Almost all of the pages within this site deal with carbon dioxide, CO2, and you will find many of its properties described therein. However I felt it was important to have this page as well because it describes perhaps the most dangerous and sinister aspect or property of this compound.

Most of my life I have been aware of the feeling I sometimes get when in a crowded room. From experience, I learned it mattered if there were adequate fresh air or not. With good ventilation, the feelings of anxiety and claustrophobia would not appear. There are other symptoms many people have described since buildings have been built or redone to limit the amount of fresh air entering the structure.

Do you recall seeing and hearing all of those presentations and articles about 'sick building syndrome?' (A more descriptive but less used tag was 'tight building,' but the rest of the deception remained). I was able to track down some honest people who were involved in the testing of such buildings, and they told me it was almost always only the CO2 concentration, and not the litany of other scary things dreamed up by the authorities (such as the CDC, Lung Association, EPA, Department of Ecology, Labor and Industries, etc.), and promoted by the media, which was responsible.

As I delved more into the problems associated with these buildings, I noticed a very disturbing bit of sophistry. Many of the agencies telling us about the results of testing in these situations, after being forced to recognize the high CO2 level, would quickly dismiss it as the cause, claiming something else had to be responsible, because CO2 was "only an indicator of the need for more fresh air!" Well, duh!

Please put on you 'thinkng caps.' Obviously, physiologically speaking, CO2 is one of the waste products of our bodies. We don't like our other wastes around us, particularly not within our breathing space. Why should we like high concentrations of CO2?

Ask yourself, "What chemical can I put into the air, which would make people sense that there is a shortage of air, the air is broken, or there is a "need for more fresh air?" What might be the result among the 'crisis ninnies' who are always demanding "do something!"

Could you increase physical illness? How about mental illness? (Check out what the symptoms were that people itemized when subjected to high levels of CO2). Could you use CO2 to promote chaos?

In the early 1960s, when over-population became one of the 'crises de jure,' I encountered an individual, recognized as an expert in his field, who described studies on mice concerning over-population. All of the bad things that were supposed to happen as more and more mice were added to a crowded environment did not. However, the dire predictions were realized if the CO2 level was allowed to rise. Then, the mice practiced self-mutiliztion and eventually turned on each other. Fewer mice were born. The young were killed. Homosexual acts became more prevalent.

The expert offered Hong Kong as an example of high population density without untoward behavior due to over-crowding. Now, even without very high population densities, we have many of the undesirable consequences that were predicted. (Can you itemize them and observe them)? Is it just a coincidence that we have high local CO2 levels just about everywhere? Is it by design? Why not?

Is it a stretch to assert that the forced introduction of CO2 everywhere in our daily lives --- locally --- will cause people to conclude that there are too many people? What chemical compound would you employ if you wanted people to believe there were too many? Remember those misanthropes I have discussed? What are the intentions of our current crop of leaders (both political parties, plus greenies, etc.) and organizations such as the United Nations? (I use the expression "forced introduction of CO2" above. Do you agree that it was forced on us? That is not just my opinion. The record justifies my statement. It certainly was not natural and could not have happened without government dictating that it did).

Could the intentions be masked by constant discussion of 'greenhouse gases?' Does 'global warming'/'climate change' dominate all thinking, reporting, and dialogue about CO2? Well, does it?