane." A proposed intervention like air purifiers that have no direct evidence but are plausible because they reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes is the opposite of something like parachutes that we directly know work. This is a completely bizarre comparison and it's like saying that skepticism of an Alzheimer's drug targeting amyloid plaques is like doubting parachutes work because we know that amyloid plaques are correlated with Alzheimer's.
    - schiffern 7mo ago
      > reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes Are you suggesting the link isn't causal? Because your argument only makes sense if you think air pollution particles aren't actually the cause of lung damage, which is the opposite of the scientific consensus. The fact that you have to bring up amyloid plaques is especially a red flag, since this is famously a rare example of the failure of scientific consensus.