Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 327 posts

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#241

Post by dredmorbius »

avar wrote: post #225
dredmorbius wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A typical person exhales just over 1kg of CO2 daily. You'd need emough plants to fix about the same amount of CO2 from the air, under indoor, shaded conditions . https://www.reference.com/science/much-co2-human-exhale-3f8c... The fastest rate of carbon fixation by any plants are photosynthetic algae eds, which fix u to 4.4 kg of carbon per square meter per year, or 16.3kg CO2/(m^2 * yr). http://carbon.ycombinator.com…

The source you're citing talks about 4.4 kg estimated per m^2 for algae in the open ocean, and notes that the maximum known rate is 9.16, so around 9 * (44/12) = 33 kg per m^2/yr converting C to CO^2, or around 11 square meters. In terms of CO^2 sequestration it doesn't seem implausible to fit a farm of that area in something the size of an apartment.. Of course the energy/water use would be insane, hopefully you cou…

Note that the article refers to both carbon and carbon dioxide fixation. CO2 weighs more than the carbon it contains, by a lot. Carbon has an atomic weight of 12, CO2 a molecular weight of 44 (12 + 216), or just shy 4x the mass of the carbon* component of CO2.

The 4.4 kg I gave was carbon, the 16.3 kg CO2. Your 9.16 kg refers to CO2, fixed per square meter per year, which is less than the CO2 fixation value I'd used. That is, http://carbon.ycombinator.com are making a more conservative estimate of about 56% the maximum observed rate. That increases rather than decreases the required area.

At 9.63 kg/(m^2yr) you'd need 39.8 m^2, or 429 ft^2, of algae to offset one person's CO2 exhalation.

Using GNU units:

    You have: (1kg/day)/(9.16 kg/(m^2*yr))
    You want: m^2
            * 39.873602
            / 0.025079249
    You have: (1kg/day)/(9.16 kg/(m^2*yr))
    You want: ft^2
            * 429.19589
            / 0.0023299385
    You have: 9.16/16.3
    You want: %
            * 56.196319
            / 0.01779476
Apologies for typos in GP post. Android soft-keyboard stinks.

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#242

Post by quibono »

ggreer wrote: post #240

If it is, it's not due to CO2. The US Navy's submarines are run with CO2 levels varying from 300-11,300ppm.[1] The military did plenty of studies in the 60s and 70s and failed to find significant cognitive effects in environments as high as 4% CO2.[2] > Thus, CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen, a population probably not unlik…

If it's not CO2 the real cause might be even more interesting, if a real negative effect does exist (which it seems to do, given the recent studies). I find it interesting that 1) they disagree based on the tests/methodology used 2) no one seems to be acknowledging the military research from back then (which I have to say, I didn't know about myself).

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#243

Post by illegalsmile »

pastor_elm wrote: post #139

One of the reasons I refuse to workout in a gym. Would love to see what the numbers are for a rush hour subway car in NYC. Can imagine it's a great way to juice your brain before the start of a workday.

My guess is that the benefits of the 30-60 minutes 3-6x a week you spend in the gym far outweigh any of the negatives of elevated CO2 exposure. You know when a gym has poor ventilation which means that's not a gym you want to be at.

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#244

Post by ComputerGuru »

ggreer wrote: post #240

If it is, it's not due to CO2. The US Navy's submarines are run with CO2 levels varying from 300-11,300ppm.[1] The military did plenty of studies in the 60s and 70s and failed to find significant cognitive effects in environments as high as 4% CO2.[2] > Thus, CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen, a population probably not unlik…

Thanks for that info and the links! I'm curious: Did you know about this report prior to researching this particular paper's claim?

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#245

Post by m463 »

ggreer wrote: post #240

If it is, it's not due to CO2. The US Navy's submarines are run with CO2 levels varying from 300-11,300ppm.[1] The military did plenty of studies in the 60s and 70s and failed to find significant cognitive effects in environments as high as 4% CO2.[2] > Thus, CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen, a population probably not unlik…

Maybe this article is part of the long game for open seating...

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#246

Post by lstodd »

ggreer wrote: post #240

If it is, it's not due to CO2. The US Navy's submarines are run with CO2 levels varying from 300-11,300ppm.[1] The military did plenty of studies in the 60s and 70s and failed to find significant cognitive effects in environments as high as 4% CO2.[2] > Thus, CO2 at 40,000 ppm for 2 weeks did not affect performance on multiple tests of cognitive function in physically fit young airmen, a population probably not unlik…

It isn't submarine crew sitting in those conference rooms. Not to mention the dreaded so-called "open-spaces". The tasks are completely different and no one gets half a year time off the tub. So the studies you cited are irrelevant.

In fact, inadeqate air quality was one of the three main reasons (two other being interruptions and commute time) that drove me to exclusively remote work 10 years ago. It took a lab-grade CO2 detector and some references to half-century old health standards to make the first step, but it worked.

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#247

Post by blattimwind »

tempestn wrote: post #221
Thiez wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The man has a pretty good explanation in that case, iff there was a good reason to administer CPR. So what would it cost the rescuer, exactly? Unless you start undressing every unconscious woman you encounter, even if they seem to have no other problems...

People have been sued for injuries caused while performing CPR, so I could certainly imagine someone being sued for undressing a person (without their consent, obviously) to perform CPR.

In Germany not performing what we call "lebensrettende Sofortmaßnahmen" (stable side position, clearing airways, CPR) is (at least technically) criminally liable to § 323c StGB. I shall also point out that first responders have some legal protections and insurance.

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#248

Post by jonas21 »

sigwinch28 wrote: post #202
wlll wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, it's a great way to make sure meetings don't go on too long, hold them in the rain :)

This reminds me of privy council meetings in the UK. The monarch traditionally does not sit, and therefore nobody else can, ensuring the meetings remain short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privy_Council_of_the_United_Ki...

The original standup?

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#249

Post by Symmetry »

_Nat_ wrote: post #227
notJim wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god, it's already happening.

Plus the comment 4 levels up had "C02" rather than "CO2". I searched for why people do this 1337-substitution [1], and apparently the justification's that "C02" can be quicker to type on some mobile keyboards since "0" is a single press while "O" requires hitting Shift too. But in chemistry, we'd often write chemical formulae in linear format. For example, "H2O" is water while "C6H12O6" refers to some simple sugars.…

It wasn't a deliberate substitution, just a result of typing quickly, having 'O' next to '0', and having them be hard to distinguish with the font I was using.

Re: Is Conference Room Air Making Us Dumber?

#250

Post by lstodd »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #41
Klathmon wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I picked up a CO2 monitor a while ago myself, and the biggest surprise was having it on in the morning in our bedroom with the doors closed. It was easily over 1000ppm IIRC. Ever since then I've made sure to set my AC system to run the "house fan" for 15 minutes or so every hour at night just to circulate the air in the house, and while the numbers went down significantly, anecdotally I swear that I wake up easier in…

Helmets? That's interesting; I tend to open the visor a bit when at a stop, it gets really warm in there really fast. I know you shouldn't try to take off a helmet in case of an accident, but is opening the visor at least okay?

What's your model?

I used to ride with a just-a-bit opened visor because it was so hot in the city, with all the traffic and all, (and the beard didn't help the air flow) so I ended with eye infection because of the dust ingress. So I just bought one with better vents (and audio). Worth every $ even though I had to patch the audio circuitry a bit.

Maybe you should consider upgrading.

Post reply on HN