431–440 of 499 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would that not induce a responsibility to take reasonable preventative measures like wearing masks?
[flagged]
While true, your comment implies that infections through air are not important/critical. This includes COVID-19?
Oh this is absolutely so relevant and I wonder if there are any high quality studies that have analyzed driving performance against CO2 buildup in cars. Cars often ship with circulate air feature in the aircon, and people use it aggressively, nonchalantly at least where I live, having no idea about the dangers of possible hypoxia and sleepiness that might be inducing in them while driving. It is absolutely critical i…
Your comment actually has me convinced that this isn't an issue. I've been a recirculation dude for my entire life, I literally don't drive any other way.
At the extreme was "MAX" which most people didn't realize was "recirculate" unless they read the owner's manual in those cases where it was well documented. The next notch over was "NORM" which as the name implied was intended to be the "normal" setting except under more challenging conditions. But with fresh air coming in constantly it only was passing through the refrigerant coils one time, plus sometimes the outdoor air is a lot hotter than others, so recirc is when you want the same interior air to pass through the coils more than once.
All this may go "out the window" when the exhaust fumes or worse in the outdoor air need to be excluded as much as possible.
I kind of miss the old '70's cars even though loads of them kept running long after the A/C had failed.
Regardless, I never felt alone even without a passenger, with my good buddies Max & Norm with me everywhere I went ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> There are so many rooms, classrooms, movie theaters and other places with poor ventilation where you just feel dizzy, or fall asleep, not knowing it was just due to lower oxygen levels in your blood. Raising awareness is the only real solution. Not wrong, but it is perhaps worth noting that there are already standards for proper ventilation. Generally you're looking at 5–10 cfm/person (2.5-5 L/s), depending on the…
Building codes that address this are wonderful, however: - Plenty of people live or work in older buildings, where are not up to standard. For example: my office probably violates the air quality sensibilities of the Victorian era, which is when it was originally built. - Equipment breaks down, isn't operated properly, or wasn't installed correctly. Having monitors that measure air quality is an extra check. While yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The article references a study where the CO2 proportion going from 0.04% -to 0.25% causes mental problems. In other words, a difference in 0.21% of the air. I'm finding that pretty difficult to believe, to be quite honest with you. And before you say "aha, carbon dioxide brain fog!" consider that I'm about a mile from the sea with a 40mph onshore breeze. This air is about as oxygenated as it gets.
1% (10,000 ppm) is enough for the person to become aware something is odd through drowsiness or an elevated heart rate. I don't think it's too far-fetched for a quarter of that to cause subconscious cognitive effects, that could be measured in tests.
In every breath you remove about 25% of the oxygen from the air in your lungs, which is why mouth-to-mouth resuscitation works, at all. Most of the oxygen is still in there.
To be clear, that 25% represents a change in oxygen level from around 21% to around 16%, so the few tenths of a percent change in carbon dioxide just isn't a huge amount.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And window.
An open window means kilowatts of energy wasted. All the air I spent money cooling will just leak out. It also means all the pollen will be let in.
A possible cayalyst for compromised decision-making during crowded meetings :\
If you want citations search my post history, but CO2 cognitive impact studies have a replication issue. We’ve been studying the impact of CO2 for decades, at much higher levels than you see in office buildings and have never recorded any cognitive impact (until many thousands of PPM) until the Satish study in 2012 and a handful of other studies that Satish was involved in. If you think about it for a second these st…
The difference between Satish-involved studies and other studies is extreme, too. Their first 2012 study tested levels at 600, 1000, and 2500ppm. In many categories they observed the 2500ppm group receiving "dysfunctional" ratings in their tests. Even their 1000ppm group saw significant drops. This sparked the panic about CO2 levels that led to people buying CO2 sensors and thinking that not unusual CO2 levels were a…
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/20100039645/downloads/20...