The Science Of  Oxygen

by Karl Loren
Last Revised On May 20, 2008 6:26 AM

The air we breathe is more or less 20 percent oxygen and 80 percent nitrogen.  There are very tiny traces of other elements, but less than one percent total.  The components of that "less than 1%" are, however, vital to understand and vital for our health.

These "other" components are so tiny that instead of listing them in "percentage" terms, they are usually referred to as "ppm," or "parts per million."

If you have one million parts of air, and ONE of those parts is, for instance, carbon dioxide, then you could say that carbon dioxide is "1 ppm."  It would probably be confusing to say 0.0001%.  Many people wouldn't even know how to speak that term, vocally.

Carbon Dioxide happens to be extremely important to life on the planet -- since no plant could grow without taking carbon dioxide IN.  The plants, in turn, "breathe out" oxygen.  That is the cycle of life.  Plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe out oxygen.  Animals, and man, breathe in oxygen and breathe out carbon dioxide.

But the amount of carbon dioxide in the "air" is tiny -- measured in "parts per million."  The picture on the left is a measuring device for carbon dioxide, used in farming applications.  It is a simple piece of science that plants use carbon dioxide rather like humans use oxygen.  Plants breathe in carbon dioxide, and cannot grow without it -- also, they generally prosper when they have MORE carbon dioxide, just as humans prosper when the get "extra" oxygen."  Click on the picture to jump to a full description of this measuring device.

How many parts per million are involved?

Well, 170 PPM of carbon dioxide was, for thousands of years, plenty to keep the cycle of life going on the planet -- there was enough carbon dioxide in the air to keep millions of square miles of green stuff growing.  The amount of carbon dioxide has now increased to more than  300 PPM!  That is considered an astounding increase by weather scientists -- and it is THIS number which gives rise to tremendous political disputes, using phrases such as "global warming" and motivating "Green Parties" around the planet to advocate cutting back on the use of energy, often appearing to suggest we all revert to some primitive and presumably happy life style.

The data presented above is the subject of an electronic study aide -- this is a free service from this web site.  Click on the image to the left and you can jump to the Vibrant Life Electronic Study Aide  specifically to a Study Aide on the material presented above.

Karl Note:  The information presented here is VERY carefully dry and politically correct.  Normally this type of data is presented in a context of the disaster awaiting the planet if "something" isn't done yesterday.  Many people have used the data on this page to "prove" many things.  I, Karl Loren, wish to draw only the simple undeniable conclusion that the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has increased dramatically over time, with the largest rate of increase from 1830 to present time.  What you might want to conclude from this is somewhat up to you, but I suggest that the very air we breathe, despite its relatively constant percentage of oxygen, contains other components (including carbon dioxide) that could well be a major factor in health.

The actual amount of carbon dioxide shown with these very, very precise studies varies from a very stable range of about 175 PPM over a period of some 1800 years from the year 1000 to 1830.

After 1830 the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased dramatically to where it is now, at about 320, or so, PPM.   This virtual doubling in 150 years, compared to almost no change for 1800 years may have dramatic consequences on health.  (Data Source)

In the early centuries, if the carbon dioxide would increase for any reason, the plants went wild with joy, ate it all up, and grew fast and big.  That might happen because some year, or period of years might have warm, good growing weather, while other years had poor growing conditions.

Currently, however, with the CO2 amount increasing dramatically, there was a puzzle -- scientists have been puzzled about this.  There has been an increase of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere, and normally we would expect the plant life to flourish. 

This turns out STILL to be true in simple "controlled situations:"

Although carbon dioxide is one of three main components which combine to produce the products necessary for plant growth, the amount of carbon dioxide in the air is only 0.03% (250 to 330 parts per million). This compares to 78% nitrogen, 21% oxygen and 0.97% trace gases in normal air. Numerous tests have proven that during the winter months carbon dioxide concentrations inside greenhouses is invariably much lower than in outside air. This same phenomenon has been shown in controlled environment gardens.  (source)

Note that "within" a greenhouse there is undoubtedly soil nutrients that are often missing from soil "out in the open."

The amount of carbon dioxide in the air around the planet, generally, has been increasing steadily over a period of many years.  This should bring about a lush and rapid growth of plants.

It doesn't!  Why?

The truth about this is not "politically correct."  The real reason for the lack of use of this rich resource is lack of proper minerals in the soil, and absence of a special "soil organism" that helps convert minerals (rocks) into a form that the roots of plants can absorb.  These organisms used to abound in nature, but the use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and over-use of the land has so depleted the soil of minerals, particularly trace minerals, that our food supply is not only, itself, devoid of many of these health-giving minerals, but the plants just don't grow.  Plants which are starved for minerals are much more prone to plant diseases, insect damage and even fire.  This is not a new discovery by Karl Loren, but the news is so outside the main stream of accepted reality that few people have heard this news.

As a scientist and organic gardener, I understand how both bacteria and plants grow in their natural environments. Plants are passive organisms, and require substantial help in order to grow in the soil. This help is provided by soil microorganisms. Plants can make all their own proteins, sugars, and vitamins, but they cannot do so without help from their friends in the soil (see the essay on the nitrogen cycle). There is one exception to this rule. If the plants are provided with all the necessary soluble minerals, they can grow in the absence of microorganisms, e.g. hydroponically. However, unless a mineral can dissolve in water, it cannot enter the roots of a plant. It is a simple concept, but one that is easy to forget. In the lab, plants and microorganisms can grow nicely in water that has been spiked with soluble minerals. The microorganisms won’t grow as fast (because they have to make all their proteins and vitamins from inorganic building blocks), but they will grow as long as they are provided with a source of sugar. Plants make their own sugar from CO2 in the air. In the soil, minerals exist in forms that are not appreciably soluble in water. As a consequence, minerals can sustain plant life, but their presence is not sufficient to insure rapid and sustained plant growth. In the soil, this is the role of microorganisms and one of the reasons composted organic matter is such a powerful fertilizer.  (Source)

There have been very dramatic changes in the composition of the very air we breathe over these many years.  It was not always the way it is now!

How would you discover whether or not there was more, or less, oxygen in the air in some distant past?  Or, more or less carbon dioxide?  Well, there are ice-bergs, and layers of ice in the polar areas where the "dating" technique suggests that the ice is more than 400,000 years old.  When that ice was formed it was common for bubbles of air to get captured in some space -- a space that was then covered over, like a door closing.  That space may then have been buried in many thousands of feet of ice -- so that it was preserved for all these long years.

Now, it would not be difficult to drill down to the ice that was created 400,000 years ago, take a sample, carefully open up that bubble of captured air and measure the amount of oxygen or other tiny components in THAT air!

Fascinating.  This has been done.

A team of university and NOAA scientists will search the snowpack for 100 year- old air samples at the South Pole this January, to investigate what the air quality was like during the last century.

The pockets of air trapped in the snowpack will provide scientists with a historical record of gases that were present in the atmosphere during this period. Researchers will then be able to analyze this record for clues to how human activity has influenced atmospheric processes.

....

Recent studies by the same research team published in the journal Nature in1996 and in 1999, indicated that the composition of the atmosphere has changed dramatically over the past 100 years, presumably because of human activities.   (source)

How much has the air changed, based on these very scientific measurements?

 Stocker, as well, underlines the significance of the rate of increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. He and colleague Andreas Schmittner looked at the problem through experiments with a simple, coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model in which a final carbon dioxide concentration of 750 ppm was attained over different time spans. They found that the thermohaline circulation weakens when the increase in carbon dioxide to 750 ppm is relatively slow, spanning several centuries or more. However, when the rate of increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases (expressed as CO₂) is similar to today's rate of growth (1% per year)--or the concentration of 750 ppm is reached in 100 years--the thermohaline circulation permanently shuts down.  (Source)

I could go on, and quote dozens or even hundreds of studies.  Usually these studies are written in such gobbly-gook language that you wouldn't understand them.  But, with a bit of effort you can come to the conclusion that while the percentage of oxygen in the air we breathe today compared to what man was breathing some hundreds of years ago is quite steady.  However, the amount of carbon dioxide is clearly changing -- dramatically.

This change in CO2 has spawned what is almost entirely a "political" debate -- since if the CO2 buildup is CAUSED by burning of fossil fuels, AND is harmful, then we should, possibly, reduce use of fossil fuels -- the very political claim made by numerous "green parties."  If, as I suggest is true, the increase in CO2 is a problem relating to the depletion of minerals in the soil, then the "solution" is very different.

There are some fairly reasonable pieces of research done on this subject, including the following:

    In conclusion there is ample evidence that a significant cooling occurred for several centuries starting around 1450 AD. This cooling caused significant changes in the distribution of plant and animal life and in the way man responded to the environment. The causes for this cooling may have derived from a combination of changes in the energy output of the sun and changes in the atmosphere of the earth which resulted from volcanic activity that reduced the amount of energy absorbed.
    This uncertainty as to the cause for this cooling which so markedly affected life should warn those who demand that the Earth responds only to massive (forceful) events. Very subtle changes in the factors determining climate during the Little Ice Age occurred. One wonders how much greater they need be to cause a true ice age.  (Source)

I would like to "leave" the subject of how the atmosphere of our planet is being polluted by carbon dioxide.  The change is undeniable. The effects are not nearly so well known.

I suggest to you that when the carbon dioxide in the air INCREASES, it is not healthy for your body, and that you suffer, then, from the equivalent of a decrease in OXYGEN in the air you breathe.  The percentage of oxygen may be about the same, but you need MORE oxygen when you are breathing in a much larger amount of carbon dioxide.

To repeat the true science, man "breathes out" carbon dioxide and "breathes in" oxygen.  If his "breathing in" process includes roughly double the amount of carbon dioxide as our ancestors (or only 200 years ago) did, that could explain a great deal of the change in degenerative diseases that exist now, in great abundance compared to their almost complete non-existence 200 years ago.

Whether YOU, or "WE" can reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the air we breathe is a good question, but mostly it is a question for nations and the planet.  If there is a way that you can handle this shortage of "good air" on a personal level, that should be of interest.

That is what this web site is all about!

Where does the oxygen come from -- and how have these sources failed to keep up the supply of oxygen in our air?

If you look back at the origin of oxygen, on planet earth, there is not much agreement:

The origin of our earth's atmosphere is still subject to much speculation. However, one theory seems fairly certain; that when the earth was formed some five billion years ago, it was probably too hot to retain any of the atmosphere it had to begin with. Based on our knowledge of gases in the universe, this first atmosphere probably consisted of helium, hydrogen, ammonia and methane. (Source)

Fortunately, for today's health problems, we don't have to go back to the ancient history of earth for useful data.  We can look at the earth right now, and see where the oxygen comes from.

Right now, tiny single-celled sea plants called phytoplankton produce almost half the oxygen you breathe.

Fewer plants could worsen the problem of excess rain, starting a vicious cycle. As plants grow, they take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen. Fewer plants mean more carbon dioxide in the air. Carbon dioxide, like soot, absorbs the Sun's heat and causes even more rain.  (Source:  NASA)

The Science Of Oxygen certainly needs to include a large coverage of the subject of the atmosphere.

The Science Of Oxygen gets into some deep subjects when you really want to understand WHY Oxygen is so vital, and yet, in other forms, so deadly.  That area of study actually involves understanding some atomic physics.  I've been studying atomic physics for 20 years -- it has not easy since I had no formal school training.  But, it IS the type of research I do best -- relying on my IQ and curiosity to take me into various subjects, and my communication skills to understand the student so well that my courses are successful in their teaching mission.  Click on the image to go to my special web site where all my electronic courses are administered. This course is free and you can "test the waters." See how much you can learn with ease.

DNA damage by oxygen free radicals suggests an accelerating degradation of mt function over time. Accumulating mutations in the genes encoding electron transporters (NADH dehydrogenase, cytochromes, and coenzyme Q) lead to decreased transfer efficiency, which, in turn, leads to higher production of superoxide and hydroxyl free radicals. Mutations in ribosomal and transfer RNAs lead to inefficient or errant translation of proteins encoded by the mt genome.

There is growing evidence for this "mitochondrial theory of aging." Since 1988, mutations in mt genes have been implicated in a number of degenerative diseases - including Alzheimer disease, mitochondrial myopathy, Kearns-Sayre syndrome, CPEO (chronic progressive external phthalmoplegia), Leigh syndrome, Pearson syndrome, dystonia, and diabetes. Not surprisingly, most of these diseases affect organs and tissues that have a high demand for energy. Mt mutations also accumulate in tumor cells, and are so highly amplified that often they can be detected in bodily fluids.  (Source)

This article originally published at:  http://www.oxygentimerelease.com/A/ScienceOxygen/index.htm