Indoor CO2 could cut our capacity for complex, strategic thinking: study(news.yahoo.com)
news.yahoo.com
Indoor CO2 could cut our capacity for complex, strategic thinking: study
https://news.yahoo.com/carbon-dioxide-homes-offices-classrooms-131700552.html
58 comments
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.
Well, 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.
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.
> 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-c...
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-c...
Big clever complicated models are important and useful of course but I think this sort of back-of-the-envelope calculation is important too. They can give a clue that a model isn’t massively wrong which is useful when developing a model and when replying to a complaint like “this model is so big and complicated that no one could have any confidence in its predictions.” It’s also something useful in directing further research.
I guess the point of the article is to say “here’s an implication of climate change that you possibly hadn’t thought/heard about.”
I know I’m inclined to think this is a serious issue and the effect of present indoor/city/outdoor CO2 levels on cognition is something I was concerned about anyway. CO2 levels outdoors are already 1/3 higher than 100 years ago and something like double the level of 10,000 years ago. And people spend more times indoors in better-sealed houses and denser offices.
I guess the point of the article is to say “here’s an implication of climate change that you possibly hadn’t thought/heard about.”
I know I’m inclined to think this is a serious issue and the effect of present indoor/city/outdoor CO2 levels on cognition is something I was concerned about anyway. CO2 levels outdoors are already 1/3 higher than 100 years ago and something like double the level of 10,000 years ago. And people spend more times indoors in better-sealed houses and denser offices.
RCP8.5 strikes again...
In my experience, lack of proper ventilation is a much bigger problem than background CO2 levels.
In other words, this article only holds under the assumption that ventilation stays as bad as it is. If we improve ventilation, we can get an improvement much bigger than the increase in background CO2.
The article even says so:
"In a 2002 study, researchers tested the air in 120 Texas classrooms, and found CO2 levels above 1,000 ppm in 88% of them. In 21% of the classrooms, the concentration exceeded 3,000 ppm." -- current background is ~410 ppm (possibly higher in cities) so even a doubling + better ventilation would improve the situation in most classrooms.
In other words, this article only holds under the assumption that ventilation stays as bad as it is. If we improve ventilation, we can get an improvement much bigger than the increase in background CO2.
The article even says so:
"In a 2002 study, researchers tested the air in 120 Texas classrooms, and found CO2 levels above 1,000 ppm in 88% of them. In 21% of the classrooms, the concentration exceeded 3,000 ppm." -- current background is ~410 ppm (possibly higher in cities) so even a doubling + better ventilation would improve the situation in most classrooms.
You're right, this is joke, or we're missing something.
They're missing something. Right below, in the same article:
"As carbon dioxide levels rise, better ventilation won't be enough to protect us from its effects.
"There's no way to solve this except for keep the CO2 low," Karnauskas said. "You can try to increase ventilation, but you're only going to be ventilating higher-CO2 air, because it's going up outside.""
If CO2 concentrations outdoors double, you're already looking at a minimum of 1000ppm indoors.
"As carbon dioxide levels rise, better ventilation won't be enough to protect us from its effects.
"There's no way to solve this except for keep the CO2 low," Karnauskas said. "You can try to increase ventilation, but you're only going to be ventilating higher-CO2 air, because it's going up outside.""
If CO2 concentrations outdoors double, you're already looking at a minimum of 1000ppm indoors.
My company doesn't pay me for my capacity for "complex, strategic" thinking.
That's why they put me in an open plan office. Where -- as if by design -- the oxygen, lighting and noise levels already preclude those fancy kinds of thinking.
That's why they put me in an open plan office. Where -- as if by design -- the oxygen, lighting and noise levels already preclude those fancy kinds of thinking.
Imagine paying to have extra oxygen inserted into homes, schools, and offices. To offset CO2 levels. Or perhaps we will use CO2 scrubbers. This will further increase the division between the haves and have-nots because it puts a higher price tag on cognitive abilities.
We already have a cheap, plentiful, 100% natural, and green way to do this: plants. Having a dozen plants in every room would go a long way towards fixing the O2/CO2 balance, though the biochemistry and physics may not work out to get us back to square one.
The biggest hurdle to having better cognitive abilities is living within a culture of ignorance where critical thinking isn't thought of as a necessary and desired skill.
In other words, a 100ppm lower CO2 level might make you grasp concepts 3-5% quicker, but it most certainly won't make you pick up that book in the first place if you didn't want to.
In other words, a 100ppm lower CO2 level might make you grasp concepts 3-5% quicker, but it most certainly won't make you pick up that book in the first place if you didn't want to.
The problem isn't low oxygen, it's high CO2.
I think the idea would be to introduce oxygen (and nitrogen I guess) to displace the CO2
[deleted]
Or we could just stick a few house plants in each room...
A few house plants have no meaningful impact on CO2 levels in an occupies room.
Has anyone measured how big of an impact plants have on C02 levels in a room?
I’d imagine it wouldn’t do much, but perhaps large amounts of other biomass might help.
I’d imagine it wouldn’t do much, but perhaps large amounts of other biomass might help.
Supposedly a single human produce around 300g of carbon per day in the form of carbon dioxide. A tree's dry weight is about 50% carbon, but when the tree is alive, it's probably still 80% water. So I'm approximately guessing that a tree needs to grow 3kg per day to offset a single human's CO2 production. I don't think there are many plants that grow at a rate of 3kg per day -- you'd probably need 500 indoor plants making 6g of mass per day.
I've grown some hydroponic basil that makes almost 50g of material per day, so maybe it's possible to have 60 indoor basil plants to offset your carbon production. When I chopped the basil plant, it was as tall as I was.
I've grown some hydroponic basil that makes almost 50g of material per day, so maybe it's possible to have 60 indoor basil plants to offset your carbon production. When I chopped the basil plant, it was as tall as I was.
It’s also easy to imagine some combination of biotech and genetic engineering can make a biomass capable of being 5x-10x as capable of capturing carbon as your hydroponic basil. Most likely basil isn’t the most efficient “natural” biomass generating plant either.
I have a desk CO2 monitor , it averages between 800 to 1000 in my home office during the day. Anyone else monitor their own environment or know if their office does? Are people even interested in this type of monitoring?
I measure CO2 at home.
When the meter hits ~1000ppm, I open all windows until the level is below 500ppm again. Otherwise they stay closed to keep humidity in.
My office has forced ventilation, the level there is usually around 700ppm all day.
I'd be interested in measuring NOx levels, sadly I don't have a sensor for that. A few people in the office like to open windows for comfort, our air tends to feel a bit stale, even though it's continuously exchanged. My theory is that by opening the windows we let NOx in, which causes the staleness and in high enough levels irritates eyes and throats.
When the meter hits ~1000ppm, I open all windows until the level is below 500ppm again. Otherwise they stay closed to keep humidity in.
My office has forced ventilation, the level there is usually around 700ppm all day.
I'd be interested in measuring NOx levels, sadly I don't have a sensor for that. A few people in the office like to open windows for comfort, our air tends to feel a bit stale, even though it's continuously exchanged. My theory is that by opening the windows we let NOx in, which causes the staleness and in high enough levels irritates eyes and throats.
I was monitoring indoor CO2 at my home. It definitely swings in the 800-1000 range, especially if I keep the door to the rest of the house closed or mostly closed. But if I leave that door open, it often drops to 600 or less during the day when I'm probably not adding to the CO2. If I open a window it drops to about 430 in a few minutes. It's noisy where I live, though, so I mostly don't ventilate much externally now and live with it.
I monitor air quality in rooms in my home using Awair Glow sensors. They log temperature, humidity, CO2 (ppm), and VOCs (ppb). When CO2 or VOCs hit 900+, I start opening windows to encourage airflow.
Awair Glow doesn't measure CO2, it infers it based on other readings. The results of doing this way are never accurate.
I monitor my office. It works its way up to 1300-1400 ppm during the day. At the start of the day it is the outdoor baseline.
Wait, GP said 800-1000, you have it at 1300-1400... isn't 1000 like the headache line? Shouldn't it be around 400-600 in a healthy environment?
Edit: Looking it up, the Wikipedia article on CO2 has the following to say on the topic:
> A study of humans exposed in 2.5 hour sessions demonstrated significant negative effects on cognitive abilities at concentrations as low as 0.1% (1000ppm) CO2
> Another study observed a decline in basic activity level and information usage at 1000 ppm, when compared to 500 ppm.
So 1ppk is definitely bad. Another datapoint is from 5ppk:
> At [5000 ppm for an 8h period, the] International Space Station crew experienced headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption.
Edit: Looking it up, the Wikipedia article on CO2 has the following to say on the topic:
> A study of humans exposed in 2.5 hour sessions demonstrated significant negative effects on cognitive abilities at concentrations as low as 0.1% (1000ppm) CO2
> Another study observed a decline in basic activity level and information usage at 1000 ppm, when compared to 500 ppm.
So 1ppk is definitely bad. Another datapoint is from 5ppk:
> At [5000 ppm for an 8h period, the] International Space Station crew experienced headaches, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption.
Thanks for the concern. Yes it is bad, which is why I built a CO2 meter. I need to get alerts to ensure either I get more air to me, or I leave the office.
How can one get rid of the CO2 around your home office/desk during the day?
Open a window
Yeah so I'm of two minds about this: I want fresh air, and I don't want to waste energy (not for the money but for climate reasons) by opening a window all day and trying to heat up 0-10°C outside air to a temperature that is comfortable when all you do is sitting still (22°C).
I guess the main heat retention is in the objects and not so much the hot air, so the strategy would be to vent through and replace the air in as short as possible a time every few hours?
I guess the main heat retention is in the objects and not so much the hot air, so the strategy would be to vent through and replace the air in as short as possible a time every few hours?
A long-term solution is to install a ventilator with a heat exchanger. Outgoing air on one side of a thin metal plate warms up incoming air on the other side. This covers about 50% of the temperature difference for free.
I didn't know that was a thing. It looks like most are 250 euros or even double that. It's a fan with a metal plate right?! Or is there some built in fridge-like construction to exchange the heat?
There is also one result for 50 euros (1.7/5 star average) but alongside the 250-500 euro results that doesn't seem like it'll be the same thing.
There is also one result for 50 euros (1.7/5 star average) but alongside the 250-500 euro results that doesn't seem like it'll be the same thing.
You want an ERV or HRV - many new "air tight" houses use them, they have a ceramic core which mixes interior and exterior air to bridge the temperature gap. (and humidity in the case of an ERV)
Ventilation, and not just recycling indoor air.
Can anyone recommend a decent CO2 and VOC monitor for a desktop? It'd be great to have something to help tell me when I need to improve the ventilation.
I have an unbranded one I bought from Alibaba. It's a box about 50cm x 75cm x 25cm and runs on 2 AA batteries or USB power. Not rechargeable. Right now it's showing 628 ppm CO2. Outside, about 395 ppm, which is about right. If I breathe on it, 1500 ppm CO2.
Has data logger functions and a USB port. Costs about $150.
If you just want a light filter for quality/price/utility that a fellow geek applied without having done a buttload (but a bit) of research, I bought one of these and am satisfied:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D9SH4M5/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
Unfortunately, it's showing out of stock. :-(
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D9SH4M5/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b...
Unfortunately, it's showing out of stock. :-(
I am running ESPHome on ESP8266, sensor is MH-Z19B.
You can also run Tasmota firmware on ESP8266 which means you can easily monitor CO2 value from your browser.
You can also run Tasmota firmware on ESP8266 which means you can easily monitor CO2 value from your browser.
Looks neat, I wonder if you could get it down small enough to run on something wearable like a watch-style device.
For tVOCs and inaccurate, inferred CO2 readings, absolutely. Sensors like the BME680 or SGP30 are ~4mm square.
For real CO2 sensors, not yet. The smallest accurate sensor I've worked with is the SCD30 and it's much too large to fit into a watch body as-is.
Sensirion has come up with the SCD40 though, which is 12x12x7mm and should make a wearable CO2 sensor feasible.
For real CO2 sensors, not yet. The smallest accurate sensor I've worked with is the SCD30 and it's much too large to fit into a watch body as-is.
Sensirion has come up with the SCD40 though, which is 12x12x7mm and should make a wearable CO2 sensor feasible.
Thanks for the answer.
Well, you could. I have it on 3D printed case, but have no need for mobility. Of course you would need battery and with small (1000mAh or so) battery it could run at least few days with one charge.
Have been using and giving away as gifts "TFA Dostmann AirCO2ntrol Mini CO2-Monitor" devices.
Costs around 70 bucks. And sensor values are accessible over its usb data lane fairly easy (there are some python implementations out).
Shameless plug here. I'm working for https://cozyair.fr - keeping a good indoor air quality is good for both the user but also the the building.
CO2 is not the only factor you should look at, PM are also dangerous when you cook, or when there is outside pollution. NO2/O3 is an outdoor air pollution that we watch. Because the only way to get out the CO2 is ventilation / open your windows for a few minutes. But it can bring another kind of pollution depending your area.
CO2 is not the only factor you should look at, PM are also dangerous when you cook, or when there is outside pollution. NO2/O3 is an outdoor air pollution that we watch. Because the only way to get out the CO2 is ventilation / open your windows for a few minutes. But it can bring another kind of pollution depending your area.
[deleted]
Scott Alexander of Slatestarcodex provided some anecdotal evidence of this issue last year:
> Last month I moved into a small cottage behind a big group house. The cottage is lovely. The big group house is also lovely, but the people in it started suffering mysterious minor ailments. Headaches, fatigue, poor sleep – all the things that will make your local family doctor say “Take two placebo and call me in the morning”. Using my years of medical training and expertise, I was able to…remain completely unaware of the problem while my housemates solved it themselves.
> Aware of this research, my housemates tested their air quality and got levels between 1000 and 3000 ppm, around the level of the worst high-CO2 conditions in the studies. They started leaving their windows open and buying industrial quantities of succulent plants, and the problems mostly disappeared. Since then they’ve spread the word to other people we know afflicted with mysterious fatigue, some of whom have also noticed positive results.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/23/carbon-dioxide-an-open...
> Last month I moved into a small cottage behind a big group house. The cottage is lovely. The big group house is also lovely, but the people in it started suffering mysterious minor ailments. Headaches, fatigue, poor sleep – all the things that will make your local family doctor say “Take two placebo and call me in the morning”. Using my years of medical training and expertise, I was able to…remain completely unaware of the problem while my housemates solved it themselves.
> Aware of this research, my housemates tested their air quality and got levels between 1000 and 3000 ppm, around the level of the worst high-CO2 conditions in the studies. They started leaving their windows open and buying industrial quantities of succulent plants, and the problems mostly disappeared. Since then they’ve spread the word to other people we know afflicted with mysterious fatigue, some of whom have also noticed positive results.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2018/08/23/carbon-dioxide-an-open...
valw(1)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/17/claim-co2-makes-you-s...
It's hard to believe the Navy didn't study this topic as far back as the 1950s and conclude that there was no scientific meat on its bones. If they didn't, they certainly should have.
(Please consider reading the article, then moderating the comment. It's an interesting subject, one that I have basically no knowledge or opinions on myself. Reflexive downvoting makes it hard to pretend that you're not bringing your own preconceptions to the table.)
It's hard to believe the Navy didn't study this topic as far back as the 1950s and conclude that there was no scientific meat on its bones. If they didn't, they certainly should have.
(Please consider reading the article, then moderating the comment. It's an interesting subject, one that I have basically no knowledge or opinions on myself. Reflexive downvoting makes it hard to pretend that you're not bringing your own preconceptions to the table.)
> Please consider reading the article, then moderating the comment.
If you don't want a knee-jerk reaction, don't share articles from a site that's widely known to be rather one-sided and biased, and with a super divisive tone to it. Your wording also makes has a rather biased tone to it "It's hard to believe Navy didn't study ..."
Here's a very recent study with some interesting comments: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0071-6.pdf?proof=...
"It may be that astronaut-like operations personnel and submariners, who are high-level performers, are more likely to have heightened situational awareness because of their stringent training. Therefore, these groups may develop faster adaptive patterns of responses and be more perceptive of their cognitive decline, and therefore may compensate more efficiently for self-perceived drops in performance than subjects drawn from the general population. Such distinctions could explain the differences in outcomes between college students and submariners to elevated CO"
Seems reasonable that CO2 might have a different effect when motivation is also a huge factor. If you're in a submarine, feeling a bit tired is not an excuse. But in an office setting, it could be what pushes you over the edge to drift away mentally and maybe start procrastinating. In a school setting, motivating students is already a huge uphill battle.
But sure, only the studies the navy did matter, and we should not discuss science in nuanced terms. It's all just the scary researches trying to make CO2 look like a boogey-man!
That said, I think the headline in this post is a bit sensationalist. Seems doubtful that the effects will be that high. But there it is plausible that global CO2 rise could lead to some cognitive decline. Especially if you combine with the trend of packing more people into the same office space.
If you don't want a knee-jerk reaction, don't share articles from a site that's widely known to be rather one-sided and biased, and with a super divisive tone to it. Your wording also makes has a rather biased tone to it "It's hard to believe Navy didn't study ..."
Here's a very recent study with some interesting comments: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41526-019-0071-6.pdf?proof=...
"It may be that astronaut-like operations personnel and submariners, who are high-level performers, are more likely to have heightened situational awareness because of their stringent training. Therefore, these groups may develop faster adaptive patterns of responses and be more perceptive of their cognitive decline, and therefore may compensate more efficiently for self-perceived drops in performance than subjects drawn from the general population. Such distinctions could explain the differences in outcomes between college students and submariners to elevated CO"
Seems reasonable that CO2 might have a different effect when motivation is also a huge factor. If you're in a submarine, feeling a bit tired is not an excuse. But in an office setting, it could be what pushes you over the edge to drift away mentally and maybe start procrastinating. In a school setting, motivating students is already a huge uphill battle.
But sure, only the studies the navy did matter, and we should not discuss science in nuanced terms. It's all just the scary researches trying to make CO2 look like a boogey-man!
That said, I think the headline in this post is a bit sensationalist. Seems doubtful that the effects will be that high. But there it is plausible that global CO2 rise could lead to some cognitive decline. Especially if you combine with the trend of packing more people into the same office space.
> They created a model of a classroom full of elementary school children, with the appropriate breathing rates and room ventilation. (Karnauskas said the results would be similar for any group of people.) Then they looked at what would happen in two potential emissions scenarios projected by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
> The results showed that in a business-as-usual scenario, in which carbon emissions continue to rise, humans would score 50% lower on measures of complex cognitive ability by 2100. For more basic cognitive measures, performance would drop about 25%.
Not exactly a rigorous model.
Edit: Which doesn't mean there isn't a problem, but this sort of article doesn't seem helpful to me.