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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
What their results show, is that stupidity is contagious ,over time exposure to these two will destroy students intelligence and critical thinking. And thats in just 4 hours, WOW quarantine is necessary.
Surely the willingness to get inside a big steel tube and go way deep under water with nuclear explosives on board shows a decreased decision-making capability, long before any high CO2 levels are experienced?
(Kidding, kidding… the Navy rocks.)
“The stronger the effect you have, the fewer subjects you need to see it,”
It seems to me that the smaller the group, the more likely it is for one or two outliers to skew the results.
The experiment ran for six days
But they only did four at a time
Treating 22 folks in these ways
(Two blew off the chance — almost a crime)
But while CO2’s quite well-controlled
And humidity, temp, as they say
They skipped oxygen! It wasn’t polled!
I was stabbed by this.
O2, Bruté?
===|==============/ Keith DeHavelle
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.
This discussion is missing some important aspects. The concentration of O2 in relation to barometric pressure and other gases. When we exhale the lung pressure rises to help force O2 into the blood for hemoglobin to acquire, and when we inhale, the partial pressure assists in release of CO2 per the differential between the air in the lung and the blood concentration. Check Apollo 13 and the aviation side of keeping our brains supplied with O2. Check out the N2 side effects as well. Check out the barometric pressure in a sub and the blend of gases. There is substantial research and real life data on the subject.
“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.””
24 folks in four groups ie 6 per group=Meaningless “research”.
Other considerations are in the extensive training that assists in recognizing how our atmospheric conditions are affecting our abilities while submarining and lofting about the heavens.
I’m amazed at the amount of medical misinformation here. It seems like people with some science knowledge but no medical training or education about things like physiology, partial pressure, hemoglobin disassociation curve http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen-haemoglobin_dissociation_curve, the body’s homeostatic mechanisms to regulate blood pH (e.g. through respiratory and renal/metabolic means).
For example, highflight56433 says that during exhalation “lung pressure rises to help force O2 into the blood for hemoglobin to acquire.” This is a miniscule effect, as passive diffusion plays the dominant role in the healthy lung. Far more O2 is carried in the blood by hemoglobin inside red cells than is dissolved in the plasma. In patients with lung compromise (e.g. pneumonia, ARDS), positive-pressure ventilation is sometimes used, but this is to keep alveoli open and reduce ventilation-perfusion mismatch rather than to “force O2 into the blood”).
The body adjusts to changing blood pH using respiratory (acute, minutes to hours) and metabolic (chronic, days) means. Here’s a relevant topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_acidosis
What this thread needs is expert commentary from a medical professional in the military, preferably the Navy or even Air Force. I didn’t read all the comments so might have missed it.
Dodgy Geezer asks above about waking up with “a muggy head” after sleeping in a fairly airtight bedroom. While CO2 concentration is a possible hypothesis, it is also plausible (and in my opinion, far more likely) that the adverse effects are the result of outgassing of the materials that make up the room. Paint, carpet, the mattress and plastics of all kinds will continuously release small amounts of complex and sometimes quite strong chemicals for many years after manufacture. In high concentrations, these are what give your car that “new car smell”.
In a normal room (or car), the regular turnover of air in the room rapidly dilutes that concentration of chemicals to a very low level – well below your ability to consciously smell them. If you, however, have the outgassing fixtures in an airtight room, the chemicals will accumulate. If you then confine yourself to a continuous 8 hour exposure, well, I’m not surprised you’re waking up with a muggy head. (By the way, you still may not notice the smell because of olfactory saturation – the brain’s tendency to stop recognizing constant background stimulous.)
The concentration of CO2 is an interesting question but the anecdote doesn’t tell us anything about the hypothesis yet because it doesn’t exclude the alternative explanations.
If Co2 was 2500 parts per million other gasses were below normal. So it could be due to the lack of oxygen.
I’m confused. The on-line paper as linked to by Keith DeHavelle:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104789.pdf
which is authored by several people besides Mendell and Fisk says that the sample was “twenty two.” Apparently two participants dropped out. With a sample this small I would be very concerned about type one error.
Now I know why holding my breath makes me feel dumb.
Here is a basic look at human respiration, note that normal respiration holds the lungs at 40 mm Hg and it does change with exercise. Mountain climbers, athletes, divers know something about respiration. You have to breath more to get rid of CO2 because your blood must regulate pH
See wiki respiration or http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301notes6.htm
390 ppm = 0.039 percent = 0.3 mm Hg
1000 ppm = 0.1 percent = 0.76 mm Hg
5000 ppm = 0.5 percent = 3.8 mm Hg
10000 ppm = 1 percent = 7.6 mm Hg
52000 ppm = 5.2 percent = 40 mm Hg (basal metabolism)
With exercise you will go higher but anything over 45 mm Hg is considered by the medics to hypercapnia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia
So if you are in a room where the air is 52000 ppm then how can the lungs get rid of CO2??
Sounds dangerous no matter how fast you breath.
I don’t remember exactly what my submarine atmosphere was normally but I think there was a warning alarm set at 1 percent. The air handling system monitored O2, CO2, CO and H2 continuously. O2 is manufactured electrolytically, with the H2 dumped. CO2 was scrubbed with alkaline solution. Another machine “burned off” any CO or H2, but those were never a real concern. There was a trained corpsman who did some random manual checking of the air handling equipment with “sniffer” type equipment.
timc says:
October 17, 2012 at 5:29 pm
I’m in for the O2 with the others here, what is the level for oxygen in a sub, probably higher than normal atmosphere.
Oh, sure, you want everything to burn well when you’re cooped up in a tin can.
Alan Watt, CD (Certified Denialist), Level 7 says:
October 18, 2012 at 3:33 am
17,000 feet is the altitude above which US private pilots must have oxygen if not in a pressurized cockpit.
The FAA will be after you!
The rule is, if your are the pilot, oxygen all the time above 14,000ft; not more than 30 minutes without oxygen between 12,500 and 14,000ft. You are not required to supply your passengers with oxygen below 15,000ft.
Even if the reduction in O2 is due to the oxidation of carbon to produce the CO2 rather than the dilution effect of adding CO2 to get the desired level for the experiment, the effect on the air’s oxygen content is fairly small. Additionally, it is the partial pressure of O2 that is the measure of importance rather than percentage of O2 in the air being breathed. If the conclusions of the study were due to changes in the partial pressure of oxygen, then similar effects could occur for normal variations in atmospheric pressure. Has anyone studied this?
If you have high concentration of CO2, you may breathe deeper and faster. This causes your body to have lower O2 saturation due to the change in pH. Nowhere in this study do I see control for this confounding factor. Lower O2 saturation tends to decrease performance on a variety of tasks.
I think I must be hypoxic; …if you are the pilot … … You are not required to supply …
“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.”
=============================================================
Halloween is coming up soon. Do I smell a new horror movie with CO2 as the invisible boodgeyman?
“The House that is Carbon Filled”
“Whatever Happened to Carbon Jane?”
“PsyCO2!” (I don’t know what they’d call the sequel.)
Maybe the researchers at Bazerkeley need to open a window at their place.
From the study paper:
http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/ehp.1104789.pdf
re the “SMS” test used in the evaluation…
A computer-based program called the Strategic Management Simulation (SMS) test collects data on performance in decision making under different conditions. The SMS test has been used to study the impact on people’s decision-making abilities of different drugs, VOCs from house painting, stress overload, head trauma, etc…
The SMS measures complex human behaviors required for effectiveness in many workplace
settings. The system assesses both basic cognitive and behavioral responses to task demands, as well as cognitive and behavioral components commonly considered as executive functions…..
The raw scores assigned for each measure are linearly related to performance, with a higher score indicating superior performance. Interpretation is based on the relationship to established standards of performance excellence among thousands of previous SMS participants….
Percentile ranks are calculated through a comparison of raw scores to the overall distribution of raw scores from a reference population of more than 20,000 U.S. adults, ages 16 to 83, who previously completed the SMS…
hmmmm, I wonder if the CO2 concentration was controlled for these thousands of people who took the tests and established the standards to which our 22 subjects are being compared? This study is fatally flawed and they should have been able to see it before wasting everybodys money and time.
ntesdorf mentioned elevated CO2 helping asthma. My grandmothers cure for hiccups – which I suffered from as a child – was to breath into and from a paper bag for a few moments. I thought it was a daft ‘old wives’ remedy but now realise that would give a ‘dose’ of high CO2 – BTW it works if anyone is afflicted by hiccups..
Bloke down the pub says:
October 18, 2012 at 3:22 am
Could Earl, or someone, clarify a point for me. The CO₂ levels given for an ssbn had a wide range varying down to zero. This is presumably because some of the measurements were taken next to the outlet from the scrubbers. Would that outlet be positioned where it would be of most benefit, e.g. the conning position, or simply where the designers could find a place to stick it?
First off, my statements coresponded to much earlier equipment (third generation self contained systems built in the ’60s). (and diesel boats which had only surface and ventilate for controls) What was done was take oilfield amine scrubbers and modify them to take their supply from ambient air (actually downstream of the CO-H2 burners which also reduced hydrocarbons and upped CO2). Since they were only rated at 1% CO2 it would be expected that this would be the state of perfectly operating equipment, something that was next to impossible to achieve, hense normal being 1% – 2.5%. My guess is that the “zero” reading was obtained while the SSBN was snorkeling (and ventilating with surface air)
The scrubbers take their supply in the engine spaces (aux machinery room) and then pipe the return fwd to the fan room for general distribution. So no special treatment given to control room.
Now the O2 level is a different story. The engineering gang controled the bleed of O2 into the air (and sometimes ensured that lots of cool O2 headed right to maneuvering from the piping just outside, people had a tendency to prefer to stand just under the outlet) The bleed rate being approximately 1 lb of O2 per day per man, hardly a rapid release.
We contantly monitored CO2, O2, H2 and Organics. Because the Engineeering Officer of the Watch maintained a “coloring book” graphing the levels it would be hard to sureptitiously increase O2 levels too much, but local levels of O2 were a little higher back aft than for the fwd types.
We were more apt to notice a hydrocarbon front approaching from the galley than minor variations in O2 or CO2.
Not only does Co2 make you stupid, it caused the end-Permian mass extinction, which occurred around 250 million years ago in the pre-dinosaur era.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121018141844.htm?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sciencedaily%2Fearth_climate+%28ScienceDaily%3A+Earth+&+Climate+News%29
“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.
Or, to put it another way; The fewer subjects you have, the easier it is to find what you want to find. Like the Norwegian “scientist” who did research on gender. With only one subject. Herself.