3 ms·
> 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 doi
by 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 agoI 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.