Claim: CO2 makes you stupid? Ask a submariner that question

From Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, something that might finally explain Al Gore’s behavior – too much time spent indoors and in auditoriums giving pitches about the dangers of CO2. One wonders though what the Navy submarine service has to say about this new research:

We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels. – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer, here

This is backed up by the publication from the National Academies of Science Emergency and Continuous Exposure Guidance Levels for Selected Submarine Contaminants

which documents effects of CO2 at much much higher levels than the medical study, and shows regular safe exposure at these levels…

Data collected on nine nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 3,500 ppm with a range of 0-10,600 ppm, and data collected on 10 nuclear-powered attack submarines indicate an average CO2 concentration of 4,100 ppm with a range of 300-11,300 ppm (Hagar 2003). – page 46

…but shows no concern at the values of 600-2500 ppm of this medical study from LBNL. I figure if the Navy thinks it is safe for men who have their finger on the nuclear weapons keys, then that is good enough for me.

Elevated Indoor Carbon Dioxide Impairs Decision-Making Performance

Berkeley Lab scientists surprised to find significant adverse effects of CO2 on human decision-making performance.

Overturning decades of conventional wisdom, researchers at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have found that moderately high indoor concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) can significantly impair people’s decision-making performance. The results were unexpected and may have particular implications for schools and other spaces with high occupant density.

“In our field we have always had a dogma that CO2 itself, at the levels we find in buildings, is just not important and doesn’t have any direct impacts on people,” said Berkeley Lab scientist William Fisk, a co-author of the study, which was published in Environmental Health Perspectives online last month. “So these results, which were quite unambiguous, were surprising.” The study was conducted with researchers from State University of New York (SUNY) Upstate Medical University.

On nine scales of decision-making performance, test subjects showed significant reductions on six of the scales at CO2 levels of 1,000 parts per million (ppm) and large reductions on seven of the scales at 2,500 ppm. The most dramatic declines in performance, in which subjects were rated as “dysfunctional,” were for taking initiative and thinking strategically. “Previous studies have looked at 10,000 ppm, 20,000 ppm; that’s the level at which scientists thought effects started,” said Berkeley Lab scientist Mark Mendell, also a co-author of the study. “That’s why these findings are so startling.”

(caption)

Berkeley Lab researchers found that even moderately elevated levels of indoor carbon dioxide resulted in lower scores on six of nine scales of human decision-making performance.

While the results need to be replicated in a larger study, they point to possible economic consequences of pursuing energy efficient buildings without regard to occupants. “As there’s a drive for increasing energy efficiency, there’s a push for making buildings tighter and less expensive to run,” said Mendell. “There’s some risk that, in that process, adverse effects on occupants will be ignored. One way to make sure occupants get the attention they deserve is to point out adverse economic impacts of poor indoor air quality. If people can’t think or perform as well, that could obviously have adverse economic impacts.”

The primary source of indoor CO2 is humans. While typical outdoor concentrations are around 380 ppm, indoor concentrations can go up to several thousand ppm. Higher indoor CO2 concentrations relative to outdoors are due to low rates of ventilation, which are often driven by the need to reduce energy consumption. In the real world, CO2 concentrations in office buildings normally don’t exceed 1,000 ppm, except in meeting rooms, when groups of people gather for extended periods of time.

In classrooms, concentrations frequently exceed 1,000 ppm and occasionally exceed 3,000 ppm. CO2 at these levels has been assumed to indicate poor ventilation, with increased exposure to other indoor pollutants of potential concern, but the CO2 itself at these levels has not been a source of concern. Federal guidelines set a maximum occupational exposure limit at 5,000 ppm as a time-weighted average for an eight-hour workday.

Fisk decided to test the conventional wisdom on indoor CO2 after coming across two small Hungarian studies reporting that exposures between 2,000 and 5,000 ppm may have adverse impacts on some human activities.

Mendell-Fisk

Berkeley Lab scientists Mark Mendell (left) and William Fisk

Fisk, Mendell, and their colleagues, including Usha Satish at SUNY Upstate Medical University, assessed CO2 exposure at three concentrations: 600, 1,000 and 2,500 ppm. They recruited 24 participants, mostly college students, who were studied in groups of four in a small office-like chamber for 2.5 hours for each of the three conditions. Ultrapure CO2 was injected into the air supply and mixing was ensured, while all other factors, such as temperature, humidity, and ventilation rate, were kept constant. The sessions for each person took place on a single day, with one-hour breaks between sessions.

Although the sample size was small, the results were unmistakable. “The stronger the effect you have, the fewer subjects you need to see it,” Fisk said. “Our effect was so big, even with a small number of people, it was a very clear effect.”

Another novel aspect of this study was the test used to assess decision-making performance, the Strategic Management Simulation (SMS) test, developed by SUNY. In most studies of how indoor air quality affects people, test subjects are given simple tasks to perform, such as adding a column of numbers or proofreading text. “It’s hard to know how those indicators translate in the real world,” said Fisk. “The SMS measures a higher level of cognitive performance, so I wanted to get that into our field of research.”

Strategy and Initiative

Strategic thinking and taking initiative showed the most dramatic declines in performance at 2,500 ppm carbon dioxide concentrations.

The SMS has been used most commonly to assess effects on cognitive function, such as by drugs, pharmaceuticals or brain injury, and as a training tool for executives. The test gives scenarios—for example, you’re the manager of an organization when a crisis hits, what do you do?—and scores participants in nine areas. “It looks at a number of dimensions, such as how proactive you are, how focused you are, or how you search for and use information,” said Fisk. “The test has been validated through other means, and they’ve shown that for executives it is predictive of future income and job level.”

Data from elementary school classrooms has found CO2 concentrations frequently near or above the levels in the Berkeley Lab study. Although their study tested only decision making and not learning, Fisk and Mendell say it is possible that students could be disadvantaged in poorly ventilated classrooms, or in rooms in which a large number of people are gathered to take a test. “We cannot rule out impacts on learning,” their report says.

The next step for the Berkeley Lab researchers is to reproduce and expand upon their findings. “Our first goal is to replicate this study because it’s so important and would have such large implications,” said Fisk. “We need a larger sample and additional tests of human work performance. We also want to include an expert who can assess what’s going on physiologically.”

Until then, they say it’s too early to make any recommendations for office workers or building managers. “Assuming it’s replicated, it has implications for the standards we set for minimum ventilation rates for buildings,” Fisk said. “People who are employers who want to get the most of their workforce would want to pay attention to this.”

Funding for this study was provided by SUNY and the state of New York.

#  #  #

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab’s scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. For more, visit www.lbl.gov.

============================================================

Given what I’ve learned about the Navy exposure, I think this is just another scare tactic to make CO2 look like an invisible boogeyman.

4.8 6 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

133 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ColdOldMan
October 17, 2012 3:25 pm

Oh, come on! If this isn’t a ‘cry for funds’ I don’t know what is.
“While the results need to be replicated in a larger study, they point to possible economic consequences of pursuing energy efficient buildings without regard to occupants.”

Ben Wilson
October 17, 2012 3:26 pm

Wonder if these brilliant researchers had ever heard about submarines and CO2. . . .???

Dodgy Geezer
October 17, 2012 3:32 pm

I and my wife sleep in a room which is around 12ft x 12ft x 8ft. We had new double-glazing fitted, which is pretty airtight. The door fits well. And we find that if we go to sleep without leaving a window ajar then we end up with a muggy head in the morning.
No doubt someone can estimate what PPM we are getting….

James
October 17, 2012 3:34 pm

What struck me most about health effects from my service in submarines were the white stains on the stainless steel urinals. A patrol doc once told me this was down to high CO2 levels causing slightly high acidic blood levels dissolving calcium from our skeletons.

Russ R.
October 17, 2012 3:37 pm

I don’t see anything wrong with the experiment’s methodology. Sounds straightforward and easily replicated.
The interpretation of the results makes absolutely no mention of climate. In fact, it cautions against energy-saving measures that reduce ventilation.
What’s the problem?

REPLY:
Well if the Navy (which has studied this at length for obvious safety reasons) sees no problem, why all of the sudden do these researchers? Either our nuclear capability is in the hands of CO2 drunken sailors (in which case we have a BIG problem) or there’s something else going on. – Anthony

October 17, 2012 3:39 pm

On the positive side of things, the highest levels of CO2 seem, according to this study at least, to reduce the tendency of people to use “initiative” — the sort of thing that might lead to crews commandeering a sub and firing missiles illegally.
These sorts of sealed chamber “submarine-esque” studies are questionable at best. They did one a while ago to justify smoking bans in subs by pointing out that nonsmoking crew members in smoking subs had their blood cotinine levels raised by 1 nanogram per milliliter after ten days of being trapped underwater without ANY fresh air while roughly 3,000 cigarettes were smoked by smoking crew members. The Antismokers pointed out that this was a devastating 50 to 100% increase over the pre-experiment norms in the nonsmokers and demanded the Navy ban submarine smoking. What they NEGLECTED to mention was that the normal level for the crew members who smoked was literally THREE THOUSAND TIMES as high: 3,000 ng/ml. The “one nanogram” increase in the nonsmokers was totally meaningless, despite being used to terrify people and change an entire branch of US military policy.
So, as you can see, once you look behind the reports on the studies to the actual facts you’ll often find that the advocacy groups have twisted the science beyond all recognition. In this case I’ll bet that if you dig a bit you’ll find some links to your Warmer folks mixed in: gotta get people frightened of CO2 if you’re going to drive ahead with the program, eh?
– MJM

Luther Wu
October 17, 2012 3:42 pm

As many who’ve paid attention to the debates surrounding atmospheric CO2, I’d have to agree that CO2 apparently makes some people stupid.

Lester Via
October 17, 2012 3:44 pm

The breath you exhale is typically 4% or 40,000 ppm carbon dioxide. How can air inhaled with CO2 contents of 1000 ppm or even 2400 ppm possibly have the adverse effects being attributed here. Like AGW, these absurd conclusions may simply be what happens when the liberal mind attempts to do science.

October 17, 2012 3:50 pm

Low rate of ventilation, CO2 levels go up but oxygen levels go down, hence (possibly) the cognitive difficulties. Did they correct for that?

richard
October 17, 2012 3:52 pm

I have heard a crowded auditorium can have co2 levels of 100,000 ppm. No wonder in crowded situations Al gore goes crazy and blames all the worlds problems on co2.

Andrew30
October 17, 2012 3:55 pm

From the graphic is appears that they created the Carbon Dioxide by buring a organic compound containing THC. Notice the improved ability to focus (on perhaps a loose thread or an anthill) when inflicd with levels that are high’er. The other data seems to fit.
It is Berkeley after all.
[The next step for the Berkeley Lab researchers is to reproduce and expand upon their findings. “Our first goal is to replicate this study because it’s so important and would have such large implications,”]
I bet all the participants are equally eager.
Occupy a study!
Climate Science is going to pot.

Louis Hooffstetter
October 17, 2012 3:57 pm

“…researchers at the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab) have found that moderately high indoor concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) can significantly impair people’s decision-making performance.”
Depending on what you smoked to produce the CO2.

Mark D.
October 17, 2012 3:58 pm

Wow, after 4 deployments I now know what to blame for all my lame decisions!! (Can’t wait to tell my wife – she’s gonna love this excuse!!)

Louis
October 17, 2012 4:00 pm

They did the “study” in one day, which means the order they conducted the sessions could have a big effect on the outcome. What they may have been measuring is how much better people think in the morning before they become bored, weary, or hungry. If they conducted the last session right after lunch when the blood rushes to the digestive track and people get the urge to nap, it would likely have had a negative effect on the results. They need to conduct the experiment again in a different order and see if the results are the same. I suspect they won’t be.

Scarface
October 17, 2012 4:01 pm

It’s the O2, stupid!

Dan in California
October 17, 2012 4:04 pm

I worked on the life support systems for the International Space Station several years ago. At the time, we were trying to keep it below 5,000 ppm (0.5%). I haven’t followed that program through operations, but it’s probably within a factor of two of that number.
NASA SP-3006 is the Bioastronautics Data Book, and it includes guidelines for atmospheric control. In the section for designing for CO2 concentration on page 49 (second edition), there’s a relevant chart. For a 40 day exposure, there is no effect up to 0.5% and “minor perceptive changes” at up to 3% (30,000 ppm). Of course, we tried to get well below these numbers.

jarro2783
October 17, 2012 4:06 pm

They did all three tests in the same day for each participant. I’m sure that I would be pooped by the third one. Is it at all possible that doing all the tests in one day has contributed to the results?

Manfred
October 17, 2012 4:27 pm

REPLY: Well if the Navy (which has studied this at length for obvious safety reasons) sees no problem, why all of the sudden do these researchers? Either our nuclear capability is in the hands of CO2 drunken sailors (in which case we have a BIG problem) or there’s something else going on. – Anthony
As I understand it, this study looked at high order cognitive skills. On the face of it, one might argue that a distinction exists between such meta-skills and the highly trained, order driven skill set of the military. And assuming strategic descisions are independently formulated and made while submerged,the putative cognitive damping effect of CO2 is common to all submarines.
Who knows, may be low p[CO2] in submarines could be as limes once were to the British Navy..sarc..

Lance Wallace
October 17, 2012 4:27 pm

Dodgy Geezer–
Picking up your challenge, i\If you and your wife breathe out about 12 m3/day, together you are putting about about 1 m3 per hour for the 8 hours in your bedroom, which has a volume of let’s say about 30 m3. Taking another commentator’s value of 4% CO2 in exhaled breath, you are putting out 0.04 m3 of CO2 per hour. If the room were really tight, it might have an air exchange rate of 0.1 room volume/h. Assuming that after 8 hours you are near equilibrium value, then the CO2 level will be about 0.04/(0.1*30) = about 13,000 ppm, or near-submarine quality. More likely your air exchange rate is 0.3 which would bring it down to about 4,000 ppm. Yes. headaches are seen in indoor air quality studies at levels > 1000 ppm. I conclude you made the right choice in cracking the window at night.

Nick in vancouver
October 17, 2012 4:29 pm

Mannian statistics at work – “The stronger the effect you have, the fewer subjects you need to see it”. Wow.

Lance Wallace
October 17, 2012 4:32 pm

Russ R.
I agree, the experiment was well-performed and has nothing to do with climate. Note that the experimenters’ LOWEST level of CO2 was 600 ppm, slightly beyond the feared doubling of CO2 due to arrive late this century I think, or maybe early the next. The good news seems to be that people did just fine on these tests at 600 ppm, so outdoor CO2 cannot be claimed by anyone to be directly injurious to health for another century at least.

October 17, 2012 4:34 pm

Stupid is a permanent condition. There is no arguing with it either.
The AGW agenda is brought forward by political scientists for the purpose of influencing people who are unable or unwilling to challenge the disinformation.
I applaud the tone we should laugh and move on. There are a huge number of things to learn and science needs to advance quickly before we all freeze to death under a mile of continental ice.

October 17, 2012 4:34 pm

Before i reduced my excess library, i had a seventies issue of the “Code of Federal Regulations” which was 500 pages of allowable exposures to absolutely EVERYTHING. We were designing a project with an outside air intake close to a elevated parking garage exit and there was a possible CO and CO2 exposure. We installed monitors with shut-off controls and seldom exceeded the ambient levels by even a few PPM. The CFR for CO2 PROLONGED EXPOSURE WAS 50,000 PPM. This molecule is so safe it is used as the fire suppression system gas for the space shuttle and the space station. Prior to accepting this over Halon and other suppression gases, CO2 was tested at prolonged exposure 80,000 PPM with no measurable side effects. Sleepiness was a noticed side effect at 100,000 PPM. Since we exhale 40,000 PPM with every breath, confined spaces routinely reach 3,000 PPM. But it would be nice of the WARMONGERS would stop exhaling.

Geoff Withnell
October 17, 2012 4:35 pm

“Exposure order was balanced across the groups.” In other words, they did the levels in different orders, which is what I would expect for reasonable experimental design. I still suspect the results are due to small sample size.
Louis says:
October 17, 2012 at 4:00 pm
They did the “study” in one day, which means the order they conducted the sessions could have a big effect on the outcome. What they may have been measuring is how much better people think in the morning before they become bored, weary, or hungry. If they conducted the last session right after lunch when the blood rushes to the digestive track and people get the urge to nap, it would likely have had a negative effect on the results. They need to conduct the experiment again in a different order and see if the results are the same. I suspect they won’t be.
Jarryd Beck says:
October 17, 2012 at 4:06 pm
They did all three tests in the same day for each participant. I’m sure that I would be pooped by the third one. Is it at all possible that doing all the tests in one day has contributed to the results?

Chris Edwards
October 17, 2012 4:39 pm

I wondered about the O2 as well, also what is the ambient air pressure on subs? that might make the effects of gasses different. `Anyway I get drowsey if the O2 drops but a breath of pure O2 sorts it.

1 2 3 6