SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
Just by breathing or wearing deodorant, you have more influence over your office space than you might think, a growing body of evidence shows. But could these basic acts of existence also be polluting the air in the office room where you work?
To find out, a team of engineers at Purdue University has been conducting one of the largest studies of its kind in the office spaces of a building rigged with thousands of sensors. The goal is to identify all types of indoor air contaminants and recommend ways to control them through how a building is designed and operated.
"If we want to provide better air quality for office workers to improve their productivity, it is important to first understand what's in the air and what factors influence the emissions and removal of pollutants," said Brandon Boor, an assistant professor of civil engineering with a courtesy appointment in environmental and ecological engineering.
The data is showing that people and ventilation systems greatly impact the chemistry of indoor air -- possibly more than anything else in an office space. The researchers will present their initial findings at the 2019 American Association for Aerosol Research Conference in Portland, Oregon, Oct. 14-18.
"The chemistry of indoor air is dynamic. It changes throughout the day based on outdoor conditions, how the ventilation system operates and occupancy patterns in the office," Boor said.
The building, called the Living Labs at Purdue's Ray W. Herrick Laboratories, uses an array of sensors to precisely monitor four open-plan office spaces and to track the flow of indoor and outdoor air through the ventilation system. The team developed a new technique to track occupancy by embedding temperature sensors in each desk chair.
Through use of the Living Labs, Boor's team has begun to identify previously unknown behaviors of chemicals called volatile organic compounds, such as how they are transformed in ventilation systems and removed by filters.
"We wanted to shed light on the behind-the-scenes role ventilation systems have on the air we breathe," Boor said.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:21AM (15 children)
The next step is finally here.
First, having offspring was an issue.
Next, it was a problem for you to drive a car, build a house, heat and cool your house, and to use water to.. you know, live.
Next, it became a problem to eat a healthy diet, which for an omnivore of course includes some meat.
And of course, now it's a problem that you even exist. Shame on you!! The nerve!!!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:33AM
You could wear a full body skinsuit and SCUBA tank at work. As long is there is no outgassing from the suit.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by EJ on Thursday October 10 2019, @08:31AM
Having more than one kid is a problem. If you choose not to have any kids, then that's just a bonus. There are plenty of orphans who need good homes.
(Score: 4, Funny) by sjames on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:03AM
Gotta be careful with that one, if you try substituting meat with beans, VOC emissions might go up in the office.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:36AM (9 children)
> And of course, now it's a problem that you even exist. Shame on you!! The nerve!!!
Realistically our existence has ALWAYS been the problem, get rid of most (probably 90%) of us and nature will happily cope with us, get rid of all of us and nature will cope perfectly well without us, just as it always has, yeah there'll still be ice ages, warm periods, floods, volcanoes, but no one will care.
Those talking about "conservation" "saving the planet" and "preserving the environment" have always really been talking about "preserve me a nice place to live". And note when they say that it's "me" not "you", it's "reduce your carbon so I can fly first class or private jet round the world (or take a sailboat and fly 5 crew back afterwards)"
XR in London want to stop ICEs right now so they block the roads. Want to get to hospital? - you'll just have to walk, or die. They on the other hand are so important they get to use diesel generators to power their camps (and try to hide them behind pallets - but they've been seen, heard and photographed). Apparently they are now getting upset and begging for food because they can't get any in the locality because the shops are all empty because no one can get deliveries through because the roads are blocked. Thinking is not their strong point.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:46AM (8 children)
FFS. Just because some of these individuals are imperfect and don't manage to adhere 100% to the ideals they may preach, you have to jump on it. It doesn't in any way refute their argument that the climate and ecology of the planet are in crisis. If anything it emphasizes just how reliant all humans have become on damaging forms of consumption and how hard it will be to cut back sufficiently to have a meaningful mitigating effect on that crisis.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:30PM (2 children)
For the obvious, err, reason that an argument spouted by the reason-challenged is by definition either random, or put in their mouth by someone unscrupulous.
If, on the other hand, the "don't manage to adhere 100% to the ideals they may preach" is a reasoned course, then there is a special word for it: hypocrisy. Meditate on it.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:31PM
The left calls that "whataboutism".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @06:54AM
Your post is gibberish. They may be hypocritical on some level, but that doesn't make them wrong. Or rather, it doesn't make the massive amounts of evidence of human-caused climate change wrong.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:36PM (3 children)
If you don't live and act according to what you're demanding of others, it makes you a hypocrite. You don't get to scream at others for eating ice cream and then stuff yourself with mint chocolate chip.
If the protesters want everyone else to give up fossil fuels and the amenities that rely upon them, then they must lead by example. It's possible to live differently, and to live well, but you have to change your expectations and methods and that can be more difficult than the coddled can manage.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:30PM (2 children)
Leading by example is preferable and more effective at convincing others to change their behavior. If a protester expects everyone else to completely give up all fossil fuels but does not intend to do it themselves, then yes that is hypocrisy. Consider that being a hypocrite doesn't mean that the protestor's message is wrong though. Anyway, somehow I doubt all of the Extinction Rebellion protesters are such hypocrites, which is why I have a problem with such hypocrisy being singled out in an attempt to invalidate the message of the whole movement.
They can also "practice what they preach" if they preach in terms of future goals for themselves and others to work towards rather than simply condemning people for current behavior. Living an eco-friendly life is often a practice that is adopted incrementally over time, as skills are learned and equipment and resources are acquired.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday October 11 2019, @01:54PM (1 child)
It does invalidate the whole movement. Let's suppose you wag your finger at a crowd, saying stridently, "Thou shalt not kill!!!" Then you turn around and shoot someone you don't like in the head. You just invalidated your whole movement.
If the protesters, or any kind of movement, want to bring about some future change for society, they must make that change themselves first. Otherwise they're full of shit.
As a person who's been and considered himself a progressive his whole life, I am sick to death of "limousine liberals" who talk the talk, but never walk the walk.
As a practical matter, we have environmentally sustainable ways to do everything now, but we choose not to use them because we're lazy. Materially, physically, we could absolutely change how we do things now, but psychologically it all seems so...HARD! We have all these whiny urban progressives going on and on and on about sustainable food, shopping, etc but god-fucking forbid you suggest they tear up their lawn, plant a garden, and raise chickens. (You mean, I have to get my hands dirty?! OMG, there might be germs!!! Air has pollutants!!! Rain is full of pollutants!!! So we just CAN'T grow our own food.)
As the old saw goes, "Be the Change You Want to See in the World." There is nothing else.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Friday October 11 2019, @06:42PM
I more or less agree with your points when applied to the actions of an individual, in that they damage the movement if their behavior shows they don't take it seriously; but the Extinction Rebellion protests have included thousands of people so there's likely to be a spectrum of ecological credentials across that population. I doubt it would be very practical for them to try to identify and ban all hypocrites from showing up to the protests and so the media shouldn't try to discredit their collective message based on the behavior of the bad apples they manage to find among them.
I think it's important to reiterate that strictly speaking, hypocrisy doesn't logically falsify a claim. For example, if someone says "Don't gamble a lot because you will likely lose your money" and then they proceed to gamble all their money away, that's a type of hypocrisy but the hypocrisy doesn't falsify their claim. In this case I think it actually reinforces it.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by choose another one on Thursday October 10 2019, @02:54PM
No, I'm not actually down on the imperfect or the hypocritical, nor am I refuting the argument that there is a crisis and we have to do something.
What does wind me up is XR saying things like:
"no one is doing anything" - when (our, UK, which is where they are protesting) carbon emissions are down by about half since the 80s
"we need to listen to the scientists" - UK is already committed (at no one yet knows what financial or social cost) to zero-carbon by 2050, which is the IPCC target
"billions will die" - erm, not according to IPCC, and we need to listen to the scientists, see above, right?
"zero carbon by 2025" - see above again about those scientists, then listen to the engineers, but when questioned about "how?" the answer is "we put a man on the moon" (a capability we no longer have)
When you mess up other people's lives to protest to "achieve" something which you have no even vaguely credible plan for, cannot show is actually possible and isn't even recommended by those you're protesting about us not listening to - sorry, no sympathy and no support.
(Score: 2) by Rupert Pupnick on Thursday October 10 2019, @04:54PM (1 child)
Hush up, and kindly get in line for the disintegration chambers.
(Score: 3, Funny) by Hartree on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:04PM
“Sir, there is a multi-legged creature crawling on your shoulder."
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @07:30AM (1 child)
Deodorant is physical violence in the form of volatile attacking compounds, perpetrated against your coworkers. That's why you should never use deodorant before any situation involving other people.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:17PM
The deodorant is less violent than the alternative, IMO. Especially in summer.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @08:40AM
They may pollute too, but they don't complain.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @09:23AM (1 child)
But existing is basically all I do!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:37AM
Existing and pay taxes, I guess.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by choose another one on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:00AM (10 children)
Deodorant = Pollution. Yep, the protesting class have been united on that one for some time.
Saw a wonderful quote the other day that I now can't find, but from (fallible) memory a TV news reporter said something like:
"We apologise for the (noise of?) rain, but it has kept the protesters away - we've noticed that they don't like showers"
(Score: 3, Insightful) by acid andy on Thursday October 10 2019, @10:49AM (9 children)
So your argument against them basically amounts to "You smell!". Real classy.
Master of the science of the art of the science of art.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by helel on Thursday October 10 2019, @12:08PM
Hasn't that always been the counter argument to protesters? It's hard to come up with a good reason why pollution or police brutality or politicians accepting bribes are a benefit to society so everyone who supports them just resorts to criticizing those who are upset.
Republican Patriotism [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:12PM (1 child)
But the basic fact remains that they DO smell. People who protest as a trendy lifestyle choice, like 60's hippies or 00's World Bank protesters, never really got over their adolescent cravings of rebellion. To "fight the Man" you need to be "counter-culture" and thereby reject the societal norms of dress and behavior. To be accepted, you have to conform to their rules of non-conformity. Being clean shaven and not malodorous suggests that one is too tied to "the Man".
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Thursday October 10 2019, @01:42PM
I don't think the protesters are the real vanguard of counter-culture. They're narcissists to a greater or lesser degree.
The ones who are really fashioning different ways to live are the ones who go out and do it. The Maker movement/DIY'ers you can see at Maker Faires (though, sadly, aren't happening anymore) and online at YouTube and Thingiverse and such are the sort I'm thinking of. When you teach yourself and others how to make what they need themselves, you don't need to run out to Walmart anymore. When you teach yourself and others to grow/cook what you need, you don't need to run out to the supermarket anymore. When you can do all that from scratch, using what you can harvest, find, or fashion, then that becomes a fundamental departure from the status quo.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by choose another one on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:10PM (5 children)
It isn't an argument against them, it's just a statement and a supporting quote from the news.
It's relevant because it is them that seem to have the theory that deodorant is polluting, and are now doing research to "prove" it.
Meanwhile many people believe the opposite, that in fact lack of deodorant is polluting. We don't need any research to back this belief, just our own senses, the belief is in the same category as "if I jump off a tall building I will fall down", "shooting yourself in the head is a bad idea", "(my) God is good" and "Trump is a moron".
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:52PM (4 children)
I don't think deodorant is "polluting." But I do think that it's widespread use is a result, not of body odor, especially in a world where good personal hygiene (daily showers, clean clothes, etc.) is relatively easy, but of long-term exposure to advertising memes that tell you how bad you smell.
I'm in my fifties, and I think I used deodorant *twice* as a teenager and decided it was really disgusting.
Having worked in office environments for more than thirty years (and ensuring that I bathe/don clean clothes prior to entering such an environment), not once has there been an issue with "body odor."
If you are healthy and practice decent personal hygiene and wear clean clothes, body odor shouldn't be an issue.
If you do the latter and still have an issue, go see a doctor, as there's probably a medical issue.
I know a bunch of you will probably jump down my throat, but consider what people did *before* there was an "Arrid Extra Dry" or whatever chemical garbage you slather onto your body.
In fact, deodorant is a great example of just how successful negative marketing/advertising can be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @08:25AM (1 child)
Slather other chemical garbage onto their bodies, like perfume? Or, just deal with the disgusting odor?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @12:19PM
Bathing regularly generally handles that without issue.
Those garbage products are in wide use because advertisers play on peoples' insecurities.
Apparently they played you well.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @09:20AM (1 child)
What's your weight? Fatties sweat a LOT more. America is now 72% obese or overweight or something.
You covered that with "healthy", but it might be the primary reason.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 11 2019, @12:42PM
That doesn't track with history. The huge spike in obesity started back to the 1980s [wikipedia.org], while deodorants had already been heavily marketed for decades [thoughtco.com] by then, with heavy market penetration long before the rise in obesity.
It's marketing/advertising playing on peoples' insecurity that *created* the market for deodorant, not some dire need. Especially when pretty much everyone has daily access to showers and soap and the ability to wear clean clothes *every* day.
As long as people practice good personal hygiene, even fat people don't smell bad.
Being morbidly obese is a different issue, and has much more serious consequences than body odor, although that's often an issue.
At the same time, those who are morbidly obese (unless there's some specific medical condition) are, in my experience, much less concerned with personal hygeine (that stems from both physiological and psychological conditions) than those who are fat/obese or in the normal range.
That's not a knock on the morbidly obese, just my observations.
(Score: 4, Informative) by richtopia on Thursday October 10 2019, @03:45PM (1 child)
The article's contents have been known for quite some time. Cleanrooms state no makeup, no antiperspirant, and you gown yourself. The gown is mostly for particle contaminates like skin flakes, but cosmetics off-gas as documented in the article. However, protecting product justifies a cleanroom with rules. Protecting workers does not.
(Score: 2) by Hartree on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:37PM
A grad student I used to work with was a bit of a clean freak/germophobe. It worked out well for him since he was working in a cleanroom doing MEMS fabrication.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Rupert Pupnick on Thursday October 10 2019, @05:13PM
I'm all for good office HVAC, but there's an implicit baseline office configuration ("open-plan office spaces"), and if you go to the Purdue LivingLabs webpage, here is an image of what that configuration might look like:
https://engineering.purdue.edu/Herrick/facilities/livinglabs_students.jpg [purdue.edu]
In other words, cramming as many people into a given space with as little separation as possible. I was hoping that after WeWork crashed and burned, that this sort of thinking would be on the wane. However, WeWork failed because of its unsustainable business model-- not because the actual workers who would be affected would be getting the shaft with respect to working conditions.
Maybe if you don't cram people so close together you don't need as much envirnomental and ecological engineering?
Thanks, Purdue, for helping to reduce the quality of office work life, and for lowering the expectations for workers of the future.