←back to thread

308 points tangjurine | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Aurornis ◴[] No.43529859[source]
I'm all for installing air filters in classrooms for a number of reasons, but I also think the extreme results from this study aren't going to hold up to further research.

From the paper:

> To do so, I leverage a unique setting arising from the largest gas leak in United States history, whereby the offending gas company installed air filters in every classroom, office and common area for all schools within five miles of the leak (but not beyond). This variation allows me to compare student achievement in schools receiving air filters relative to those that did not using a spatial regression discontinuity design.

In other words, the paper looked at test scores at different schools in different areas on different years and assumed that the only change was the air filters. Anyone who has worked with school kids knows that the variations between classes from year to year can be extreme, as can differences produced by different teachers or even school policies.

Again, I think air filtration is great indoors, but expecting test scores to improve dramatically like this is not realistic. This feels like another extremely exaggerated health claim, like past claims made about fish oil supplements. Fish oil was briefly thought to have extreme positive health benefits from a number of very small studies like this, but as sample sizes became larger and studies became higher quality, most of the beneficial effects disappeared.

replies(13): >>43529891 #>>43529985 #>>43530174 #>>43530203 #>>43530314 #>>43530415 #>>43530679 #>>43530828 #>>43530901 #>>43531102 #>>43531116 #>>43532636 #>>43538480 #
xattt ◴[] No.43529891[source]
If anything, schools able to implement air filtration and fresh air exchanges systems are likely those flush with cash and supportive parents.
replies(4): >>43530045 #>>43530067 #>>43530211 #>>43538629 #
1. xwolfi ◴[] No.43530045[source]
And the resulting backlash 10 years down the line ? I don't think science should be used that way: who would trust it eventually ?

Would you support a small study saying a medicine or a vaccine produces a 20 year life expectancy increase, all that to end up 20 years later with no improvement, everyone on that medicine, and the anti-everything yelling on every platform that the big pharma lobby poisoned our children ?

Even when the studies are on large samples, double-blind, long time range with a clear explanation as to why there's an effect, we have people trying to kill the resulting health campaigns. Don't encourage fake ones !

replies(1): >>43530981 #
2. eru ◴[] No.43530981[source]
> I don't think science should be used that way: who would trust it eventually?

There's no single party controlling 'science'. It's all just individuals many of them under 'publish or perish' rules.