Hacker News Reader

Comment by mensetmanusman | Hacker News Reader

I’ve been harping on this since learning covid was aerosol based early 2020.

I like to tell new parents a trick that worked well for us: use a nice filter-based air purifier for white noise. It has deep bass, and it keeps the air near the child extremely clean. We have been doing this for our kids for almost 10 years now since birth.

A fun experiment for kids: if you have a laser pointer, shine it close to the ground indoors and kick up dust near the floor. If you see any light in the air, that is all stuff you are breathing in (works really well on carpet)…

Air quality associated with:

Alzheimers: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-new-alzheimer...

Cancers, plural: https://www.aacr.org/patients-caregivers/progress-against-ca...

Sperm Quality: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4443398/#sec995...

Female Fertility: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2207560-exposure-to-air...

Autism: https://www.sciencealert.com/particulate-matter-in-air-pollu...

Bipolar/Depression: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/article/air-p...

View on HN

I'm all for cleaner air (especially reducing dangerous gases and pollutants), but at what point does the over-sterilization of our environment (specifically with regard to microbes) do more harm than good? People in my family suffer from various allergies, and many suspect there may be at least some link to not being exposed to enough allergens at an early age (father was a surgeon and our home was always clean – nearly to the level of an O.R.).

It’s not just about the #’s. There is a huge difference between indoor air composition (which humans haven’t evolved for millions of years to account for) and outdoor air composition for the same, say, PM2.5 metric. E.g. indoor air might be mostly dead skin and dust mites, outdoor air might be mostly burned ash and bacteria, etc.

Unfortunately, the fact is that most people are now spending something like 20 hours a day inside… there is no easy answer. I sometimes wonder how much the sterilization hypothesis is wrapped up in the effect of prolonged indoor air exposure.

This is why I feel a run or bike ride outside is worth far more than the same amount of time indoors in a gym. Combined with a bit of weight lifting (which you can do at home), it's a pretty good total body workout.

I am happy many folks around where I live started to go out for their exercise during COVID but I hope they keep that outdoor habit after the pandemic is over.

If you can take your bike ride where there isn’t much traffic and more nature by any means it’d probably be not only better for your body but also for your mind. A lot of us are spending way too much time indoors and should take any ocasion to be outdoors

I switched from biking to work to riding a spin bike after the pandemic lockdowns, and since I'm no longer riding on roads with traffic, I've probably increased my life expectancy since I'm not going to get hit by a car in my livingroom.

I usually ride my bike around 5:30-7am when traffic usually isn't a concern. I also choose routes that are also low-traffic but still rewarding (decent climb and scenery).

If you look at statistics there are more fatal crashes between 4am and 8am than between the 4 hours after. [1] I looked it up, because I would've thought the missing light during night and dawn times and the more sleepy drivers probably offset any safety gains from less traffic on the roads. It's also much easier to speed with less traffic.

That sleepyness is a factor in car crashes can also be observed with increased rates shortly after winter/summer time changes.

[1] https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/overview/crashes-b...

True, but I think the parent comment was referring to less congestion. When it comes to bicycling, I always feel that it's my responsibility as a rider to look out for my own safety. Always regard all and any cars as being driven at 4AM by a drunk driver - regardless of time of day. In the middle of the day that means keeping track of multiple vehicles in different directions relative to my path.

During low traffic, there may be one vehicle to keep track of, and few pedestrians or other bikes.

That safe environment is quickly turned into an enabler for more aggressive and careless riding though. For fun and for getting from A to B faster.

Interesting - the data you shared isn't bicycle related, just all motor vehicle crashes.

It might be more interesting to look at bicycle fatalities than fatal car crashes [1]. Looking at the time-of-day distribution, fully 50% of such fatalities happen between 3pm-midnight. 6-9am is a higher risk slot (12%), but I'd probably avoid biking during 8-9am regardless.

[1] https://www.iihs.org/topics/fatality-statistics/detail/bicyc...

I usually do the same thing, but most of my route is on a local shared use path. Getting out there before most of the joggers is just so much more relaxing.

The particulate matter that I worry about isn't microbes, it's all the crap that we're creating and putting into our environment with things like power generation and vehicles, which makes up the majority of the small particulate matter.

Sorry for the crappy source, but I'm short on time right now to find you a better one: https://laqm.defra.gov.uk/public-health/pm25.html

Radon buildup is also a potential concern if you have your house sealed up. Opening the windows is the best way to clear it, but activated carbon filters should capture it.

Just make sure you're masked when you clean or replace any of the filters.

For radon, we installed a suction fan inside our house that sucks air from under the house. That lowers the pressure under the house, and radon doesn't seep in. It made the measurements go from ~120bq to 20bq.

> Radon buildup is also a potential concern

Citation needed?

As far as I am aware unless you are building deep underground or have built your house on radon rich bedrock, or your house is entirely made of granite, this is absolutely not a concern for the average person.

If you are in doubt you can look up what is the expected radon exposure on the ground region where you live. Most people will have a higher radiation exposure from an arm x-ray than from ground leaking Radon.

It's location dependent, but more people live with radon seeping up from the ground than you would think. Some countries now have building codes that demand the foundation gets sealed to prevent it.

in the UK there are many areas that Radon can be an issue

from: https://www.ukradon.org/information/ukmaps

"Every building contains radon but the levels are usually low. The chances of a higher level depend on the type of ground. Public Health England has published a map showing where high levels are more likely."

getting a sensor at a reasonable price is tricky since Radon emits Alpha radiation - I managed to get one at around £300

It's not that much of a concern, but mostly because tests are widely available. Test your basement for radon, and only worry about it if the levels are high.

Radon is an alpha emitter which gets into your lungs, so that comparison to an arm x-ray isn't entirely fair. Otherwise I agree, it shouldn't be a concern unless you live in the first floor on granite.

Alpha particles penetrate barely any at all. An arm x-ray would also hit you with particles that hit more (and more valuable) cells in your body.

It's right they don't penetrate. However, the lungs is one place they don't need to penetrate, they get direct access to some very valuable (to us) cells in our bodies, which are especially vulnerable to cancer, and do grave damage to them. From 10 to 1000 times more damage than equivalent energy gamma or beta radiation, according to Wikipedia. Radon as a health problem isn't some crank thing.

My gut feeling tells me activated carbon is not enough but you need HEPA.

Many purifiers contain a carbon and HEPA filter.

The composition of airborne particles depends highly on what size you're measuring. The stuff you see when you kick the carpet is the "big" stuff like cotton breaking down.

Two categories, VOC and particles, I don't worry about eliminating from the home.

I aspire to have zero particulates in my home air, it takes some doing. Much of the particles are of human/industrial origin anyway. Exhaust and tire particulate and various broken down human built materials. (and an overabundance of human pieces that fall off and collect in ways that wouldn't happen outside)

I also aspire to have a low CO2 PPM inside, this conflicts with the previous (i.e. it is difficult without intense forced air exchange with the outside to achieve CO2 levels less than twice outside levels.

But to the contrary, I do not use disinfectants ever except in very specific circumstances. I go out of my way to not buy products which make disinfectant claims.

I think human beings need to be out in nature, to regularly come into contact with living soil. Not just "nature" of curated footpaths and manicured, fertilized lawns and parks, but actually getting dirty outside where other organisms live. It's hard to do in cities, and growing up on a farm it still seems absurd to me that I have to aspire and do great organizing to find myself somewhere in a city where I am not standing on a surface that has been engineered by people. The closest I can get is usually the strips of grass along the sidewalks that act as nothing but dog toilets. (I love dogs, but city dogs offend me. They're animals, they want to be outside and not just tethered to you or for the occasional adventure to a park)

An somewhat gross anecdote:

Several weeks ago I got a cut on my foot from some shattered glass that developed into an odd looking infection with red stripes/blotches that I was on the edge of scheduling an appointment for a doctor. I happened to visit a local lake and dipped my toes in for a bit. The next day I was amazed, the redness which had been growing in intensity for a couple of weeks was just completely gone. Maybe it was a coincidence but I strongly believe that whatever was having a grand ol time eating my foot seems to have made a tasty meal for whatever cocktail of microorganisms were hanging out in that lake (I assume it was a fungal infection which was outcompeted by a restored microbiome seeded from the lake)

Particulates seem to be the easiest to remove -- much easier than VOC's and other gases.

My new furnace has a MERV 11 filter that I've been playing around with in recent days as we've had AQI close to 100.

I have an air quality monitor (that measures PM1, PM2.5 and PM10) in the house, within about 20 minutes of turning on the furnace blower, AQI of 70 inside the house drops down to less than 10, and 20 minutes after that, it's down in the low single digits.

I have a MERV 13 filter that I could put in the furnace, but I'm not sure I need it since the MERV 11 seems to handle it.

Yeah I lived maybe 100 meters from a busy road so I bought an air cleaner out of concern, but also got an Arduino with a serial device monitoring PM 2.5. PM 2.5 was always low teens or single digits, until I blew out a match next to the device and it went to 100s but dipped very quickly, so I think particulates aren't the biggest concern in most houses, unless maybe they spend all day with the windows open.

How do you know your measurements are accurate?

I tested my indoor sensor (Davis Airlink) by comparing to others in my neighborhood -- I set it up outside on the first bad air quality day we had and an hour later it was with 5 AQI points of the 4 PurpleAir sensors within a quarter mile.

Certainly not professional level calibration, but shows that it's within the ballpark. Unfortunately I don't think there's an official EPA monitoring station within 10 miles so I can't really check it against a calibrated monitor.

Aside from trying to buy a commonly used reliable device, that what the match test was for. When my device was reading 12ppm pm2.5 and a blown out match made it read in the 100s clearly the device is working to some degree of accuracy. I could've checked it outside I guess but I think local air conditions would predominate over any official city average I could have compared it against.

Could have been bacteriophages? https://www.statnews.com/2016/12/07/virus-bacteria-phage-the...

I actually assume it was a fungal infection which was attacked by bacteria.

You could try growing some plants of your choice and that'll increase your involvement with mud and soil and nature etc. It's also kinda therapeutic.

To a degree, but a lot of potting soil is sterilized so the "life" you're interacting with is pretty incomplete.

Air pollution is probably one factor in the development of allergies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3192198/

Playing in mud and with animals is probably beneficial, but unclean air isn’t.

Unclean air is as vague a term as any.

The link he references does a pretty good job establishing what he meant by the phrase "unclean air."

Studies have shown reduced rates of asthma in children who grow up on farms, which I suspect supports your concerns [0].

A damp and mouldy environment is clearly not good, but I wouldn't want my home to be a sterile environment whichlimited opportunity to build immunity.

[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1069066/

I grew up on a farm with a lot of animals around, and spent a ton of time in the woods until I was 18. I have terrible allergies and asthma, so farm life was pretty awful. YMMV

No, it almost certainly does not. There are lots of reasons why farmers would have less asthma, one being the fact that there is a correlation with asthma and ASD, a correlation with ASD and intellectual excellence and therefore a potential reason why you don’t find many farmers with asthma or other disorders on the autoimmune spectrum. This study is a heuristic at best. Kill epidemiology with a rusty pocket knife.

This is a legitimate concern. What we do is monitor the outdoor air quality, open the windows when it's good, close them when it's bad, and skip the air filters inside unless indoor air quality is measured to be bad. Which only happens during wildfires as our house is modern and pretty well sealed.

Once our children are past the age of 10 or so we will probably go back to running air filters all the time. But the early years are crucial for immune system development and lack of exposure to the natural environment in early years is likely to be one of the biggest reasons for the rise in allergic diseases.

Oh, and stop using gas appliances indoors.

>Oh, and stop using gas appliances indoors.

If you get a particle meter you quickly learn that the biggest source of particulate isn't gas but cooking (and especially lightly burning) food. The slightest smell of smoke means your home is going to be like (insert terrible air quality city) for a few minutes to a few hours depending on filtration.

One of the worst sources of this is the fact that so few places have real vent fans above cooking surfaces (the sucking through the microwave business does essentially nothing).

Combustion products from gas stoves are specifically implicated in asthma. Children in houses with gas stoves have asthma at higher rates and the effect is not small. People with electric stoves cook too, but their children get less asthma.

I guess what I have is personal experience measuring things.

Maybe people with gas stoves burn their food more because of the higher potential heat?

Perhaps the higher heat has something to do with it. I still suspect that not all particulates are made equal, so even though burning food makes more PM2.5, perhaps the particulates from the gas combustion are worse for us in some way.

Still, I try to avoid any of it! I have an induction stove, but now do things like skin-on salmon in the air fryer because it produces basically no smoke, whereas it used to smoke my house out when I did it on the frypan. Requires a lot less supervision than to stop it burning in the pan too, which is nice (but perhaps I was always just doing it on too hot a pan)...

If your gas is burning yellow, it is producing soot. If it is burning blue, it is producing very little soot. (the yellow you see is actually hot particles of soot glowing, but at a much lower temperature than the gaseous fuel-air mixture which glows blue. Gas flames can just get pans quite a lot hotter than electric or induction, generally.

>Gas flames can just get pans quite a lot hotter than electric or induction, generally.

This claim doesn't really pass the smell test for me. My induction burner gets plenty hot really fast, much warmer than I could ever practically use while cooking, even. After a quick search I was not able to find any data supporting the claim either - the only data I was able to find seemed to support induction peaking out at significantly higher temperatures than gas.

Do you have any data on gas vs induction- max temperatures?

The gas flame is as big as your burner is, there is a lot of variation there that has to do with the physical characteristics of the burner and gas line pressure.

An induction burner will be limited to about 1.5 kW if it's a portable unit and maybe 2.5 kW on a built-in range.

A gas range will usually have a high rating of 15-20,000 BTU/h which works out to ~4.5-6 kW.

But thermal transfer efficiency is different, they both depend on the size of the pan, the material, shape, etc.

Stick a needle into a 3000F flame and it will be red hot in a second. A thin smallish pan can get super hot. You can't just have a "max temp" rating. However induction ranges will have some thermal protection for their insides.

If you spill something, the flames will also burn what you spilled.

I have both gas and induction. I don't think it makes sense to cook higher than 250C, because all oils will burn at that temp. And the induction works surprisingly well in this conditions, subjectively seems to be even better than gas (faster heating, better heat uniformity), did not expect that.

Source?

It depends... some microwaves are a) connected to an actual vent and b) have decent suction.

However, they cost a sizeable chunk more than the cheap shit you find in rentals. (In SV, that cheap shit is looking spiffy, but it's still cheap shit. If it says Frigidaire, you know it's not exactly high end)

I guess I have never encountered a microwave that was actually vented outside. Even so, a real hood would be much preferable.

This is my only dealbreaker in rentals. I will happily pay more for a unit with a real exhaust fan. Its crazy that we expect them in bathrooms but don’t expect them in kitchens. Health concerns aside, who wants their whole house to smell like fish for hours after cooking.

Mould will damage a house, cooking fumes will only damage the temporary residents. Smells go away by the time someone else moves in.

FWIW I think every place I've lived in Australia has had a vented rangehood over the stove, but maybe that is just blind luck.

Yep - but it's a space question. (I live in a house from the '40s, I have no idea if people back then were somehow 30% smaller or something, but having a full hood and a microwave is just a fantasy given the available space. One day..)

People were slightly smaller in the '40s, but the main difference is that they had a lot less stuff. Compared to the purchasing power, furniture was more expensive and a vast majority of today's appliances did not exist at all.

A typical kitchen had a stove and either an old-fashioned icebox or a fridge, and that was it.

I noticed some toilets in older houses in the bay area were comically small for me at 6'2" and I as I rule couldn't see my face in mirrors standing up (they were mounted so the tops were about at shoulder level. People from different places around the world are also different sizes (a lot of this has to do with multi-generational semi-inherited nutrition availability)

> our house is modern and pretty well sealed

Sounds like you will have excessive CO2 problem. Have you measured that?

> at what point does the over-sterilization of our environment (specifically with regard to microbes) do more harm than good?

This is a valid concern, here is a relevant peer-reviewed paper that models the impacts that interventions such as lock-downs, masking, and excessive sanitization may have in the context of the ongoing pandemic [1].

Quotes from [1]:

> Nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) have been employed to reduce the transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), yet these measures are already having similar effects on other directly transmitted, endemic diseases.

> we consider the implications of SARS-CoV-2 NPIs for two endemic infections circulating in the United States of America: respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and seasonal influenza

> Using laboratory surveillance data from 2020, we estimate that RSV transmission declined by at least 20% in the United States at the start of the NPI period.

> We simulate future trajectories of both RSV and influenza, using an epidemic model. As susceptibility increases over the NPI period, we find that substantial outbreaks of RSV may occur in future years, with peak outbreaks likely occurring in the winter of 2021–2022.

> Longer NPIs, in general, lead to larger future outbreaks although they may display complex interactions with baseline seasonality

The most important takeaway from this paper is that it will be critical to prepare for this phenomenon to prevent the over-utilization of healthcare facilities across the globe. Personally I don't see how anyone could argue for longer and more intense NPIs if we begin to see this play out.

[1] The impact of COVID-19 nonpharmaceutical interventions on the future dynamics of endemic infections https://www.pnas.org/content/117/48/30547

I'd say: look at what they're allergic to and check in with anti-nutrients.

Sometimes ppl are not just allergic to gluten, but the whole category of lectin(which is in every seed), they just don't react as strongly, but they're never really healthy and suffer from all kinds of ailments.

the primary reason I disagree with this is because I didn't have allergies and I grew up with that theory, my immediate circle would criticize allergy prone people as being weak and coddled too hard, not allowed to be exposed to things

and then I travelled to another country with different kinds of pollen in the air and I wound up suffering from allergies there, how humiliating! so I thought, but really just humbling

looking up how to remedy it I found that one accepted train of thought now is that people are prone to develop allergies at any age, let alone being exposed to things different than where you grew up

so I would nip the over-sterilization argument right there. keep indoors clean, go outside.

Shouldn't your experience make you believe more in the over-sterilization argument?

When you traveled you got into contact with allergens that your body hadn't encountered before. If you had been in contact with those allergens when growing up then perhaps you wouldn't have had an allergic reaction?

>I found that one accepted train of thought now is that people are prone to develop allergies at any age

If you've never had soy before then how could you know whether you have a soy allergy or not?

I'm not trying to convince you either way. Just some holes in the argument.

I'm allergic to grass pollen myself. I have no idea how that squares with the argument, because I certainly never shied away from grass in the summer. But it's a fairly weak allergy.

You can develop allergies to things you had been exposed to early in your life. That's not a hole, if I didn't make that clear that's what I also meant, in addition to new allergens.

Put in other terms, your body can overreact any time for any reason causing inflammation.

Is there any evidence that the "clean environment causes allergies" story isn't just explained by "common cleaning products cause allergies"?

From what I've understood on the subject is that it's not super-well understood yet, with the common advice early on having been to avoid exposure to common allergens for young children (because potential anaphylactic shock being a bad thing), until it was observed that children i Israel generally showing a lot lower rates of peanut allergies, and that very young children in Israel are exposed to peanut-containing snacks early on. At this point, the advice was reversed to that young children should be exposed to potential allergens early on (because developing a life-long allergy from under-exposure to an allergen is worse).

The rest I'm guessing is extrapolation from that - lack of early exposure = negative.

That is how I’ve understood it: residues of bactericides everywhere which become inhaled dust.

Being exposed to allergens at home is the worst.

I grew up with a dog, and never tasted or smelled anything until a few years after the dog died

This is something that I've been told over and over - early exposure to things like dust, pollen, nuts etc basically eliminates allergies when older.

As an example, I was never exposed to cats early age but dogs yes. Now I have a mild reaction to cats hair and nothing with dogs. Of course this isn't a scientific study that can be validated but it does sort of make sense in my mind.

A la antibodies etc.

My wife was exposed to both from an early age and this continued until she was 15. Then she developed a mild allergy to dogs and a stronger allergy to cats (can't be in the same room with one).

Allergies aren't a simple phenomenon.

I strangely had the same experience with hay fever. Never suffered from it then right around 15 it hit me pretty bad. I moved countries 5 years ago and again I no longer have hay fever symptoms so for sure they are not simple.

I've suffered from terrible allergies my entire life. I bought the best air filter I could find and then bought two portable HEPA air filters running the best filters I could find. It's been great. I went months without allergy medicine. A total quality of life improvement.

Love both of these ideas / tips! Any suggestions on specific air filters?

You have to look quite carefully because "HEPA" became branding rather than rating, and you can find it labelled on filter appliances which vary in capture rates by several orders of magnitude.

You want ones with numbers, 99.97% is a good number to find, you can get it on big Honeywell filters.

While incredibly difficult to find, there are MPR 2800 rated furnace filters which are better than HEPA.

Careful though. Those things can destroy your hvac system, which is not designed to deal with a severe restriction like that. Plus, they won’t last long with no pre-filtering at all. Shame to have a great filter like that just clog up with hair and pollen in three weeks.

If you're recirculating the air through the filter many times, the capture rate doesn't really matter. What you don't catch on the first pass you'll catch in the 2nd.

From that point of view, even a 90% catch rate sounds fine.

When you're dealing with a machine that is exchanging air in a room a certain number of times per hour and a continuous influx of particulates, with less efficient filters you need more air exchanges which means more filters, bigger fans, etc.

The takeaway is that less particle efficient filters won't ever get you down to the same steady state as better filters in real world applications.

And from personal experience with filters and devices to measure airborne particles, it is hard enough getting good numbers with the best filters I can find.

If I were you I’d sign up for Consumer reports and buy their second highest rated air filtration product. The most expensive one tends to be really expensive and the second best tends to be almost as good at a significant discount. This is how I make most large purchases these days.

After looking at CR and buying quite a few others I'm pretty solid on alen.com standalone units, altho a central HVAC definitely seems more effective, esp. given that you aren't necessarily recirculating a build-up of CO2 all night long.

I got a cheap tower Holmes from Walmart for not that much (less than $100) and I put 2 99.99% filtration HEPA filters in it and have been running at half speed most of the day for over a year.

I shake out the pre-filter (gets covered in dust and pet dander) and toss out the filters every ~6 months. I use a filtrate 1900 filter for the home air filter.

Tip: never use the "ionic" button. They come on most filters for some bizarre reason, but ionically charging the air is a bad idea.

“ ionically charging the air is a bad idea.”

Why?

Ionic means ozone generation. The idea with charged filtration is that microbic particles are attracted to the filter. However, ozone is a lung irritant.

> Ionic means ozone

No it doesn’t. Who told you that? Ozone generators are a completely different thing and air ionizers must conform to low ozone emission standards.

> > Ionic means ozone

> No it doesn’t.

Yes, it does.

> Who told you that?

Among others, the EPA [0].

> Ozone generators are a completely different thing

They are, but ionizing air cleaners still generate ozone even though they are different than “ozone generators”. [0, again]

> and air ionizers must conform to low ozone emission standards.

No, only the small minority that claim health benefits in a manner which brings them under FDA medical device regulatory authority do. [0, again.] But even those so regulated in ozone emissions are net ozone generators.

[0] https://www.epa.gov/indoor-air-quality-iaq/what-are-ionizers...

Getting a filter that is properly sized for your space and that meets your unique requirements (ACH, efficiency, etc) is likely sufficient.

Here’s an outline on how to go from the common rating, CADR, to various parameters that are of interest:

https://frdmtoplay.com/nagivating-air-purification/

In terms of bang for buck nothing comes remotely close to having a furnace filter strapped to a 20" box fan. This gets you most of the benefits of an expensive filter for a fraction of the price.

People will talk about CADR but also look at TCO.

It’s only a good price for a bit though. Without any kind of pre-filter, large dust will clog that expensive near-hepa filter in a couple months. Plus, an axial fan can’t really move air though a good filter very well.

I still recommend just spending the 150 bucks on a Winex or Coway. Then you have true hepa, plus filters that last a year.

Dyson

Nice list. I live car-free because it seems immoral to contribute to Alzheimers, cancers, fertility problems, autism and mental health issues. Anyone using a car (including electric) for a journey under ten miles needs to really think about the damage they are part of (disabilities excepted, as in all walks of life). If fewer people used cars, public transit would become more sustainable, more and more routes would be added. Fewer people would die.

This is a ludicrous philosophy.

I suppose you also take no part in any activity that has any negative impact?

There is an indirect negative impact of ANY modern lifestyle. The really expensive impact comes from of industrialization and technological advancement.

Clearly you have a device to write this message, as well as power and internet connection. You might use AC or heating, you might rely on supply chains for food. Own any index funds? You own minuscule pieces of companies that produce cars, tobacco, or frack for oil. Your very existence is expensive for the earth and for society. Same applies for your kids if you have any.

Most drivers cannot practically manage walking/biking or public transit as their sole means of travel. Frankly that idea comes from a privileged and niche bubble perspective.

As I become aware of how my decisions affect other people, I do my best to minimize what I can.

The four most impactful lifestyle choices you can make to reduce your effect on climate [1] are:

* have fewer children

* live car-free

* become vegetarian

* avoid transatlantic air travel

I now live car-free and vegan. I've no kids, yet (maybe never). I live in California but I'm from Ireland - I'll probably take a flight home soon.

So no, I don't totally avoid everything that can cause harm, but at least I try.

What is ludicrous is using a car for journeys under ten miles.

It is abhorrently selfish to do so knowing that your pollution contributes to sickness in people.

People should maybe take a pay cut, or live in a smaller home, closer to where they work. But instead they trade the health of others for their own standard of living. ("some of you may die, but that's a price I'm willing to pay")

> Most drivers cannot practically manage walking/biking or public transit as their sole means of travel.

In a large part because of cars. Cars beget cars. Car companies conspired to shut down public transit. Now people in those areas need a car. Then it's held as a example of why we need cars.

Urban sprawl was enabled by cars. Now people need cars to get to those areas.

It's very difficult to find a problem that cars solve that wasn't itself caused by cars.

What is ludicrous is to call how I actually live ludicrous. I enjoy a high standard of living. Without a car.

[1] https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541

Since you refer to Ireland as home I'm reminded of a conversation with a colleague where we were talking about pollution. I suggested flying be restricted to migrants who needed to visit family. My colleague thought that was a great idea. Then I continued that migration should be restricted since it creates demand for air travel. Colleague liked that far less.

Disclosure: my spouse is a migrant and we both fly to visit.

All these things are great except one point in my opinion. I never understood "I won't have any children so I can minimize the effect on the climate". How about "I will have 2 children at max and teach them what I've learned so far but at younger stage? so that they will act responsibly in the future regarding climate issues while living and maybe doing things to lessen the climate change effects in the future?".

In the end, it is your choice with what you want to do. Things you're doing to contribute less like being car-free etc. are good, but I really find this extreme stance of "not having children for climate change" short-sighted.

Edit: typo

> I've no kids, yet (maybe never).

IMO this is short term thinking. What happens to the planet when you are gone? If all the like minded individuals who cared about the climate opt to not have kids, then those who inherit the earth will keep polluting.

Polluting is not some habit that people inherit genetically from their parents.

"The Marching Morons", Cyril M. Kornbluth

So in your mind, despite being in the top 1 percentile of historic carbon output, you have the moral high ground for not owning a vehicle?

Yeah those impoverished parents sure are pieces of shit for driving thier kids to school and commuting between multiple underpaid jobs. They should just take a pay cut and quadruple their commute time for the earth!

Let me paint it another way:

A vegan, car free, childless, software engineer in a big city has the carbon output of 100 Ugandan farmers.

Why do you get to use electronics, power, internet, and take occasional trips to Iceland while everyone else is morally bankrupt for having a vehicle?

I have the moral high ground over the person I was a few years ago.

The fact of the matter is: car use kills people through pollution. Minimizing car use kills fewer people. To use your car less is OFTEN an available choice.

Morally bankrupt would be someone arguing against reducing car use.

> To use your car less is OFTEN an available choice.

Only to wealthy privileged people who can discuss their first-world problems on forums like this. As folks get poorer on the scale the more a car becomes an unavoidable necessity for many.

I applaud to your personal choices and sacrifices, but please don't make it sound like everybody can and should make the same/similar ones.

Most of us here have/want kids. I say something very opposite to what you say - folks here, please have kids! Not many, but take your time and raise them properly. It basically means sacrificing large portion of your life to them, without a guarantee they will even appreciate it. Which is fine, that shouldn't be the motivation for it anyway.

You who are reading this, are a part of smart elite in this world, whenever you are, and can raise next generation of elite with disproportionally large amount of decisive powers in their hands.

Why, you may ask? Raise them well so they are balanced happy individual with clear drive to help make this world a better place, and they may very well become next leaders, business captains, politicians, or just good citizens helping those around them, environment, mankind.

Now imagine what kind of world would that kind of attitude bring. Don't just minimize your 'bad' footprint on this existence, try creating more of the positive one.

I live in a small non wealthy town in the UK, it's five miles across and everything is accessible without cars.

My neighbor has five to seven cars on their driveway. To let others out they start them all and play musical cars. Two of them drive to jobs less than two miles away. They use them for practically every trip over 200 metres. Their extended family visit every weekend, in separate cars and all live within five miles.

My other neighbors have three cars for two people, including a pickup truck. Again, they drive literally everywhere. Even walking distance.

Many of the young people here drive terrible modded cars up and down all day for no actual purpose than vanity.

If you tried to have to have a conversation with these people about their car use, they would claim it's their right and that they "pay for it". Yet what they pay is < 10% of the damage they cause.

Obviously, if you are remote, or have a disability or need to carry a heavy load you should probably use a car.

But many people think it's literally their God given right to drive a dangerous metal box, badly, burning irreplaceable oil, spraying pollution, noise pollution and brake dust literally straight into your home.

Every single car journal under 10 miles should be excessively taxed, with extreme taxes for trips under three miles. You should literally be forced to think twice, then twice again.

All of these people are literally saying: "Fuck other people's health, their sanity, their happiness, their time, their environment, the environment as a whole. Me drive metal box"

The entitlement of drivers is literally staggering.

I’ve got no problem with taxing carbon-emitting fuel much higher than today.

If you tax three mile trips extremely enough, you turn a 4 mile roundtrip into around 15 miles of driving in a lot of cases. Need to go A to B to A which are 2 miles apart? Drive A to C (3.5 miles) to B (4 miles) to C (4 miles) to A (3.5 miles). Does that policy make sense in light of the obvious workaround?

Tax the fuel and you align the incentives much more closely and much more difficult to workaround in ways that work against your intention.

>Only to wealthy privileged people who can discuss their first-world problems on forums like this. As folks get poorer on the scale the more a car becomes an unavoidable necessity for many.

I'm living on countryside in Eastern Europe and by no metrics I'm anywhere near to being wealthly

You don't have to be wealthly to have privilege of not having to own car, it's often about job.

Majority of people I know needs their cars due to their jobs. Of course part of people I know actually enjoys driving and stuff.

WFH helps with it significantly, but even before I've been commuting by train due to it being cheap and allowing me to e.g read a book, sleep and generally have time for me

For things that are within e.g 10km radius like shops, services, then I tend to use bike (unless its winter ofc)

but I think it's hard to do it pernamently, at some point I think I may need to get one just in case.

In cities it may be easier cuz you can always call Uber/Taxi

______________

> As folks get poorer on the scale the more a car becomes an unavoidable necessity for many.

Sometimes I believe that car is what actually keeps people poor

When I look at friends they spend significant amount of their salary on car - insurance, fuel, maintenance - it ranges between like 3k PLN to 10k PLN where minimal wage is around 2K

So if you have to pay 4K per year for your car when your year salary is 24K

then shit's no cheap and I think we're optimistic here, but often it allows you to have job, so it's terrible situation.

The person you're responding to is asking themselves questions about the decisions they're making, the impact of those decisions, and if they can make better decisions to reduce the harm they might be causing. Is this so bad?

Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws.

The purpose here is probably not to be a “better person” but to inflate their ego while belittling others.

What does it accomplish to shame drivers while simultaneously using AC and running water in the California desert?

I replied to a comment about the detrimental effects of air pollution with how I try not to be part of the problem.

If it were conversation about activism, I can talk about my engagement with the city council and contributions to relevant charities.

If this were a conversation about energy use in California I could talk about the premium I pay on my electricity so it is from renewable sources.

https://www.smud.org/en/Going-Green/Get-Green-Energy/Residen...

Reducing car usage is, in that journal article I referenced, the number 2 thing you can do to reduce your climate impact.

I have not misrepresented anything.

You’re right about the water. That’s something I’m still learning about.

The simple action proposed was to not drive if your journey is under 10 miles. I don't think it was ever suggested that this would solve all our problems. Just that, if you can avoid contributing to the pollution, then maybe you should consider not contributing if you are an able-bodied person who could as easily bike that distance.

Most car journeys are under 5 miles. Imagine the benefit if the majority of these journeys were made by bicycle instead! Public health from less air pollution and more exercise. Less stress, less traffic, less potential for vehicle accidents. Governments might even decide to improve pedestrian/cycling/public transit infrastructure and turn car parks into people parks with green spaces (which would reduce absorption of solar radiation and cool your city and clean its air).

It's a really simple proposal with many obvious benefits and no clear downside whatsoever. And just because it isn't a silver bullet you are all up in arms against it? Tell us more how BrianHenryIE is the actual source of the problem here and how you should still drive everywhere because of his equivalence to 100 farmers...

You’re missing my point. FWIW, I agree people should try to minimize driving where feasible.

OP isn’t just suggesting that people drive less. According to him, drivers are “abhorrently selfish” and are directly responsible for death, disease, and need to take pay cuts and live in smaller homes so they can more easily fit into his little box that defines a good person.

I’m not up in arms about the idea of biking. I’m up in arms about people with extremely carbon expensive lifestyles claiming that everyone else is reprehensible for engaging in $specific_activity.

> Yes. It completely misrepresents the actual complexity of the problem. Instead of discussing effective solutions like political activity the climate change debate gets dumbed down to reusable cotton bags and paper straws.

I've encountered this sentiment many times here. It's a bit baffling to me, to be honest. Yes, we all know that personal actions are small compared to massive structural changes. But why exactly do you think that it's one or the other? I'd wager that the majority of politically active people trying to change things at a high level are also changing smaller things in their day-to-day life, because it's an issue that they are passionate about.

In my opinion, the attitude that you promote ("why do the little actions when only the big ones matter") is more likely to cause inaction, and the people I've met who espouse that viewpoint say a lot and do nothing at all.

I must be coming off the wrong way.

Sure people should make those lifestyle changes where possible! I’m not against small change.

I get frustrated when I see people generalize the rest of the population as “abhorrently selfish”. Especially when their own lifestyle comes from a position of excess and privilege.

To clarify my position:

If you wanna make lifestyle changes for the environment, more power to you! I’ve got no beef with that. Just don’t use those tiny aspects of your modern life to paint the rest of the world as immoral.

I see, that's fair. Labeling and generalizing others in that way is not productive.

> A vegan, car free, childless, software engineer in a big city has the carbon output of 100 Ugandan farmers.

citation needed

> citation needed

seriously, it's got to be more like 1000 or 10,000 farmers.

I agree, for what it's worth. You're not alone with this.

Of course, there are many individual life circumstances that mean a car is an absolute necessity, but for many people it's a choice, whether they acknowledge they've made that choice or not. This is especially true for people who are more affluent.

Cars are the number one cause of microplastics near waterways. It is insane we allow cars in our modern society. I too am car free.

Excellent! Do you grow your own food? Make your own clothes? Or do you purchase things transported with vehicles?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

I’m really sorry but your attitude is very toxic.

More or less toxic than condemning cars but then benefiting from them?

Much more, because one is just self-deception, but you are being an asshole towards other human beings, on purpose.

Calling out hypocrisy is being an asshole?

Is it hypocritical to make the first step and reduce car traffic overall, just because they're not yet a perfect human being that prevents all suffering indirectly connected to them?

Complaining about that (and in that tone) helps nobody.

Imagine if there were no abolitionists in 19th century America because everyone wore cotton clothing.

Did abolitionists call people wearing cotton "immoral" or did they focus on actual slavery?

Obesity related conditions are some of the leading causes of death. There are also advantages to simplifying your lifestyle and expenses. Sometimes less consumption can be an end unto itself.

We can disagree about climate change and the rest of it, but the results of a sedentary lifestyle can't be ignored. There's also no room for indignation at an imagined holier-than-thou position when you take this approach.

I've found this simple, obvious observation about obesity especially interesting in regards to the current public health scare and the rise of the bio-security state.

My long term plan is to have a solar array dedicated to charging my future electric truck, since panels and inverters are near cheap as dirt now on Alibaba.

edit: \/ didn't know thanks, did a quick search - https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1129809_tire-dust-is-po... is something like this available? Also it won't help as I am a person that needs a truck. I transport shit all the time. I'm constantly trucking stuff - I'm not one of those show-offs that own a truck just because.

Electric cars don't solve the problem of particulate matter, in fact if you buy an electric truck, it may make the problem worse because of the weight (wear on the tires is one of the biggest sources of particulate emissions).

I think brake dust is even worse than tires, and EVs rarely use friction brakes.

I'm pretty sure that with sufficient R&D we could invent better tyres that either didn't wear much or were made of less damaging materials.

Just nobody is putting money into it.

Tires are a multibillion dollar industry, why would you think no one is putting money into R&D for it?

Tyres that didn't wear wouldn't need replacing... Thats why lightbulb companies famously stopped making bulbs last longer.

A good chunk of wear can be eliminated by ensuring tyres never skid by having per wheel torque control, which future 4-motor EV's will have 'for free'.

The Phoebus cartel only worked because it was a cartel… and it only worked until it didn’t. Again, why would you think no one is putting money into this rather than it’s simply a hard or unsolvable problem? What material would you suggest to be hard wearing yet pliable enough for good grip and comfort?

Imagine a world that wasn’t built on the profit margins of petroleum refinement. No tires, no plastics, no bitumen; defaulting to some other mode of transport, not a state-subsidised automobile cult.

Another mode of transport will still be state-subsidised. That is what states do since Antiquity. Already the Romans invested huge money into ports and their famous road network.

Criticizing cars is fine, but "state-subsidized" is just superfluous there. This is not somehow unique to cars.

Inherent in creating force between the tire and road surface is micro-slippage. What humans see as skidding/slipping is only the gross slippage. Every time you turn, slow, or accelerate, the tires deform internally and slip against the road surface (and wear).

Thank you for this. It's amazing how HN defends the existing car culture despite the alternatives.

Many urban areas (especially poor ones) have had fewer miles driven per person, but it didn't lead to more transit in those areas. You have to actually allocate budget to get more transit. But even when it's sorely needed, budget doesn't get allocated to transit, for a whole host of reasons. So public transit isn't going to grow just because you gave up a car.

There are many towns in the USA where transit will never be viable because they are too low density - no one is going to walk 20 minutes to a bus stop a mile away to wait up to 20 minutes for a bus to take them on a 20 minute ride to town if the other option is a 10 minute drive in a car.

> they are too low density

This is by choice and can be changed.

You're dismissing the scope of the problem, yes, given unlimited resources and people's willingness to change, anything can change. But we don't have unlimited resources, and many people don't want to change.

But the fact remains that America has many low-density areas that will never be affordably served by transit. That's not just in this country, Europe has areas that aren't well served by transit, even Japan has areas that aren't well served by transit.

I was jokingly asking a friend the other day if we might ever have to ride horses again. Probably not, but it's interesting to imagine the scenarios that would lead to that. Americans take personal vehicles for granted. Addressing climate change is going to require some uncomfortable changes.

Addressing climate change is going to require some uncomfortable changes

I really don't think we're up to the challenge of really stopping (or significantly slowing) climate change (if it's possible at all now) and will end up spending much more money (and discomfort) mitigating the more severe effects of climate change than if we'd just started making changes a decade or more ago.

Why electric included?

Two directly relevant health reasons:

"'London throat': Toxic brake dust could cause condition, scientists say" [1]

"Pollution from car tires is killing off salmon on US west coast, study finds" [2]

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-51049326

[2] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/dec/03/coho-sal...

Then secondary problems such as sedentary lifestyles and children unable to play on their street because of the dominance of cars (car numbers increased almost 3x in Ireland since 1990, when I was a kid).

There are more reasons cars are bad for society and bad for the individual – loss of communities dues to freeways [3]; loss of sense of community due to people not walking around and meeting their neighbours [4]; a ticket price to society when a car is deemed a requirement just to work and shop [5]; the 1.35 million people who die in road traffic accidents each year [6].

[3] https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/blogs/sta...

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/16/cars-are-fue...

[5] https://www.tampabay.com/news/florida-politics/2021/03/21/fl...

[6] https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565684

The reason I asked why electric included was because brakes within electric cars can operate very differently than that of combustion cars. Whereby the brake pads within electric vehicle almost do not need replacing for the life of the car.

Vastly reducing the amount of brake dust that is given off the vehicle in comparison to combustion vehicles. The same way in which riding a bicycle produced brake dust but not in the same volumes are combustion cars.

Car tires I completely agree however almost anything that rolls uses rubber and as such if we introduced more bicycles instead of cars we would also be polluting the streets with rubber. You could argue however that this is offset by the health benefits this would provide people rather than being sedentary in a car.

With regards to communities I would argue that nothing is stopping people from walking around and meeting their neighbours. However, people can visit other communities or extend their community boundary using cars and railways etc. Therefore our sense of community isn't just those immediately, but those across town as well.

Based on another comment, tires shed off much more rubber the more weight is on them. So an electric car will use much more than a regular one, and a bicycle will use basically none compared to that.

Probably because tire ware is a (the primary?) Cause of vehicle air pollution.

I dunno what the author meant, but probably alluding to the fact that the electricity powering your EV comes from a plant burning fossil fuels.

I've been curious about this topic for a while: what contributes more pollution per mile traveled -- an internal combustion engine or a Tesla charged with power from a coal/gas/wind/nuclear plant. If anyone encountered an analysis like that, please link!

Depends on where you live. Electricity in BC is all hydro.

A study that emerged in the last few days says that in such scenarios in OECD countries, and including all life cycle costs, EVs generate only about 40% of the CO2 emissions of ICEs. No link at hand, sorry.

Electric cars can make noise.

They make less noise than a bicycle

I don’t really care that much that other people die so this isn’t a convincing argument. Most people are like me.

>use a nice filter-based air purifier for white noise. It has deep bass

I went nearly insane when this constant humming sound started to appear inside my apartment seemingly coming from several directions. It would start at the oddest times and then go out again after a while, making you think it's over, only to start again after a minute. I wasn't able to focus on work or reading anymore, I was starting to get really irritated and aggressive. Even with active noise-canceling headphones I could feel the bass sound. It took me the six weeks to pinpoint the origin of the sound to my upstairs neighbors, who eventually admitted that they had bought an air purifier because of allergies and kept it running all day long and through the night. If you recommend it to friends please let them know that the bass sound and the vibration translates through walls and might make a helpless neighbor's life miserable.

The transmission of vibrations can be reduced by putting the device on a thick rubber mat or similar. It also helps to reduce the sound inside the room, so it's not just for the neighbours' benefit.

The air particles that are visible to you will mostly be caught in your nose and cilia, and either swallowed or spat out. They can still cause plenty of allergies. They are also too heavy to float long enough in the air to pass through the filter. That's why you need to kick it up from surfaces to see. You can remove it from surfaces with vacuum and wiping.

Smaller invisible particles, for example pollution or pollen, hang in the air and move with the circulation, so they will eventually be caught as air passes through the filter.

The amount of these particles could be reduced by cleaning the air at the "intake" of the house. If there is intake air passing through pipes, these pipes need to be kept clean. If the house is set up such that air moves in both direction through passages, the whole thing is fucked and need to be fixed. Even detecting where intake air is entering the house can be really difficult.

Because of indoor temperature and outdoor wind, a house functions like a pump that sucks in outdoor air, heats it, and ejects it. Intake air may be sucked from any crack in the walls, floors and foundation, where it picks up dust and mould. Equipping the house with an intake fan (and filter) will pressurize it and prevent this "sucking".

There was a paper I saw about ten years ago that made the claim the influenza is airborne too. And that temperature and humidity have a large effect on how persistant it is in indoor spaces. And that badly ventilated workplaces and schools are large driver of infection.

Another thing I saw very recently is ventilation standards for buildings have been reduced by 75% over the last 70 years.

Basically anything that gets labeled as "spread by droplet transmission" is probably primarily aerosol. I mean, sure. If somebody spits in your mouth you're likely to catch the thing, but most people who get the flu probably got it via aerosols.

This is terribly inconvenient, because droplets are easy to control, but aerosols are not.

As a German I have a reflex to wanting to open the windows in most indoor situations regularly, when I am in AC'ed/ventilated situations. Of course in my AC'ed office, the windows wouldn't open, but surely the air does not feel 'fresh' enough.

Pretty sure when returning to the office post-covid we'll see some discussion on Meeting room CO2 levels. I occasionally had a hard time keeping my eyes open in crowded meeting rooms which never happens even in the most boring meetings that I have remotely.

recently replaced a robot vacuum with a corded plugin model with 3x the suction power and the amount of dust it removed from carpets already 'clean' by the robovac was pretty incredible.

I have the robot vacuum still doing its thing every other day but at least once a week I do a deep clean and it removes a ton of dust.

I also have a HEPA filter air purifier going 24 hours.

Carpets are the worst.

What vacuum would you recommend?

I would recommend doing a bunch of research as there are third party reviewers who test them. I went with a shark uplight apex but I am not a vacuum professional, I just have asthma and hate dust.

I bought a cheap used miele canister after reading this: https://old.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/1pe2bd/iama_vacuum_re...

It has been great so far. The bags are a little expensive, but worth it. It is quiet and pleasant to use and has strong suction, and parts are available if we need them.

the shark I bought doesn't use a bag at all - it has an integrated hepa filter I clean off once a week but aside from that no ongoing costs.

I am wary of taking 7 year old advice in general, given how quickly things change and how companies put out new products each year, but I hope you like your vacuum. I paid $215 USD for my vacuum new with a 5 year warranty - there's very little a tech could do on this vacuum that wouldn't cost more than a new vacuum.

I used to have the same opinion, then I used a Miele and it's really quite shocking how good it is. Not trying to sell you on one, but if you have the chance to try one out you may be surprised.

I love my Miele canister vacuum. Crazy expensive, but I’d rather skip a generation of cell phone and have a great vacuum instead. I owned a lot of crap vacuums before this one.

Rtings recently started reviewing vacuums which does a nice comparison: https://www.rtings.com/vacuum

Miele canister, hands down. It's the best vacuum I've ever used in my life, nothing else even comes close.

The high cost was hard to get over, but I waited for a sale and now I only wish I had done it sooner.

Maybe the carpet acts as a filter for dust that you would otherwise be breathing?

I dont think it filters anything - it just provides the dust a place to lay down until something knocks it up into the air. It would have to have some mechanism for getting the dust to the other side to act as a filter, and then you'd still have to clean/dispose of it somehow.

More of a grinder to make sure anything big enough to fall out gets smashed up into particles small enough to stay floating. (Less the occasional cleaning, which... isn't comprehensive. wash a used rug someday. ick.)

Carpets really just molt and let its shit go into the air.

Carpets should be illegal.

yes, but what about the hygiene hypothesis of increasing allergy/autoimmune disease prevalence?

Air indoors should be clean, but children should spend hours outside in nature every day.

This won't be an option in some urban environments, but those are simply bad for the health of children (and adults).

Hi, could you please recommend a product you have found worked well?

where can i buy this filter?

We purchased a filtrete room air purifier 10 years ago, and amazingly it hasn’t broken down after essentially continuous usage (low speed during the day, high speed at night to make more noise :)). These are on amazon or wherever.

Why not just open the windows?

Germany has a practice called "Luft" ("Air"), where tenants are _required_ to throw open the windows for X minutes each day. Seems smart. The room & furnishings retain heat long enough while the air is changed in toto. Can someone who knows about this practice comment ?

Seems smart why? If we check the air two hours later, is it meaningfully better than before we started?

A daily changeover seems much worse than constant exchange, and both of those pale in comparison to filtering.

Guessing they live in a city or by a road

Reply on news.ycombinator.com