Talk:Hypercapnia

Merge CO2 retention into this article

I've suggested a merge at Talk:CO₂ retention:

Should CO2 retention be merged into Hypercapnia? I know that the terms are not identical, but it is one of the principal causes of hypercapnia. Neither article is large and it would seem to be sensible to collect related information together. For what it's worth, Carbon dioxide retention is already a redirect to Hypercapnia.

Any comments welcome. --RexxS (talk) 17:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. In the long run, they are basically the same thing. Mike Allen 06:11, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I also agree, CO₂ retention should be a subsection of Hypercapnia. > Merge and redirect. I will get to it when I have more reliable internet again. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 03:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Categories

As this is a condition, not a sign or symptom, I've changed the category from Category:Symptoms and signs: Respiratory system to Category:Respiratory diseases for want of anything more specific. --RexxS (talk) 15:26, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Normocapnia

doesn't seem to justify an article of its own Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

doesn't seem to justify an article of its own Rathfelder (talk) 21:07, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Oppose merge. There's plenty of detail that can be added to normocapnia. Like what normal levels are, how the body maintains those levels, how they are tested, and so on. But more importantly, good health should be presented in articles on good health rather than merely as subtopics of illnesses or abnormalities. The Transhumanist 19:09, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

B-Class review

B

The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. Any format of inline citation is acceptable: the use of <ref> tags and citation templates such as {{cite web}} is optional. Looks good. Y The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing. As far as I can tell, OK. Adequate for WikiProject Scuba. I have no opinion for WikiProject Medicine. Y The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind. Structure OK. Y The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it does not need to be "brilliant". The Manual of Style does not need to be followed rigorously. Looks OK. Y The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content. Has relevant illustrations. OK for me Y The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible. Looks OK. Y

Looks OK. Promoting to B-class for WikiProject Scuba. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 19:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Hypercapnia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080414220954/http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=886013 to http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=886013
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707080400/http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=591330 to http://www.accessmedicine.com/content.aspx?aID=591330

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:45, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Cognition effects at low concentrations

In the Tolerance section there's table describing major limitations as a function of inspired CO2 %. I propose adding a minor limitation column which describes some of the cognitive effects observed in the following studies:

• https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/1104789/
• https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/15-10037/

Currently this article gives the false impression that CO2 has essentially no effect at sub-2500 ppm.

alach11 (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Alach11: Those are both primary sources – single studies – one from 2012 and the other from 2016. Ideally, we should be using secondary sources (reviews, meta-analyses, etc.) to support any biomedical claim, such as the effect of CO₂ on decision-making performance and cognitive function, as explained at WP:MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Original research

I have removed this:

The spelling "hypercapnea" is occasionally seen in published medical articles (44 results in a PubMed search in 2016), but it is not entered in major dictionaries and is not tied to any etymology that involves the -pnea suffix. It is a misspelling by writers who misunderstand that the word hypercapnia does not end in the same suffix that apnea does.

Can be reinserted in altered form if someone has a source. JFW | T@lk 07:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"Tolerance" table

I have removed the following table, which was in the "Diagnosis" section but without any logical reason for this. I suspect it was inserted as part of the diving content.

Tolerance to increased atmospheric CO₂ concentration

%CO2 in inspired air	Expected tolerance for useful activity on continued exposure to elevated CO2
	Duration	Major limitation
0.028	lifetime	normal atmosphere
0.04	lifetime	current atmosphere
0.5	lifetime	no detectable limitations
1.0	lifetime
1.5	> 1 month	mild respiratory stimulation
2.0	> 1 month
2.5	> 1 month
3.0	> 1 month	moderate respiratory stimulation
3.5	> 1 week
4.0	> 1 week	moderate respiratory stimulation, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise
4.5	> 8 hours
5.0	> 4 hours	prominent respiratory stimulus, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise
5.5	> 1 hours
6.0	> 0.5 hours	prominent respiratory stimulus, exaggerated respiratory response to exercise, beginnings of mental confusion
6.5	> 0.25 hours
7.0	> 0.1 hours	limitation by dyspnea and mental confusion

Happy to reinsert with some degree of context. JFW | T@lk 14:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

"Facemasks cause hypercapnia" fantasy

I don't think Wikipedia should be in the business of giving space in articles to debunking every bit of self-evidently nonsensical bs that appears on social media. But since this conspiracy theory cites the Wikipedia article, it is probably useful to have a talk page mention of it, in case someone takes it seriously This BBC fact check page explains why it is nonsense: Coronavirus: 'Deadly masks' claims debunked. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 08:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)