By my estimates, a lifelong exposure to 33 µg/m³ rather than 0 µg/m³ would on average result in a loss of around 1 disability adjusted life year.
https://dynomight.net/air/#a-heuristic-to-quantify-harms
Obviously this is very hard to estimate and you shouldn't trust this as anything more than at most a rough order of magnitude estimate. But it does suggest that the ambient levels they are experiencing are worth reducing if you can do it easily.
I got the air filters on Amazon, which can be US centric, but usually you would get them at a home/hardware store. They are made for slotting into a furnace/HVAC set up. For places where that is less common, they may be harder to find.
Also worth noting that 1000ug/m³ is not accurate, maybe you are thinking of some other measurement? In the literal middle of a forest fire, you may see readings of ~300 ug/m³. No where on earth sees readings of 1000+ µg/m³.
The highest purple air sensor, near/on the fire front, in raw PM2.5 ug/m³ is at 368 when I checked: https://www.purpleair.com/map?opt=1/mPM25/a10/cC0&select=735...
These measurements are supported by the official (state-sponsored) air quality monitoring.
I am not saying we have 1000+ micrograms 24/7. The daily average in winter time is closer to 300-500, depending on your location. However, I see such extreme measurements pretty much every single evening, with some going above 1500 µg/m³.
Back in the days of the great London smog particulate concentrations were going up to 5 _milli_grams per cubic meter:
https://sci-hub.se/https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29596258/...
It's not impossible or even particularly unusual.
Everyone should have filters. Filters are for more than dust, they have also been shown to greatly reduce the amount of COVID in the room air. (i would assume flu and other viruses as well). Cheap and easy, with no stupid controversy like masks or a vaccine (even though both are better than an air filter, every little bit helps)
That isn't for sure. Last I checked (over a year ago, so different variants) 50% of spouses sleeping together didn't catch COVID.
We are reasonably sure that amount of virus particles you are exposed to is a factor on if you will get COVID. So the more you can eliminate the better your odds are.
Edit: I'm not anti-mask. I would love it if you explained how ill-fitting cloth in a single pass is better than multi-pass HEPA or equivalent filtration rather than (or even as well as) down-voting, though.
A simple cloth mask doesn't really protect the wearer; it protects others from the wearer. It slows droplets down as you exhale them. So they travel X feet, instead of X+Y feet. Depending on air currents and other variables the level of protection this offers others will range from "nothing at all" to "some".
Obviously, a HEPA filter is orders of magnitude better. But, is there a HEPA filter directly between you and the person next to you in line at the supermarket?
Sure. I'd call that 'different' rather than 'better', but I suppose it's subjective.
> Obviously, a HEPA filter is orders of magnitude better.
You would think, and yet my comment saying so, objecting to 'masks are better than an air filter' (when qualified to ill-fitting cloth as worn by most) is apparently highly objectionable.
> But, is there a HEPA filter directly between you and the person next to you in line at the supermarket?
Not a comparison I made, but yeah, if I went to a supermarket (I'm not, because I almost entirely had groceries delivered pre-pandemic, so now easily enough entirely) I would wear an FFP3 dust mask rather than ill-fitting cloth, which is two nines to HEPA's 3.5.
(More than that is probably not justified since fit won't be perfect, some leakage. Industrially etc. where there's a need for greater filtration I expect that's when you have to step up to fully enclosed hoods. I digress..)
> Not a comparison I made
> if I went to a supermarket [...] I would wear an FFP3 dust mask
rather than ill-fitting cloth, which is two nines to HEPA's 3.5.
I mean, your entire argument seems to be that cloth masks aren't perfect, I guess?
They sure aren't. But that's not the claim anybody is making. The evidence-backed claim is that they are better than nothing -- and "doing absolutely nothing" is apparently the hill that hundreds of millions of Americans have chosen to (literally) die upon We are trying to take a step forward from that, via a simple harm-reduction method that almost anybody can afford.
Let me ask you something. How effective would a public health measure need to be before you'd endorse it?
1%? 10%? 99%? 100%?
There have been 40 million confirmed cases in America, and likely several times that amount in reality. Over half a million deaths. Each single percentage point improvement in prevention represents > 400,000K cases and > 6,000 deaths.
I also have a Dyson air cleaner and it works for moderate to light smoke but it's just not enough for heavy smoke.
It's hard to actually prove the air filter did anything since a lot of factors for me have changed since last season but this year I am affected far less than I was last and not feeling any effects right now while some coworkers are.
Where did you buy air filters? I live in a third-world country and couldn't find them anywhere, so I had to buy a factory-built purifier. It really struggles to keep up when it's 1000+ µg/m³ outside. I'd like to add a second one (preferably DIY).