Low level Co exposure

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/19324

https://www.myhomecomfort.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/CO_Levels_Risk_Chart.pdf

You might also try a somewhat unlikely source (until you think about it): the FAA Medical office. We who fly tend to worry about CO…

Define your goal here: Are you trying to sell CO monitors? Are you trying to sell Combustion analyzer use? What I've found that is much more relatable to the common person is a collection of newspaper articles on CO poisoning & deaths. You could compile them.in a pdf file. They are so plentiful & frequent!v It doesn't take long to gather them.

99% of people's eyes glaze over after the first sentence when you're trying to 'splain the finer points. Mad Dog

I don't know about the medical industry as a whole, though I suspect that your local GP may have other things to worry about. I can assure you that at least one subset of the "medical industry" is not ignoring it, as I mentioned above: low level CO exposure is a matter of considerable concern to the aviation industry, and a good deal of thought has gone into both guidelines — and equipment to measure exposure and evaluate low level effects. That said, however, aviation as a whole is not a field which welcomes scare 'em to death journalism, so it doesn't get much press unless something goes seriously wrong — and then getting reliable coverage is pretty hopeless.

Where are the multitude of peer reviewed studies that interfaced building science, demographics, public health, personal health histories, etc. with our daily growing knowledge of physiology that keeps proving just how much we don't know. We know what we know based upon the limited information available. When no one seems to grasp the interrelated disciplines and more above, you get a partial picture. Partial pictures kill hundreds of thousands every year.

How many recent studies have you seen on the various factors that affect uptake of CO at the aveolar level based upon various partial pressure gradients then which other known factors, such as the bicarbonate system, can affect COHb blood levels? What are the beneficial effects of endogenous CO in the body with certain conditions and processes.

Why do not fire departments routinely test 100% of all fire victims for COHb?

Why do not EMS test 100% of ALL patients for COHb? Emergency room admissions? Hospital admissions? Doctor's offices?

Why is it fire depts do not report CO deaths unless they are told there are victims of smoke inhalation ? How many people die of "natural causes" when really it is CO or CO was a complicating factor? We don't know because the reporting systems are a joke. Therefore, the medical community has almost no visibility of the scope of the problem. You demonstrate how widespread the problem is and how to make money off it and you will see people coming out of the woodwork to jump on it.

Me thinks you have your answer....Mad Dog

Closing the barn door long after the horse ran out! Mad Dog

The CO King has spoken! Mad Dog

"Levels near properly adjusted gas stoves are often 5 to 15 ppm So I guess you are all behind the electrification movement?" …

Hi, It's been found that asthma rates for children who live with gas stoves is 42% higher than for those who don't. I think this was a Lawrence Berkeley Labs study some years back. https://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/25590/20200506/gas-stoves-making-people-sicker-exposing-children-higher-risk-asthma.htm If we installed and used range hoods correctly, this wouldn't be such a problem. So, what are the best options for keeping people healthy?

Yours, Larry

When you bake. food falling on the electric elements can produce 100's of ppm of CO. Self cleaning they can initially produce 1000's

below is an excerpt from a medical journal article citing epidemiological studies looking for elevated problems on a population basis for long term low level exposure.

to summarize, they noted some elevation, but the signal is sort of clouded when you adjust for other airborn polutants such as pm 10, pm 2.5, (fine particulate matter that crosses into the blood in the lungs) and oxides of nitrogen.

In the case of CO from poor venting with hvac equipment those other pollutants are likely to be spilling in addition to CO….

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK153687/

“Several multi-city studies have found significant associations between increasing short-term average ambient air carbon monoxide concentration and increasing mortality risk when carbon monoxide is considered in single-pollutant models, with the associations attenuated when models were adjusted for other co-pollutants. A time-series study examined mortality in 82 U.S. cities during the period 1987–1994 (Dominici et al. 2003b; HEI 2005; Samet et al. 2000). In the Dominici et al. (2003b) analysis of these data, a 1 ppmincrease in ambient air carbon monoxide concentration (lag 1 day) was associated with increased mortality (from all causes) of 0.46% (95% CI: 0.18, 0.73). Mortality risk was not significant after adjustment for air concentration of PM

10

 alone or for PM

10

 and NO

2

. A time-series study examined morality in 12 Canadian cities during the period 1987–1994 (Burnett et al. 2004). Mortality risk (all non-accidental causes) was significantly associated with ambient air carbon monoxide concentration (lag 1 day) in single-pollutant models, with an increase of 0.68% (t=3.12) per 1.02 ppm increases in air carbon monoxide concentration. However, the association did not persist when adjusted for NO

2

 (0.07%, t=0.30). A time-series analysis examined mortality in 19 European cities during the period 1990–1997 (Samoli et al. 2007). This study found a significant association between carbon monoxide and total non-accidental and cardiovascular mortality in single-pollutant models. The estimated effect size varied depending on the model applied. The effect size for total mortality based on a single-pollutant model ranged from 0.59% increase (95% CI: 0.41, 1.79) to 1.20% (95% CI: 0.63, 1.77) per 1 mg/m

3

 increase in carbon monoxide concentration (0–1-day lag). The effect on cardiovascular mortality ranged from 0.8% increase (95% CI: 0.53, 1.07) to 1.25 (95% CI: 0.30, 2.21). Inclusion of black smoke or NO

2

 in the models substantially decreased the estimated risk attributable to carbon monoxide, with the effect sizes no longer significant in some models.”

“Probably the most important point in them is the phrase (said variously): "Inclusion of black smoke or NO in the models substantially decreased the estimated risk attributable to carbon monoxide, with the effect sizes no longer significant in some models.”

Or, in plain language: An effect of [low level] CO can only be discerned when it is the only contaminant studied. Which, folks, it never is in real life.”

I suspect if CO is spilling into the living space, oxides of nitrogen and fine particulate matter are spilling into the house along with it…

Are there cases where CO is present without NOx?

just take one step at a time