Scott Smith wrote:
Roberto wrote:And Smith is rather obviously misrepresenting my statements, for I obviously didn’t say that 2.7 % CO2 is lethal. I said that the CO2 in the exhaust would add to the one produced by the victims’ breathing to bring about a lethal concentration earlier than the victims’ breathing alone would have done. Once again, so that our readers may have a glimpse at Smith’s intellectual dishonesty
Roberto, your stupidity does not become my "dishonesty."
Now isn't it funny to see Smith lose his temper and throw insults around in a vain attempt to disguise the fact that he was lying rather lamely when, after reading my conclusions derived from Miller’s thesis more than once, he tried to make believe that I considered 2.7 % CO2 to be lethal?
Anyone who read my exposition should have understood that I consider a CO2 level above 7 % to be lethal and that, according to my calculations, that level would be reached in the situation under discussion after 30 minutes when the CO2 coming in with the exhaust added to the CO2 produced by the victims themselves. In my post of Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:13 pm on the thread
Gassing Vans Revisited
http://www.thirdreichforum.com/viewtopi ... c&start=30
I even showed my calculations, as follows:
CO2 ambient air; Minute; CO2 exhaust; CO2 ambient air + exhaust
3,06%; 21; 2,74%; 5,80%
3,21%; 22; 2,74%; 5,95%
3,35%; 23; 2,74%; 6,09%
3,50%; 24; 2,74%; 6,24%
3,65%; 25; 2,74%; 6,39%
3,79%; 26; 2,74%; 6,53%
3,94%; 27; 2,74%; 6,68%
4,08%; 28; 2,74%; 6,82%
4,23%; 29; 2,74%; 6,97%
4,38%; 30; 2,74%; 7,12%
4,52%; 31; 2,74%; 7,26%
4,67%; 32; 2,74%; 7,41%
4,81%; 33; 2,74%; 7,55%
4,96%; 34; 2,74%; 7,70%
5,10%; 35; 2,74%; 7,84%
5,25%; 36; 2,74%; 7,99%
5,40%; 37; 2,74%; 8,14%
5,54%; 38; 2,74%; 8,28%
5,69%; 39; 2,74%; 8,43%
5,83%; 40; 2,74%; 8,57%
5,98%; 41; 2,74%; 8,72%
6,13%; 42; 2,74%; 8,87%
6,27%; 43; 2,74%; 9,01%
6,42%; 44; 2,74%; 9,16%
6,56%; 45; 2,74%; 9,30%
6,71%; 46; 2,74%; 9,45%
6,85%; 47; 2,74%; 9,59%
7,00%; 48; 2,74%; 9,74%
This is a theory, of course, and as such it may be right or wrong. But calling it "stupid" is nothing other than the arrogance "Revisionists" throw at their opponents whenever they feel cornered, a feature that has not exactly helped increase my sympathy for these people in general and Smith in particular.
Scott Smith wrote: If the exhaust composition is 2.7% that is where it will remain once the air has been exchanged a few times by the engine respiration.
Smith is trying to tell us that the ambient air would be wholly displaced out of the chamber by the incoming exhaust and that the people in there would end up breathing pure diesel exhaust with 2.7 % carbon dioxide. This is what he would like to believe, and as so many of his other contentions it stands a good chance of being absolute nonsense, as already explained in the previous discussion mentioned above. What is more likely to have happened is that the heavier components of the incoming exhaust, like carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide, displaced the lighter components of the ambient air, like oxygen, out of the chamber or out of the victims’ reach while the heavier components remained behind and combined with those of the incoming exhaust into an atmosphere loaded with CO2, the scenario contemplated in the above table. Of course this has been previously discussed as well, Smith having failed to demonstrate that there was something wrong with my assumptions and calculations. But that doesn’t keep him from dishing up his lame objections again and arrogantly calling my considerations "stupid", on grounds of little other than their inconvenience to his articles of faith. That’s "Revisionism" at its best, folks.
Scott Smith wrote: This will actually put more oxygen into the chamber than would be the case with the engine swtiched OFF because O2 levels cannot become depleted and CO2 levels from human respiration rise.
Last but not least, Smith tries to create some confusion by changing the subject. His considerations regarding oxygen are probably just as fallacious as the ones regarding CO2, but I see no need to address them now because what we’re talking about is the effects of too high concentrations of CO2, independently of the oxygen levels.
Scott Smith wrote: Now, I am tired of your "dishonesty" bullshit.
It’s not bullshit (bullshit is what Smith produces regarding certain topic whenever he hits the keyboard), but I’m glad to know Smith is tired of my pointing out his dishonesty. Fond as I am of the fellow, I will from now on push this button more often.
Scott Smith wrote: You know what you have to do to rectify that.
The only one in need of rectifying something here is Smith, as I see it. Quite a lot, as a matter of fact.
As we’re at it, I just did a quick Google search and found out that "CO2 narcosis" is one of the hazards facing scuba divers and a common method used to quickly and painlessly kill ("euthanize") animals. Here are some of the sites I found, for the delectation of and analysis by our "skeptic":
I haven’t checked them in detail, so I don’t know if they support my theory or Smith’s objections or are inconclusive in respect of either. I’ll leave it to Smith to work that out.