Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register
  • The final cut of the 9th episode of the Tesla Motors Club Podcast, featuring Balazs Biro, of the prominent Hungarian EV channel Villanyautósok, is now available. You can watch it now on YouTube or listen to it on all major podcast networks.

Most of us are underestimating the importance of the Hepa Air Filtration System

MitchJi

Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Jun 1, 2015
3,989
9,173
Marin County, CA
When I started compiling the information in this post I believed that the Hepa Air Filtration System (HAFS) is more important than most of you knew. After a few minutes of glancing at the results of my searches I realized that I had also underestimated it's importance. My original plan was to wait for the M3, and hope that we could buy it with the HAFS. Now I am planning to buy a used MS (for safety) and to add a DIY HAFS.

When I watched the MX Launch video, I thought that Elon didn't do a good job of explaining the importance of the Hepa Air Filtration System on the MX, and that that was probably because he doesn't fully understand the benefits of it himself. I think that it should be a standard no cost option on the MX (like seat belts), and all of their present and future cars. I believe that if (or hopefully when) he understands the benefits that those things will happen.

A little better explanation of the importance of the Hepa Air Filtration System:
On the (attached) slide from Elon's NX Launch Presentation, in Los Angeles the life expectancy is reduced by eight month's due to poor air quality. That implies that the main benefit of the Filtration System, for residents of LA, would be increased life expectancy. That also implies that people will be equally healthy, but on average live eight month's less. That is not true. I think that most of you will be surprised if you look at the excerpts and links below. Also look at either the screen shots of the first two pages of the attached pdf (PM_Health_Studies_Update_1014.pdf), or the actual pdf if you prefer.

Is it more important to you that you or your loved ones live a year or so longer, or is it more important to avoid cancer or alzheimer's (just two examples documented below)? Or to endure years of less than optimal health?
LifeExpectencyReductionAirQuality.jpg

It is a little bit hard for me to stop pasting more excellent excerpts, because if you just quickly glance at the results from the google links below there are a lot of alarming quotes and studies.

The following excerpt demonstrates the potential long-term effects of a temporary exposure (i.e. riding in a car).
NRDC: Our Children At Risk
Corresponding evidence from epidemiological research includes one study of humans who were exposed to elevated ozone levels over several days. Lung function loss persisted for a week after exposure, which suggested to researchers that cell death and inflammatory reactions were involved, not just reflex airway constriction.

The most comprehensive study was performed on populations living in two different parts of the Los Angeles Basin. People living in the more polluted area had substantially worse lung function than when they were initially tested, and they showed a significantly more rapid deterioration of lung function over time.

I used Los Angeles for many of the examples because I think that the main source of polluted air in LA is from cars, and that the worst exposure would be while driving, which would be good for demonstrating the potential benefits of the system. But unfortunately, the earth is so polluted that the harmful impacts of polluted air are not restricted to a few urban hotspots.
Quoted from the attached pdf (AirQualityInRuralAreas.pdf):
Air quality in rural areas
In the past, air pollution meant smoke pollution and it was limited to the urban areas. Today, air pollution has become more subtle and recognizes no geographic or political boundaries. The air pollution is one of the present day health problems throughout the world.

Air pollution from China undermining gains in California, Western states
Air pollution from China undermining gains in California, Western states
<snip>
In a manner of speaking, China is exporting its air pollution to the West Coast of America,” Verstraeten told the online publication phys.org.

About half of the pollutants in the midtroposphere reach the surface as ozone and affect the air people breathe, Neu said. Ground-level ozone causes shortness of breath, eye irritation and sore throats, and long exposure can prematurely age the lungs and cause lung disease, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and hundreds of studies done in Southern California.

Previous studies published in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres in 2012 estimated Asian pollution accounts for about 20 percent of the total ozone pollution in the spring in the western states such as California, Oregon, Washington, Montana and Wyoming. Some scientists estimate Asian air pollution pushes Southern California above the 75 part per billion federal hourly ozone standard for about 53 percent of the recorded exceedances.
<snip>
NRDC: Our Children At Risk
Another probable human carcinogen, emitted from motor vehicles, is 1,3 butadiene. The EPA estimates that mobile (car, truck, and bus) sources account for as much as half of all cancers attributed to outdoor sources of air toxics.[102] Non-road mobile sources (tractors and snowmobiles) emit air toxics as well.

Recent evidence suggests that diesel engine emissions are more dangerous than previously considered. Two recent government reviews, one by the EPA and the other by California, have found diesel exhaust to be carcinogenic. A draft qualitative and quantitative cancer assessment of diesel emissions conducted by the EPA reportedly concludes that such emissions are probable human carcinogens.[106] In March 1997, CalEPA issued a draft review of the health risks from diesel exhaust and found it carcinogenic.[107]
Air pollution and detrimental effects on children’s brain. The need for a multidisciplinary approach to the issue complexity and challenges
Abstract
Millions of children in polluted cities are showing detrimental brain effects. Urban children exhibit brain structural and volumetric abnormalities, systemic inflammation, olfactory, auditory, vestibular and cognitive deficits vs low-pollution controls. Neuroinflammation and blood-brain-barrier (BBB) breakdown target the olfactory bulb, prefrontal cortex and brainstem, but are diffusely present throughout the brain. Urban adolescent Apolipoprotein E4 carriers significantly accelerate Alzheimer pathology. Neurocognitive effects of air pollution are substantial, apparent across all populations, and potentially clinically relevant as early evidence of evolving neurodegenerative changes.
<snip>
Protecting children and teens from neural effects of air pollution should be of pressing importance for public health.
Adobe ReaderScreenSnapz001.jpg

Adobe ReaderScreenSnapz002.jpg

I believe most of you will be surprised if you run the following searches and glance at the results.
Google - los angeles air quality health effects

Google - los angeles air quality health effects cancer

Google - los angeles air quality health effects alzheimer

View attachment AirQualityInRuralAreas.pdf

View attachment PM_Health_Studies_Update_1014.pdf
 
Last edited:

commasign

TeslaAdviceBlog.com
Aug 31, 2013
3,202
4,298
Davis, CA
+1 from bringing up the real health hazards of air pollution. And that's the main reason I'll spring for the $4500 premium package. But this thread might be better for one of the other areas of this forum (maybe the Energy, Environment, and Policy subforum?). I've also posted links to recent research (collated from the California Air Resources Board) for our local EV association Facebook page:

https://www.google.com/search?q=#ai...hUKEwjSsZihqtfJAhWJLmMKHaViBEQQ_AUIBigA&dpr=2
 

Fallenone

Active Member
Oct 13, 2015
1,988
3,777
Reno, NV
Air quality is very important to our health of course, but don't count on the MX's HEPA to help you a lot on it. The classic formulation of health risk is, Risk = Exposure * Toxicity. I won't go into the details about the different toxicity of the air in different environments (your home, your workplace, your car, the streets, etc.). But just think about how many hours are you going to spend in the car everyday. It's not that many compared to the time you spend in your home and workplace. Sure the HEPA is a good to have, but the original contribution of air quality inside your car is not that important compared to other places to start with.
 

MitchJi

Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Jun 1, 2015
3,989
9,173
Marin County, CA
+1 from bringing up the real health hazards of air pollution. And that's the main reason I'll spring for the $4500 premium package. But this thread might be better for one of the other areas of this forum (maybe the Energy, Environment, and Policy subforum?). I've also posted links to recent research (collated from the California Air Resources Board) for our local EV association Facebook page:
I put it here because:
1. Quite a few people are opting not to "spring for the $4500 premium package", and I think when they make that decision they should be aware of the consequences.

2. I believe that when Tesla has a better understanding of this issue they will either drastically reduce the price, or include it in the base price. When that happens I think it's better if their customers appreciate the benefits.
 
Is it more important to you that you or your loved ones live a year or so longer, or is it more important to avoid cancer or alzheimer's (just two examples documented below)? Or to endure years of less than optimal health?

These are utterly spurious conclusions. Great for selling HEPA filtration based on fear and FUD, though.

If life expectancy in (eg) LA is reduced by 8 months compared to elsewhere because of air pollution then HEPA filtration in your car will not make you live significantly longer or better. Not unless you live in your car and never open the windows or doors and always have the HEPA filtration on.

Otherwise, assuming the air in your HEPA car returns your life expectancy to the mean, and you spend 1 hour every day of your life in your car then at most you will get 1/24th of the risk reduction. That's 3 weeks. And that's ignoring all that evil air that immediately diffuses into the car whenever you open a door or window.

If you really want to live longer....move cities. That's what the data actually supports.
 

MitchJi

Trying to learn kindness, patience & forgiveness
Jun 1, 2015
3,989
9,173
Marin County, CA
Hi,

Air quality is very important to our health of course, but don't count on the MX's HEPA to help you a lot on it. The classic formulation of health risk is, Risk = Exposure * Toxicity. I won't go into the details about the different toxicity of the air in different environments (your home, your workplace, your car, the streets, etc.). But just think about how many hours are you going to spend in the car everyday. It's not that many compared to the time you spend in your home and workplace. Sure the HEPA is a good to have, but the original contribution of air quality inside your car is not that important compared to other places to start with.
That make sense. But just because it makes sense doesn't mean its correct. The air quality on roads is substantially worse than in most peoples homes and workplaces, and same link, different excerpts:
The following excerpt demonstrates the potential long-term effects of a temporary exposure (i.e. riding in a car).
NRDC: Our Children At Risk
Additional sources of air pollution have emerged; today automobiles are a major polluter of the air: Americans drive some 150 million private cars and nearly 50 million buses and trucks.[9] The exhaust from these vehicles contains nitrogen oxides, and other ozone precursors, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide -- all deleterious to health, even in small quantities. Also of importance in vehicle exhaust are toxic organic compounds including formaldehyde, acetaldehyde, and benzene. And, even though new cars start out far cleaner than the cars of decades ago, we drive them far more and they fail to remain clean as they age.

HAZARDS OF AIR POLLUTION

Cellular Damage

Even short-term exposure to low levels of pollutants can damage lungs at the cellular level. For instance:
Sulfuric acid compounds can interfere with the lungs' mucociliary clearance system,[16] and ozone at levels below the pre-1997 federal ozone standards may hinder the immune system's ability to defend against infection.[17]
Ozone exposure at levels below the pre-1997 federal standards contributes to persistent inflammation of airways, sometimes days after exposure ceases.[18] Exposure to acidic aerosols may aggravate the effect.[19]
Sulfur dioxide can induce bronchial constriction in asthmatics.[20]
Even short-term ozone exposure increases lung cell permeability, which may hinder the body's ability to regulate the movement of gases and liquids between the lungs and the bloodstream. This effect potentially facilitates the body's uptake of inhaled substances and may promote enhanced allergic sensitization.

Lungs must inhale and exhale an adequate volume of air to remove carbon dioxide and replenish oxygen to maintain health, but studies show that even brief exposure to pollutants can result in impairment of lung function. These effects are generally temporary, but they are still of great importance, for two reasons. Chief among these is that the impairment of lung function may be a sign of invisible, sub-clinical damage inside the lungs, such as inflammation produced deep in the lungs from ozone, as discussed above. Though the impairment of lung function generally disappears after exposure, it may mask continuing cellular damage. Secondly, people whose lung function is already compromised may be unable to tolerate additional impairments caused by air pollution, however modest or temporary they might be. The medical literature shows that ozone, sulfur dioxide and sulphate aerosols, and airborne particulate matter affect lung function, and that chronic exposure to air pollutants can impair lung function permanently.[22]

If you are willing to roll the dice with your own health do you want to do that with your children's health?:
Children: The Most Vulnerable Among Us

The nation has failed to protect its most precious citizens -- its children -- from the adverse health effects of air pollution. Emission reduction efforts and federal air quality standards have been insufficient to shield children from potentially serious health damage.[13] Ozone and particulate matter are of special concern. In June 1993, the Committee on Environmental Hazards of the American Academy of Pediatrics stated that the federal standard for ozone in effect at that time contained "little or no margin of safety for children engaged in active outdoor activity."[14] In July 1997, the EPA revised both the ozone and particulate matter air quality standards in order to protect children and other members of the population. The American Lung Association estimated that 27 million children under the age of 13 reside in areas with ozone levels above EPA's revised standard, and that two million children with asthma, or half of the pediatric asthma population under the age of eighteen, lived in these areas

Due to their greater respiratory rates, children breathe a proportionately greater volume of air than adults. As a result, children inhale more pollutants per pound of body weight. They also spend more time engaged in vigorous activity than adults. In addition, because of young children's height and play habits (crawling, rolling) they are more likely to be exposed to pollutants or aerosols that are heavier than air and tend to concentrate in their breathing zone near ground level.[6] Children's physiological vulnerability to air pollution arises from their narrower airways and the fact that their lungs are still developing. Irritation caused by air pollutants that would produce only a slight response in an adult can result in potentially significant obstruction in the airways of a young child.
 

eye.surgeon

Active Member
Nov 18, 2014
1,368
2,354
California
These are utterly spurious conclusions. Great for selling HEPA filtration based on fear and FUD, though.

If life expectancy in (eg) LA is reduced by 8 months compared to elsewhere because of air pollution then HEPA filtration in your car will not make you live significantly longer or better. Not unless you live in your car and never open the windows or doors and always have the HEPA filtration on.

Otherwise, assuming the air in your HEPA car returns your life expectancy to the mean, and you spend 1 hour every day of your life in your car then at most you will get 1/24th of the risk reduction. That's 3 weeks. And that's ignoring all that evil air that immediately diffuses into the car whenever you open a door or window.

If you really want to live longer....move cities. That's what the data actually supports.
Agreed.

And according to the UN, the air in LA isn't particularly polluted. In fact there isn't a single US city on the UN poorest air quality list. India and China have air pollution issues that make LA's air look squeaky clean.
 

Fallenone

Active Member
Oct 13, 2015
1,988
3,777
Reno, NV
Air on the road != air in the car. Air on the road is much worse than air in the car. The HEPA on MX only affects air in the car, has nothing to offer to anywhere else people are.

Hi,


That make sense. But just because it makes sense doesn't mean its correct. The air quality on roads is substantially worse than in most peoples homes and workplaces, and same link, different excerpts:


If you are willing to roll the dice with your own health do you want to do that with your children's health?:

- - - Updated - - -

Regarding to the excerpt on children health, do you see anything there has anything to do with air quality in the car? I cannot stress enough the differences between air quality's impact to human health and air quality in the car to human heatlh.

Speaking as a phd in Environmental Health Sciences specialized in air pollution related health risks, I can assure you the air quality in cars is at the bottom of the list of concerns when you are worrying about air pollution, unless for those professional drivers.

Hi,


That make sense. But just because it makes sense doesn't mean its correct. The air quality on roads is substantially worse than in most peoples homes and workplaces, and same link, different excerpts:


If you are willing to roll the dice with your own health do you want to do that with your children's health?:
 
  • Like
Reactions: hiroshiy

Spidy

Active Member
Feb 7, 2015
1,365
1,106
EU
I think the big question is how much better the Model X actually is compared to the Model S, competitors or rather inexpensive air filter upgrades from if you buy it from a different filter manufacturer, because for most cars you actually have several options.

I mean I still don't understand these x-times numbers.

2015-12-13 02.06.48 am.png


Here is a filter that claims to remove 99% of the ozon: micronAir combi filters- Freudenberg Filtration

Here is one that Traps almost 100% of allergens: Innenraumfilter FreciousPlus von MANN-FILTER


So how can something be 500x Better than something that's already close to 100% efficient? Sure that 100% numbers is probably a bit generous but when I look at air filters I see number like 80% or 90% all the time. Even there how would you even be 100x better?

Oh and I would really like to know how high the risk is to catch a virus from outside air getting into the car is. I mean it seems like you would need some sick person to cough in front of your car while you stand at a crosswalk.
 
Last edited:

Fallenone

Active Member
Oct 13, 2015
1,988
3,777
Reno, NV
At those levels, we are talking about the difference between 99% and 99.99% so you definitely can have a few hundred times of differences. Will it really matter if its 99% or 99.99% when it comes to the actual health risk? It's up to you to decide.

I think the big question is how much better the Model X actually is compared to the Model S, competitors or rather inexpensive air filter upgrades from if you buy it from a different filter manufacturer, because for most cars you actually have several options.

I mean I still don't understand these x-times numbers.

View attachment 104208

Here is a filter that claims to remove 99% of the ozon: micronAir combi filters- Freudenberg Filtration

Here is one that Traps almost 100% of allergens: Innenraumfilter FreciousPlus von MANN-FILTER


So how can something be 500x Better than something that's already close to 100% efficient? Sure that 100% numbers is probably a but when I look at air filters I see number like 80% or 90% all the time. Even there how would you even be 100x better?

Oh and I would really like to know how high the risk is to catch a virus from outside air getting into the car is. I mean it seems like you would need some sick person to cough in front of your car while you stand at a crosswalk.

- - - Updated - - -

Don't get me wrong, the HEPA is useful in its own ways, especially if you're allergic to pollen and other fine/ultrafine particulates in the air. I'm just saying OP is blowing this HEPA way out of proportion of its actual usefulness and using inappropriate sources (air quality in general is super important to our health, but that doesn't mean MX HEPA can help a lot).

On the other hand, I think the x months of years of life lost in the original presentation by Elon are pretty good estimates, maybe even a bit underestimated if you show them to the some scientists.

Drops mic. Walks off stage.



(I'm still getting the HEPA filter)
 
So how can something be 500x Better than something that's already close to 100% efficient?

At those levels, we are talking about the difference between 99% and 99.99% so you definitely can have a few hundred times of differences. Will it really matter if its 99% or 99.99% when it comes to the actual health risk? It's up to you to decide.

Relative risk is always quoted when actual risk wouldn't make a compelling argument.

[99% -> 99.99% effective]
"Our product is 0.99% better than our competition."
vs
"Our product is 100 times better than our competition."

Which sells more product?

Drops mic. Walks off stage.



(I'm still getting the HEPA filter)

Says it all in a nutshell (no criticism intended). Having choices is good for consumers.
 
Since I need to get out of my car to walk to the office/home/theater/park I will then spend hours in with NO HEPA filters I see zero value of one in the car. Yes in an operating room but since I spend less than 5% of my life in my car and most of that time I have the windows open or the roof off, a HEPA filter is just crazy.
 
Since I need to get out of my car to walk to the office/home/theater/park I will then spend hours in with NO HEPA filters I see zero value of one in the car. Yes in an operating room but since I spend less than 5% of my life in my car and most of that time I have the windows open or the roof off, a HEPA filter is just crazy.

You must have no allergies or don't mind paying for your allergy medications.

You live in TN and don't see the value of not being exposed to Pollen?

Worst U.S. cities for allergy sufferers - CNN.com

1. Jackson, Mississippi
2. Knoxville, Tennessee
3. Chattanooga, Tennessee
4. McAllen, Texas
5. Louisville, Kentucky
6. Wichita, Kansas
7. Dayton, Ohio
8. Memphis, Tennessee

The 100 Most Challenging Places to Live with Allergies


The five most challenging cities to live in with springtime allergies this year (spring 2015) are:


  1. Jackson, Mississippi
  2. Louisville, Kentucky
  3. Oklahoma City, Oklahoma
  4. Memphis, Tennessee
  5. Knoxville, Tennessee


If my drive to work is 30 minutes and my walk from car to building is 1 minute I'm pretty sure I want cabin air filters to remove the pollen 30 times more than I want to wear a dust mask walking from the car to work (which I don't do).

Not to mention that at work and home I only have a few plants to worry about but in between there are thousands if not millions I have to pass every day.

My car is in a garage at home so I don't face the pollen there, on the road I have the cabin air filter. If I could get a better filter for my two best cars I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I'd like to know where I can go to have someone retrofit a bigger/better filter in my existing cars. If I can't do that I sure want Tesla to offer it on every car they sell so I have the ability to upgrade cheaper than a Model X with all the options.
 
Last edited:

Products we're discussing on TMC...

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top