CO2 overload in blood suggests toxic atmosphere within 50 years

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11869-026-01918-5

by veqq • 3 days ago

43 34 3 days ago

doi.org

veqq2• 3 days ago

I'm a bit confused by this, since indoor CO2's higher (double?) so wouldn't we already be experiencing it?

cgyvbunji• 3 days ago

We are

lta• 3 days ago

The people that were sampled were probably already affected by the indoor exposure. I don't think it affects the validity of this study

magicalhippo• 3 days ago

The human body can tolerate a short sauna session. It cannot tolerate living in a sauna 24/7.

That said, the authors note that many people regularly do indeed experience long periods of higher CO2 levels, and that this may in part explain the HCO3− blood level trend they're seeing and has to be taken into consideration.

They also note "more recent studies of humans and animals have shown harmful effects of CO2 exposure at [1000 to 3000 ppm CO2], such as changes in heart rate, kidney calcification, oxidative stress, neural damage and inflammation".

Stitch42232• 3 days ago

You can get a decent CO2 meter from stores like IKEA. You’ll come to the conclusion that the cozy feeling you get sometimes is directly related to the ppm being well over 1000. It affects your thinking, but it creates “atmosphere”.

The first 440 ppm you’ll get for free. This used to be lower and has risen steeply in the last 100 years and continues to do so.

See the historical graph at https://www.co2levels.org/

ortusdux• 3 days ago

For homeowners, I highly recommend making sure you have some way to bring it fresh air on demand, and then automate it in conjunction with a CO2 monitor. I added a duct fan and ERV before my HVAC system's fresh air intake, and then tied the fan to an air quality monitor.

rolph• 3 days ago

people suddenly freaking out, is a cozy atmosphere?

Hypercapnia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercapnia

OutOfHere5• 3 days ago

The indoor carbon dioxide level is in principle contributing to it.

consumer451• 2 days ago

But doesn't this mean that the new indoor level will be new outdoor level + the increase that arises indoors?

bb88• 2 days ago

Yes. And we are:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21237875

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19845029

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48783117

jvanderbot• 3 days ago

The study doesn't say "fatal" it says "toxic". Not toxic like lead, toxic like cigarettes. The actual effects discussed are subtler than "all life dies in 50 years".

OutOfHere5• 3 days ago

It is fatal to children as their underdeveloped lungs cannot compensate. For adults it requires emergency medical care and chronic treatment, failing which the heart won't survive long.

canadiantim• 3 days ago

Dang can we please change this editorialized title?

When you click through the actual title is: Carbon dioxide overload, detected in human blood, suggests a potentially toxic atmosphere within 50 years

zugi4• 3 days ago

The study points out that CO2 levels are rising, and in 50 years might cause blood HCO3- to exceed 30mEq/L. It then references https://journals.lww.com/cjasn/abstract/10.2215/cjn.11941017... as to why that level is dangerous.

But if you read that abstract, it's about diagnosing blood diseases, and suggests based on surveys of different studies of current people's blood levels that levels above 30mEq/L be flagged as out of normal. It doesn't discuss harms or outcomes.

So even "potentially toxic" seems baseless.

OutOfHere5• 3 days ago

High bicarbonate in blood is not a blood disease, in the same way that high glucose in blood is not a blood disease either. High bicarbonate leads to severe and serious problems that can be fatal in those with weak lungs or a weak heart and in children and the elderly. Even in healthy persons, high bicarbonate will lead to low extracellular potassium which is immediately detrimental to the heart. I have experienced it first hand. There is a reason why bicarbonate in blood has a reference range.

monster_truck3• 3 days ago

Won't the rising, boiling oceans get us before we have to worry about this?

therealdrag0• 3 days ago

How?

monster_truck3• 3 days ago

Well first it gets bigger and then it gets really hot, I'm not an expert on boiling water though

geuis• 3 days ago

No. Even with the amount of co2 current being dumped into the atmosphere there's not enough total solar energy capture to Venus things up. A few thousand years, absolutely.

To add: desertification and more or less removing the support systems for modern population levels can easily happen with what's going on. But the oceans won't boil first. Everything else will die first.

monster_truck3• 3 days ago

Why are you only talking about co2 if you're going to try and be serious when responding to a joke? Please make an attempt to understand the situation better if you care that much.

zugi4• 3 days ago

There is mounting experimental evidence that lifetime exposure to these increasing atmospheric CO2 levels can negatively impact the normal physiology of organisms... Studies indicate that, after this time, elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide, leading to CO2 accumulation in the body, has the potential to cause a range of adverse health effects.

There's an awful lot of distance from "can" and "potential" to "toxic".

Craighead• 3 days ago

Can we revisit this comment in 2057?

OutOfHere5• 3 days ago

A sign of intelligence is to prevent "can/maybe/potentially" from becoming "actual", especially when the consequences are dire. A sign of unintelligence is to ignore the signs, then blame the ones who acted for needlessly averting the tragedy, claiming it would never have happened.

skygazer• 3 days ago

It’s not clear if you’re commiserating with the comment you’re replying to, or lambasting its author.

zugi4• 3 days ago

"The one above" is not clear, can you please articulate your argument?

zugi4• 3 days ago

Wow, you competely edited your comment to say something different than the one I replied to.

You also still failed to articulate your argument.

I don't think you want to make this about intelligence.

gustavus• 3 days ago

So even will all the effort we've put into solar and decreasing coal, being more economical unless there is massive widespread international cooperation to suddenly and rapidly start deindustrializatizing the air we breathe will be doing us in less than 25 years.

Sounds great, at this point doesn't really seem to be anything I can do as an individual except enjoy the ride, because it's now a race to see whether swarms of killer AI robots do us in, the global economy collapses, the ocean currents fail, and if none of those happen the air will end up killing us all anyway.

Sounds like I might as well try and enjoy it while it lasts. Cheers!

veqq2• 3 days ago

A nuclear build out would make enough cheap electricity to scrub the atmosphere clean.

bouncycastle• 3 days ago

ironically, the collapse of the global economy is what could save us

teravor• 3 days ago

co2 by itself doesn't appear to really matter: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19863319

key phrase being "There's a big difference between seeing high concentrations of carbon dioxide as indicative of poor ventilation and seeing high concentrations of carbon dioxide itself as detrimental to cognitive function."

ChrisArchitect• 3 days ago

[dupe] Discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48949255

OutOfHere5• 3 days ago

Here is a short video explaining the paper: https://youtu.be/-WpIJhyAxr0

CO2 overload in blood suggests toxic atmosphere within 50 years

Related Stories