Look at your CMP (Comprehensive Metabolic Panel) blood test results. It has a test named Carbon Dioxide. This test may have a reference range of 20-32 mmol/L. Subtract your value from the max value -- that's your leftover buffer as the atmospheric CO2 rises, although serious intermittent problems are risked at a level of 31 itself. There is a more specific blood gas test that only a hospital can perform.
Fwiw, my value reliably went down after I replaced citrate mineral supplements (calcium and magnesium) with glycinate capsules.
One interesting thing in the paper that I didn't think of, is that our breathing mechanism is tied to CO2 levels. And therefore, higher CO2 levels (not atmospheric high, but artificially high during studies), can trigger panic attacks and general stress. A slow suffocation hallucination, kind of. Even when there's still sufficient oxygen, your body doesn't "measure" oxygen!
Correct. Depth and frequency of breathing is regulated 90% by arterial CO2 level due to a direct, potent servo feedback based on a sensor in the brain stem. The rest is due to O2 level. A fatal situation happens with low CO2 and low O2 that doesn't increase breathing. Pneumo doctors hate this and it's an absolute indication for intubation and mechanical breathing.
As a software engineer, what can we do to help with anthropogenic emissions? I want to know how I can use my critical thinking to protect the future for us.
Should not be a surprise since we have know about CO2 Levels and fossil fuels for many decades.
The surprise is nothing was real was done. Compare what our generation did with this knowledge against the sacrifices the WW2 generation did. In WW2 many items were rationed in the US for the war effort, including gas.
We knew something had to be done to be done in the 70s, but did we sacrifice our lifestyle for the good of the world ? No, our self-centered generation pumped even more CO2 into the air and is continuing to do so. Our grandchildren will pay dearly for what we did and are doing in decades down the line.
"Toxic atmosphere" definitely implies something that I don't seem to be finding in the actual paper. We regularly sit in environments that are 2-3x the levels of atmospheric CO2.
Also, was this paper AI written?
> "There is now a considerable body of published data showing impacts at levels < 1,000ppm CO2, although the effects of exposure remain controversial."
Which is followed by this, with the very AI "For example" that seems to mostly contradict that statement?
> "For example, one study found no impact of exposure to levels up to 15,000 ppm (Rodeheffer et al., 2018), however the study population was a group of highly trained US Navy submariners. Conversely, studies in young adults (Satish et al., 2012), office workers (Allen et al., 2016) and university staff/students (Snow et al., 2019) showed negative effects at CO2 levels as low as 950 ppm."
And then "Such studies are supported by assessment of CO2-induced changes in human brainwaves, measured by electroencephalography (EEG) combined with cognitive tests (reviewed in (Zhang et al., 2024)). Such studies show that exposure to CO2 between 1,000 and 2,500 ppm results in heightened brain activity."
"Such studies" ... "such studies". And these studies seem to contradict the proceeding statement even more?
This is such a bad paper. They take the NHANES data, average it for all participants, don’t bother controlling for things that have far more direct relevance to individual bicarbonate levels (e.g. diabetes, antacid use), and just assert that an observed correlation is causative.
What are we, the powerless people, supposed to do with that as we watch super yachts, private jets, and armies bomb oil storage and gas pipelines?
My office, with the window open, surrounded by trees and in the countryside, and the nearest large town being 20 miles away, shows 422ppm CO2 pretty consistently.
People aren't powerless. They keep voting for people that do these things and/or keep giving them money to do it again and again. That's why they have money, that's why they have power, and as long as people keep rewarding them for doing it they'll keep doing it.
Anyone else ever think of somehow building an at-home carbon-removal system, for lower carbon content in the air of your living spaces? I know it's a silly idea, but one that has occurred to me from time to time.
The most practical way to do this is to ensure that your indoor air CO2 levels aren't significantly elevated over outdoor levels. One common way to do that (apart from opening windows) is to use a balanced ventilation system like an ERV or HRV. Those constantly exchange indoor air for outdoor air, and exchange a lot of the heat in the process to reduce energy losses.
Doesn't help if atmospheric CO2 levels increase to unsafe levels, though.
my whole state right now is under an air quality advisory that is quite literally off the scale bad. breathing outdoors is currently considered "harmful to everyone" per the advisory and simply going somewhere outside your home requires an N95 mask (https://www.wtae.com/article/pennsylvania-code-purple-air-qu...).
personally rooting for a gamma-ray burst within 8000 light years (which incidentally would have been traveling since the start of recorded human history)
the entire upper atmosphere would be turned to nitrogen dioxide
even the side of earth not facing the burst would have all life die very quickly because the ozone layer would just be GONE, so now all lethal ultraviolet solar radiation gets in too
solves ALL our problems
unfortunately Congress might survive a few more months in their underground bunkers but they are eventually doomed too
Humans are extremely adaptable, for example there's people who work in extreme conditions underwater, what would be considered absolutely unbearable and torture is normal. More information on saturation diving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfiHc_rh4EY
We're already slowly adapting to higher CO2 levels by sitting mostly indoors that have elevated CO2 from 500 to 800 with ranges up to 1500 (taken from my measurements at home).
Claiming that it would be toxic doesn't pass the most basic checks that humanity experience already.
Historically levels were around 250 and now they're generally over 450. I wonder if I would feel a cognitive boost or just plain better in general if I were breathing 250. Do they sell home CO2 scrubbers? I can easily increase the CO2 in a room, but how about decreasing it?
The atmosphere is the lowest possible value for your inhaled CO2. So it might be useful to think of this more in terms of impaired recovery rather than direct harm.
Imagine a healthy person with a healthy lifestyle and 8 hours of sleep every night. But every year, they are awakened 5 minutes earlier. So after 6 years they are only getting 7.5 hours of sleep every night. After 12 years, it’s only 7 hours. Will this have a health effect over time?
Obviously that example is a pretty big impairment. But the concept is what I’m getting at. Small persistent changes compound over time if there is no relief for recovery.
IF valid, there could be evolutionary advantage to those capable of calm and rational action in these conditions and, if they formed enough of a tribe, they could flourish.
19 comments
[ 3.5 ms ] story [ 34.3 ms ] threadFwiw, my value reliably went down after I replaced citrate mineral supplements (calcium and magnesium) with glycinate capsules.
I didn't know that!
The surprise is nothing was real was done. Compare what our generation did with this knowledge against the sacrifices the WW2 generation did. In WW2 many items were rationed in the US for the war effort, including gas.
We knew something had to be done to be done in the 70s, but did we sacrifice our lifestyle for the good of the world ? No, our self-centered generation pumped even more CO2 into the air and is continuing to do so. Our grandchildren will pay dearly for what we did and are doing in decades down the line.
Also, was this paper AI written?
> "There is now a considerable body of published data showing impacts at levels < 1,000ppm CO2, although the effects of exposure remain controversial."
Which is followed by this, with the very AI "For example" that seems to mostly contradict that statement?
> "For example, one study found no impact of exposure to levels up to 15,000 ppm (Rodeheffer et al., 2018), however the study population was a group of highly trained US Navy submariners. Conversely, studies in young adults (Satish et al., 2012), office workers (Allen et al., 2016) and university staff/students (Snow et al., 2019) showed negative effects at CO2 levels as low as 950 ppm."
And then "Such studies are supported by assessment of CO2-induced changes in human brainwaves, measured by electroencephalography (EEG) combined with cognitive tests (reviewed in (Zhang et al., 2024)). Such studies show that exposure to CO2 between 1,000 and 2,500 ppm results in heightened brain activity."
"Such studies" ... "such studies". And these studies seem to contradict the proceeding statement even more?
My office, with the window open, surrounded by trees and in the countryside, and the nearest large town being 20 miles away, shows 422ppm CO2 pretty consistently.
Doesn't help if atmospheric CO2 levels increase to unsafe levels, though.
the entire upper atmosphere would be turned to nitrogen dioxide
even the side of earth not facing the burst would have all life die very quickly because the ozone layer would just be GONE, so now all lethal ultraviolet solar radiation gets in too
solves ALL our problems
unfortunately Congress might survive a few more months in their underground bunkers but they are eventually doomed too
We're already slowly adapting to higher CO2 levels by sitting mostly indoors that have elevated CO2 from 500 to 800 with ranges up to 1500 (taken from my measurements at home).
Claiming that it would be toxic doesn't pass the most basic checks that humanity experience already.
Imagine a healthy person with a healthy lifestyle and 8 hours of sleep every night. But every year, they are awakened 5 minutes earlier. So after 6 years they are only getting 7.5 hours of sleep every night. After 12 years, it’s only 7 hours. Will this have a health effect over time?
Obviously that example is a pretty big impairment. But the concept is what I’m getting at. Small persistent changes compound over time if there is no relief for recovery.