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.”
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.
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.”
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.
As an old psychometrician, I can assure you that these tests of “decision making” ,an odd
thing to test for, can be disregarded, despite the claims of predictive future behavior. There simply are no decent tests of such future behaviors, nor are their even any good rating scales of such behavior against which those predictions can be validated. The most reliable cognitive tests we have are IQ tests, and those are what should have been used. “Decision making ability” can scarcely be defined, much less measured. 99% of psychological studies are pure BS.
You don’t suppose the changes in CO2 came in the form of beer? Now that can make even Irish lasses stupid. On the other hand, if I were a college student and was asked to experience the changes in CO2 levels in beer I would so sign up as a victim.
…er… subject
AndyG55 says:
October 17, 2012 at 6:57 pm
Roger, not just negative positive ions.. We breathe out far more than just CO2 and oxygen. tainted water vapour, spoors etc etc, and in an unventilated room , these build up and the sinuses have to work much harder to clean the air causing a build up of “stuff”. Sinus effects, sore eyes etc are likely to be one of the main causes of any cognitive decrease
AndyG55…my thoughts exactly.Did they test for any other “foreign” substances in the air,perhaps brought into the test room from outside? How sterile were the test rooms to start with?
old gezzer…have you hard your bedroom air tested?Many new refurbishments/upgrades to rooms emit toxic substances until fully cured.
The excellent quality BC dope these clowns are smoking must be getting more expensive,so they gotta try even a blatant obvious scam as this test to get some grant payola.
I conclude that the researchers want to avoid teaching. 😉
Poor building ventilation is primarily a problem due to transmission of communicable diseases and the fact that most building materials “breathe”. As many are finding after expensive renovations to make their old buildings “climate friendly” in Europe, sick building syndrome reduces air quality and lack of air circulation can lead to the rapid destruction of e.g. half-timbered houses; some of which survived for over 500 years, prior to “renovation”. Post-renovation, some are beyond repair in under 20 years.
Even “younger” houses suffer from excess insulation. Post-construction insulation is added by pinning and gluing styrofoam sheets to the exterior walls before applying a synthetic render. It takes only a few seasons for mold to establish itself and expensive repairs to become due, including the disposal of the styrofoam waste. One “solution” is to incorportae fungicides into the render and adhesives… but they leach under the effect of rain and end up in the ground water and waterways.
LIke those with PV solar systems who end up having to watch their houses burn down while the fire brigade stand by, making sure that the neighbours’ houses don’t also catch fire; the consequences of actions are seldom considered when fear or the quick buck rule “decision making”.
No control group means the study is invalid.
Anyone having taken a Statistics class, 101 per say, would know this by heart.
Next patient.
Why didn’t they use a broad spectrum of CO2 concentrations, including say 200ppm, 370ppm ?
“Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges …”
Hnmm…?
“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.”
They must mean like in crowded debate halls, enclosed coliseum campaign speeches and U.S. Administration meetings, always crowds of staff, reporters and secret service agents… now that does start to make some sense. But why are some so immune? A pesky gene again?
I’m not sure this study passes the sniff test. Exhaled air is about 4.5% CO2. Ambient air is about 0.04% CO2 (rounding up to 400 ppm). The rate of transfer across a gradient is proportional to the size of the gradient. The gradient is about 4.46% if you are standing on Mauna Loa. At 2500 ppm, the gradient is about 4.25%. Therefore, at 2500ppm you are able to get rid of your own internal CO2 at 4.25/4.46 = 95.3% of normal. It is hard for me to imagine that a difference of 4.7% in the rate of CO2 excretion would be noticed by the brain to such a degree. It would cause an infinitesimal respiratory acidosis, and move the pH from the normal 7.40 to something around 7.38, ignoring buffering effects, which would make it even less.
The study’s in PDF here
I’ve read it: Their methods were clear
Random order, and blind
But results of this kind
Might just cause global warmists to fear:
For they’re saying that now CO2
Which is consensus science, it’s true
That’s been settled so long
They say now that it’s wrong
And we don’t know what this gas will do
The experiment seems well-designed
But results so astounding to find
As they say, with humility
It “defies credibility”
I wonder: Was this truly blind?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
LOL! Very nicely done Keith! Alan should name you WUWT’s “Poet In Residence.” :>
Following on from Nick: “Mannian statistics at work – ‘The stronger the effect you have, the fewer subjects you need to see it’. ”
It’s TRUE! I have a penny that will land heads up 100% of the time! The effect is so strong that I only needed run the trial once. Results: Heads Up! Absolutely amazing.
– MJM
P.S. will sell penny to any gamblers here for $1million in low-denomination cash. No refunds. Individual results may vary. May cause hangnails. Do not see your doctor for advice.
Michael J. Kubat says:
October 17, 2012 at 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?”
Very good point and question! Higher levels of CO2 with low levels of oxygen would be different to high levels of CO2 with a steady maintained rate of oxygen and ventilation, these studies seem like they can be tweaked too easily for a preconceived result.
When you put a bunch of people together in an enclosed space, like kids in a classroom, O2 goes down while CO2 goes up. The fuzzy headed problems come from the reduced O2, not the increased CO2. Been there, done that.
The plan of their experiment was good
They kept conditions constant, as they should
And randomized the sequence of events
But I suspect some biased fingerprints
Effects were so astounding, they could kill
Scores dropped by 95%, near nil!
How could this never have been seen before?
I hope a replication try’s in store
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
Experimental result:
In “CO2 science”, pure drivel displaces ordinary drivel.
When we tested medications for clear end points for FDA, we would usually need at minimum 60 treated, sixty “sham” treated controls, and sixty untreated controls. Patients were randomized, and they were not able to detect in any way which treatment they were receiving. Even then, we would have to often proceed to n=120 to get a statistically significant effect of treatment, even though result parameters were objectively measured. Subjects chosen also had imposed strict rejection criteria, that included drugs they were taking that could interfere, obesity, illnesses, etc.
I wouldn’t automatically have any faith in any study done or sponsored by the Navy. Having seen how the radiation safety norms “developed” by corrupt scientists in Russia lead to servicemen’s bodies being sent back home in coffins after only a few months of normal service, without any recorded accidents, I would rather doubt any official data without independent verification.
I understand the difference between the levels of corruption in the Russian and in the U.S. Navy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption), but nothing is absolute. We can’t trust them just because they are the Navy. All their studies have goals to accomplish.
Regarding the physiological effects of CO2, they are highly non-linear and vary with the phases of the wake-sleep cycle. It is possible to experience substantial ill effects from a moderately elevated CO2 concentration if you are asleep, and just as possible not see any effects under much higher concentrations while awake.
Just maybe the sub-mariners become acclimatised to the effect of high CO2 levels and the test subjects are not?
This is the sort of unsubstantiated BS that alarmists love. The main point is that it demonstrates the ‘urgent need’ for more funds to further investigate the ‘problem’. The heavily overused alarmist expression of “It’s worse than we thought” seems to apply here.
It is similar to ‘ocean acidification’ by CO2 – you do the maths correctly here and you find the current rate of CO2 absorbtion by the oceans is less than one part per million per century; that’s an increase of just under 1% per century.
Submarines excepted, surely in an absolutely worst case scenario, this is just no more than a case of: “Open the window, it’s feeling a little stuffy in here.”
Pamela Grey’s comment earlier on about the procedures used in this study are absolutely correct – the findings would be laughed at in any real field of science, as the procedures used are simply not representative of anything in a real world situation, or compared to anything to test participant bias.
It all sounds a little Mannian to me.
An experiment we performed on ourselves at university, monitored by colleagues and by doing a series of calculations.:
1. We rebreathed exhaled air, and found the CO2 exhaled produced a feedback that increased the depth of breathing. There was no apparent effect on reasoning , but the deep breathing induced became very uncomfortable.
2. The rebreathed air had the CO2 scrubbed, so we were rebreathing nitrogen and a reducing amount of oxygen. The ability to perform calculations soon became badly impaired, and the experiment was in most cases stopped by colleagues, as the person doing the experiment was usually unaware of their impairment.
It would seem that reduced oxygem is more important than higher levels of CO2.
PS. Children, don’t try this experiment at home or on your own.!?!
To supply the intra-service perspective:
Proper ‘Matelots’ and the WAFU’s would note that no degradation in the cognitive functions of submariners would de detectable under any circumstances. What with them all being dumber than dead baby to begin with
Matelot : someone serving in the surface fleet, a ‘proper’ sailor
WAFU’S : Weapon and Fuel Users, Fleet Air Arm and RAF detachments serving aboard ships. A bane in the life of the Matelot, particularly quartermasters
Dead Baby : A long sponge pudding steamed in cheesecloth
Mean while, back in the real world, NASA conducted a massive research program to determin the long term effect of CO2 for people doing the most demanding of jobs – astronauts.
Conclusion: NASA recommends an upper limit of 5000 ppm for missions of one thousand days, assuming a total air pressure of one atmosphere. Higher levels are acceptable for missions of only a few days.
You need to understand the precise function of CO2 in the body/blood, and how it differs in healthy people to those who have poor health.
Even people with a common cold are different to those who do not have an ailment.
http://www.normalbreathing.com/CO2-blood-pH-respiratory-alkalosis.php#.UH_CAPLNdWs
http://www.normalbreathing.com/CO2-breath-control.php#.UH_DhvLNdWs
“Many people believe that breathing more air increases oxygen content in cells. This is not true. Generally, breathing more even reduces oxygen content even in the arterial blood. Indeed, hemoglobin cells in normal blood for very small normal breathing are about 98% saturated with O2. When we hyperventilate this number is about the same (in real life it gets less since most people make a transition to automatic costal or chest breathing that reduces arterial blood O2 levels), but without CO2 and the Bohr effect, this oxygen is tightly bound with red blood cells and cannot get into the tissues in required amounts. Hence, now we know one of the causes why heavy breathing reduces the cell-oxygen level of all vital organs”
http://www.normalbreathing.com/CO2-bohr-effect.php#.UH_FhvLNdWs