Remember me
▼ Content

could we slow co2 release in enviornment by engineering a virus to kill wood eating bacteria?


could we slow co2 release in enviornment by engineering a virus to kill wood eating bacteria?04-03-2019 17:26
codyblood
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Just watched a pbs eons and it mentioned that during the last period of excess co2 there weren't any wood eating bacteria and that that cooled the planet and increased o2. just wondering if anybody has thought of that and if it had any practicality. thanks.
04-03-2019 20:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15872)
Sounds like this show was making things up.
08-02-2020 20:22
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
codyblood wrote:
Just watched a pbs eons and it mentioned that during the last period of excess co2 there weren't any wood eating bacteria and that that cooled the planet and increased o2. just wondering if anybody has thought of that and if it had any practicality. thanks.


This explains why current CO2 release from fossil fuels is dangerous, while millions of years ago it wasn't (plants with lack of wood eating bacteria and fungus sequestrated CO2 quite efficiently, currently it will not be sequestrated).

And virus killing wood eating bacteria isn't simple solution:
* there are also multiple fungi species which eat wood
* there is so large amount of these bacteria cells that this virus would have very high chance to evolve into anything-else killing virus before most of that wood eating bacteria is killed
* there will be no way to stop this virus once released into environment in large enough amounts to be able to stop decaying wood by bacteria, so it will either
** cause extinction of wood eating bacteria causing extreme environment and ecosystems change forever (this change is much worse than effects of global warming btw, since humans are expected to stop releasing CO2 when about 1000ppm is reached even in case on most dense deniers since this level starts to directly impair human health)
** or that bacteria will win gaining resistance to this virus, and this resistant mutant will quickly spread = in this case virus will be completely useless, of course even this cause maybe not catastrophic but still significant change in ecosystems (new mutated wood eating bacteria has significant chance of being incompatible with some species of currently living organisms in some ecosystems)
* there is high chance that fungi will efficiently take place of that bacteria (which is most probable scenario since dead wood is large source of energy for both aerobic and anaerobic living beings), in such case virus rendered useless (except of significant change in ecosystems, which we basically want to avoid)
* there is possibly many types of wood eating bacteria (wood=cellulose, so for bacteria to be wood-eating, bacteria basically needs just enzyme which breakdown cellulose, nearly all other things in this bacteria may differ so high chance that there isn't possible one virus which address all types of wood eating bacteria); if we try address by enzyme which breakdown cellulose there is risk that we unintentionally kill all herbivorous animals which rely on cellulose eating bacteria
* it may extremely negatively impact whole agriculture, preventing from soil formation

Btw millions of years ago coal etc. were formed by giant ferns which are already extinct, and current day forests seem to rely on wood eating bacteria and fungi to form soil, so this type of virus if succesfull would likely kill forests.

So while this idea may seem smart, personally I think that starting world-wide nuclear war is much more safe and smarter than trying to introduce such virus into ecosystems.
08-02-2020 20:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9659)
codyblood wrote:
Just watched a pbs eons and it mentioned that during the last period of excess co2 there weren't any wood eating bacteria and that that cooled the planet and increased o2. just wondering if anybody has thought of that and if it had any practicality. thanks.

I watched that show as well. Then I hopped into my time machine and verifed that it was all true, which it was, of course. I checked every micrometer of the planet from depths of two meters to altitudes of 40 meters AGL, and I'll be damned; there wasn't a single wood-eating bacteria.

... and yes, my planet average temperature thermometer verified the cooling effect to the planet and isolated it to the lack of wood-eating bacteria.

I'm glad that show pointed me in the right direction.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2020 02:13
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1266)
why is 1000/1000000 harmful to humans
09-02-2020 03:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9659)
duncan61 wrote: why is 1000/1000000 harmful to humans

It's not.

Did you know 800,000 ppm nitrogen isn't harmful to humans either?


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-02-2020 11:25
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3535)
1200 ppm CO2 is considered a safe indoor level, with no harmful effects. Check with OSHA or CDC, their websites will go into great detail.

Don't termites have wood eating bacteria in their digestive system? Bacteria is part of a healthy ecosystem, it called recycling. Every living thing takes resources from the environment. When they die, bacteria rot and decay, returning those nutrients to the soil, to start it all over again, in other living things. There are other things, that help break things down, besides bacteria. They targeted the bacteria, because one of their byproducts, is 'evil' CO2, which of course, essential to plant growth, and well generally all carbon-based life forms. Seems odd to me, how few of the genius, expert, climate 'scientists', miss the point that CO2, is where every living thing on this planet, gets their carbon, to make the magic happen, we call life. Plants are the only thing that extracts carbon from the environment, for everything else to consume. More CO2, is good for plants, and good for all life on the planet. Two degrees warming, isn't going to kill us. I grew up on a snow capped mountain, year round skiing. Cold, wet, and miserable most of the year. Moved to Florida over 30 years ago, and survived just fine. Even our worst heat wave, wasn't that bad, and that was way more than two degrees warmer.
09-02-2020 22:31
James___
★★★★★
(4780)
HarveyH55 wrote:
1200 ppm CO2 is considered a safe indoor level, with no harmful effects. Check with OSHA or CDC, their websites will go into great detail.

Don't termites have wood eating bacteria in their digestive system? Bacteria is part of a healthy ecosystem, it called recycling. Every living thing takes resources from the environment. When they die, bacteria rot and decay, returning those nutrients to the soil, to start it all over again, in other living things. There are other things, that help break things down, besides bacteria. They targeted the bacteria, because one of their byproducts, is 'evil' CO2, which of course, essential to plant growth, and well generally all carbon-based life forms. Seems odd to me, how few of the genius, expert, climate 'scientists', miss the point that CO2, is where every living thing on this planet, gets their carbon, to make the magic happen, we call life. Plants are the only thing that extracts carbon from the environment, for everything else to consume. More CO2, is good for plants, and good for all life on the planet. Two degrees warming, isn't going to kill us. I grew up on a snow capped mountain, year round skiing. Cold, wet, and miserable most of the year. Moved to Florida over 30 years ago, and survived just fine. Even our worst heat wave, wasn't that bad, and that was way more than two degrees warmer.



Umm, people can start feeling the effects of CO2 when levels reach 1,000 ppm.

People shouldn't be drowsy at work. It hurts productivity and increases the likelihood of an accident.
https://www.kane.co.uk/knowledge-centre/what-are-safe-levels-of-co-and-co2-in-rooms
10-02-2020 01:42
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3535)
I live and work in the United States of America, and OSHA sets the safety standards, which is 1200 ppm. Maybe they are using that messed metric system crap, or something over in the UK.
08-02-2021 05:47
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
codyblood wrote:
Just watched a pbs eons and it mentioned that during the last period of excess co2 there weren't any wood eating bacteria and that that cooled the planet and increased o2. just wondering if anybody has thought of that and if it had any practicality. thanks.


Smoke less weed
08-02-2021 17:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9659)
HarveyH55 wrote: I live and work in the United States of America, and OSHA sets the safety standards, which is 1200 ppm. Maybe they are using that messed metric system crap, or something over in the UK.

If you read closely, OSHA uses very light wording on this matter, e.g. "should be less than 1200 ppm" or "recommends less than 1200 ppm" ...

... and they use the same wording for 10,000 ppm in other parts of the standard. They don't know. All they have are reports of people becoming light-headed in some situations of elevated CO2 and they aren't even sure that the CO2 was the cause.

The atmosphere is 800,000 ppm nitrogen and that doesn't seem to be killing anyone.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-02-2021 21:23
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3535)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: I live and work in the United States of America, and OSHA sets the safety standards, which is 1200 ppm. Maybe they are using that messed metric system crap, or something over in the UK.

If you read closely, OSHA uses very light wording on this matter, e.g. "should be less than 1200 ppm" or "recommends less than 1200 ppm" ...

... and they use the same wording for 10,000 ppm in other parts of the standard. They don't know. All they have are reports of people becoming light-headed in some situations of elevated CO2 and they aren't even sure that the CO2 was the cause.

The atmosphere is 800,000 ppm nitrogen and that doesn't seem to be killing anyone.

.


It's not really the CO2, it's the lack of oxygen. CO2 is heavier, and indoors, can settle closer to the ground. Some people need higher O2 levels, than others. Hard to determine who needs what, or select a test group. It's not just smokers, or people with other lung issues.
08-02-2021 23:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9659)
HarveyH55 wrote: It's not really the CO2, it's the lack of oxygen.

Exactly. That's the danger against which they warn, but that's a different section of the standard. Normally our atmosphere is ~20% but we are just fine with 16% say, because our lungs are very efficient and are built for extracting oxygen from the air we breathe into our lungs. CO2 is heavier than both nitrogen and oxygen so it displaces them both equally. If the air we breathe were to reach 80,000 ppm CO2 we'd still be fine. OSHA is concerned about configurations whereby people work in lower enclosed areas in which large amounts of CO2 could potentially fill and displace the air in the space where the people need to breathe. They would simply be denied oxygen because of gravity.

That is their concern, not that a paltry few thousand ppm CO2 might find its way into the workplace. CO2, like nitrogen, is neither poison nor pollution.

So yes, you are spot on.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-02-2021 21:35
JvJ
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Hello,

In my opinion climate change the most serious issue that our modern society faces. But obviously the actions that would cause an improvement seem to be very difficult and sometimes unpleasant, too. So I thought of how we can do something that is unconscious and also significantly improving our planet's state. Surprisingly, I found „Ecosia", a search engine and the biggest tree planter worldwide. With every research you can significantly contribute to reforestation projects in places where trees are most urgently needed. About 80% of the whole income by advertisements is donated for afforestation. Thus, it supports not only the environment, but also the economic, social and educational state of many third countries.
I think this is one of the easiest and most effective ways of solving global issues. If everybody uses this browser instead of conventional, commercial search engines like Google, the world will be quite a bit better.
I hope many people now start using „Ecosia" in order to contribute to a global change.
If you want to you can put this comment onto the forum that more people read it and stark using Ecosia as their new web browser.
Thank you!
18-02-2021 22:39
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2348)
JvJ wrote:
Hello,

In my opinion climate change the most serious issue that our modern society faces.

Hello,

Define "climate change".

JvJ wrote:
But obviously the actions that would cause an improvement seem to be very difficult and sometimes unpleasant, too. So I thought of how we can do something that is unconscious and also significantly improving our planet's state. Surprisingly, I found „Ecosia", a search engine and the biggest tree planter worldwide. With every research you can significantly contribute to reforestation projects in places where trees are most urgently needed. About 80% of the whole income by advertisements is donated for afforestation. Thus, it supports not only the environment, but also the economic, social and educational state of many third countries.
I think this is one of the easiest and most effective ways of solving global issues. If everybody uses this browser instead of conventional, commercial search engines like Google, the world will be quite a bit better.
I hope many people now start using „Ecosia" in order to contribute to a global change.
If you want to you can put this comment onto the forum that more people read it and stark using Ecosia as their new web browser.
Thank you!

I'm happy with my current web browser. I have already planted quite a few trees myself. Those trees are desperately longing for some CO2.
Edited on 18-02-2021 22:39
19-02-2021 01:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9659)
JvJ wrote: In my opinion climate change the most serious issue that our modern society faces.

Why should any rational adult be of the same opinion? It sounds like your opinion was provided to you by psychotic leftists bent on manipulating your mind.

JvJ wrote:But obviously the actions that would cause an improvement seem to be very difficult and sometimes unpleasant, too.

Excellent. So we can drop the issue, yes?


Branner asked me to refrain from cross-posting onto the Danish site because I just couldn't manage to translate into readable Danish. I wonder if Branner will be asking you to not post on the English site.

JvJ wrote: About 80% of the whole income by advertisements is donated for afforestation. Thus, it supports not only the environment, but also the economic, social and educational state of many third countries.

Aren't you forgetting something? You are supposed to be addressing Climate Change. You haven't mentioned one thing that fixes it. In fact, you don't mention anything whatsoever in your post that does so I'm ignoring your post completely.

You pulled a bait'n'switch.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
19-02-2021 02:35
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3535)
Search engines aren't completely free to use. They cost money to run, and need a revenue stream. That revenue, is generated mostly, from harvesting/mining user data and statistics. Some are fairly honest about, others are sneaky about it. A few go the extra mile, to squeeze every dime they can, anyway they can, and occasionally get caught. Browsers, are usually more invasive, than the search engines. Social media is the most profitable.

The only threat from climate change, is the change in the political climate, and the drive to global socialism. The absurd notion that most people are just too stupid to run their own lives, wisely spend the money they earn. The idea, is to steal the wealth of the world, and a single government, gets to tell everyone what they can own, and how to use what they have.
19-02-2021 19:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15872)
JvJ is spamming.
04-03-2021 13:57
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
codyblood wrote:
Just watched a pbs eons and it mentioned that during the last period of excess co2 there weren't any wood eating bacteria and that that cooled the planet and increased o2. just wondering if anybody has thought of that and if it had any practicality. thanks.


Bacteria enable the ecosystems to exist. Stopping wood breakdown would destroy every forest
04-03-2021 21:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15872)
Swan wrote:
codyblood wrote:
Just watched a pbs eons and it mentioned that during the last period of excess co2 there weren't any wood eating bacteria and that that cooled the planet and increased o2. just wondering if anybody has thought of that and if it had any practicality. thanks.


Bacteria enable the ecosystems to exist. Stopping wood breakdown would destroy every forest


There wouldn't be any vegetation. It is bacteria that creates soil. Even worms and bugs use bacteria to create soil.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
04-03-2021 22:52
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(691)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: I live and work in the United States of America, and OSHA sets the safety standards, which is 1200 ppm. Maybe they are using that messed metric system crap, or something over in the UK.

If you read closely, OSHA uses very light wording on this matter, e.g. "should be less than 1200 ppm" or "recommends less than 1200 ppm" ...

... and they use the same wording for 10,000 ppm in other parts of the standard. They don't know. All they have are reports of people becoming light-headed in some situations of elevated CO2 and they aren't even sure that the CO2 was the cause.

The atmosphere is 800,000 ppm nitrogen and that doesn't seem to be killing anyone.

.


It's not really the CO2, it's the lack of oxygen. CO2 is heavier, and indoors, can settle closer to the ground. Some people need higher O2 levels, than others. Hard to determine who needs what, or select a test group. It's not just smokers, or people with other lung issues.



Studies by NIOSH in 1976 dispelled the myth that carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas and only causes
adverse health effects when it displaces oxygen.

CO2 Concentration
Duration
Physiological Impact/Health Effect

1,000 ppm
Less than 2½ hrs.
Impairs judgment, decision-making ability, and thinking skills on a short-term basis, even for healthy individuals.

2,500 ppm
Less than 2½ hrs.
Many individuals are rendered cognitively marginal or dysfunctional.

5,000 ppm with 20.9% Oxygen
Headache, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption.

6% 1-2 mins. Hearing and visual disturbances

7% (70,000 ppm) with 20.9% Oxygen
5 mins.
death

10% to 15%
Dizziness, drowsiness, severe muscle twitching, unconsciousness and
death within a few minutes.

Even though oxygen is necessary to carry out cell functions, it is not the lack of oxygen that stimulates
breathing. Breathing is stimulated by an excess of CO2. If an individual breathes too slowly (bradypnea),
does not breathe deeply enough, (dyspnea), or is exposed to excessive CO2 levels, too much CO2 can build
up. This causes increased breathing and the other physiological responses discussed above.

Concentrated CO2 conditions impact most living organisms. Plant roots can actually be suffocated, which stops
the uptake of nutrients and kills the plants.



Edited on 04-03-2021 23:34
05-03-2021 00:32
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote: I live and work in the United States of America, and OSHA sets the safety standards, which is 1200 ppm. Maybe they are using that messed metric system crap, or something over in the UK.

If you read closely, OSHA uses very light wording on this matter, e.g. "should be less than 1200 ppm" or "recommends less than 1200 ppm" ...

... and they use the same wording for 10,000 ppm in other parts of the standard. They don't know. All they have are reports of people becoming light-headed in some situations of elevated CO2 and they aren't even sure that the CO2 was the cause.

The atmosphere is 800,000 ppm nitrogen and that doesn't seem to be killing anyone.

.


It's not really the CO2, it's the lack of oxygen. CO2 is heavier, and indoors, can settle closer to the ground. Some people need higher O2 levels, than others. Hard to determine who needs what, or select a test group. It's not just smokers, or people with other lung issues.



Studies by NIOSH in 1976 dispelled the myth that carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant gas and only causes
adverse health effects when it displaces oxygen.

CO2 Concentration
Duration
Physiological Impact/Health Effect

1,000 ppm
Less than 2½ hrs.
Impairs judgment, decision-making ability, and thinking skills on a short-term basis, even for healthy individuals.

2,500 ppm
Less than 2½ hrs.
Many individuals are rendered cognitively marginal or dysfunctional.

5,000 ppm with 20.9% Oxygen
Headache, lethargy, mental slowness, emotional irritation, and sleep disruption.

6% 1-2 mins. Hearing and visual disturbances

7% (70,000 ppm) with 20.9% Oxygen
5 mins.
death

10% to 15%
Dizziness, drowsiness, severe muscle twitching, unconsciousness and
death within a few minutes.

Even though oxygen is necessary to carry out cell functions, it is not the lack of oxygen that stimulates
breathing. Breathing is stimulated by an excess of CO2. If an individual breathes too slowly (bradypnea),
does not breathe deeply enough, (dyspnea), or is exposed to excessive CO2 levels, too much CO2 can build
up. This causes increased breathing and the other physiological responses discussed above.

Concentrated CO2 conditions impact most living organisms. Plant roots can actually be suffocated, which stops
the uptake of nutrients and kills the plants.


Wrong CO2 is toxic at high enough levels which is why subs have CO2 scrubbers.
05-03-2021 03:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9659)
Swan wrote:Wrong CO2 is toxic at high enough levels which is why subs have CO2 scrubbers.

LOL LOL ... "at high enough levels" renders your statement meaningless. LOL Everything is "toxic" at "high enough levels." LOL LOL Pure water is poisonous "at high enough levels" as is oxygen, as is peanut butter.

When everything is poison, nothing is poison LOL.
When everything is pollution, nothing is pollution LOL.

LOL

CO2 is not toxic. It is not a poison. It is not pollution. Get back to your padded cell.

.
Attached image:

05-03-2021 17:00
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2348)
^^^^^^^^^^^

... and BINGO was his name-o!
05-03-2021 20:08
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3535)
How in the hell would anyone believe CO2 is poison? We all produce CO2 in our bodies, constantly. In my youth, I could swim underwater over 50 meters, least a minute. There were a couple of guys on the team, who could do twice that. Nobody got hurt. Duncan can probably verify, that most indoor places, with lots of people, are in the 1,000 ppm range. Nobody falling down, gasping for air.
05-03-2021 23:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9659)
HarveyH55 wrote:How in the hell would anyone believe CO2 is poison? We all produce CO2 in our bodies, constantly. In my youth, I could swim underwater over 50 meters, least a minute. There were a couple of guys on the team, who could do twice that. Nobody got hurt. Duncan can probably verify, that most indoor places, with lots of people, are in the 1,000 ppm range. Nobody falling down, gasping for air.

It's not that any specific quantity of CO2 in your lungs will be poisonous, it's when there are small amounts in your lungs constantly over long periods of time that it becomes a problem.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-03-2021 23:24
SwanProfile picture★★★☆☆
(569)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How in the hell would anyone believe CO2 is poison? We all produce CO2 in our bodies, constantly. In my youth, I could swim underwater over 50 meters, least a minute. There were a couple of guys on the team, who could do twice that. Nobody got hurt. Duncan can probably verify, that most indoor places, with lots of people, are in the 1,000 ppm range. Nobody falling down, gasping for air.


CO2 in too high an amount is poison

Carbon dioxide is a physiologically important gas, produced by the body as a result of cellular metabolism. It is widely used in the food industry in the carbonation of beverages, in fire extinguishers as an 'inerting' agent and in the chemical industry. Its main mode of action is as an asphyxiant, although it also exerts toxic effects at cellular level. At low concentrations, gaseous carbon dioxide appears to have little toxicological effect. At higher concentrations it leads to an increased respiratory rate, tachycardia, cardiac arrhythmias and impaired consciousness. Concentrations >10% may cause convulsions, coma and death. Solid carbon dioxide may cause burns following direct contact. If it is warmed rapidly, large amounts of carbon dioxide are generated, which can be dangerous, particularly within confined areas. The management of carbon dioxide poisoning requires the immediate removal of the casualty from the toxic environment, the administration of oxygen and appropriate supportive care. In severe cases, assisted ventilation may be required. Dry ice burns are treated similarly to other cryogenic burns, requiring thawing of the tissue and suitable analgesia. Healing may be delayed and surgical intervention may be required in severe cases.




Join the debate could we slow co2 release in enviornment by engineering a virus to kill wood eating bacteria?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Watching the Train Wreck in Slow Motion20105-08-2021 22:48
Corona Virus NCOV COVID Is Each Individual Problem, You Cannot Kill It With Collective Method002-08-2021 08:41
Divine Warnings For All Nations, Entities Who Are Lying, Cheating Virus Pandemic COVID Event401-08-2021 17:36
The Truth Fact About Virus Pandemic NCOV COVID After 20 Months With The Best Solutions For Everyone026-07-2021 09:14
The Origin Of NCOV COVID Is Come From Some Deities To Slow Down The Collapse Of This Civilization019-07-2021 15:14
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact