Humans Make Ozone 50
MondoMor writes "Spotted this article at the Scripps Research Institute. Apparently humans have the ability to manufacture ozone, and do so as an immune response. Suppose we took a bunch of lawyers to the south pole, right under the ozone hole..."
Lawyers? (Score:5, Funny)
The *other* way to manually produce ozone.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The *other* way to manually produce ozone.. (Score:1)
Re:The *other* way to manually produce ozone.. (Score:5, Funny)
and? (Score:2, Funny)
Suppose we took a bunch of lawyers to the south pole, right under the ozone hole...
Sure, and cut them all down with machine guns and bury them in a mass unmarked grave. I've had that dream too. But how does that help the ozone layer? And why the South Pole?
Re:and? (Score:1)
We produce BAD ozone... (Score:4, Informative)
Sick Lawyers? (Score:2)
You mean like personal injury attorneys?
bad for them, goodish for us (Score:5, Informative)
Re:bad for them, goodish for us (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting....those are the two main results of exposure to ionizing radiation, (aside from damage to cellular structures directly) the cleavage of water molecules in cells to form hydrogen peroxide (toxic to cells) and formation free radicals (causes chemical changes in DNA molecules). Why aren't these two enzymes used in treatment of radiation exposure? Are they difficult to synthesize or unstable or something?
Re:bad for them, goodish for us (Score:1)
They can be made easily enough, its delevering them to the right place thats the problem.
Not only would you have to get these massive proteins through the Plasma Membrane [maricopa.edu] but also into the nucleus [maricopa.edu] where the DNA you want to protect is stored. This is hard enough to do with normal drugs which are typically about 500-1000 times smaller than proteins....
Re:bad for them, goodish for us (Score:2)
As another poster has noted [slashdot.org], the enzymes described are too large to be delivered through the cell and nuclear membranes to the nucleus in order to protect DNA.
Also, the damage done by ionizing radiation is done quite quickly. The enzymes mentioned might have some protective effect if administered prophylactically--before radiation exposure--and if delivery were not an issue. (There is some experimental work being done that suggests gene therapy could be use to encourage cells to produce their own radioprotective agents [cjp.com] This neatly sidesteps delivery problems, since the enzymes are produced in situ.)
Within a few seconds after the end of the exposure, the damage to DNA has been done, and the particularly nasty radicals and peroxides have pretty much been consumed. (The reason why these species are damaging is that they are so reactive--thus they don't last long with lots of tasty biomolecules around.) We would be closing the barn door after the horse is already gone.
Re:bad for them, goodish for us (Score:2)
Re:bad for them, goodish for us (Score:1)
Whoops! (Score:2)
Re:We produce BAD ozone... (Score:4, Interesting)
At .05 ppm (parts per million) or less, ozone is not only safe, but healthy. I have two air purifier/ionizers [surroundair.com] in my bedroom (more than recommended for its size), which produce ozone. It's not like I'm gassing myself. Read the FAQ for all the technical details.
From your linked page: "There's this bike path near my house, but when I walk or run on it on ozone alert days I spend the next few hours coughing." -- Melissa, age 68
There must be a very high concentration of ozone at that particular location. My allergies hardly bother me at all since I put these ozone-producing devices in my house (one beside my bed pillow!), which run 24 hours a day. After taking allergy shots every month for many years, I don't need the shots anymore. The ozone negative ions remove contaminants from the air.
See this [surroundair.com].
And there's a lot more information on that site. Based on personal experience with their product, I'm inclined to believe in their research and conclusions.and more... (Score:3, Funny)
Methane too
How much.... (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:How much.... (Score:2)
Singlet oxygen from immune cells! (Score:4, Interesting)
Dude, if you thought that ozone is bad news, singlet oxygen is highly toxic to just about everything biological.
Re:Singlet oxygen from immune cells! (Score:2)
Interesting...link?
Re:Singlet oxygen from immune cells! (Score:1)
Cancer? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Cancer? (Score:2, Informative)
Hmmm.... (Score:1)
hmm.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Ozone (Score:1)
Re:Ozone (Score:1)
Re:Ozone (Score:1, Informative)
Court Order (Score:1)
Re:Ozone Depletion is Non Existent (Score:1)
Spend 20 minutes in the sun in the afternoon, THEN tell me you think there is an ozone layer above you...
Re:Ozone Depletion is Non Existent (Score:2)
Re:Ozone Depletion is Non Existent (Score:1)
by John Carlisle
Those looking for the culprit responsible for global warming have missed the obvious choice - the sun. While it may come as a newsflash to some, scientific evidence conclusively shows that the sun plays a far more important role in causing global warming and global cooling than any other factor, natural or man-made. In fact, what may very well be the ultimate ironic twist in the global warming controversy is that the same solar forces that caused 150 years of warming are on the verge of producing a prolonged period of cooling.
The evidence for future cooling is supported by considerable scientific research that has only recently begun to come to light. It wasn't until 1980, with the aid of NASA satellites, that scientists definitively proved that the sun's brightness - or radiance - varies in intensity, and that these variations occur in predictable cyclical patterns. This was a crucial discovery because the climate models used by greenhouse theory proponents always assumed that the sun's radiance was constant. With that assumption in hand, they could ignore solar influences and focus on other influences, including human.
That turned out to be a reckless assumption. Further investigation revealed that there is a strong correlation between the variations in solar irradiance and fluctuations in the Earth's temperature. When the sun gets dimmer, the Earth gets cooler; when the sun gets brighter, the Earth gets hotter. So important is the sun in climate change that half of the 1.5 F temperature increase since 1850 is directly attributable to changes in the sun. According to NASA scientists David Lind and Judith Lean, only one-quarter of a degree can be ascribed to other causes, such as greenhouse gases, through which human activities can theoretically exert some influence.
The correlation between major changes in the Earth's temperature and changes in solar radiance is quite compelling. A perfect example is the Little Ice Age that lasted from 1650 to 1850. Temperatures in this era fell to as much as 2 F below today's temperature, causing the glaciers to advance, the canals in Venice to freeze and major crop failures. Interestingly, this dramatic cooling happened in a period when the sun's radiance had fallen to exceptionally low levels. Between 1645 and 1715, the sun was in a stage that scientists refer to as the Maunder Minimum. In this minimum, the sun has few sunspots and low magnetism which automatically indicates a lower radiance level. When the sun began to emerge from the minimum, radiance increased and by 1850 the temperature had warmed up enough for the Little Ice Age to end.
The Maunder Minimum is not an isolated event: it is a cyclical phenomenon that typically appears for 70 years following 200-300 years of warming. With only a few exceptions, whenever there is a solar minimum, the Earth gets colder. For example, Europe in the 13th and 15th Centuries experienced significantly lower temperatures and in both cases the cold spells coincided with a minimum. Similar correlations were found in the 9th Century and again in the 7th Century. Since 8700 B.C., there have been at least ten major cold periods similar to the Little Ice Age. Nine of those ten cold spells coincided with Maunder Minima.
There is no reason to believe that this 10,000-year-old cycle of solar-induced warming and cooling will change. Dr. Sallie Baliunas, an astrophysicist with the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and one of the nation's leading experts on global climate change, believes that we may be nearing the end of a solar warming cycle. Since the last minimum ended in 1715, Baliunas says there is a strong possibility that the Earth will start cooling off in the early part of the 21st Century.
Indeed, it could already be happening. Of the 1.5 F in warming the planet experienced over the last 150 years, two-thirds of that increase, or one degree, occurred between 1850 and 1940. In the last 50 years, the planetary temperature increased at a significantly slower rate of 0.5 F - precisely when dramatically increasing amounts of man-made carbon dioxide emissions should have been accelerating warming. Further buttressing the arguments for future cooling is the evidence from NASA satellites that the global temperature has actually fallen 0.04 F since 1979.
Of course, it is impossible to precisely predict when solar radiance will drop and global temperatures will begin falling. But one thing is certain: There is little evidence that mankind is responsible for global warming. There is considerable evidence that the sun causes warming and will most likely stimulate cooling in the not so distant future.