A critical review of the effectiveness of electric fans as a personal cooling intervention in hot weather and heatwaves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Health agencies worldwide have historically cautioned that electric fans accelerate body-heat gain during hot weather and heatwaves (typically in air temperatures ≥35°C). However, guidance published since 2021 has suggested that fans can still cool the body in air temperatures up to 40°C by facilitating sweat evaporation, and therefore are an inexpensive yet sustainable alternative to air conditioning. In a critical analysis of the reports cited to support this claim, we found that although fan use improves sweat evaporation, these benefits are of insufficient magnitude to exert meaningful reductions in body core temperature in air temperatures exceeding 35°C. Health agencies should continue to advise against fan use in air temperatures higher than 35°C, especially for people with compromised sweating capacity (eg, adults aged 65 years or older). Improving access to ambient cooling strategies (eg, air conditioning or evaporative coolers) and minimising their economic and environmental costs through policy initiatives, efficient cooling technology, and combined use of low-cost personal interventions (eg, skin wetting or fan use) are crucial for climate adaptation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".