Microplastics and nanoplastics in urban air originate mainly from tire abrasion
phys.org
phys.org
This is one of multiple reasons why Electric cars are much closer to ICE cars in the overall combination of sustainability and societal effects than they are to trains and subways. It's like
[ICE cars---Elec Cars---------------------------Trains/Subways]
yet even on the relatively informed HN I often see people pretend it's more like
[ICE cars-----------------------Elec cars-------Trains/Subways]
I think it's most of it is because EVs are shiny and cool and represent technological progress and people feel attached to certain brands. That, along with personal convenience/privilege.
The issue isn't just tire abrasion (which will be much higher w/ EVs), but local emissions, which are *really* bad. Like we're all fucked due to CO2, but the kids getting messed up before adulthood due to chemical/particulate damage to their lungs are getting it from ICE vehicles.
We could argue that personal electric vehicles allow for ICE cars to have a graceful transition rather than the shock changeover that's needed or that the use of either crowds out mass transit, but that's just to say that if a frog had wings he wouldn't bump his ass hopping.
Tire abrasion is happening everywhere there is traffic, so people in cities are probably inhaling these particles daily without noticing it.
It raises question about particle size distribution. Nanoplastics behave very differently from larger particles and may interact with biological tissues in ways that are still poorly understood...
Urban environments might therefore be an important long-term exposure pathway that hasn’t been studied as much as water or seafood contamination
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.
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]
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.
>I think not using an ultrasonic humidifier would be better stated as only using distilled water with ultrasonic humidifiers
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
>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.
This is like "there's no evidence parachutes improve survival after jumping from a plane."
> 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.
> reduce something that has been shown to be correlated with negative long term health outcomes
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.
Generally avoiding pm2.5 particles is a reasonable precaution but you can't say that things like air filters are actually the most effective health intervention someone can do until you test that experimentally. That's simply not how stuff like this works. There are virtually infinite health interventions that seem plausible but don't actually work when tested.
As with a treatment for alzheimer's disease, cancer, or heart disease, you can't simply say that X is correlated with disease, an intervention Y reduces X, so therefore Y must have positive health effects without actually testing Y.