Slashdot Mirror


Humans Make Ozone

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..."

50 comments

  1. Lawyers? by KILNA · · Score: 4, Funny

    I thought you said humans produce ozone?

    --
    Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
  2. The *other* way to manually produce ozone.. by topologist · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oh,I have long known this, although I was thinking of the *other* way of producing ozone. Walk across a thick carpet or rub against an upholstered chair and accumulate some static. Then head to the nearest metal doorknob and put your finger near the knob..you'll probably see an arc jump from an extremity like a finger to the doorknob ("point discharge"). Electric discharges in oxygen can form ozone (O3), and you can actually smell it in some machine rooms, and after a burts of lightning. Of course, the static discharge is not exactly pleasant, but we all have to make sacrifices in the cause of science :-) Unless of course you're one of those people who liked touching battery leads or an electrode hooked up to a lemon to your tongue..

    1. Re:The *other* way to manually produce ozone.. by misterhaan · · Score: 1

      yeah i remember back in elementary school we were on some kind of sciencey field trip and they had two big metal balls that we could see the electricity going between, then it smelled bad and they told us that it had burnt the air and made ozone . . . that's so cool.

      --

      track7.org has all kinds of interesting stuff!

    2. Re:The *other* way to manually produce ozone.. by MarkGriz · · Score: 5, Funny

      Just be sure not to use this method to produce ozone while you are similtaneously producing methane.

      --
      Beauty is in the eye of the beerholder.
    3. Re:The *other* way to manually produce ozone.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A tesla coil might be a little more effective, and slightly less painful. (provided you don't go near it)

  3. and? by Anonymous Coward · · 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?

    1. Re:and? by buttahead · · Score: 1

      Less SUVs driving around = more ozone.

    2. Re:and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a pretty big hole in the ozone layer above the south pole. I'm surprised you've never heard about it.
      And the way I interpreted the editor's comment was "humans produce ozone and lawyers are human (mostly), so lets ship them all to the ozone hole and kill two birds with one stone!" Not that I disagree with your idea...

    3. Re:and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really wish I could mod this up. Thanks for the laugh.

    4. Re:and? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note: burying them in ice is a bad idea. A big starship from the Culture might stop by and find them...

  4. We produce BAD ozone... by magickalhack · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ozone is ozone, but we only like it when it's it the upper atmosphere where it can block UV radiation. Down here it is a poison.

    --
    This Sig Kills Fascists
    1. Re:We produce BAD ozone... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. And they would need to be very sick lawyers anyway.

    2. Re:We produce BAD ozone... by superyooser · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Ozone is poisonous at very high levels, but so is oxygen (relative to normal levels). Ozone has a strangely fresh, sweet odor. Sometimes you can smell it outside after a lightning storm. The odor is easily detectable at safe levels and is not necessarily a sign of danger.

      At .05 ppm (parts per million) or less, ozone is not only safe, but healthy. I have two air purifier/ionizers 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.

      In studies conducted at the Academy of Medical Sciences in Russia, Dr. Gubernskii and Dr. Dmitriev found that 0.005 ppm (parts per million) to 0.02 ppm of ozone added to normal indoor air (0 ppm) increased animals' resistance to the cold, to infection, to toxic substances, and to oxygen deprivation. A general increase in the immune "biological potential" and the vital capacity of the lungs was reported.

      Dr. Gubernskii and Dr. Dmitriev also performed tests using less than .01 ppm of ozone in an air-conditioned office building, which revealed that "the levels of oxygen in the blood increase relatively quickly and remain at a high level for the duration of the experiment." They also stated that: "Atmospheric ozone has a positive effect on animals and people. It is important to note its positive effect on the breathing system, blood composition, arterial pressure, immune system, general feeling of well-being, and mental and physical work capability. The ozone-ion complex is a necessary component of fresh air that gives it a curative effect."

      This same study, featured in the Russian journal Priroda, also reports a decrease in complaints of stuffiness (3.8 times fewer complaints).
      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.
  5. and more... by Polo · · Score: 2, Funny


    Methane too ;)

  6. How much.... by ewhenn · · Score: 1, Insightful

    How much Ozone does a person make while driving around in their SUV?

    1. Re:How much.... by Quill_28 · · Score: 1

      About 10 times less as when you mow your lawn.

  7. Singlet oxygen from immune cells! by juushin · · Score: 4, Interesting
    That immune cells have been found to produce singlet oxygen is much more interesting, I think, than the finding that bodies produce ozone.

    Dude, if you thought that ozone is bad news, singlet oxygen is highly toxic to just about everything biological.

    1. Re:Singlet oxygen from immune cells! by Myuu · · Score: 1

      That immune cells have been found to produce singlet oxygen is much more interesting, I think, than the finding that bodies produce ozone.

      Interesting...link?

      --

      forget it.
    2. Re:Singlet oxygen from immune cells! by juushin · · Score: 1

      It's mentioned in the original article (that singlet oxygen is produced en-route to the cellular production of ozone).

  8. bad for them, goodish for us by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 4, Informative

    As the article states, ozone is produced by neutrophils as a part of an immune response. Not too surprising; redox chemistry is critically important and we've evolved ways of protecting ourselves from harmful oxidation. For example the enzyme catalase converts hydrogen peroxide into water and hydrogen, while superoxide dismutase is a free radical scavenger. I wouldn't be too surprised if there's a specialized anti-ozone protein as well. Anyway, neutrophils engulf bacteria (and other things) and the engulfed matter ends up in an intracellular compartment called a phagosome. The neutrophil pumps in various nasty compounds--I imagine ozone may be one of them--to kill whatever it engulfed. I'd imagine that neutrophils have higher than normal expression levels for catalase and other protective enzymes to protect itself...from itself.

    1. Re:bad for them, goodish for us by forkboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For example the enzyme catalase converts hydrogen peroxide into water and hydrogen, while superoxide dismutase is a free radical scavenger.

      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?

      --
      This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.
    2. Re:bad for them, goodish for us by david+duncan+scott · · Score: 1

      Wow. I'm sure that paragraph makes sense, but it could just as well have been in Norwegian for all it meant to me. If you say that stuff out loud, does your tongue hurt?

      --

      This next song is very sad. Please clap along. -- Robin Zander

    3. Re:bad for them, goodish for us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take pride in your ignorance - it's all you've got.

    4. Re:bad for them, goodish for us by jdevers77 · · Score: 1

      Not trying to be an ass, but catalase breaks 2H202 into 2H20 and 1O2 not 2H202 into 2H202 and 1H2.

    5. Re:bad for them, goodish for us by mlush · · Score: 1
      Why aren't these two enzymes used in treatment of radiation exposure? Are they difficult to synthesize or unstable or something?

      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 but also into the nucleus 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....

    6. Re:bad for them, goodish for us by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Why aren't these two enzymes used in treatment of radiation exposure? Are they difficult to synthesize or unstable or something?

      As another poster has noted, 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 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.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
  9. Cancer? by planux · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I'm not mistaken, oxidants cause mutations in the DNA of your cells -- and if that mutation happens to occur in some vital bit of the DNA, you get cancer. Cancer cells are, fundamently, normal cells that have gone awry and reproduce extremely quickly. That's why chemotherapy is used to treat cancer -- chemotherapy targets fast-reproducing cells (also why it makes your hair fall out -- hair cells are another fast reproducing cell type). In any case, if your body produces oxidants to fight germs, couldn't those same oxidants be causing, as a side affect, mutations in your DNA? Maybe the dramatic rise in cancer rates over the past x*10^2 years isn't due entirely to our longer life spans -- maybe it's also, in part, due to the fact that we live much closer together and regularly infect and are infected by our family members/cow-workers/fellow K-mart shoppers. The common cold a cause of cancer? Maybe not so far fetched. And maybe it's the body's oxidant-loaded response to things like cigarettes that causes cancer -- not the cigarette chemicals themselves (though I am very poorly acquainted with cigarette research). Also, what impact would those anti-oxidant drinks/pills/suppositories that are all the fad these days have on your body's ability to fight off diseases?

    1. Re:Cancer? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Alright..first of all, not all oxidants are bad for you. A lot of them are produced -by- your body for a number of different purposes. Secondly, those anti-oxidant suppliments can be far more dangerous than just accepting the normal amount that your body produces..too much of them are known to cause permanent damage if taken excessively.

  10. Hmmm.... by theWrkncacnter · · Score: 1

    This isn't listed on the main page. We all must be using some sort of headline grabber.

    --
    -1 (Troll) is antihammer
  11. hmm.. by C21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    this reminds me of the terraforming discussion we had a few days ago. Accelerated technology on ozone production is not only good for our planet, but for others in the future. Wasn't there a release in Nature or some such magazine that stated that the hole in the ozone wall was repairing itself, though? Kinda harsh if we get up these billion dollar ozone making plants and they're obsoleted by good old mother earth...

    --
    this is not a sig.
  12. Ozone by Azureflare · · Score: 1

    Well, this is quite interesting. We could create biomass in the atmosphere, and let it generate Ozone up there, using biological technology. I bet it would work!

    1. Re:Ozone by C21 · · Score: 1

      it would be more cost effective to do it on the ground and let the ozone make it's way up to the atmosphere.

      --
      this is not a sig.
    2. Re:Ozone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      mm except they will get oxidized on the way up by things like sulfur etc and other gases in the atmosphere, 03 exactly the state Oxygen *wants* to be in, and it would be happy to bond with nearly any other element on the way "up" to the ozone. so thats a no go.

    3. Re:Ozone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "isn't exactly" the state it wants to be in, that is =)

  13. ummm... by lilricky · · Score: 0

    I thought that science had determined that the ozone "hole" was a natural cycle and that man didnt have anything to do with it. Considering the fact that CFC's are heavier than air and it breaks down in the presence of sunlight, you would think people would have known this sooner..

    1. Re:ummm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, CFC's are inert by nature. It is the destruction of them by ultraviolet light that releases the chlorine radical that is responsible for premature destruction of O3 to O2.

  14. Court Order by floydman · · Score: 1

    Put a bunch of laweyrs there, and they will get a court order of every body else out of planet earth

    --
    The lunatic is in my head
  15. This is why the environmentalist whackos are.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..whackos.

    My laser printer from over a decade ago had warnings about producing ozone. IE, don't keep it terribly enclosed and sniff the fumes.

    So, ozone hole my ass. All we need are a bunch of laser printers, eh?

  16. Sick Lawyers? by Kibo · · Score: 1

    And they would need to be very sick lawyers anyway.

    You mean like personal injury attorneys?

    --
    --Jimmy has fancy plans; and pants to match.
  17. Ozone Depletion is Non Existent by Tudil+Di'Masharen · · Score: 0, Informative

    "Suppose we took a bunch of lawyers to the south pole, right under the ozone hole..."

    Ahh, another one of those guys... Buddy, I hate to tell ya, but the ozone is NOT depleting. The reason for global warming is the sun is just getting hotter, like all stars do. Even if the Ozone is depleting, it's constantly replenishing itself through volcanic eruptions, cars, and even TVs and computer screens (no wonder I'm addicted).

    1. Re:Ozone Depletion is Non Existent by Verne · · Score: 1

      Come to New Zealand.

      Spend 20 minutes in the sun in the afternoon, THEN tell me you think there is an ozone layer above you...

      --


      There are only two things in this world that smell like fish. And one of them's fish...
    2. Re:Ozone Depletion is Non Existent by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 1

      Right. The sun is getting noticably hotter. In just the past 200 years. Right.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    3. Re:Ozone Depletion is Non Existent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am, and there is, the ozone 'hole' was nearly non-existant 'hole' season, and looks to be even less this year.
      gee whiz, could the ozone hole be a natural cyclic formation? hmm... fancy that!

    4. Re:Ozone Depletion is Non Existent by the_Bionic_lemming · · Score: 1

      Sun to Blame for Global Warming

      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.

      --
      _ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
  18. goatsee.cx and methane production by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How man bbls (english barrels - standard measurement of crude oil in chemical engineering) does goatsee produce. I suspect a lot. This might be an educated guess, but the pictures speak for themselves.. now don't they.

  19. Whoops! by Bowling+Moses · · Score: 1

    Arg. Yeah that's right.