CO2 readings in and around Fish House

I'm not questioning the effects of CO2. I'm questioning the argument that "global warming climate change trigger word dog whistle is making you dumb and my blog will tell you how" is an agenda driven pile of shit that has no basis in fact. All of these studies say one thing "Open a fucking window"

If you want to believe in the Boogeyman that's your prerogative rachel. You already went out and bought the meter just because of an internet blog. All I'm asking is that you don't spread this retarded hysteria.

Once again, your obvious anti-climate change beliefs are getting in the way of your perceptions. I did not purchase a CO2 meter because I'm hysterical over an internet article. I purchased a CO2 meter for the same reason that I purchased a decibel meter, non-contact thermometer, and breathalyzer?I'm interested in the objective quantification of the world around me. I started this thread to share my findings and discuss the steps other people can take to mitigate elevated CO2 concentrations in their homes. Opening a window is great advice, but not so much for Canadians in the middle of winter.

With every post you change your argument. Originally you were arguing that the article was bogus and only high concentrations of CO2 are worth worrying about. Once it was shown that there are measurable cognitive effects at lower concentrations, you changed tactics to saying I'm a hysterical climate change nut.

If anything, the only hysterical person in this thread is you.

>Once it was shown that there are measurable cognitive effects at lower concentrations

Based on a couple of studies involving about 20 people for a few hours over the course of a week? Yeah that is some rock solid evidence right there.

I'm sure there's no way that Dave's medication that day gave him a headache, or Shelly's dinner from the night before made her bloated and tired

Go ahead and keep going with the personal attacks against me though. That's a winning arguement

Anecdotally, you have probably experienced the effects of elevated CO2 levels if you've ever pulled a blanket over your head when it's cold. I can't stay under a blanket for more than a minute or two before I get uncomfortable.

I do this, but I always leave a space open for my mouth. That way I can breath fine and be warm!

Quote from: rachel on December 14, 2016, 08:47:46 am

Anecdotally, you have probably experienced the effects of elevated CO2 levels if you've ever pulled a blanket over your head when it's cold. I can't stay under a blanket for more than a minute or two before I get uncomfortable.

I do this, but I always leave a space open for my mouth. That way I can breath fine and be warm!

Most nights I sleep with my face/nose under the sheets. It never feels uncomfortable and I'm not exactly sure why.

Quote from: Anomaly on December 14, 2016, 12:57:44 pm

Quote from: rachel on December 14, 2016, 08:47:46 am

Anecdotally, you have probably experienced the effects of elevated CO2 levels if you've ever pulled a blanket over your head when it's cold. I can't stay under a blanket for more than a minute or two before I get uncomfortable.

I do this, but I always leave a space open for my mouth. That way I can breath fine and be warm!

Most nights I sleep with my face/nose under the sheets. It never feels uncomfortable and I'm not exactly sure why.

I don't think sheets would be thick enough to trap a significant amount of CO2.

I should do some experiments!

I don't think sheets would be thick enough to trap a significant amount of CO2.

I should do some experiments!

Technically they are blankets.

This is no different from when Fukushima happened, and everyone in Japan bought expensive radiation detectors because they were convinced they were being exposed to high levels of nuclear radiation. Telling people there is an invisible Boogeyman in the air that is killing them is a guaranteed way to spread hysteria and helps no one in any way. All it does is drive sales of detectors and increase ad revenue for sites like Medium.

Or, maybe this doctor of electrical engineering is well versed in a multitude of fields, and through his own research found an anomaly in his indoor air quality and as a scientist felt implored with a responsibility to share his findings. I really don't think that they were being machiavellian while typing it up, thinking: "Hahaha, this is going to get me so many clicks"

I'd liken this more to the wisdom of buying a multimeter. It's a tool to determine many various faults in electrical equipment. From checking to see if it is the batteries are dead or a device is dead, to isolating a bad solder on a circuit board. For $100, I think an investment to see a slice of the invisible world of gas around us is not exactly hair-brained, especially when there is a wealth of independently replicated information that shows that having a lot of CO2 build-up keeps one from achieving self-actualization to the fullest.

I hope that you would agree that no one would competently say that getting a CO detector is a stupid idea.

If the only result of this is that a few more people wise up and get some indoor plants, and crack open the windows a bit even if it chilly outside, then I think the author of the medium post has achieved what they were hoping for. A life hack that has the potential to improve people's lives. We've only been living in tightly insulated indoor dwellings for a few hundred years now at most, and it would be surprising if there were not some unforeseen consequences from this. Being able to quantify and measure those consequences is what separates the ideologists from the scientists.

If you don't live/work in a high risk area of CO2 exposure then yes it is a stupid idea to buy an expensive meter for no reason.

If you want to waste your own money then go for it, it's a free country. Just don't pretend that you're doing some kind of good for people by suggesting that they do the same, based on studies that have a sample size that could fit on a small bus. Some people will be frightened enough by the Medium article to waste money that would be better spent on food, rent, etc because the number one concern for most people is health.

Just don't pretend that you're doing some kind of good for people by suggesting that they do the same, based on studies that have a sample size that could fit on a small bus.

Don't pretend you're doing anyone any kind of good either.

You are responding to a single isolated instance of someone sharing findings based on their own research without any of the exaggerated bullshit you are losing yourself in.

*nothing useful to say just stackin' coral*
CO2 is cool guys great info super gr8 info love it =]]]]

USER WAS BANNED FROM THIS TOPIC
Reason: This is the intelligent discussion forum. Want coral? Use the shitpost board

Rachel you mentioned on IRC that you were buying a lot more plants. Can you redo the readings with various amounts of plants in the rooms to see how it affects the CO2 readings? Would be pretty interesting to see how much it affects the readings, and how it scales with number of plants

Rachel you mentioned on IRC that you were buying a lot more plants. Can you redo the readings with various amounts of plants in the rooms to see how it affects the CO2 readings? Would be pretty interesting to see how much it affects the readings, and how it scales with number of plants

Yeah I'm curious about this as well but I don't think it's going to change a huge amount. Plants only account for a small percentage of the O2/CO2 composition in the atmosphere compared to algae.

It is estimated that marine plants produce between 70 and 80 percent of the oxygen in the atmosphere.

Source

Scientists believe that phytoplankton contribute between 50 to 85 percent of the oxygen in Earth?s atmosphere.

Source

The NASA studies focused on using indoor plants for phytoremediation?removing trace chemicals from the air (like ammonia and formaldehyde) that are released by household items.

...I've got an algae kit on my christmas wishlist... xD

I'd be interested in the results from your science too! I'd imagine lighting conditions play a large role. Most people probably don't have a lot of sunlight reaching their indoor plants. As a hypothesis, algae should be more adept at performing photosynthesis under low light conditions, but regular plants can keep up during 16 hour full daylight cycles.

Plants are recorded as being exponentially more efficient at photosynthesis when CO2 concentrations are highest. Good for data analysis, since plants where CO2 build-up is the most should show the greatest effects.

Any chance on comparing between algae and plants in the bedrooms of the fish house during "daytime" sleeps? A big confound to the more plants = better thing, is that during no-light conditions plants tend to respire, or, also burn o2 and release co2. So, Having a tonne of plants in a bedroom at night could actually be worse for reducing CO2 levels while you sleep.

...I've got an algae kit on my christmas wishlist... xD

Whoa, can you grow edible algaes with it? Let me know how that pans out if you get it, that sounds really cool