[bsenftner]

In Japan, it is common to see CO₂ monitor displays outside contained meeting spaces, such as theaters.

My wife purchased an Aronet CO₂ monitor, and I took it with me on a business trip last week. The CO₂ while on the flight was in the 3000's range. The CO₂ at my client's office was in the mid 2000's range, as well as the hotel. Opening the hotel window the allowed 2 inches reduces CO₂ to the 600 range in 10 minutes, but the client's office windows do not open, and of course neither do the airplane windows.

I've also noticed when working indoors or when driving, if the CO₂ is above 1500 I get drowsy, so the degree it is no longer responsible driving a car.

Air safety: are we going to fight a moronic battle over this too?

[blkhawk]

I have had a self-build CO2 monitor for several years now and I find the airplane example Surprising.

AFAIK the air in a Plane is cycled out too fast for that amount to develop. Maybe the Lower air pressure was the cause? Since it was portable it was probably the NIR type? If its not measuring all the time it might also be the heater type - I am really not sure how that type would deal with low pressure. Or was is the "eCO2" type - in that case well I doubt you get anything out of that thing in a plane except a high number.

One thing I noticed is that CO2 seems to "flow and pool" in certain places as it seemingly "rains" down and the room is "filled" from the bottom up. A Table for instance might develop a layer that is thick enough for my meter to hoover it up (it has a fan).

[Retric]

Local passenger density is going to play a role here venting air from low density first class areas isn’t going to do much. Similarly as you mention air flow is important as being in the middle of a large row could have vastly worse airflow than other areas.

So, I could easily see the aircraft venting mostly 700ppm air while some areas hit 3000 ppm internally.

[blkhawk]

3000 ppm is directly breathing at the meter - at least with mine it is.

[giraffe_lady]

No, there won't be any battle. If there were going to it would have been during covid, with improved indoor ventilation being one of the major components of an in-depth mitigation strategy.

There was no meaningful attempt or debate about changing ventilation standards then when it would have tangibly saved lives, there certainly won't be now.

[marcosdumay]

The covid years were crazy. People kept cleaning everything with all kinds of poison (thank god somebody published early that alcohol at 70% is enough, otherwise I think we would see people dropping dead from too much poison), that was known to be useless by around April 2020, and yet everybody actively refused to talk about indoor ventilation.

And most were the same people repeating the "are you for or against science?" line.

Crazy years, dominated by completely random propaganda. Discussions on calmer times follow different rules, and if nobody decides to spend a lot of money stopping it, it can follow rational, evidence based lines.

[giraffe_lady]

Very cynically I think it was rejected early and high up because it simply would have required a top-down decree that large corporations spend an astounding amount of money for the wellbeing of their workers. As a society we've basically ruled out interventions of that sort by now, and it would establish/reinforce the belief that companies are responsible for the health of their workers.

Whereas personal-domain actions like sanitizing and masking cost companies basically nothing and reinforce the mindset that covid mitigation is an individual responsibility and so the consequences from having it are an individual burden. It doesn't even matter if they work or not, from this perspective, which explains why pointless things like sanitizing and QR menus persisted so long.

[cameldrv]

I think it was a combination of things.

1. Inertia: Sanitizing and disinfection was what was recommended in March 2020. Even masking was actively discouraged until later.

2. "We have to do something." "This is something."

3. Handwashing/hand sanitizing and sanitizing surfaces are visible actions that reassure some people. Ventilation and filtration improvements are generally not visible.

4. Ventilation and filtration improvements are expensive and, for an institution, require certified professionals to design and implement. There aren't enough of these people and not enough equipment to implement this for every building in a timely manner. Handwashing and clorox wipes are cheap and anyone can use them.

Personally I think that COVID is likely going to be with us for some time to come and will cause significant disability as people get infected repeatedly. I think eventually we will see significant uptake of ventilation/filtration improvements.

[robocat]

Less cynically, there were no filtration units or HEPA filters available because demand far outstripped supply. It would be interesting to know how fast production could have been increased (face masks took a while).

[anonymouskimmer]

> otherwise I think we would see people dropping dead from too much poison

At least one person (with multiple chemical sensitivity) committed suicide (medically-assisted) because the sanitation and smoking in her apartment complex during COVID made her life so miserable she didn't want to live anymore. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/woman-with-chemical-sensitivit...

[highmastdon]

Very cynical take: if there would’ve been a change in laws to increase ventilation, it would drastically reduce any illness, like flu, the common cold and other airborne viruses. This would lead to a decrease of taking vaccines for those, which would upset the big pharma.

Nearly any blanket-like measure was blocked by those. E.g. Vitamin-D supplementation, of which we know almost every indoor worker has a deficit of in western countries. Never ever was this prompted by govs even though there’s a clear correlation between deficit and deaths (not causation) and it has even antiviral properties (I suggest you to look into MedCram YouTube channel on videos around the first year of COVID where they go over many case studies on potential treatments)

[btbuildem]

Seems like yes, we are. A good proportion of people abhor change, even if it would make their lives better.

[dylan604]

>if the CO₂ is above 1500 I get drowsy, so the degree it is no longer responsible driving a car.

so the old adage of rolling down the window when driving might actually have some factual logic to it. of course, people are only considering that when at the extreme end of trying to stay awake from already driving past safe limits, but it could easily make a long haul trip more bearable by remembering to crack the window at intervals. then again, if you're riding with my buddies, you were already having to crack the windows at intervals, but for other reasons.

[Nition]

Also useful is having the fans set to fresh air rather than recirculate.

[radlad]

> The CO₂ while on the flight was in the 3000's range.

I always assumed they intentionally messed with oxygen in the cabin to "relax" travelers.

Anecdotally, I have often experienced a sedative effect on airplanes that I do not ever experience in land vehicles.

[mlsu]

In general, anecdotes about "they raise the oxygen levels in [x] to induce [y]" are completely false. I've heard this about airplanes and casinos.

For one, it's really difficult/energy intensive to increase the level of oxygen in a space. Second, it's very very difficult to purify oxygen -- because oxygen oxidizes stuff. Even if you could do that, raising the level of oxygen is extremely dangerous, because it radically increases flammability of things and makes fire much worse. For an example of this: Apollo 1.

[tesseract]

Well, there's less of it, since typical airliner cabin pressure is equivalent to being at 8000ft altitude or so. Do you typically spend long durations driving in the mountains?

[weaksauce]

the oxygen levels in airplanes are not high because they only pressurize the cabin to be about a 7000' pressurization. that's roughly equivalent to a lot of mountain town altitudes... think flagstaff.

[bolangi]

About air safety: the pilots cabin has much better quality air than the passenger section.

[hammock]

When driving, does running the air (not on recirc) not exchange enough air?

[bsenftner]

Opening a car window or running air not on recirc immediately drops the readings to safe levels. I also noticed when in the Uber returning from the airport, the air was in the high 3000's and I explained to the driver, he opened all the windows and I think I scared him a bit.

[schiffern]

Note that, to minimize pollution from vehicle exhaust, you want to set your air to "recirculate". Unsurprisingly, the roadway is where vehicle pollution is most concentrated!

https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-xpm-2013-sep-1...

Usually what I do is set it on recirculate, and then every ~10 minutes I periodically "flush" the CO2-laden interior air for a minute or so. Ideally, I'm able to do this "flush" when I'm away from a major city or high-traffic road (and not when driving behind a soot-spewing diesel bus/semi/garbage/cement truck).

I wish there were some way to automate this logic!

---

(and yes, my dear observant reader, if I could recirculate "only" 90% of the exterior air it would achieve the same steady-state result, but modern cars got rid of the "slider" that lets you select a percentage of recirculate air... ::sigh::)

[Retric]

That works for particulates but not gasses like carbon monoxide. You’re better off having the best filters you can get supplying fresh air constantly rather than constantly recirculating stale air.

[schiffern]

Carbon monoxide comes from vehicle exhaust, so the levels are still lower outside cities and off high-traffic roads. I'd rather recirculate my "stored up" clean air vs. pull in CO from the line of cars stopped ahead of me. I just involves being aware of the surroundings.

Ideally a controller would monitor the outside CO/PM and inside CO2 to control the recirculate door.

[Retric]

Location is generally less important than wind direction here, which you aren’t tracking.

Having a few internal and external sensors for various gasses could work, but it’s a surprisingly difficult problem.

[sizzle]

I always crack my sunroof an inch and pull the shade forward go get some fresh air in recirculate mode so I’m not picking up crap from the engine bay.

How does the fresh air mode on the car not pull in CO gases from the engine bay? Surely a pleated cabin filter is not enough to stop it? Or does the air come from the manifold air intake?

[bruckie]

There should be very low levels of CO (at least from your car) in the engine bay, since exhaust is vented out the back of the car, and your engine shouldn't be leaking exhaust gases in other places. You might have some CO there from the cars in front of you, though.

[lukevp]

The air intake in the grille is only for the engine’s use. The fresh air intake is not in the engine bay, it’s typically at the base of the windshield.