7 ms·

> This is junk science on so many levels it's laughable. I disagree. They make a very limited conclusion that 890 ppm CO2 appears to modestly impair the lung

by 1e-9 5y ago

> This is junk science on so many levels it's laughable. I disagree. They make a very limited conclusion that 890 ppm CO2 appears to modestly impair the lung development of female mice. They did not observe an adverse effect on either male mice or adult female mice. They make no claims about people dropping dead or ending up in the hospital with horrible respiratory problems. The chambers had circulating fans and a medical air supply that prevented the CO2 level from rising above 890 ppm. The substrate and changing schedule were consistent with practices shown to keep ammonia levels to negligible concentrations. Their methods appear reasonable. Your inflammatory mouse flatulence speculation seems less scientific in comparison.

robomartin 5y ago
Really? It reaches no useful conclusion after torturing 53+ mice (and likely killing them). You seem to have missed the data I provided. Yes, single data points from my own environment, but it stands to reason that these numbers are likely not uncommon in modern urban environments, homes and offices included. In fact, I went over to a couple of my neighbors homes and took similar measurements, indoor and out. Same range of numbers. Upstairs, downstairs, in the back, in the front, in their cars. What does this tell me? This "research" was pointless. People have been living in 600 to 1000+ ppm CO2 concentrations, likely for decades. What's the point of torturing mice with an experiment that doesn't even provide a reasonable analog? What's the point of killing mice in an experiment where the control loop is only driven by CO2 concentration and does not provide adequate free air to dissipate everything and anything else? 53 mice in a box 1/3 the volume of a refrigerator? My problem with this kind of "science" is that bits and pieces of the conclusion will be make their way into both popular brainwashing marketing as well as documents used to justify governmental policy. Ten generations into the copy-paste train the fact that this was a less-than-ideal experiment devoid of useful conclusions will not matter. Politicians will say things like "Global warming causes a 125% inflammation of the lungs". A statement that has absolutely no support in the findings at all. And yet, it will be taken as a true statement and used to drive outrage, votes, policies, etc. Won't happen? This wouldn't be the first time. One of my favorites --which did not lead to policies but rather silly technology and spending-- is a paper from the 1970's that reached a conclusion related to photosynthesis using purple light (no green spectral content). This led to indoor farms and growers buying purple lights to grow plants. In the last couple of years everyone started to realize this was a bad idea and everyone is rapidly moving towards white light now. Much as is the case with the mouse CO2 experiment, the purple light experiment has serious issues. However, everyone copy-pasted conclusions and charts to justify their decision to go purple. In reality, the experiment looked at something like ground-up plant leaf cells under conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with real live plants being grown for food (or recreational products). That's how "junk science" can lead to undesirable unintended consequences. And that's why it should be identified as early as possible. These conclusions are not useful. And, when it comes to climate change, we are wasting valuable time focusing on absolute nonsense. The reason is simple: In the research community it is professional suicide to speak-up against what politicians and other interests want to drive. You get research dollars and are elevated to hero status if you provide fuel for their madness. And so, if you'd rather have a job and funding, you ignore reality and pander to the political forces pushing this nonsense. That's how we get to 53 mice in a small box and call this "research". I must highlight (because my statements can be misconstrued) that this is NOT about denying climate change at all. It's very real and, yes, we accelerated CO2 concentration through our industrial expansion. No question about that at all. What isn't real is that (a) we can fix it ("save the planet", a convenient emotional pull for votes and support) and (b) that we are all going to drop like flies (we've been living in 1000+ ppm CO2, likely for 50 to 100+ years). Anyone who disagrees with me should go out and buy a CO2 meter --as I did years ago. Then go around and measure the environments you've been living and working in for the last several years. From there, assess your own general health and, if compelled, have a doctor give you a full (and relevant) check-up. I'll bet you are going to be VERY surprised to discover you've been living in 600 to 1000+ ppm CO2 environments for a very long time and you and your family are OK. After that, go around to friends and family and repeat your measurements. Once again, I think you'll be very surprised by what you discover. If you don't do this, please keep your thoughts to yourself. You are not even operating with the most basic of data sets --data about your own environment-- to understand that some of these claims are just ridiculous.
- 1e-9 5y ago
  I agree with a number of your points: 1) Many people already live in high-CO2 indoor environments. Please see my earlier comment elsewhere in this thread where I relate how my own home quickly shoots up to over 1300 ppm if I turn off my ventilation system. Most people don’t even have ventilation systems. 2) People should monitor their indoor air quality. Consider giving a CO2 monitor to friends and family who don’t have one. 3) We can draw no conclusions from this paper. Please see my earlier comment that the statistical analysis is flawed and the methods could have been better. 4) There is a serious problem with the motivations, execution, dissemination, and interpretation of research today. This has been a problem for as long as scientific papers have existed. Einstein once told Norbert Weiner that he deplored the flooding of the literature by immature, idea-less papers. I don’t think the situation has improved since then. Recent politics haven’t helped. 5) Animals, even mice, should never be harmed without strong justification. Here’s where we disagree: 1) The fact that people already live in high-CO2 environments does not imply there are no ill effects. There have been multiple studies indicating that high CO2 environments significantly degrade cognitive performance by large amounts. This implies some plausibility for developmental effects in children, which we have seen with other pollutants. 2) Although your outdoor CO2 measurements are not individually unusual, you should generally see an average below 500 ppm unless you live near an unusual outdoor source of CO2. Even next to a busy road in a highly polluted city, the average should be below 600 ppm. I suspect there is either an issue with your monitor or your breath may be sometimes drifting to the sensor. Your own breath can cause errors of several hundred ppm. Be sure to keep the sensor at arm’s length and stay downwind. Even better, get a unit that will record a history and step away from it for awhile. 3) You imply the paper makes extreme claims that it does not actually make. You are probably right that others will make extreme conclusions, but that is different. 4) A study does not need to reach a valid conclusion to have value. Much of science requires eliminating dead ends and finding potential hypothesis for follow-up. It is not economically feasible to study all possible hypothesis. We must make some advancements through incremental trial and error. This paper serves an exploratory function. The methods are reasonable enough to propose hypotheses for a couple of developmental effects. This was really more of a pilot study, although I doubt that was the intent. I’ve seen worse pilot studies that were still useful. To reach credible conclusions, other studies would need to be performed using a larger number of subjects and/or fewer tests along with better statistical analysis. 5) For the past 10,000 years, outdoor CO2 levels averaged around 280 ppm. Tripling that over a few hundred years is an extreme event. It is vital that we understand the potential consequences as soon as possible. I believe mitigations are possible if we develop sufficient motivation.

by 1e-9 5y ago

robomartin 5y ago

Really? It reaches no useful conclusion after torturing 53+ mice (and likely killing them). You seem to have missed the data I provided. Yes, single data points from my own environment, but it stands to reason that these numbers are likely not uncommon in modern urban environments, homes and offices included. In fact, I went over to a couple of my neighbors homes and took similar measurements, indoor and out. Same range of numbers. Upstairs, downstairs, in the back, in the front, in their cars. What does this tell me? This "research" was pointless. People have been living in 600 to 1000+ ppm CO2 concentrations, likely for decades. What's the point of torturing mice with an experiment that doesn't even provide a reasonable analog? What's the point of killing mice in an experiment where the control loop is only driven by CO2 concentration and does not provide adequate free air to dissipate everything and anything else? 53 mice in a box 1/3 the volume of a refrigerator? My problem with this kind of "science" is that bits and pieces of the conclusion will be make their way into both popular brainwashing marketing as well as documents used to justify governmental policy. Ten generations into the copy-paste train the fact that this was a less-than-ideal experiment devoid of useful conclusions will not matter. Politicians will say things like "Global warming causes a 125% inflammation of the lungs". A statement that has absolutely no support in the findings at all. And yet, it will be taken as a true statement and used to drive outrage, votes, policies, etc. Won't happen? This wouldn't be the first time. One of my favorites --which did not lead to policies but rather silly technology and spending-- is a paper from the 1970's that reached a conclusion related to photosynthesis using purple light (no green spectral content). This led to indoor farms and growers buying purple lights to grow plants. In the last couple of years everyone started to realize this was a bad idea and everyone is rapidly moving towards white light now. Much as is the case with the mouse CO2 experiment, the purple light experiment has serious issues. However, everyone copy-pasted conclusions and charts to justify their decision to go purple. In reality, the experiment looked at something like ground-up plant leaf cells under conditions that have nothing whatsoever to do with real live plants being grown for food (or recreational products). That's how "junk science" can lead to undesirable unintended consequences. And that's why it should be identified as early as possible. These conclusions are not useful. And, when it comes to climate change, we are wasting valuable time focusing on absolute nonsense. The reason is simple: In the research community it is professional suicide to speak-up against what politicians and other interests want to drive. You get research dollars and are elevated to hero status if you provide fuel for their madness. And so, if you'd rather have a job and funding, you ignore reality and pander to the political forces pushing this nonsense. That's how we get to 53 mice in a small box and call this "research". I must highlight (because my statements can be misconstrued) that this is NOT about denying climate change at all. It's very real and, yes, we accelerated CO2 concentration through our industrial expansion. No question about that at all. What isn't real is that (a) we can fix it ("save the planet", a convenient emotional pull for votes and support) and (b) that we are all going to drop like flies (we've been living in 1000+ ppm CO2, likely for 50 to 100+ years). Anyone who disagrees with me should go out and buy a CO2 meter --as I did years ago. Then go around and measure the environments you've been living and working in for the last several years. From there, assess your own general health and, if compelled, have a doctor give you a full (and relevant) check-up. I'll bet you are going to be VERY surprised to discover you've been living in 600 to 1000+ ppm CO2 environments for a very long time and you and your family are OK. After that, go around to friends and family and repeat your measurements. Once again, I think you'll be very surprised by what you discover. If you don't do this, please keep your thoughts to yourself. You are not even operating with the most basic of data sets --data about your own environment-- to understand that some of these claims are just ridiculous.

1e-9 5y ago
I agree with a number of your points: 1) Many people already live in high-CO2 indoor environments. Please see my earlier comment elsewhere in this thread where I relate how my own home quickly shoots up to over 1300 ppm if I turn off my ventilation system. Most people don’t even have ventilation systems. 2) People should monitor their indoor air quality. Consider giving a CO2 monitor to friends and family who don’t have one. 3) We can draw no conclusions from this paper. Please see my earlier comment that the statistical analysis is flawed and the methods could have been better. 4) There is a serious problem with the motivations, execution, dissemination, and interpretation of research today. This has been a problem for as long as scientific papers have existed. Einstein once told Norbert Weiner that he deplored the flooding of the literature by immature, idea-less papers. I don’t think the situation has improved since then. Recent politics haven’t helped. 5) Animals, even mice, should never be harmed without strong justification. Here’s where we disagree: 1) The fact that people already live in high-CO2 environments does not imply there are no ill effects. There have been multiple studies indicating that high CO2 environments significantly degrade cognitive performance by large amounts. This implies some plausibility for developmental effects in children, which we have seen with other pollutants. 2) Although your outdoor CO2 measurements are not individually unusual, you should generally see an average below 500 ppm unless you live near an unusual outdoor source of CO2. Even next to a busy road in a highly polluted city, the average should be below 600 ppm. I suspect there is either an issue with your monitor or your breath may be sometimes drifting to the sensor. Your own breath can cause errors of several hundred ppm. Be sure to keep the sensor at arm’s length and stay downwind. Even better, get a unit that will record a history and step away from it for awhile. 3) You imply the paper makes extreme claims that it does not actually make. You are probably right that others will make extreme conclusions, but that is different. 4) A study does not need to reach a valid conclusion to have value. Much of science requires eliminating dead ends and finding potential hypothesis for follow-up. It is not economically feasible to study all possible hypothesis. We must make some advancements through incremental trial and error. This paper serves an exploratory function. The methods are reasonable enough to propose hypotheses for a couple of developmental effects. This was really more of a pilot study, although I doubt that was the intent. I’ve seen worse pilot studies that were still useful. To reach credible conclusions, other studies would need to be performed using a larger number of subjects and/or fewer tests along with better statistical analysis. 5) For the past 10,000 years, outdoor CO2 levels averaged around 280 ppm. Tripling that over a few hundred years is an extreme event. It is vital that we understand the potential consequences as soon as possible. I believe mitigations are possible if we develop sufficient motivation.