When a carbon monoxide (CO) incident happens on a school campus, one of the first questions everyone asks is: “Where did it come from?” Parents want to know. Staff want to know. Journalists want to know. Fire marshals and investigators need  to know. But right now, the language we use to describe CO sources in schools is inconsistent and confusing. News stories call it a “gas leak,” a “ventilation problem,” an “equipment issue,” or simply “fumes,” even when the actual hazard

It's time to set the record straight: Carbon monoxide is not a “gas leak.” It is a toxic gas exposure. And using the wrong language confuses the public, delays understanding, and prevents families from knowing what actually happened, or how to protect their children in the future. This imprecise reporting isn’t a small issue. It undermines awareness, downplays risk, and allows preventable CO incidents to keep happening.

For decades, carbon monoxide (CO) safety education has relied on a familiar visual: a chart linking parts per million (PPM) to predicted health effects. It’s neat, it’s easy to reference, and it’s dangerously incomplete. Because carbon monoxide exposure doesn’t follow charts. It follows conditions: who you are, where you are, and how long you’re there. That’s why it’s time for a new way to understand CO’s impact: a model that puts people, not numbers, at the center.

"Negative air pressure" may sound harmless, but it's a big factor in carbon monoxide buildup in school buildings.

Nikki sheds some real talk on CO and CO2.