5 ms·

What worries me is any amount of elevated CO2 has a measurable cognitive decline. Even going from 400ppm to 600ppm has a statistically significant change. The c

What worries me is any amount of elevated CO2 has a measurable cognitive decline. Even going from 400ppm to 600ppm has a statistically significant change. The climate crisis is making us collectively dumber. Opening a window can actually make you smarter. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1bd8 https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac1bd8

sarchertech 4y ago
The study you linked used C02 as a proxy for low ventilation, it wasn't measuring the effect of C02 on cognitive performance. The navy routinely operates submarines at 3500ppm or more, and they've been conducting studies since the 60s which have failed to show a cognitive decline from levels as high as 30,000ppm. Here's a HN comment with a good summary. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319
- rayiner 4y ago
  So pop science is bullshit, again? Why do I keep falling for it.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Sounds like you just changed your mind based on an anonymous comment.
  - jldugger 4y ago
    Probably because you spend all days indoors watching TED talks in poorly ventilated apartments.
    - andirk 4y ago
      Lol TED talks are a joke [0]. But depending on where one lives, better air quality may be inside or outside. The cleanest air I can breathe locally is in my grow room that is completely sealed except for a HEPA intake w/ same size exhaust that resupplies all new air per ~5 minutes, while I smoke my spliff, and it is very noticeable. I think I'm dumb for a lot of reasons but now I can add CO2 to the mix. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A
    - godelski 4y ago
      Because it sounds reasonable, it reflects your experiences (stuffy -> headache -> lack of concentration), and you want a clear solution. But humans fucking suck at causal analysis. We all fall for it. Best we can do is get upset at the communicator (news/magazine/whatever) to put pressure for them to actually do their job. But also it is important that we are willing to update our beliefs instead of doubling down. All too common armchair experts arm themselves and fight real experts, who get very confused/frustrated. FWIW, CO2 can cause cognitive decline. I mean hypoxia is a thing. But usually CO2 levels are a correlating factor (confounder) rather than the direct cause. So we can use it as a tool to help, but it isn't the problem. These types of things are the hard part about causality and why we are so easily fooled (because it makes sense and reflects what we (naively) observe).
  - junofan 4y ago
    The last three years have convinced me public health research (like GP’s link) might have some problems.
  - ekianjo 4y ago
    Maybe you need to open your windows more?
- NelsonMinar 4y ago
  Thank you, I didn't know that the Navy had studied this in submarines. I found a Navy paper that's a summary of that research and it frames it as "the relationship between CO2 exposure and cognition is debated" with many citations for further information, some supporting a link and some not. See PDF page 22: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1103610.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1103610.pdf (To the other comment, the 2021 paper I linked is not "pop science".)
  - sarchertech 4y ago
    You're welcome. I bought into the C02 makes you dumber research several years ago and bought a C02 monitor and everything before I took the time to look into the research. The context of the paper you linked is "stressors in a disabled submarine". It's not a summary of the Navy's research. It does contain a few paragraphs out of nearly 100 pages that briefly summarizes a few relevant studies, both civilian and military. Here's the relevant section: >While some studies have found that elevated CO2 may impair cognitive functions including decision making (Satish et al., 2012), attention (Schaefer, 1951), mental efficiency (Karlin, 1945), and mathematical processing (Sayers, Smith, Holland, & Keatinge, 1987), these findings are not consistently replicated (Rodeheffer, Chabal, Clarke, & Fothergill, 2018; Ryder et al., 2017; X. Zhang, Wargocki, & Lian, 2016; X. Zhang, Wargocki, Lian, & Thyregod, 2016). In fact, many studies have been unable to establish a relationship between CO2 exposure and cognitive deficits (e.g., Bloch- Salisbury, 2000; Francis et al., 2002; Sheehy, Kamon, & Kiser, 1982; Vercruyssen, Kamon, & Hancock, 2007). It lists 3 studies showing a cognitive impact impact. 2 out of the 3 show that there is a cognitive impact at extreme levels far beyond the levels that build up in a conference room, or levels that we'll be exposed to because of increased atmospheric C02. --Sayers, Smith, Holland, & Keatinge, 1987 This study showed a cognitive impact at 65,000ppm, but nothing at 45,000ppm. --Schaefer, 1951 Showed that submariners were slightly affected after prolonged exposure to 30,000ppm Then it lists 7 studies showing no impact on cognition even at very high levels. Out of 10 studies listed, 1 civilian study shows cognitive impact at 1,000ppm. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that that study is a fluke. By the way, this study is the one that kicked off the whole normal indoor levels of C02 make you dumber thing in the first place. This statement: >the relationship between CO2 exposure and cognition is debated is in the context of whether or not concentrations of up to 30,000ppm seen in a submarine disaster will impact cognition, not whether 1,000ppm in a conference room will.

sarchertech 4y ago

The study you linked used C02 as a proxy for low ventilation, it wasn't measuring the effect of C02 on cognitive performance. The navy routinely operates submarines at 3500ppm or more, and they've been conducting studies since the 60s which have failed to show a cognitive decline from levels as high as 30,000ppm. Here's a HN comment with a good summary. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319

rayiner 4y ago
So pop science is bullshit, again? Why do I keep falling for it.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Sounds like you just changed your mind based on an anonymous comment.
- jldugger 4y ago
  Probably because you spend all days indoors watching TED talks in poorly ventilated apartments.
  - andirk 4y ago
    Lol TED talks are a joke [0]. But depending on where one lives, better air quality may be inside or outside. The cleanest air I can breathe locally is in my grow room that is completely sealed except for a HEPA intake w/ same size exhaust that resupplies all new air per ~5 minutes, while I smoke my spliff, and it is very noticeable. I think I'm dumb for a lot of reasons but now I can add CO2 to the mix. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBKX-6Gz6A
  - godelski 4y ago
    Because it sounds reasonable, it reflects your experiences (stuffy -> headache -> lack of concentration), and you want a clear solution. But humans fucking suck at causal analysis. We all fall for it. Best we can do is get upset at the communicator (news/magazine/whatever) to put pressure for them to actually do their job. But also it is important that we are willing to update our beliefs instead of doubling down. All too common armchair experts arm themselves and fight real experts, who get very confused/frustrated. FWIW, CO2 can cause cognitive decline. I mean hypoxia is a thing. But usually CO2 levels are a correlating factor (confounder) rather than the direct cause. So we can use it as a tool to help, but it isn't the problem. These types of things are the hard part about causality and why we are so easily fooled (because it makes sense and reflects what we (naively) observe).
- junofan 4y ago
  The last three years have convinced me public health research (like GP’s link) might have some problems.
- ekianjo 4y ago
  Maybe you need to open your windows more?
NelsonMinar 4y ago
Thank you, I didn't know that the Navy had studied this in submarines. I found a Navy paper that's a summary of that research and it frames it as "the relationship between CO2 exposure and cognition is debated" with many citations for further information, some supporting a link and some not. See PDF page 22: https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1103610.pdf https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD1103610.pdf (To the other comment, the 2021 paper I linked is not "pop science".)
- sarchertech 4y ago
  You're welcome. I bought into the C02 makes you dumber research several years ago and bought a C02 monitor and everything before I took the time to look into the research. The context of the paper you linked is "stressors in a disabled submarine". It's not a summary of the Navy's research. It does contain a few paragraphs out of nearly 100 pages that briefly summarizes a few relevant studies, both civilian and military. Here's the relevant section: >While some studies have found that elevated CO2 may impair cognitive functions including decision making (Satish et al., 2012), attention (Schaefer, 1951), mental efficiency (Karlin, 1945), and mathematical processing (Sayers, Smith, Holland, & Keatinge, 1987), these findings are not consistently replicated (Rodeheffer, Chabal, Clarke, & Fothergill, 2018; Ryder et al., 2017; X. Zhang, Wargocki, & Lian, 2016; X. Zhang, Wargocki, Lian, & Thyregod, 2016). In fact, many studies have been unable to establish a relationship between CO2 exposure and cognitive deficits (e.g., Bloch- Salisbury, 2000; Francis et al., 2002; Sheehy, Kamon, & Kiser, 1982; Vercruyssen, Kamon, & Hancock, 2007). It lists 3 studies showing a cognitive impact impact. 2 out of the 3 show that there is a cognitive impact at extreme levels far beyond the levels that build up in a conference room, or levels that we'll be exposed to because of increased atmospheric C02. --Sayers, Smith, Holland, & Keatinge, 1987 This study showed a cognitive impact at 65,000ppm, but nothing at 45,000ppm. --Schaefer, 1951 Showed that submariners were slightly affected after prolonged exposure to 30,000ppm Then it lists 7 studies showing no impact on cognition even at very high levels. Out of 10 studies listed, 1 civilian study shows cognitive impact at 1,000ppm. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that that study is a fluke. By the way, this study is the one that kicked off the whole normal indoor levels of C02 make you dumber thing in the first place. This statement: >the relationship between CO2 exposure and cognition is debated is in the context of whether or not concentrations of up to 30,000ppm seen in a submarine disaster will impact cognition, not whether 1,000ppm in a conference room will.