Re:The Disappearance of the Ashtray
by noduerme on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @03:35AM
(#34501061)
They get less visually dirty, but the same amount of human breath passes through them. It's not just that; the airlines cut the fresh air intake as a portion of circulated air. By not being as visually noticeable, they didn't need to change the filters as often; yet that meant that the filters would have 5x the viral load when they were finally changed out. They used the elimination of smoking as an excuse to save money on basic hygiene. Does this make sense?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Disappearance of the Ashtray
by scrollaway on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @03:42AM
(#34501118)
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
Where did you even hear about this specific number in how often they used to change their filters vs now? Do you have any idea what the reasons are for them changing filters, how they decide? What the minimum is? How they measure it?
You seem to not really even understand how air filtration works.
If one day people aren't allowed to smoke, does the volume of air passing through the filter drop by 80%?
Do all the other particulates, e.g. viruses and bacteria, drop by 80%?
No? So what makes you think the filter needs to be changed 1/5th as often?
Re:The Disappearance of the Ashtray
by scrollaway on Tuesday January 24, 2023 @04:21AM
(#34501431)
I'm guessing you've been smoking so long, you don't know what it's like to not live in polluted air. When you change an air filter, repaint a house, wash the inside of a car, you can immediately tell whether somebody is a smoker. It's fucking gross, and I suspect that it's not 1/5th, but probably 1/20th as often. "What makes me think that" is plain simple experience.
I don't have the full paper handy (and can't be bothered to look this up just for you) but the highlights should be enough for you on this one:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00489...