CO2 is not an issue
Your body will still metabolise the 5% of oxygen it does now and convert that to CO2 in the blood to be carried back to the lungs. Your body would be saturated (it is the correct term I assure you) with CO2 at 1% which you will not be able to get rid of. There would not be any accumulation of CO2 other than that 1% and as i said earlier, exposure to CO2 at that level and higher does currently cause some cognative function issues, but I am sure humans would adapt to those higher levels of CO2 over time.
I agree that blood CO2 levels would increase as a result of a 1% atmospheric CO2 quantity but I am not aware of any study on humans that checks blood CO2 levels in response to increasing atmospheric CO2 levels. I'm not in the habit of drawing conclusions based on figures being nice round numbers. I'm willing to say that you might be completely correct about the medical/physiological ramifications of elevated atmospheric CO2, but no one knows. That test has not been done. Of course of interest would be such a test across gender, age groups, metabolic rates and cardio-pulmonary health.
I realize you are certain that "saturation" is the correct word,and I'm willing to accept that other divers are taught that this is the correct word, but "saturated" means something very specific, and any human walking around can physically fit more nitrogen in their bodies.
What would happen to my blood nitrogen level if atmospheric nitrogen were to increase from 78% to 79%? Would my nitrogen level increase? If so, how is that possible if I had already been "saturated"?
If you change a variable then you change the saturation point! This can either be pressure (greater or lower) or concentration as you said an increase in % or a reduction of same.
Join the debate CO2 is not an issue:
▲ Top of page
Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.