By the way, what is the carbon dioxide level in your breathing zone?

In a 2013 Tundra pickup, two occupants, with the AC on and Vent off, at highway speed, CO2 climbed to 3600 ppm in about nine minutes. Is that worth knowing if you are driving your wife and chiildren anywhere in heavy traffic? Should we be indifferent toward 100% to 300% impairment in motor vehicles operation from high CO2? What equivalent in beer intake would match driver impairment resulting from 3600 ppm or higher CO2?
Would a driver’s cognitive function be improved by 100% to 300% by keeping the vent open?

Hmmmm . . . manufacturer’s liability for wrongful death and personal injury for not warning drivers or providing automatic means for CO2 control? Slam Dunk?

1700 square foot home, energy efficient, two occupants plus a cat. Auxiliary Ventilation system off, normal AC operation, 1800 PPM CO2 overnight at 6 am.
Same home, same occupancy, auxiliary variable speed ductless ventilation system, speed controlled by a CO2 controller set to maintain 600-700 ppm im breathing zone.
RESULT? Constant 590-650 ppm CO2 in breathing zone. Average air delivery rate 20-22 cfm. Great Sex!

Has anyone considering ventilation code, rates and effects on real people read the LBNL and HSPH research reports?

Friendly FYI, your ALL CAPS
Friendly FYI, your ALL CAPS makes your last 4 lines harder to read and more likely to be overlooked than if you simply wrote them in lower case. Only lawyers think that ALL CAPS makes things clearer but they get paid when they increase confusion whereas we need to decrease it. In general.

Jack the key is not attic
Jack the key is not attic ventilation It is attic air circulation and humidification Ventilation in the attic corners is often obstructed by too much air entrance into the attic in the central areas and not creating the draw from the corners or dead air areas Respectfully treat the breathing air for the enclosed occupants but also the breathing of the building components COMMENTS? (ajefford@yahoo.com)

Okay lets get back to our
Okay lets get back to our environmentally friendly healthy living environmental enclosures. What are our objectives (a) control the enclosure environment (i) for most efficiently (ii)most healthy (b) by enclosure sealed or completely air tight so can control (i) this saves energy and provides economy but builds up toxic environment unless enclosed air is healthy (note did not say by ventilation)(ventilation just brings in the outside toxic air that in high vehicle traffic areas can at times be worse that existing indoor air)CO2 build up is one of the good monitoring healthy air indicators
It is my company objective for creating a healthy living environment is to scrub or clean the air vs air exchange started in 1978 because of the air sealing of UFFI and scrubber guaranteed control of indoor product emission result (reacted off some nitrogen to increase the oxygen level and in turn reduce the CO2 …Comments? AIR CHANGE VOLUME SHOULD NOT BE OUR OBJECTIVE; ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY HEALTHY LIVING ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE; RESPECTFULLY THAT IS BEST ACHIEVED BY AIR SEALING CONTROL AND AIR TREATMENT BY PERHAPS AIR CHANGE BUT IS GUARANTEED BY AIR SCRUBBING (ajefford@yahoo.com)

Ron, the part I said has
Ron, the part I said has passed and will be in the 2018 code is the ventilation rate. That’s in the mechanical section of the IRC. It’s already gone through the whole process and was approved at the final action hearings in Long Beach. So we do know that the ventilation rates will be in the new code.

If you were thinking I was talking about the change to the ERI, you’re absolutely right. That gets voted on in Kansas City in October.

You wrote: “This change has happened already. It has passed. It will be in the 2018 IRC/IECC.”

While this proposal has passed in the Committee Action Hearings, the Public Comment Hearings for the 2018 Codes is scheduled for October 19th – 25th in Kansas City, Missouri. While a proposal that passes the Committee Action Hearings can be automatically approved at the final hearing without discussion, this only happens if there are no public comments received by the ICC about the proposal. Any proposal that receives public comment will have to be approved at the Public Comment Hearings before it will become code. So the bottom line is that none of this is set in stone – yet.
The online public comment period ended last week (July 22nd). Until the public comments are posted, we will not know if this proposal will be discussed in October. I suspect that it will. Therefore there is still opportunity for the measure to be defeated, supported, or modified during the final hearings.

Harvard TH Chan School of Public Health http://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/wp-content/uploads/advpub/2015/10/ehp.1510037.acco.pdf October 26, 2015

And

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory “Elevated Indoor Carbon Dioxide Impairs Decision-Making Performance” Elevated Indoor Carbon Dioxide Impairs Decision-Making Performance October 17, 2012

To this casual observer, there appears to be little objective data supporting current ventilation performance decisions.

Other than such HSPH and LBNL data, I am a loss to see reason to support any particular ventilation standard other than subjective body effluent /odor.

Unless of course, such research conclusions are invalid of no value. If so, let us discuss.

If not, why not let them enter into ventilation standard considerations?