Most Air Cleaning Devices Have Not Been Tested On People (theconversation.com)
- Reference: 0178794462
- News link: https://science.slashdot.org/story/25/08/20/2236217/most-air-cleaning-devices-have-not-been-tested-on-people
- Source link: https://theconversation.com/most-air-cleaning-devices-have-not-been-tested-on-people-and-little-is-known-about-their-potential-harms-new-study-finds-262913
> Many respiratory viruses, such as COVID-19 and influenza, can spread through indoor air. Technologies such as HEPA filters, ultraviolet light and special ventilation designs -- collectively known as engineering infection controls -- are intended to clean indoor air and prevent viruses and other disease-causing pathogens from spreading. Along with our colleagues across three academic institutions and two government science agencies, we identified and analyzed every research study evaluating the effectiveness of these technologies published from the 1920s through 2023 -- 672 of them in total.
>
> These studies assessed performance in three main ways: Some measured whether the interventions reduced infections in people; others used animals such as guinea pigs or mice; and the rest took air samples to determine whether the devices reduced the number of small particles or microbes in the air. Only about 8% of the studies tested effectiveness on people, while over 90% tested the devices in unoccupied spaces.
>
> We found substantial variation across different technologies. For example, 44 studies examined an air cleaning process called photocatalytic oxidation, which produces chemicals that kill microbes, but only one of those tested whether the technology prevented infections in people. Another 35 studies evaluated plasma-based technologies for killing microbes, and none involved human participants. We also found 43 studies on filters incorporating nanomaterials designed to both capture and kill microbes -- again, none included human testing.
[1] https://doi.org/10.7326/ANNALS-25-00577
[2] https://theconversation.com/most-air-cleaning-devices-have-not-been-tested-on-people-and-little-is-known-about-their-potential-harms-new-study-finds-262913
So what? Overlapping studies are valid (Score:4, Informative)
I don't need to know if my air purifier improves my health. I only need to know if it reduces PM2.5 and PM10 particulate concentration in my house and if it does so without generating ozone. There are plenty of other studies on the effects of PM2.5, PM10, and Ozone on my body.
Next article: No studies actually exist to show if washing machines make people look cleaner, so far all the studies have been limited to cloths.
Is this just sewing doubt in Science once again? (Score:1)
Yes Vaccines are safe and effective. American voting systems were accurate before Trump got into office the second time. and now.. we have doubt in.."Technologies such as HEPA filters, ultraviolet light and special ventilation designs -- collectively known as engineering infection controls ". HEPA filters work to remove particles that can spread viruses, UV light kill viruses, and ventilation can prevent person to person infections. This can not, and should not be in doubt. This is just bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not *just* bullshit. They really should test to see how much effect they have. (I was surprised hat HEPA filters let so much through. IMNSHO it's not a strong enough standard. Of course, I'm more worried about pollen, I doubt that an air filter could reasonably be fine enough to remove viruses. That's more a job for UV. [Look up the origin of the term "filterable virus".])
Re: (Score:2)
I will let you look it up, however, I believe HEPA filters go down to the micrometer range. Viruses may be smaller than that, but viruses exist in (mostly) mucus spray that filthy humans emit when they cough or sneeze. HEPA filters most certainly can catch and hold that.
Hmm... unfortunately we need to vet this further (Score:1)
Just doing a quick run-through on all the authors - the vast majority have exactly ONE paper published on that site (which is this current paper). I want to check whether or not that's common, but that will take some time.
Additionally, a bunch of them work for CDC - so unfortunately we also need to ask... are these all CDC "professionals" recently appointed by RFK, or are they actual smart medical people with a track record at the Center?
Maybe this is all actual great research being done by great people...
Re: (Score:1)
My guess is that it is an RFK jr. wet dream, along side somehow proving that vaccines are dangerous. We are all going to learn a hard lesson before this is over.
Where's my cheese? (Score:4, Interesting)
Im reminded of a management book that went into how easy it is for employees, from the lowest level trainee all the way to the CEO, to lose track of a business's primary purpose, to make money.
Things like a chicken chain making wasted chicken the biggest factor in evaluating individual store management - so they'd stop making chicken an hour before close unless actually for an order, driving away customers and costing substantial profit.
Or filling up warehouses with parts that would take a decade to sell because that was the 'efficient' run length for that part.
Etc...
A study to determine that air filters actually improve health, and how much, would be good. Maybe it is mostly placebo, maybe for some strange reason it is harmful. Looking into it shouldn't hurt.
Logic says that fewer viral particles, fewer other particles, should help, but we have been surprised before.
Re: (Score:2)
This is true: "Logic says that fewer viral particles, fewer other particles, should help, but we have been surprised before.".
Logic, and vast studies over tens of Millions of people says that MRNA vaccines are safe, however, many, many very stupid people think they are NOT because they think that if they see a tictok video saying otherwise, and that they are on the same level of expertise as a person who went full time in College for 8 years, and did a dissertation on it.
There is so much stupid going
Uh, OK. (Score:2)
There are lots of people who get upset about animal testing. Now here's a group suggesting human testing is needed. "A strange game. The only winning move is not to play."
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. Why are animal tests necessary at all in places that have "allow something first, take care of the consequences later" type of consumer laws?
Just as you allow selling unverified shit, mandate full data collection, so that the consequences are immediately known.
And, of course, in this age of can-do-just-anything "AI", why even bother with tests? Run everything by the chat-gpt and call it done.