7 ms·

No. I wrote up the computations explaining why. See http://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/co2_closed_rooms/ http://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/co2_closed_roo

by brilee 7y ago

No. I wrote up the computations explaining why. See http://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/co2_closed_rooms/ http://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/co2_closed_rooms/

josefresco 7y ago
Is one person, or two in a closed room overnight the same, or similar to a conference room with say, 15-20 people for several hours? My apologies if you addressed this.
- brilee 7y ago
  Not sure what CO2 levels that would generate - you'd need to measure to be sure. But my calculations suggest that effects are negligible even up to ~5000 ppm, and many of these studies are boohooing about 1-2000ppm conditions. I do think this area is understudied. It's just that being afraid of the air supply is such an easy way to nocebo yourself.
  - max76 7y ago
    I have a pedantic correction. The lowest number this article talks about being bad is 945ppm. A ppm of 600 is discussed as "fairly low" co2 levels. They are clearly not boohooing over the entire range of 1-2000.
Symmetry 7y ago
If you prove that, in theory, the results you observe shouldn't occur this usually means you're using the wrong theory. In your case you're not looking at the differential binding of oxygen and carbon dioxide to hemoglobin.
graeme 7y ago
....did you actually test if breathing rate changes? If not, on what basis can you say you're correct?
- phonypc 7y ago
  It is known in physiology that respiration rate is more or less determined by concentration of CO2 in the blood. Probably doesn't need to be independently tested.
  - graeme 7y ago
    You’d still want to test. And if it was increased, the next thing to test would be whether a 10% increase in baseline respiratory rate was benign. It’s not obvious that it would be, since breath is so tightly regulated. OP spoke with rather more certainty than warranted.
Raphmedia 7y ago
> At 5 millibars (5,000 ppm), you would start breathing at a 10% elevated rate, which you probably wouldn’t notice. Wouldn't you? Won't you subconsciously notice and want to end the meeting faster? Imagine breathing at an elevated rate in a crowded room that lacks proper ventilation. There's more than co2 coming from the human body. People will begin sweating, farting, etc., and fill the air with all kinds of pollutants. The computers, screens, dry erase board, etc. will make the situation even worst. I know that such a room will make me want to make quick decisions to leave quickly.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >Imagine breathing at an elevated rate in a crowded room that lacks proper ventilation. There's more than co2 coming from the human body. People will begin sweating, farting, etc., and fill the air with all kinds of pollutants. The computers, screens, dry erase board, etc. will make the situation even worst. Your description makes me think of the opening scene from Falling Down.[0] [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg
- duckymcduckface 7y ago
  You're referring to a psychological effect, he's referring to an autonomic. It's the same way the you don't tend to notice your heart rate increase and decrease as you move around unless it's major.
  - Raphmedia 7y ago
    The opening post was about a psychological effect to which this poster responded "No. I wrote up the computations explaining why." and linked to a paper which had as a conclusion an increase in breathing rates. My point is that a crowded room likely has more than one causes which could explain why productivity is lowered and decisions making worsened. You won't notice an autonomic response but your brain likely will and it might very well answer by releasing adrenaline, cortisol, etc., and make you more anxious and stressed to encourage you to leave the environment that is causing the increased breathing rates.
IHLayman 7y ago
This research in 2017 and the many studies it references on page 4 beg to differ with you: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_di...
mcguire 7y ago
So, you conclude that breathing faster is the only effect of increased environmental CO2?

by brilee 7y ago

No. I wrote up the computations explaining why. See http://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/co2_closed_rooms/ http://www.moderndescartes.com/essays/co2_closed_rooms/

josefresco 7y ago

Is one person, or two in a closed room overnight the same, or similar to a conference room with say, 15-20 people for several hours? My apologies if you addressed this.

brilee 7y ago
Not sure what CO2 levels that would generate - you'd need to measure to be sure. But my calculations suggest that effects are negligible even up to ~5000 ppm, and many of these studies are boohooing about 1-2000ppm conditions. I do think this area is understudied. It's just that being afraid of the air supply is such an easy way to nocebo yourself.
- max76 7y ago
  I have a pedantic correction. The lowest number this article talks about being bad is 945ppm. A ppm of 600 is discussed as "fairly low" co2 levels. They are clearly not boohooing over the entire range of 1-2000.

Symmetry 7y ago

If you prove that, in theory, the results you observe shouldn't occur this usually means you're using the wrong theory. In your case you're not looking at the differential binding of oxygen and carbon dioxide to hemoglobin.

graeme 7y ago

....did you actually test if breathing rate changes? If not, on what basis can you say you're correct?

phonypc 7y ago
It is known in physiology that respiration rate is more or less determined by concentration of CO2 in the blood. Probably doesn't need to be independently tested.
- graeme 7y ago
  You’d still want to test. And if it was increased, the next thing to test would be whether a 10% increase in baseline respiratory rate was benign. It’s not obvious that it would be, since breath is so tightly regulated. OP spoke with rather more certainty than warranted.

Raphmedia 7y ago

> At 5 millibars (5,000 ppm), you would start breathing at a 10% elevated rate, which you probably wouldn’t notice. Wouldn't you? Won't you subconsciously notice and want to end the meeting faster? Imagine breathing at an elevated rate in a crowded room that lacks proper ventilation. There's more than co2 coming from the human body. People will begin sweating, farting, etc., and fill the air with all kinds of pollutants. The computers, screens, dry erase board, etc. will make the situation even worst. I know that such a room will make me want to make quick decisions to leave quickly.

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>Imagine breathing at an elevated rate in a crowded room that lacks proper ventilation. There's more than co2 coming from the human body. People will begin sweating, farting, etc., and fill the air with all kinds of pollutants. The computers, screens, dry erase board, etc. will make the situation even worst. Your description makes me think of the opening scene from Falling Down.[0] [0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPzExBdfIg
duckymcduckface 7y ago
You're referring to a psychological effect, he's referring to an autonomic. It's the same way the you don't tend to notice your heart rate increase and decrease as you move around unless it's major.
- Raphmedia 7y ago
  The opening post was about a psychological effect to which this poster responded "No. I wrote up the computations explaining why." and linked to a paper which had as a conclusion an increase in breathing rates. My point is that a crowded room likely has more than one causes which could explain why productivity is lowered and decisions making worsened. You won't notice an autonomic response but your brain likely will and it might very well answer by releasing adrenaline, cortisol, etc., and make you more anxious and stressed to encourage you to leave the environment that is causing the increased breathing rates.

IHLayman 7y ago

This research in 2017 and the many studies it references on page 4 beg to differ with you: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_dioxide_toxicity_and_climate_change_a_serious_unapprehended_risk_for_human_health https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311844520_Carbon_di...

mcguire 7y ago

So, you conclude that breathing faster is the only effect of increased environmental CO2?