Hacker News Reader

Comment by sokoloff | Hacker News Reader

I’d argue the other three at least have highly functional qualities and are likely the best functioning alternatives (on at least some dimensions) at the time of introduction in a way/to a degree that air fresheners are not.

A pot on the stove with lemon, vanilla, or cinnamon or some actual flowers/pine seem to be perfectly reasonable substitutes for the air fresheners.

View on HN

As long as the stove isn't a gas stove, since that's probably another one we can add to the list of things that we'll likely look back on with regret :)

While I agree that gas stoves put out more VOCs than most people would imagine, the fact that humans have been cooking inside on either wood or gas stoves for many hundreds of years, gives testament to the idea that it can’t really be /that/ detrimental to human health. Sure it would be better without them, but I’d imagine that the health gains would be marginal at best.

Its the compounding of toxins... just 80 years ago before air conditioners most people had the windows open and with so many people working inside all day... most homes are toxic. Open your windows people - get some fresh air (hopefully where you live).

The counter argument to this is that there are so many health conditions that are getting increasingly bad which we have no explanation for since so many things changed at the same time.

Wood smoke is actually pretty bad for your lungs. It's a known carcinogen, although not quite as bad as coal:

https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/40/5/1228

> the fact that humans have been cooking inside on either wood or gas stoves for many hundreds of years

Cooking inside using wood kills a lot of people each year.

https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/household-a...

> Around 3 billion people cook using polluting open fires or simple stoves fuelled by kerosene, biomass (wood, animal dung and crop waste) and coal.

> Each year, close to 4 million people die prematurely from illness attributable to household air pollution from inefficient cooking practices using polluting stoves paired with solid fuels and kerosene.

> Household air pollution causes noncommunicable diseases including stroke, ischaemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and lung cancer.

> Close to half of deaths due to pneumonia among children under 5 years of age are caused by particulate matter (soot) inhaled from household air pollution.

I wouldn't be surprised if chronic inhalation of natural lemon or pine scent were unhealthy too. Limonene can cause skin irritation for example. Plants generally evolved essential oils to avoid being eaten, it kind of makes sense that inhaling them might be unhealthy.

Agreed. Asbestos is a wonder material that the world is unironically worse-off without. To be fair, putting it in brake pads which get worn down into dust probably wasn't a great idea...

I'm curious what you feel is a good use for asbestos?

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that it may or may not be in any house I own is a huge problem. It makes renovation and remodeling a huge liability.

In the US, it should not be in any newer house since the 1990s or even the 1980s.

http://asbestosremovalnow.com/asbestos-banning-timeline/

Its thermal insulation/fireproofing properties are incredible, it's basically a material out of science fiction.

A few years ago I acquired a pair of asbestos gloves at a flea market. They are absolutely mind blowing. I have held glowing red-hot pieces of metal for upwards of a minute at a time with my hands only feeling mildly warm. You might be able to do this with certain welding gloves, but they would be thick like oven mitts, leaving you with basically no dexterity. These asbestos gloves are no thicker than ordinary leather work gloves, are lightweight and permit your full range of motion. As an experiment to see how far I could push them, I poured a bit of molten lead over them (my hand was not inside this time) and it just beaded up and wicked off, like water does on a waxy or oily surface. If my hand was inside, I'm sure it would have been fine. I'd even go so far as to say that you'd probably be fine if you submerged your hand in molten metal, since the pores in the woven asbestos are so small that the metal would probably be prevented from seeping in by its surface tension.

All that said, they probably do release microscopic fibers into the air, so I wear an N95 when using them and store them in a sealed ziploc bag.

edit:

check this out too https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuwUXGyWlHQ

You should wear an N100 when you wear your gloves. Asbestos fibres can easily bypass an N95.

https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/environment/asbes...

I think it depends on the level of fibre release you expect. I don't think the issue is that the fibres bypass an N95 mask, but that if there are many fibres in the air you want to filter out a much higher proportion than 95%.

In the UK for non-licensed work (removing things like asbestos floor tiles which have low levels of asbestos that are bound in another substrate) you only need to wear the equivalent of an N95 mask.

Noted, thanks! Is there any relevant difference between N100 and P100? I think my local hardware store has P100 filters in stock

P = prevents oil penetration

N = doesn't prevent oil penetration

100 = 99.97% effective against pm2.5 infiltration (the hardest size to filter)

I'd like to see a chemical lab without asbestos.

When used by professionals, it's an incredible heat shield.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com