Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print
US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2 (Read 3064 times)
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:21am
 
Often, we see on contrarian sites that submariners are exposed to relatively high levels of CO2 and levels of 3000ppm are quoted.

With the most severe IPCC prediction of 1000 ppm CO2 by 2100, there has been a great deal of study on the extreme secondary effects on terrestrial biota, increased salinity of aquifers, decreasing marine calcification etc. 

At the same time, very little work has been done on continuous exposure to 1000ppm. We read that levels of 600ppm CO2 result in the air being stuffy, and there are  guidelines  for indoor air quality, HVAC system design etc. 

While Anthony (Wattsupwiththat) takes great offense from the implication that submariners may be stupid, he doesn't account for the fact that their exposure to these levels is sporadic. Apart from that, in any study, we need to consider the full cycle of human life. How many pregnant submariners are there? What about the aging population? babies? 

http://tnweb.jlab.org/tn/2008/08-008.pdf

Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2013 at 8:40am by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Ajax
Gold Member
*****
Offline


CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 11070
Australia
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #1 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:51am
 
Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural.

If the majority of the CO2 increase is natural there isn't much we can do about, if its manmade there still isn't much we can do about, unless you want to go and live in caves.

That's no more internet, power at your finger tips, warmth, air conditioning etc etc.

Would you be prepared to live in such a world.....???????

Below from the link you provided, look like we can live in a CO2 world with 5000ppm (0.5%).

Quote:
Carbon Dioxide Hazard Characterization:

Carbon dioxide (CO2) is naturally present in the atmosphere at levels of approximately 0.035%
(350ppm).

CO2 is classified as an asphyxiant – a substance that, in sufficient concentrations – will interfere with respiration. It is dangerous when inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume, or 50,000 ppm).

The current threshold limit value (ACGIH TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an eighthour work day is 0.5% (5,000 ppm).

A person's exhaled breath is approximately 4.5% carbon dioxide by volume.

Short-term exposure to CO2 at levels below 2% (20,000 parts per million or ppm) has not been reported to cause harmful effects.

Higher concentrations can affect respiratory function and
cause excitation followed by depression of the central nervous system.

High concentrations of CO2 can displace oxygen in the air, resulting in lower oxygen concentrations for breathing.

Therefore, effects of oxygen deficiency may be combined with effects of CO2 toxicity.

Volunteers exposed to 3.3% or 5.4% CO2 for 15 minutes experienced increased depth of breathing. At 7.5%, a feeling of an inability to breathe (dyspnea), increased pulse rate, headache, dizziness, sweating, restlessness, disorientation, and visual distortion developed.

Twenty-minute exposures to 6.5 or 7.5% decreased mental performance. Irritability and discomfort were reported with exposure to 6.5% for approximately 70 minutes.

Exposure to 6% for several minutes, or 30% for 20-30 seconds, has affected the heart, as evidenced by
altered electrocardiograms.

CO2 Exposure Limits:

Of the several industrial hygiene standards-setting groups in this country, the most important and/or most quoted are the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA), and the American Conference
of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) but these are recommended standards, not laws.

Standards promulgated by OSHA (called Permissible Exposure Limits or PELs) have the force of law.

The other standards are advisory. However OSHA claims the power to force compliance with NIOSH "Recommended Standards" if it chooses to do so.

(The main advantage of ACGIH Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) is that they are reviewed and updated
annually; neither NIOSH nor OSHA updates its standards with any regular frequency.)

Carbon dioxide is regulated for diverse purposes but not as a toxic substance.

The U.S. EPA CO2 exposure limits: The U.S. EPA recommends a maximum concentration of Carbon dioxide CO2 of 1000 ppm (0.1%) for continuous exposure.

ASHRAE standard 62-1989 recommends an indoor air ventilation standard of 20 cfm per person of outdoor air or a CO2 level which is below 1000ppm.

NIOSH CO2 exposure limits: NIOSH recommends a maximum concentration of carbon dioxide of 10,000 ppm or 1% (for the workplace, for a 10-hr work shift with a ceiling of 3.0% or 30,000 ppm for any 10-minute period). These are the highest threshold limit value (TLV) and permissible exposure limit (PEL) assigned to any material.

OSHA CO2 exposure limits: OSHA recommends a lowest oxygen concentration of 19.5% in the work place for a full work-shift exposure.

As we calculated above, for the indoor workplace oxygen level to reach 19.5% (down from its normal 20.9% oxygen level in outdoor air) by displacement of oxygen by CO2, that is, to reduce the oxygen level by about 6%, the CO2 or carbon dioxide level would have to increase to about 1.4% 14,000 ppm.

In summary, OSHA, NIOSH, and ACGIH occupational exposure standards are 0.5% CO2 (5,000 ppm) averaged over a 40 hour week, 3% (3,000 ppm) average for a short-term (15 minute) exposure, and 4% (40,000 ppm) as the maximum instantaneous limit considered immediately dangerous to life and health.

All three of these exposure limit conditions must be satisfied, always and together.
Back to top
 

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery &  prison" Regas Feraeos
 
IP Logged
 
Innocent bystander
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #2 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:37pm
 
As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #3 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:31pm
 
Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:37pm:
As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  Grin


list those 100s of reports, or be gone with your putrid carcass weasel of Hades
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #4 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:34pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:51am:
Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural.


Ah, but the CO2 released via the combustion of fossil fuels leaves a radio isotope of Carbon as a signature

I am sure that you knew that basic scientific fact.

Back to top
 

C13.gif (103 KB | 45 )
C13.gif

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
#
Gold Member
*****
Offline


A fool is certain: an
ignorant fool, absolutely
so

Posts: 2603
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #5 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:36pm
 
Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:37pm:
... hundreds of reports that say the opposite ...
You have no hope of substantiating that factoid.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Innocent bystander
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 4220
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #6 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:46pm
 
Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:31pm:
Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 6:37pm:
As with all contrary data put forward by global warming hysterics it consists of some obscure report that we should listen to instead of the hundreds of reports that say the opposite ... its a minority report  Grin


list those 100s of reports, or be gone with your putrid carcass weasel of Hades




The funny thing is that you would even read one of them if I did  Grin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Vuk11
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 1797
QLD
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #7 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:51pm
 
That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 5th, 2013 at 8:04pm by Vuk11 »  
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #8 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:02pm
 
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:51pm:
That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.


CO2 concentrations in the earths atmosphere are in trace level amounts. When you consider living in industrial regions where particulates and other contaminants are in far greater concentrations than CO2, humans tend to be very adaptive and resilient. Life has to be, although I would imagine there would be a critical CO2 concentration which would cause problems. What level that is, who knows?

And as you say who would want to be a guinea pig in such as world wide experiment.

this situation reminds me of the Nuclear power and weapons industry since the end of WW2. Radiation risk models are based upon the fallout from Hiroshima and Nagasaki and essentially limited to external exposure to radiation and radioactive contaminants.

Internal exposure to radiation via the inhalation or skin absorption radionuclides presents far more serious health issues and yet the IAEA effectively ignores the numerous studies that demonstrate that their Radiation Risk model is highly inadequate.

It has been known for some time that the risk of cancer and mutations etc from radiation exposure has no lower threshold limit. That is, there is NO safe level of exposure to radiation and that the risk is cumulative over time.

It does however seem that CO2 levels can vary quite markedly when breathing (up to 5% which is about 50,000 ppm). In fact it is the presence of CO2 that compels or triggers our reflex to exhale (it was previously thought that a lack of O2 triggered the breathing response)
Back to top
 

co2breathing1.png (6 KB | 45 )
co2breathing1.png

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
Chimp_Logic
Gold Member
*****
Offline


πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #9 - Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:48pm
 
...I can see why the 1000 ppm CO2 limit is recommended, symptoms seem to start at about this level of CO2

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Main_symptoms_of_carbon_dioxi...
Back to top
 

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #10 - Oct 7th, 2013 at 4:06pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:51am:
Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural.


Yes we do. I've provided that figure more than once with references. Once again:

Quote:
346 gigatonnes since industrialisation to 2008 plus an additional ~ 140 Gigatonnes since 2008 (conservative figure). That doesn't include land use changes. Divide by 3.67 for carbon.

(Calculated from file global.1751_2008.csv  from the Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center.)
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 7th, 2013 at 4:16pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #11 - Oct 7th, 2013 at 4:23pm
 
Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 10:02pm:
It has been known for some time that the risk of cancer and mutations etc from radiation exposure has no lower threshold limit. That is, there is NO safe level of exposure to radiation and that the risk is cumulative over time.


We can discuss that in another thread, but basically that implies that "natural" alpha, beta and gamma radiation is somehow benign whereas the slightest trace of synthetic radiation, even at 1/1000 of natural levels starts to become carcinogenic, even though the radiation itself is identical and the compounds are no more toxic. 

I can't understand how any person capable of comprehending advanced concepts could buy into that.
 
Back to top
« Last Edit: Oct 7th, 2013 at 4:34pm by muso »  

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #12 - Oct 7th, 2013 at 4:50pm
 
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:51pm:
That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.


There is also the Healthy Worker Effect  to consider.


Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #13 - Oct 7th, 2013 at 4:56pm
 
Ajax wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 9:51am:
Hey muso we don't really know exactly how much of the Co2 increase is manmade and how much is natural.

If the majority of the CO2 increase is natural there isn't much we can do about, if its manmade there still isn't much we can do about, unless you want to go and live in caves.

That's no more internet, power at your finger tips, warmth, air conditioning etc etc.

Would you be prepared to live in such a world.....???????

Below from the link you provided, look like we can live in a CO2 world with 5000ppm (0.5%).


Short term exposures, Ajax. For a healthy worker 40 hours a week.

Pregnant women are more susceptible to CO2, and the indications are that long term exposures at 1000 ppm can lead to decalcification in bones and calcification in body organs with resulting serious health effects up to shutting down of the renal system.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
muso
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male
Re: US EPA maximum continuous exposure of 1000ppm CO2
Reply #14 - Oct 7th, 2013 at 5:01pm
 
Vuk11 wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 7:51pm:
That's  good point Muso* I too have wondered what long term exposure to a certain level of c02 would do to humans and other organism. Everything is short term like, giving someone mouth to mouth, I don't know how they can gauge the effects long term of a high c02 level without having someone actually.....be effected by increased c02 long term. I don't know anyone that would participate in that study lol.


Astronauts.
Back to top
 

...
1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Send Topic Print