+ Submit News Link

say goodbye to oxygen :D


Share |



Chriswin2010   posted:5/20/2010 9:35:13 PM  (Reply)
Hello, i just wanted to inform everyone that 70% of our oxygen comes from surface algae in the ocean and plankton, if that oil spreads to a significant surface area our atmospheric oxygen will be depleted by 70%, and we will be having problems with breathing and possible stunted growth, what do you think about this? Here is an article that I found, there are more precise evaluations and I researched this a long time ago, our trees on land do not account for much oxygen as out ocean.
Chriswin2010   posted:5/20/2010 9:35:52 PM  (Reply)
http://www.wisegeek.com/where-does-atmospheric-oxygen-come-from.htm
tapuout4985   posted:5/20/2010 11:24:06 PM  (Reply)
At least the oil is taking care of that dihydrogen monoxide problem, I thought that was never going away
tapuout4985   posted:5/21/2010 9:47:55 AM  (Reply)
I spent some time reading up on this and it does seem that a sizeable portion of atmospheric oxygen comes from algae, but it has been seen over the course of time the ratio between ocean algae and land plants changes.  I expect there will be a temporary drop in atmospheric oxygen, but then it will come back up as CO2 levels rise and land plants begin picking up more of the load.  I think long term the effect of oil on the animal population will out weigh the effect on ocean algae, but if the leak doesn't stop and the oil continues to build I am interested to see what adaptations flora and fauna will start manifesting to deal with the oil.  I wouldn't be surprised if some oil eating bacteria doesn't suddenly come into existence because Mother Nature has a way of keeping herself healthy over the long term.
caniswalensis   posted:5/21/2010 1:27:30 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
tapuout4985  posted:5/21/2010 9:47:55 AM  (Reply)
I spent some time reading up on this and it does seem that a sizeable portion of atmospheric oxygen comes from algae, but it has been seen over the course of time the ratio between ocean algae and land plants changes.  I expect there will be a temporary drop in atmospheric oxygen, but then it will come back up as CO2 levels rise and land plants begin picking up more of the load.  I think long term the effect of oil on the animal population will out weigh the effect on ocean algae, but if the leak doesn't stop and the oil continues to build I am interested to see what adaptations flora and fauna will start manifesting to deal with the oil.  I wouldn't be surprised if some oil eating bacteria doesn't suddenly come into existence because Mother Nature has a way of keeping herself healthy over the long term.
Interesting post, Tapuout. :)Oil-eating Bacteria already exist actually, and have been used in the past to help clean up oil spills.  As for larger species developing adaptaitions to deal with an oily environment, that would probably take humdreds of thoushands of years at the least to see anything like that.  I hope we have the spill cleaned up before then!regards, Canis
Chriswin2010   posted:5/21/2010 3:37:00 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
tapuout4985  posted:5/21/2010 9:47:55 AM  (Reply)
I spent some time reading up on this and it does seem that a sizeable portion of atmospheric oxygen comes from algae, but it has been seen over the course of time the ratio between ocean algae and land plants changes.  I expect there will be a temporary drop in atmospheric oxygen, but then it will come back up as CO2 levels rise and land plants begin picking up more of the load.  I think long term the effect of oil on the animal population will out weigh the effect on ocean algae, but if the leak doesn't stop and the oil continues to build I am interested to see what adaptations flora and fauna will start manifesting to deal with the oil.  I wouldn't be surprised if some oil eating bacteria doesn't suddenly come into existence because Mother Nature has a way of keeping herself healthy over the long term.
Yeah that will be interesting to see, there are also scientists that have noticed that some trees are growing at twice the speed from increased CO2, so if all the algae and plankton die then the trees may grow 10 times faster and everything on land will begin to look like a jungle, but trees aparently automatically adjust to the fluxuations in the atmosphere, I think that within the next 10 years we will see an explosion of plant growth and the death of a lot of things int he ocean, also there are some algae blooms that are building up and getting ready to release, they are also airborne and can kill humans...
tapuout4985   posted:5/21/2010 4:26:11 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
caniswalensis  posted:5/21/2010 1:27:30 PM  (Reply)
Interesting post, Tapuout. :)Oil-eating Bacteria already exist actually, and have been used in the past to help clean up oil spills.  As for larger species developing adaptaitions to deal with an oily environment, that would probably take humdreds of thoushands of years at the least to see anything like that.  I hope we have the spill cleaned up before then!regards, Canis
Interesting thing about adaptation is that it can happen rather quickly, but is easier and more likely to happen in simpler life forms.  Darwin theorized that drastic adaptations such as the growth of wings or gills could happen in even on generation if the environment demanded it.  For example, if there is a huge change in the environment that demands certain physical qualities prior to a human embryo reaching the fetal stage, Darwin believed the embryo would be able to begin the proper adaptation.  In essence, before the embryo begins to actually take human shape, the DNA can rewrite itself to provide the being with the best chance of survival.  It is unlikely to happen in humans because we are so complex, but in other life forms like ameba, bacteria, and on up into frogs, fish, maybe even birds it becomes increasingly possible.  So if the oil stays, we will see massive loss of animal and plant life, but also the emergence of new species that can survive in an environment flooded with oil.
caniswalensis   posted:5/21/2010 7:53:28 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
tapuout4985  posted:5/21/2010 4:26:11 PM  (Reply)
Interesting thing about adaptation is that it can happen rather quickly, but is easier and more likely to happen in simpler life forms.  Darwin theorized that drastic adaptations such as the growth of wings or gills could happen in even on generation if the environment demanded it.  For example, if there is a huge change in the environment that demands certain physical qualities prior to a human embryo reaching the fetal stage, Darwin believed the embryo would be able to begin the proper adaptation.  In essence, before the embryo begins to actually take human shape, the DNA can rewrite itself to provide the being with the best chance of survival.  It is unlikely to happen in humans because we are so complex, but in other life forms like ameba, bacteria, and on up into frogs, fish, maybe even birds it becomes increasingly possible.  So if the oil stays, we will see massive loss of animal and plant life, but also the emergence of new species that can survive in an environment flooded with oil.
Hmmm... I do not recall Darwyn saying anything like that.  Is that in The Origin of the Species?  In fact, I do not think I have ever read any evolutionary biologist's writings that said adaptation can happen in a single, or even a few generations.  I might also add here that the theory of evolution has been refined somewhat since Darwyn's time, although he had the basics pretty much right.One example of "fast evolution" that I recall is some miniature hippos developing on a pennisula that became an island after the water rose and cut it off from the mainland.  Nothing fancy happened, they simply got smaller because it meant they required less food and could survive on their island easier.  No extra parts developed like gills or wings or eyes.  Just a simple change in size, but It took between six and ten thousand years for them to be reduced in size by about half.  That is a blink of the eye on the evolutionary scale.From my reading, Darwyn specifically believed about new species developing very gradually over long periods of time via small inheritable variations.  I wonder if you would mind citing your source for what you are saying.  I really am curious about this, as evolution is something of a hobby for me. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be cool to see something like an "oil skimming catfish" or somesuch, I just do not think it could happen so fast.regards, Canis
tapuout4985   posted:5/21/2010 9:05:10 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
caniswalensis  posted:5/21/2010 7:53:28 PM  (Reply)
Hmmm... I do not recall Darwyn saying anything like that.  Is that in The Origin of the Species?  In fact, I do not think I have ever read any evolutionary biologist's writings that said adaptation can happen in a single, or even a few generations.  I might also add here that the theory of evolution has been refined somewhat since Darwyn's time, although he had the basics pretty much right.One example of "fast evolution" that I recall is some miniature hippos developing on a pennisula that became an island after the water rose and cut it off from the mainland.  Nothing fancy happened, they simply got smaller because it meant they required less food and could survive on their island easier.  No extra parts developed like gills or wings or eyes.  Just a simple change in size, but It took between six and ten thousand years for them to be reduced in size by about half.  That is a blink of the eye on the evolutionary scale.From my reading, Darwyn specifically believed about new species developing very gradually over long periods of time via small inheritable variations.  I wonder if you would mind citing your source for what you are saying.  I really am curious about this, as evolution is something of a hobby for me. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be cool to see something like an "oil skimming catfish" or somesuch, I just do not think it could happen so fast.regards, Canis
No problem, I'll start going through my books looking for it.  It may not have been Darwin, though I'm sure that is where it came from.  The theory deals solely with the rapid change of environment.  I agree that in the presence of a stationary or slowly changing environment evolution happens over a large number of generations due mostly to natural selection and not genetic mutation. 
tapuout4985   posted:5/21/2010 9:37:18 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
caniswalensis  posted:5/21/2010 7:53:28 PM  (Reply)
Hmmm... I do not recall Darwyn saying anything like that.  Is that in The Origin of the Species?  In fact, I do not think I have ever read any evolutionary biologist's writings that said adaptation can happen in a single, or even a few generations.  I might also add here that the theory of evolution has been refined somewhat since Darwyn's time, although he had the basics pretty much right.One example of "fast evolution" that I recall is some miniature hippos developing on a pennisula that became an island after the water rose and cut it off from the mainland.  Nothing fancy happened, they simply got smaller because it meant they required less food and could survive on their island easier.  No extra parts developed like gills or wings or eyes.  Just a simple change in size, but It took between six and ten thousand years for them to be reduced in size by about half.  That is a blink of the eye on the evolutionary scale.From my reading, Darwyn specifically believed about new species developing very gradually over long periods of time via small inheritable variations.  I wonder if you would mind citing your source for what you are saying.  I really am curious about this, as evolution is something of a hobby for me. Don't get me wrong, I think it would be cool to see something like an "oil skimming catfish" or somesuch, I just do not think it could happen so fast.regards, Canis
After just a quick skim over my 'library' I think the book was actually The Plausibility of Life, by Kirschner and Gerhart.  It discusses how natural selection works through a process that eliminates genetic traits that can't survive the current environment.  The example I remember talks about how the moths in England changed from light to dark over time to adapt to the pollution caused from burning coal.  Their theory states that if England stopped burning coal and all the walls became light again the moths wouldn't be able to adapt back because natural selection bred the light colored gene from them, therefore they would have to spontaneously mutate in order to get the light colored gene back or thye would go extinct.  They say that rapid mutation is how such a variety of life came to be during the Cambrian explosion.  Previously life was only simple organisms, but over just a few million years complex flora and fauna suddenly sprang into existence. 
Chriswin2010   posted:5/21/2010 11:36:34 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
tapuout4985  posted:5/20/2010 11:24:06 PM  (Reply)
At least the oil is taking care of that dihydrogen monoxide problem, I thought that was never going away
lol, yeah I am getting sick of all the oxygen and water around me anyways....
Chriswin2010   posted:5/21/2010 11:41:22 PM  (Reply)
This is an article on the accelerated plant growth study done by several scientists to back up the claim I made...http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/02/100201171641.htm
spiritech0   posted:5/24/2010 12:19:27 PM  (Reply)
I have a bad guy conspiracy theory about this oil spill.  The bad guys just did this to flex their muscles and thumb their noses at us because they don't rely on this black stuff for their everyday living and their currency is information and gold.  It's all part of their plan, which in this phase is the destruction of the "USA". And in other news, the Atlantic aliens are moving out as this will be the fifth time that Zion is destroyed... No mutant Louisiana wildlife is gonna get the better of them...
hobobone   posted:6/5/2010 11:20:35 AM  (Reply)
If this spill continues to grow and moves up the east coast. The financial backlash will keep us in recession,or worse. This catastrophe is just getting ramped up. Also this crisis has removed a lot of the seafood food source. The government will now have some control on the seafood food source. They will exploit this as they exploit everything. It wil go down the same road as the Pork, Beef,and Chicken industry. When the government fully controls all of the food we eat,they control us.
Chriswin2010   posted:6/5/2010 4:09:01 PM  (Reply)
Yeah lol it is sad how fake our food is, at least some one is having fun killing everything, they are probably laughing right now...
caniswalensis   posted:6/6/2010 3:28:52 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
hobobone  posted:6/5/2010 11:20:35 AM  (Reply)
If this spill continues to grow and moves up the east coast. The financial backlash will keep us in recession,or worse. This catastrophe is just getting ramped up. Also this crisis has removed a lot of the seafood food source. The government will now have some control on the seafood food source. They will exploit this as they exploit everything. It wil go down the same road as the Pork, Beef,and Chicken industry. When the government fully controls all of the food we eat,they control us.
How does the govenrment control the beef industry?
hobobone   posted:6/6/2010 11:14:50 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
caniswalensis  posted:6/6/2010 3:28:52 PM  (Reply)
How does the govenrment control the beef industry?
First, Let me tell you that i live way out in the country. All the beef,pork and chicken that i eat is raised by local farmers.These animals are treated with respect, they all free range or graize.They have plenty of acerage to roam on.They are fed with quality grains and hay and are whats known as content or happy animals.They live fairly long lives and are butchered as humainly as possible. The FDA does not control my food chain. And if you are lucky enough to eat local farm raised meat then the FDA isnt controling your food source either. However the millions of people who live in the city, who buy from mass chain supermarkets such as walmart or sams club ect. are buying FDA controlled meat. Also,  ANY fast food chain like McDonalds is serving the same FDA regulated meat...Now to answer your question Caniswalensis..Because of the mass demand for meat of all types there are very large meat farming processing plants. They are regulated by the FDA(ergo the government).The problem is that much like BP and the oil spill, the FDA employees are bought or way to cozy with the heads of these meat processors. So many rules, regulations and just commom decency are overlooked and ignored. Now lets look at the conditions in the processing plants. First the animals are not treated with any respect.They stand in tightly caged in areas all their life.Most of the time stand up to their bellies in their own crap. Standing in there own crap for weeks or months at a time has caused rampant Ecoli. They are treated so inhumnaly in these places, that that alone makes for depressed or unhappy animals.Secondly thier food source...Corn is fed to all animals, however  because of the great demand for corn scientists genetically altered corn so it will produce large amounts per acre. However it has been proven that genetically altered corn is high in fat and cholesterol. All of the giant processing plants feed their animals this corn to fatten them.The animals recieve very little hay. Hay is very important because it helps curb diseases like Ecoli..The genetically altered corn also causes high levels of cholesterol in meat....Now lets look at the happy  or content animal thing. Scientists have also proven beyond shadow of doubt that content animals have lower amounts of fat and cholesterol and that also the meat is just more healthy. When looking at depressed or processing plant meat, there are high levels of hormones that due not exist in happy animals....Due to Ecoli outbreaks at the processing plants, large amounts of antibiotics and steroids are used on the animals. They are butchered not long after this,remnants of the antibiotics and steroids remain in the meat until eaten. In one processing plant in particular, they had a large outbreak of Ecoli, They had already butchered and processed a lot of animals there answer to fix this problem wasnt to stop butchering and to give the animals more hay. Instead they decided to spray the meat down with Amonia. The FDA never did anything about this and they never shut that plant down. Many people every year get Ecoli, and get really sick and some die. Many different scientists and farners and other notable minds say we could easily have an Ecoli attack from one of those processing plants. The meat moves out so fast that if the strain of Ecoli was powerful enough, hundreds of thousands could die before anything was done.. Some say its not if, but when..If this were to happen the FDA would act so slowly that many would die, if they acted at all. We have already had outbreaks of Ecoli, in one case a very young child died do to eating a hamburger. The parents traced the burger back to a processing plant but the FDA would not shut the plant down or investigate. The parents went before congress. their fight still continues....In a slightly different direction. As corrupt as the FDA is, If they wanted create a meat shortage, they easily could.  When we look at control, in the early 70s,  McDonalds started getting very cozy with the FDA. That was the beginning of creating the mass processing plants, do to McDonalds need for a mass amount of meat. In the 70s, 75% of meat was grown by local farmers. Today 75% of the meat in this nation comes from processing plants. During the 70s many of the small farmers were pursecuted by the FDA to the point in which the quit selling meat to people like McDonalds. At the same time a blind eye was turned toward the largely growing processing plants. Also at about this time the meat cutters union was broken. This aided the large processing plants as the could now work workers harder and pay them less.One last thing here The FDA is also responsible for monitoring prescription drug companies. However do to the fact that some senators own controling interests in those companies and the drug companies are very cozy with the FDA, we have had many drugs used on the American public that have not been tested nearly enough..thats also led to a mass of antidepressants....(<but thats a discussion for another time)...Ive not nearly hit all the basses on government control of our food. But i hope you see the picture.. Sorry to all that i took so much space, but it takes some explaining on a complex issue..
erysian   posted:6/7/2010 7:26:46 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
Chriswin2010  posted:5/20/2010 9:35:13 PM  (Reply)
Hello, i just wanted to inform everyone that 70% of our oxygen comes from surface algae in the ocean and plankton, if that oil spreads to a significant surface area our atmospheric oxygen will be depleted by 70%, and we will be having problems with breathing and possible stunted growth, what do you think about this? Here is an article that I found, there are more precise evaluations and I researched this a long time ago, our trees on land do not account for much oxygen as out ocean.
I think you're on the right track with the bit about the algae providing around 70% of our oxygen, you just forgot one key detail in that prediction:the oil would have to spread to destroy EVERY BIT OF SURFACE ALGAE ON EARTH. Our oxygen isn't going anywhere, though it is awfully polluted these days.
Chriswin2010   posted:6/7/2010 11:43:41 PM  (Reply)

In Reply To:
erysian  posted:6/7/2010 7:26:46 PM  (Reply)
I think you're on the right track with the bit about the algae providing around 70% of our oxygen, you just forgot one key detail in that prediction:the oil would have to spread to destroy EVERY BIT OF SURFACE ALGAE ON EARTH. Our oxygen isn't going anywhere, though it is awfully polluted these days.
Not really, if that oil spill increases the PH of the ocean by a small percentage everything in the ocean will die, and there are multiple factors in this case that you probably haven't thought about...


Please log in or become a member to add a post.