My source for the following is "Biosphere 2 at One," Kevin Kelly, Whole Earth Review, No. 77, Winter 1992, page 90.

I do not know enough about this publication to comment on it. Be suspicious. The article, despite its flaws, is informative and worth reading.

It must have been the Winter of 1992-1993 that I first read this article. I was traveling and stayed awhile in Tucson. My intention was to make a side trip to see the Biosphere. I am sorry that I did not. My casual reading of local newspapers revealed some of the controversy that began over the Biosphere. Kelly's article attempts to downplay the problems and put them in perspective. Not bad, generally, but I have found fault (are you surprised?) on a couple of counts.

Having not read this material for about seven years, I was surprised to learn that Kelly had explained why the vegetable matter was stored in the basement. It was always intended to serve as a carbon dioxide regulating mechanism. Store the material when CO₂ is adequate. When more CO₂ is needed,

"the clippings are piled on the soil as mulch, and wetted. As bacteria decompose it, they release CO₂ into the air.

. . .

In a molecule economy, the underground areas where the plant clippings are dried serve as a carbon bank. Carbon is lent as needed, and primed with water. Water in Bio2 is diverted from one locality to another like so much federal spending meant to stimulate a regional economy. By channeling water to the desert, CO₂ shrinks; by channeling water onto the the dried mulch, CO₂ expands."

Aside: Curious that feds should be mentioned. Can you use this information to come up with a conspairacy theory? The water from the dams in Eastern Washington is used to irrigate the desert. Result: less CO₂. "They" want the dams breached. Less water to irrigate the desert, right? Result: more CO₂. Also, the moment a dam is breached, "they" will be back, reaching into your pocket to build gas or coal fired, carbon dioxide puking, electricity generating plants to replace the electricity lost from removing the dams. How about some nice Indonesian coal for these new generators? Never forget that it is "they" who have forced a change in emissions toward more CO₂, forced us into sealed CO₂ filled buildings, and "they" who tell us that CO₂ is good for us because it is good for the trees and will bring a "lush environment."

Yeah, right. And I have a bridge to sell you. No make it a dam to sell you. Just remember that when you buy it, you must tear it down! Just like the Elwha dams. See the feds at work. See "them" care about you.

Bank? We are not told whether the "biospherians" ever made a withdrawal. We only get theory. We do know that their "carbon bank" got very full of deposits, and we know that the CO₂ level remained high.

According to the article, the highest level was 3,800 ppm during a six-day sunless period (page 98). I have reason to suspect it may have been higher, but I cannot, at the moment, support the 7,000 ppm that I threw out last time.

Other information about the dioxide level that Kelly shares with us leaves more questions. We are told that the average during a spring day was 1,000 ppm (page 98). What about a summer day? What does average mean? Did the "biospherians" have to tolerate 3,000 ppm while sleeping at night so they could enjoy a few hours of 600 ppm during bright sunlight?

What were the lowest levels? How long did they last? Is this information really too much to ask for?

Where Kelly and I really part company is over his justification of high levels. He refers to 1,000 ppm as "very respectable" (page 98). His argument is:

"The interior of a modern office building on a busy street may reach 2,000 ppm, and submarines let their CO₂ concentration rise to 8,000 ppm before they turn on CO₂ "scrubbers." Crew members of the NASA space shuttle work in "normal" atmosphere of 5,000 ppm" (page 98).

Without examining the truth of these statistics or the consequences associated with high levels, Kelly concludes that within the Biosphere,

"The fluctuations, then, are well within the range of ordinary urban life and hardly noticeable to humans (page 98)."

My God! I cannot let this go unchallenged. What part of "ordinary urban life" are submarines and space shuttles?

"Hardly noticeable to humans?" Everything in this web site screams otherwise. What about Weller's report on Oregon Schools? What about my information from Saskatchewan? What about North Middle School in Everett, Washington, next to two busy arterials?

I do not dispute that there are some office buildings around with dioxide levels of 2,000 ppm. That's why I argue that it is causing anxiety,chronic fatigue, fiber myalgia, depression, and even workplace violence. "Go Postal!" It is very noticeable. The reason "they" had to outlaw smoking in the workplace is that you cannot have both high dioxide levels and cigarette smoking too. Do you know why? Knowing that high concentrations were to be forced into the workplace, "they" had to have anti-smoking laws. Are these laws then proof of their conspiring against us?

The submarine thing is wrong if not a deliberate lie. I believe that this idea comes from an experiment conducted on board one submarine, on a voluntary basis, where the level was kept at 7,000 ppm for something like 40 days, and the effects on the crew were studied. (It is now my duty to find proof of this, and I will).

I have talked with some submariners, and they told me, "no way!" Think about it. Once a level is reached, whether it be 100, 1000, 10,000, or whatever ppm, it does not require any more effort by, or energy input to, the scrubbers to sustain/maintain that level over any other. (This is not true for office buildings, etc. where outside air is brought in and therefor, must be heated or cooled also, thus, requiring additional energy. No outside air can be brought into a sub while under the surface of the water).

Not convinced? Think again. If you really think men on board a submarine would stand for this, think about the very valuable and sensitive equipment aboard. CO₂ is corrosive. Do you really believe it would also be allowed to ravage this equipment. Bull!

Misinformation, disinformation, lies!

Well, what about the space shuttle? Ok, what about it? My apologies. I don't know what level is standard. I do know the story of Apollo 13, and I do know that NASA has cautioned astronauts about the hazards of high dioxide levels. They have been told that it impairs their ability to concentrate ("A.D.D.," anyone?) and will cause them to fight with each other (extrapolate that!).

Let's say Kelly is right. How long is the shuttle up there? What is the longest mission? When highly disciplined people are given all the facts (and perhaps special medications and supplements which we do not hear about) and know just how long they must suffer before the ordeal ends, they behave much differently than others. Think of unsuspecting school kids, or postal employees without a clue. What about "biospherians" who were misinformed, lied to, but starting to figure it out, realize that they have a two year sentence to serve.

Make you crazy?

"Cram some more of that shit in the basement!" Poke a hole; break a window; sneak out and buy another "scrubber."

What would you do?

The "biospherians" were the victims of the lies perpetrated by our so-called "scientists." The "biospherians" had to be demonized because the Biosphere proved the scientific community and our educational institutions are bankrupt and even evil.