5
$\begingroup$

Previously I had thought the maximum concentration of CO2 for human health to be given by the ‘Pettenkofer CO2 level’ with a maximum of 1000 ppm.

But according to this post

a growing body of research suggests CO2 levels as low as 1,000 ppm could cause health problems, even if exposure only lasts for a few hours.

Therefore it looks like a lower value than 1000 ppm would be healthier for the human body. Is that so?

What would be the target CO2 level inside a passive house? Since outside it is in the range 3-400 ppm. So with more ventillation we could get closer to 3-400ppm, which is Nature’s default (which shouldn’t be bad?)

Perhaps 750 ppm would be ideal — is there any research on that, either cognitive or related to blood vessels.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What suggests that any $\ce{CO_2}$ concentration is beneficial, let alone a concentration between $400\ \mathrm{ppm}$ and $1000\ \mathrm{ppm}$? $\endgroup$
    – Jam
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ well, outside, in the nature, there is 3-400ppm. AND: that x>1000 is bad = Pettenkofer advise $\endgroup$
    – niving6473
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ Just cause something's in our natural habitat doesn't make it beneficial for us. We've evolved to tolerate starving and fighting too. $\endgroup$
    – Jam
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 15:29
  • $\begingroup$ oh, hokay. Thanks :) good idea. but maybe this is not a well-researched topic, since I cannot find some exact facts, what would be the most healthy for the human-body. $\endgroup$
    – niving6473
    Commented Jul 9, 2019 at 15:44

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-1
$\begingroup$

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/ Little researched is a good comment in this time of hysteria. It is known that the flora starts to die at 180ppm but finding the level the human body can tolerate is difficult. I would GUESS that 500ppm would be the highest we should generate in order to level out the temperature differentials between the solar minimums and maximums. We could allow the level to rise at the beginning of minimums like we are currently entering and lower it as we approach maximums. Again I would guess guess 300ppm would be a satisfactory cooling level of atmospheric CO2. The plant life would love a higher level and we would love a lower level. We cannot live without the flora remember. Both flora and fauna must be accommodated as we control the climate. Weather cannot be controlled but we can do something about climate. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229/

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Last time the volcanic action of the young earth brought it out of the snowball phase. It's a balancing act between the two, flora and fauna. I am GUESSING that the present level is acceptable and perhaps as high as 500ppm to help keep us warm during the Solar minimum phases of sun activity. As low as three hundred during the maximums would surely be satisfactory as I would worry about the plant life if we take it any lower. I doubt 1000ppm is the highest the human body could tolerate but perhaps you know of an authoritative source for that comment? Climate control is interesting. $\endgroup$
    – Thomas L Worley
    Commented Apr 1 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ 1000ppm has adverse health effects.nature.com/articles/… Why would we want to approach that? Humans evolved over the past million years with a CO2 level around 300ppm. I think that's probably what our bodies are designed to function at. $\endgroup$
    – Rich
    Commented Apr 1 at 15:44
  • $\begingroup$ The question isn't about "What's good for humankind broadly?" such as effects on flora, it's asking about the "human body" and inspiration for human animals specifically. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause ♦
    Commented Apr 1 at 16:03
  • $\begingroup$ I figured controlling the climate for the comfort and better breeding conditions of the flora and the fauna was a good thing. I don't really understand what else could be good for mankind. As the planet thrives, so do we. Higher CO2 benefits the flora and during minimums it benefits us. The reverse is true during maximums and this offers us a way to tailor the climate for the benefit of everyone. If we understand what we're doing controlling the level of Co2 is a good thing, No? ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7575229 $\endgroup$
    – Thomas L Worley
    Commented Apr 2 at 18:13
  • $\begingroup$ Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please edit to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center. $\endgroup$
    – Community Bot
    Commented Apr 3 at 14:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .