I’ve theorized in my book _Fat Gas_ that vasopressin levels are tied to elevated indoor CO2 levels.
Would not be at all surprised if these novel social conditions stem from not going outside enough and from poorly ventilated buildings (especially gyms and conference rooms) and transport (planes trains and automobiles each routinely exceed 1000 ppm from everybody’s lungs).
My nephew is on the spectrum (fairly severely). His mother and father are obsessed with air quality and used filtration and forced ERVs for the entire pregnancy and upbringing. Please do not make such strong medical claims without any scientific backing, it is quite harmful to kids with autism and their parents who are already overwhelmed with quackery.
Saying "I wrote in my book that..." is basically the same value, in the absence of further information. We don't know how qualified the author is to make such claims, what the motive behind writing the book was, what sources they used, and so on. Even if you read the book, you might not satisfactorily find that information, or sources may themselves be misrepresented. Anyone can write and publish a book these days, making any claim, misinterpreting data, wilfully or otherwise.
If the person you replied to wrote their anecdote about their nephew in a book, would you find it credible then?
If elevated CO2 increases vasopressin, and if increased vasopressin drives symptoms of autism, then wouldn't we see a large population with autism symptoms in the Midwest or anywhere that people are indoors all winter?
ASD diagnoses have skyrocketed in the past few decades (years?) with no clear cause. I'm just old enough to remember a childhood without cell phones - we didn't have a computer in my house until middle school but we were lower income than most of my friends - and people are definitely inside more and outside less than they were when I was 8 or 9 years old.
When left handedness was seen as a disorder and students who used their left hand were beaten, rates of this disorder were a few percent. When the idea of left handedness became mainstream, rates skyrocketed and we know the base rate is about 10%.
Homosexuality was considered a disorder in the DSM until 1974. Self-reported rates of homosexuality have skyrocketed since then. Most likely explanation is that the true base rate has not changed, just society's measurement of it.
Children with ASD in prior generations were labeled as delinquent, troublemakers, retarded, or were abandoned by their parents and communities.
I wrote a response that argues against your hypothesis, and then I realized ... "do I really know what I'm saying? Or are these my preconceptions and biases?"
> and we know the base rate is about 10%.
Sinister.
I think it would be cool to be left-handed in a country where the language is written from right to left.
I find it interesting that the rates of a whole bunch of these uncommon-but-still-prevalent differences seem to cluster around 10%. I can't help wondering if it stems from prehistoric humans living in small group of 20-30, so each band would have on average 2-4 of each, giving the group a wider range of capabilities than they would otherwise have.
Lots of other things have changed, including, people are having kids older (known correlate), the DSM definition changed, and the general awareness has radically increased.
When I was younger autism wasn't called autism - it was blamed on mothers who worked, "refrigerator mums". Doesn't change the fact that I'm autistic though.
With respect, this does not sound rooted in factual basis. Anyone who has taken physiology and been educated in anesthesia knows that there are numerous factors and feedback loops that decouple your theory of a direct link between ambient pCO2 and "vasopressin levels".
I'd like to hear a more detailed explanation on how you feel it overrides compensatory mechanisms in ventilation, with subsequent breakdown in metabolic compensation of acidemia, and how you override negative feedback loops in the RAAS system including inhibition of ANP excretion, unless you theorize it is blunted at the renal level and natriuresis becomes down regulated in this scenario.
Or basically if you want to reframe how everyone sitting in a house has subclinical SIADH I would be eager to hear a more detailed explanation.
I carried a CO2 meter on a flight recently, to use CO2 as a proxy for COVID risk. The levels were quite high for the whole flight--over 1000 pretty much the whole time iirc and worse on the tarmac.
It's true for every other mode of transport but objectively false for planes in flight. However, I'd be curious to see the average when including time sitting on the ground, taxiing, etc., and how that much lower speed affects circulation.
The refreshed air in the cabin is driven by engine bleed air (or a dedicated pressure pump) so even at idle power there is nothing preventing a high rate of cabin air exchange. There might still be less air flowing on the ground due to 0 cabin air pressure differential, but speed of the plane isn't a relevant factor.
Yeah, I'm disagreeing with you. It's not CO2. I won't say it's impossible, but it's pretty implausible. We already know how bad leaded gasoline was at poisoning an entire generation. Modern cars are cleaner, but miles driven keeps increasing and the amount pollutants being emitted are poisoning people.
Actually, roads and parking garage and driveways take up spaces that could be used for parks and greenery. You could have tramways with grassy cover, for example.
Every time when I drive to anywhere, I am surrounded by five lane stroads.
By removing all these spaces for cars, you could add back in green spaces. Houses with backyards can still exists, but they will be closer together. Parks will be closer and more accessible.
Plus you can design buildings to have green spaces, or at least support plants. Special consideration would be needed to make rooftop of buildings green, especially when you have to consider the weight and wind.
Space efficiency in urbanism is the key to reclaiming green spaces in our urban context.
when did I say anything about cars? I say to hell with all cars, replace everything with bicycles and electric scooters. Then we can use lightrail to connect larger communities to one another.
You’ll have lower CO2 levels in a dense urban housing with windows open, than in a home in the middle of nowhere with the windows closed.
The issue isn’t the higher amount of CO2 in the ambient air in the cities (AIUI it is; marginally; but it doesn’t matter); it’s that CO2 is very good at concentrating in enclosed spaces.
literally only in the currently designed world dominated by large cars, which is equally outrageous. Nuke the entire nonsense system we have, let people have homes in yards, and force everyone to get around on bicycles and electric scooters and electric accessibility carts.
The co2 level indoors is decided far more by whether you have the windows open (or perhaps if you're cooking) than whether you have people living close by to you.
Many high rises in urban areas have few windows that open and poor ventilation for cooking. There is a relationship, although maybe not as large as parent is implying.
Would not be at all surprised if these novel social conditions stem from not going outside enough and from poorly ventilated buildings (especially gyms and conference rooms) and transport (planes trains and automobiles each routinely exceed 1000 ppm from everybody’s lungs).