3 ms·
Yeah I really don't get how we're supposed to interpret "50% lower". Intelligence is barely ordinal to begin with. Also ventilation when done properly isn't jus
by MertsA 7y ago
Yeah I really don't get how we're supposed to interpret "50% lower". Intelligence is barely ordinal to begin with. Also ventilation when done properly isn't just some fixed rate, we already target air changes per hour and CO2 levels to prevent indoor air in an office environment from becoming too stagnant. This just means we would need to increase the ventilation, not that it wouldn't work at all.
- simonh 7y agoWell, 50% lower as measured by scores in the tests they used. And yes of course this might be mitigated by better ventilation, but you have to know or suspect there’s a problem first in order to effectively mitigate it. The fact that an effect can be countered isn’t a valid criticism of a study showing an effect. So I do agree with the critical comments, to the extent that this isn’t enough proof and we need better studies, but the theory seems credible and worth further study. But the dismissive attitude makes no sense to me, and if increased CO2 levels do have a proven effect on cognition, and CO2 levels are actually on track to rise to levels with a significant effect, that’s a really big deal.
- missosoup 7y ago> we already target air changes per hour and CO2 levels to prevent indoor air in an office environment from becoming too stagnant If you ever take a Co2 sensor into a standard office environment or even your home, you're in for a bit of a shock. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/08/indoor-carbon-dioxide-levels-could-be-a-health-hazard-scientists-warn https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/jul/08/indoor-c...