Good *low level* Carbon Monoxide detector?

shaun_from_Africa

jefaz07 wrote: »

The main thing I take from that article are the words ‘might’ ‘may’ ‘unknown’ basically what they’re saying is they don’t know if what you’re saying is true. Not really an article to confirm.

I agree that it's a lot of "might any maybe" but if someone wants to make sure, are only spending their own money and what they are going to do isn't causing problems for others, what's the problem with them making sure?

It wasn't that long ago that smoking cigarettes was said to be good for you, as was taking regular sessions under a UV lamp.
Just because something isn't deemed to be harmful today, doesn't mean that further evidence in the future will prove otherwise.

jefaz07

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I agree that it's a lot of "might any maybe" but if someone wants to make sure, are only spending their own money and what they are going to do isn't causing problems for others, what's the problem with them making sure?

It wasn't that long ago that smoking cigarettes was said to be good for you, as was taking regular sessions under a UV lamp.
Just because something isn't deemed to be harmful today, doesn't mean that further evidence in the future will prove otherwise.

Agree with you to a degree. And I wasn’t saying it’s problem, was just more curious as to why!
Asbestos will probably go into the group of things you listed too,however, I think enough research has been put into CO and continues to be! We know how dangerous it is.