|
|
|
|
|
|
by throwawayffffas
2 days ago
|
|
|
I am noticing a pattern where studies are dismissed as junk based on preformed opinions, specifically about "climate alarmists" you should consider why you are so quick to dismiss the majority of the research in indoor air quality. There is one notable study about submariners that did not find impairment in one simulation, the consensus about it is selection bias and training. Submariners
are not the average population, both in terms of general fitness and in terms of self selecting, people who can't cope or perform in the high CO2 environment quit or fail. The finding of other studies is brain fog not total incompetence. > https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11763298/ | Effects of Carbon Dioxide Therapy on Skin Wound Healing That's cool, a bit of nuance though the studies are discussing applying CO2 directly at afflicted tissue not through breathing. |
|
|
Once again, the Australian study that's the source of your original assertion was very small (n=4 in each study group) and very short term (only a few hours of study time). And the paper about bicarbonate levels is a great example of data dredging, where coincident trends are implied to be causative with no further support.
I'm not saying the conclusions are wrong. They could both be right. I'm just saying that their methods are too poor to draw any useful conclusions.
> people who can't cope or perform in the high CO2 environment quit or fail
So here you are dismissing evidence out of hand by pretending not to understand it. Even if submariners are selected based on CO2 tolerance (which is silly), it wouldn't matter. The point is that the US Navy has had a large population to study for long periods of time in highly controlled environments. The same men can be examined before, during, and after exposure to very high concentrations of CO2, while other environmental variables are held constant, and the navies of multiple countries have data from many such populations over decades. That's what produces useful data, in contrast to that tiny, short Australian study you seem to be attached to.