4 ms·

It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". In principle it looks like candles and humans could have a very similar effect, because both work by the proc

It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". In principle it looks like candles and humans could have a very similar effect, because both work by the process of combustion. Humans even supply fat as fuel which is similar to the candle wax. But the details differ so of course different gases could come out as a side effect. Both consume oxygen, which is certainly part of "air quality". But the lesson could've been narrowed down to just oxygen, "air quality" involves other things. Seems main takeaway is that one candle = one human, wrt. oxygen in the room. If the numbers are right.

danans 4y ago
> It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". To ignore the the central subject of the comment - air quality - in order to call it "not incorrect" is doing quite a bit of work. > Seems main takeaway is that one candle = one human, wrt. oxygen in the room. If the numbers are right. If we can ignore air quality, what is the difference between this and the comparison between 2 60lb dogs and a human in a room? Or any other animals of similar mass that respirate in the same way? Clearly the comment was an overtly reductive missive targeted at recent concerns about air quality issues created by indoor combustion.
- medstrom 4y ago
  I only said candle=human with regards to oxygen. Agree a candle is different because of byproduct gases. Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it.
  - danans 4y ago
    > Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it. Then how is his comment topical or even interesting? It sure sounds like he's wading into the indoor air quality debate that ignited (pun intended) around gas stoves in the last week. But as others have noted, he's a "great man" so his opinions, well informed or not, get broadcast.
aqme28 4y ago
A statement about "air quality" that fundamentally "misuses" the term is pretty much an incorrect statement.

danans 4y ago

> It's not incorrect, just misuse of "air quality". To ignore the the central subject of the comment - air quality - in order to call it "not incorrect" is doing quite a bit of work. > Seems main takeaway is that one candle = one human, wrt. oxygen in the room. If the numbers are right. If we can ignore air quality, what is the difference between this and the comparison between 2 60lb dogs and a human in a room? Or any other animals of similar mass that respirate in the same way? Clearly the comment was an overtly reductive missive targeted at recent concerns about air quality issues created by indoor combustion.

medstrom 4y ago
I only said candle=human with regards to oxygen. Agree a candle is different because of byproduct gases. Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it.
- danans 4y ago
  > Strongly suspect that Carmack said "air quality" sloppily and meant specifically the oxygen aspect of it. Then how is his comment topical or even interesting? It sure sounds like he's wading into the indoor air quality debate that ignited (pun intended) around gas stoves in the last week. But as others have noted, he's a "great man" so his opinions, well informed or not, get broadcast.

aqme28 4y ago

A statement about "air quality" that fundamentally "misuses" the term is pretty much an incorrect statement.