TOO MUCH CARBON DIOXIDE MAY CLOUD OUR THINKING

More than five million people will
die from a frightening cause:
breathing Do you sometimes find yourself
losing focus on the job? Is your
thinking a little fuzzy? It could
be something in the air - and
you and your co-workers may
be the source. We all know that excess carbon
dioxide in the atmosphere is
bad. It's a greenhouse gas that
contributes to global warming,
though it has no immediate
harmful effects on people in concentrations that occur
outdoors. Until recently, experts
believed that indoor carbon
dioxide -- which is emitted, for
example, when people exhale --
also was harmless except at extremely high levels of 5,000
parts per million (ppm) or more. New research, however, has
prompted scientists to rethink
this assumption. Two studies, one published in
2012 and another last fall,
suggest that indoor exposure to
carbon dioxide can impair
performance and decision-
making. Although the research focused on workers, the
findings pose troubling
questions for people in many
indoor environments, including
schools, airplanes, autos and
even homes. "We spend 90 percent of our
time indoors,'' says Joseph
Allen, an assistant professor of
exposure assessment science
at the Harvard T.H. Chan
School of Public Health, lead author of the most recent study.

"To get a sense of this, multiply
your age by 0.9. That's how
many years you have spent
indoors.'' Until now, research used CO2
measurements as a rough
indicator of overall ventilation in
buildings. Low ventilation rates
allow concentrations of many
pollutants -- including CO2 -- to build up, which experts have
blamed for illnesses. This new
research, however, suggests
that even carbon dioxide may
be causing problems. "Does this mean that kids in a
crowded and poorly ventilated
classroom have impaired
decision-making? Does it mean
that kids taking a high-stakes
test like the SAT might be impaired? We don't know,'' says
Mark Mendell, one of the
authors of the 2012 study,
which was conducted by the
Department of Energy's
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "But the results for
the first time raise this
question.'' The Berkeley Lab scientists
decided to conduct their study
after coming across two small
Hungarian studies suggesting
that indoor CO2 was harmful at
levels lower than 5,000 ppm. On nine scales of decision-
making performance,
participants in the Berkeley
study showed significant
reductions on six scales at CO2
levels of 1,000 ppm and large reductions on seven at 2,500
ppm. The most dramatic
declines in performance, in
which subjects were rated as
"dysfunctional," were for taking
initiative and thinking strategically. The Berkeley researchers,
initially skeptical of the
Hungarian studies, were
flabbergasted by their findings.
"We found astonishing,
unbelievable effects with CO2 levels that were not that high,''
Mendell says. "Our study
suggested that even at 1,000
ppm there were some adverse
effects on decision-making, and
2,500 produced 'dysfunctional' performance.'' Outdoor concentrations of CO2
in the air are around 400 ppm.
Building operators have long
tried to keep levels below 1,000
-- as an indication of adequate
general ventilation, not because they had concerns about CO2
itself. But concentrations often
exceed that, especially in
crowded rooms with poor
ventilation, Mendell says. Indoor
levels can reach several thousand parts per million,
according to the Berkeley
scientists, with concentrations
in classrooms occasionally
exceeding 3,000 ppm. Illnesses apparently related to
tight, energy-efficient new
buildings received increasing
attention beginning in the 1970s,
with the emergence of "sick
building syndrome," a cluster of symptoms that include
headaches, respiratory
symptoms and difficulty
concentrating. Experts identified
indoor air pollutants as the likely
source, but they didn't suspect that carbon dioxide was part of
the problem. The Harvard study, which also
involved researchers from
SUNY Upstate Medical Center
and Syracuse University, used
similar testing methods as the
Berkeley study, but it monitored participants over a longer
period. It confirmed the 2012
results. Twenty-four participants -
architects, designers,
programmers, engineers,
creative marketing
professionals and managers --
spent six full workdays in an environmentally controlled office
space, blinded to test
conditions. All were exposed to
the same conditions which
varied each day. The researchers studied the
effects of different
concentrations of air pollutants,
including carbon dioxide. They
also looked at performance
under high and low rates of ventilation. The subjects used a computer
interface to make decisions
about situations that match real-
world challenges, from relatively
simple tasks to highly complex
problems. On average, cognitive scores
were 61 percent higher on days
with low concentrations of
pollutants, compared with the
same participants' scores when
they spent time in a low- ventilation environment with
elevated levels of pollutants,
and 101 percent better on days
with the most ventilation. In fact,
participants scored highest in
eight of nine test areas on the days with the greatest
ventilation. For seven of the nine areas of
productive decision-making, the
average scores decreased as
the level of carbon dioxide grew
higher. Compared with the two
days of high ventilation, cognitive function scores were
15 percent lower on the day with
moderate CO2 -- about 945 ppm
-- and 50 percent lower on the
day with CO2 concentrations
around 1,400 ppm. Worrisome, to be sure -- but
probably fixable. "There are
things we can do, right now, to
enhance indoor environmental
quality and benefit human
health, well-being and productivity,'' Allen says. "This
research has reinvigorated
discussions with industry
professionals on creating
healthy indoor environments.
People want buildings that make them healthy.'' The most obvious solution is to
increase ventilation from the
outside. But this will prove
problematic if carbon dioxide
levels continue to rise in the
atmosphere. Also, it can be expensive: Outside air that
comes inside must be warmed
in the winter and cooled in the
summer. A recent paper by Allen and
colleagues suggests that
spending money to increase
ventilation in office buildings
would be very cost-effective for
employers, estimating the cost of doubling indoor ventilation
rates at $40 per person
annually, against a productivity
gain of $6,500 per person per
year. "The increased use of energy
may be worthwhile, if it turns out
to have important benefits for
people in the workplace or the
classroom, allowing them to
think or perform better,'' Mendell says.

Posted: at 2-03-2016 01:13 PM (8 years ago) | Hero

yes.....you are correct thats why we need to
clear all of this carbon things arround us
like generators... our cars engines  need to
be treated all time to avoid too much carbon

Posted: at 2-03-2016 11:44 PM (8 years ago) | Hero

true talk

Posted: at 3-03-2016 11:22 PM (8 years ago) | Gistmaniac

This the first tym am hearin dis

Posted: at 14-03-2016 12:56 AM (8 years ago) | Hero