quote: I kinda doubt that conclusion. It does not necessarily logically follow based upon the quote from Gray's. The lacteals contain chyle and function to absorb the fats and fat soluable vitamins. It seems more likely that the water would be absorbed elsewhere.
Goey: The best I've been able to find out is that 80% of the water we consume enters the body at the small intestines. It's a guess that 2/3 of this water goes directly into the lacteals and 1/3 goes into the blood stream, and that guess is based on the relative size of each "pipe", circulatory and lymph, that comes out of each villi. It assumes that there are plenty of aquaporin to let the water pass through the blood membrane, because, if not, much more would go directly into the lacteal system that has no such membrane to restrict it from entering.
As an aside, it seems that the tongue is filled with lymphatics and so no doubt some water we drink gets into the body right at the tongue and gums and mouth. No doubt more gets absorbed as we swallow and in the stomach. But evidently 80% remains to be absorbed in the small intestine. Otherwise, it seems to me, we'd all have the runs all the time and no solid feces at all. Granted that the bowel reabsorbs water that is secreted with bile just below the stomach, but if it also had to absorb the water we drink as well, it seems it would soon be overwhelmed.
Anyway, I'll be happy to be corrected if you find a more definative work on how the water we drink gets absorbed by the body. At this point all I really know is that it doesn't all get absorbed by the blood stream before it can do any good. The blood system is only half the size of the lymphatic system and so it is fair to assume that twice as much water is in it as is in the blood system.
How all the water we drink (about 3 pounds (48 ounces) a day in the average person) gets to every place in the body so that the body is kept at an average composition of 60% water, is still way beyond me to figure out. But I now know that there are all kinds of cross links in the lymph system that are not found in the circulatory system. I also now know that the walls of the lymph system are much thinner and more fragile than those of the circulatory system and so gas (oxygen) transport across them is much easier.
So if we drink a bottle of coke, the water in it will be saturated with carbon dioxide (which is 22 times more solubile in water than oxyygen is) and this carbon dioxide will go whereever water goes. The same applies to to a bottle of oxygen saturated water. The oxygen will go wherever the water goes.
In the first case, the carbon dioxide is unwanted by the body and so the body wants to get rid of it from the time it enters the mouth. Therefore the burps that have been brought up from time to time here, because everyone has had that experience drinking soft drinks.
But in the second case every cell of the body wants the oxygen in the water and so will take it whereever they find it. If the lymph system is filled with carbon dioxide gas in water there can only be trouble. If it's filled with oxygen in water it must lead to good health. Not that it will overcome in an instant any and every disease that has taken years and years to manifest itself, but it is going to help, not hurt- how little or how much it helps remains to be seen, not waited on until the medical profession gets good and ready to tell us.
In fact, this is the principle behind hyperbaric treatment for the bends. With the bends, the nitrogen solubilized in the water of the body under pressure begins to come out of solution as the pressure returns to normal, and this causes nitrogen gas bubbles to form in the blood stream, which then plug it up arteries and cause stroke. The solution is to pressurize the body in a hyperbaric chamber under an oxygen atmosphere, thereby reducing the amount of nitrogen in the blood stream by exhaling it. As the pressure is gradually reduced back to atmospheric, the excess oxygen in the blood, the oxygen needed to displace the excess nitrogen, is used up by the body and so no oxygen gas bubbles form and the victim recovers from the bends.
Unfortunately, the medical profession has limited the use of hyperbarics for most of the past century to cases of the bends instead of everything else it's good for as well. As reported early in this thread, it works for strokes of all kinds and yet when the medicare regs came out in the early 70's it was not approved for stroke victims because "it would break the bank", ie, social security would have been in deep trouble long before now- too many people on social security would have been healed and lived too long for the system to stand.
Around the time I started this thread two friends ended up in the hospital for a week. One, Rich, spent the week with an oxygen tube up his nose. The bills for both of them exceeded $80,000 and neither of them had any surgery but suposedly were there only for observation.
While visiting one evening Rich's doctor came in and I tried to bring up the matter of hyperbaric treatment. He'd been a doctor for many years and only replied that he'd seen one at another local hospital where he'd worked years prior but that doctors had mostly lost interest in the therapy. He said that Rich's problem was not lack of oxygen.
So here I was, looking at Rich with an oxygen tube up his nose and his doctor saying that oxygen was not his problem. That's the arrogance of the medical profession these days. By the end of the week Rich felt much better but the doctor did not prescribe oxygen for him. His problem was congestive heart failure and the doctor didn't seem to think that lack of oxygen had anything to do with it- except he'd ordered a tube stuck up his nose with oxygen coming out of it for a week.
The doctor clearly didn't want to discuss oxygen and immediately started his backward shuffle to get out of the room. So I asked him if he'd done blood gas levels and he said they weren't needed, but allowed that they were easy to do. That's when I knew he was lying because they are not easy to do- especially when the sample has to be passed through lots of hands before testing so that everyone can share in the $80,000 bill. Plasma oxygen must be measured immediately as it keeps being used up on it's way to the lab.
Anyway, the doctors parting shot when he reached the door was "ve vill put that out of our minds". Five minutes max he was in the room.
Along these lines, recently I read that over half of the bankrupcies in this country last year were middle class families with health insurance that had to declare bankrupcy because their share of the medical bills was too much for them to handle. After seeing the huge stack of bills for Rich and Mary Ann, I don't doubt that for a minute. And, what's worse, is that every page says to report fraud and overbilling, except that if one does that, Medicare and Medicaid will simply not pay the bill and leave it to folks like Rich and Mary Ann to pay it themselves and be forced into bankrupcy. And that's just one story of many that I know.
So do I hate the medical profession, you bet I do. I've met fine doctors but would be surprised it more than ten percent of doctors in general are even honest let alone capable. But $80,000 for a weeks stay for two at Hotel Hospital, does put the cost of oxygenated water into perspective in a hurry. Rich and Mary Ann didn't even have their own room but had to visit each other when they could down the hall.
quote: So do I hate the medical profession, you bet I do. I've met fine doctors but would be surprised it more than ten percent of doctors in general are even honest let alone capable.
Please explain to us then why the numbers of those who actually do suffer at the hands of doctors don't statistically coincide with the work of this supposed other 90% who are supposedly quacks?
Thanks for answering my question, even if it has been done in such a round-about, 'talk to another person to avoid directly answering the first' manner. (Which is kinda rude, doncha think?)
And painting the whole (even 90%) medical profession with such a broad brush after getting lousy treatment from a few (thats right, a few) bad apples, is like blaming all engineers due to the flawed designs (and ones begging for lawsuits) of the few crackpots, ... wouldn't you agree?
Oh, and from what I hear, engineers don't do so shabby in the $$$$ making department either. Plus engineers don't have the finacial burden of being required to have pricey malpractice insurance (like ALL medical doctors are required to have) to practice their trade. So you might calculate that into your 'anti-A.M.A.' formula while you're at it.
Heh! Hate the medical profession do ya? Just wait till you have to require the services of a surgeon, ... then where will you be, hmmm? Kinda like the guy who damns all attorneys, ..... until he needs one. ;)-->
Please explain to us then why the numbers of those who actually do suffer at the hands of doctors don't statistically coincide with the work of this supposed other 90% who are supposedly quacks?
GarthP: Since you are so starved for attention and recognition on this thread I'll give you some, in the hope that you'll finally shut up and not clutter the place with everything but questions or comments on on oxygenated water.
Actually I'm quite surprised that you didn't latch onto the word hate and launch into a dissertation on how we should love everyone and everything. Then your fellow-travelers could list all the scriptures of what God hates and everyone could suffer through another hundred posts before finding any more information about oxygenated water.
But, alas, you chose to focus on my 90% rule (ie. only 10% of any given group of people are firing on all cylinders at any given time- that's my theory of relativity in case you didn't know). Then you just have to change it as in the above quote from you. I didn't say that 90% of medical doctors were quacks. So please cease and desist from puting words in my mouth. I'm quite capable of choosing my own words, even though, in hind sight, my statement might have been better said by saying that I hated what the medical profession had become- the snake oil salesmen of the twentieth and twenty first centuries- pills and the knife.
There are two things I recall that God hates, a lying tongue and feet that run to mischief. Do consider that the next time you want to distort what I say or strain out gnats and swallow camels.
To the rest of you, sorry again for the interruption. The problem generally in talking about gasses, weither oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or most others, is that one can't see them, can't smell them, feel them, weight them, or even determine that they exist except indirectly. It wasn't until oxygen was discovered, and determined to be only 21% of the weight of air, that we even knew it existed. Of course it existed since Adam, we just didn't know it.
We know there is air in our tires because we hear something coming out when one gets punctured by a nail. And we know a little about pressure because the tire is flat when all the air leaks out and it's inflated again when we get it fixed. The guy that fixes it might even ask you how much pressure you want in your tire because the ride is a little better if the pressure is 28 psi. But you get better gas milage (even if only a little better) if your tires are inflated to 32 psi. So it's our choice- provided we stay within the limits that the tire was designed for. It always tells you in the fine print on the tire.
Then there's the matter of how fast or how slow something happens, it's rate- as in the hourly rate you get paid for work. It physicaly takes time to do anything. With computer chips they talk about nanoseconds, which is one billionth of a second. Not much time but time nevertheless.
In the case of water saturated with oxygen under an oxygen atmosphere, how long all the oxygen remains in the water once the bottle is opened and left with air above it depends on a number of things, chief of which are temperature of both the water and the air above it, and the time relationship of the composition of the air immediately above the water. In other words, just because the air in your kitchen is 21% oxygen, that doesn't mean that the air at the surface of the water is 21% oxygen- simply because oxygen is coming out of the water and making the air at the surface much richer in oxygen than that in the room generally.
So if you asked me how long water with 75 ppm oxygen in it will stay at 75 ppm, I'd reply that it would be less than that in a matter of minutes, even if you kept the water near freezing. If you asked me how long it stayed above 40 ppm I'd say at least overnight (again assuming the water was kept close to freezing). If you asked me how long it would take for the oxygen content to get down to 15 ppm (where many of the bottled water oxygen contents are to begin with) I'd say days.
If you asked me how long it would take for the oxygen content to get down to the same amount as is in your tap water (0-8 ppm), I'd likely say weeks, if not months!
There's another factor that's involved, namely the relative solubilities of oxygen and nitrogen in water. Nitrogen is less soluble in water than oxygen is. And so, even with 79% nitrogen and only 21% oxygen above the water/air interface, it takes longer than one would expect for the nitrogen to again replace oxygen in water. You might say that water loves oxygen more than it loves nitrogen. So it hangs onto oxygen as long as it can before nitrogen overwhelms it. It's the reason I was so surprised that oxygenated water stayed above 40 ppm in a horses water bucket over night (starting out at 75 ppm).
As I mentioned a few posts ago, carbon dioxide is 22 times as soluble in water than oxygen is. Fortunately air doesn't contain very much carbon dioxide. In fact there is so little carbon dioxide in air that it's just included in the "other" when one wants to get more precise than 21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen. Actually, the 79% nitrogen is only 78% nitrogen and the "other" is 1%. Of the "other" the vast majority is argon. So that leaves only a very little of a very little that is left for carbon dioxide.
For those of you who may not know, the solid form of carbon dioxide is dry ice. You can make your own soft drink by throwing a little piece of dry ice into water and adding some sugar and whatever tasty thing you like- like lemon or lime, or whatever. I'm not recommending it because the body really doesn't want any more CO2. But if you have access to dry ice it's cheaper than buying soft drinks at the store. Just don't put a cap on the concoction before all the dry ice is gone or you're likely to have the bottle burst on you and a mess all over the place- sort of like opening a can of coke or pepsi that's warm and has been dropped!
Finally, to give you a picture of what happens to an open or closed bottle, allow me to tell yet another story.
I had occassion to teach a high school chemistry class back in the mid 79's for a couple of months and we were getting into the matter of vapor pressure. So I took an empty gallon can (like the square gallon cans one used to keep gasoline in) put an inch or two of water in the bottom, and asked the class what they thought would happen if I heated the water to boiling, screwed the top on, and then put the can into cold water.
Some speculated that the can would blow up, others said that nothing would happen, and I don't think anybody even suspected that a pair of invisable hands would descend from heaven and crush that can. So after they were through speculating I got the water to boiling, so that one could see steam coming out the spout. The steam drove out all the air above the water so that all that was left in the can was water vapor and liquid water- both at 212 F.
When I put the cap on and cooled both the vapor and water, the temperature dropped to the point that a vacuum was created in the can as the vapor went back to liquid water. The demonstration was dramatic- just like an ivisable pair of hands crushed the can.
So one of the students asked what would happen if I again heated the water with the cap on. So I said, "Let's see". As the water heated up the vapor pressure again increased and ever so slowly the can started to undo the damage caused by the invisable hands. Don't know what the pressure was inside since I didn't have a pressure gauge attached to it. Couldn't have been much. But before the can got back to it's original shape it sprung a leak and with it a psssst with a pin point jet of steam coming out. They all dove under their desks!
They were in no danger at all, but thought they were. And so it appears to be on this thread about oxygenated water. If one doesn't have a feel for what a millimeter of mercury pressure is, or a psi, one can easily figure that one of them can cause an explosion. Just like the comments about oxygen in the room or the refrigerator on this thread. Fact is that if you have a candle burning in the living room and you replace the air in the room with pure oxygen, the candle will burn five times as fast, maybe even a little faster than that since the flame temperature will go up. But it won't explode the room. And it won't light a candle that is not burning. Oxygen is the agent that causes combustable things to burn, it does not burn itself. It is to be used with caution for that very reason, things burn five times faster if they are set on fire in an oxygen atmosphere rather than in air.
On the other side of the coin, someone using oxygen from an oxygen generator should be aware that they are consuming the oxygen in the room and increasing the nitrogen concentration as the oxygen generator seperates the two- if they don't have adequate ventilation to the room. In the extreme, you'll notice that the lit candle will go out!
But opening a window or door, even in the dead of winter, has been a easy solution to that problem for a very long time. Nothing like a breath of fresh air. And due to another gas law, or rather a combination of them, PV=nRT, one can readily see that if the pressure is atmospheric, and the volume of the room doesn't change, then an inflow of very cold air will increase the oxygen concentration much faster than if it is warm air coming in. (in the "puvnert" equation n represents the mass of air/oxygen, R is a constant, so that if T goes down, n must go up, given that both P and V are constant.) (Sorry about that mathmatics, I've tried to keep it to a minimum but just couldn't help myself.)
Starved for attention and recognition, am I? Is that all you care to render me as? My good man, the reason for my repeated questions is because you wouldn't answer them the first time around, and I believed them to be honest enough questions to deserve being dealt with. Plus I find it kind of odd that the questions you only want to deal with are the 'friendly' ones, the ones that pose no challenge. (Kinda like the President, sorry to say) Sorry guy, but a real scientist/doctor/engineer can't have it that way.
Plus my comments do relate to oxygenated water; as far as dealing with how you deal with others who challenge your views on the topic. See (and think about) my first post in this thread, and you'll see.
quote:
But, alas, you chose to focus on my 90% rule (ie. only 10% of any given group of people are firing on all cylinders at any given time- that's my theory of relativity in case you didn't know). Then you just have to change it as in the above quote from you. I didn't say that 90% of medical doctors were quacks. So please cease and desist from puting words in my mouth. ...
Davey, stating "I've met fine doctors but would be surprised it more than ten percent of doctors in general are even honest let alone capable." IS portraying that 90% of the medical profession are quacks, because what is a quack but a doctor who is incapable and dishonest, hmmm? But I notice that even here you caught yourself and revise your position to say:
quote:
... even though, in hind sight, my statement might have been better said by saying that I hated what the medical profession had become- the snake oil salesmen of the twentieth and twenty first centuries- pills and the knife.
Well, sort of. Now you seem to think your position redeemed in that you don't think of them as quacks, but ONLY as 'snake oil salesmen'. ... ((whew)) Boy that was close, huh?
Sorry Charlie, no sale.
So since God hates the lying tongue and feet that run to mischief, and since you are doing some fancy dishonest dancing on your own, even right in the middle of your last post here, ..... does that mean that God hates YOU? -->
You knoew a lot about engineering and related topics, I'll give you credit for that (See? I can be fair). But I wouldn't DARE put your ((cough)) 'honest' medical knowledge and skills up against 99% of the medical community, including even many of the genuine quacks. Why?
You'd lose, chief. ..... Badly
........ and so would your potential patients. :(-->
So if you asked me how long water with 75 ppm oxygen in it will stay at 75 ppm, I'd reply that it would be less than that in a matter of minutes, even if you kept the water near freezing. If you asked me how long it stayed above 40 ppm I'd say at least overnight (again assuming the water was kept close to freezing). If you asked me how long it would take for the oxygen content to get down to 15 ppm (where many of the bottled water oxygen contents are to begin with) I'd say days.
What if you poured the water into a mixture of hydrochloric acid and assorted enzymes in a 100 degree environment and kept the whole mess churning constantly?
There's been something nagging at the corner of my mind about this stupid oxywater junk the whole time, but I just figured out what it is.
Even though blood plasma is mostly water, it already has quite a lot of stuff dissolved in it--salt, glucose, various minerals like potassium, calcium, magnesium, etc. It's also relatively hot--98.6 degrees Fahrenheit/37 Celsius. In other words, the solubility of oxygen in plasma must be even less than its solubility in distilled water--and it is. According to the Anesthesiology department at the University of Virginia, arterial blood plasma can only carry 3 milligrams of dissolved O2 per liter. That's a grand total of 3 ppm, period. Three. Not 45 or 60, THREE. In fact, 98% of all the oxygen in your bloodstream is bound to hemoglobin in red blood cells, not dissolved in plasma.
Now, David likes to try to bury unsupportive evidence under a mountain of haughty, smarter-than-thou, pseudo-scientific doublespeak, but all his logorrhea can't cover up the plain truth. He likes to tout oxygenated water (bunk) in the same breath as hyperbaric oxygen treatments (which do have legitimate medical uses). Now, yes, if you increase the pressure, you can get more oxygen to dissolve in blood plasma. HOWEVER, drinking fizzy water can't do the same thing, because no matter what the partial pressure of oxygen is at the water's surface, the partial pressure of the surrounding atmosphere is lower. Hence, the oxygenated water must start outgassing its oxygen in order to reach equilibrium with the surrounding environment. The oxygen comes out of the water, but it has nowhere to go. It can't be dissolved into blood plasma because the plasma is already saturated. If any survived the trip through the lymphatic system, the only place for the oxygen to go is into the hemoglobin of red blood cells. The easy test to see if the oxygen level is rising is to check the color of your veins. If any excess oxygen were available, the venous blood should be less blue. If it were enough to keep the system saturated, your veins would almost turn invisible through your pink skin. (Reddish veins are also a symptom of carbon monoxide poisoning, so beware...)
There's another problem. If the carbon dioxide level in the blood drops below a certain level, serious health problems will result from respiratory alkalosis. Ever feel light-headed from blowing up party balloons--that's a mild form of CO2 deficiency. Hyperventilating does the same thing--so much so that a sufferer can pass out from CO2 loss. If the plasma has more oxygen dissolved in it than leaves it room for dissolved CO2, the body will go into the same type of alkalotic shock.
Too much CO2 is even more dangerous. Since David claims that carbon dioxide is many times more soluble in water than oxygen (and that's true), drinking a Coke with 900 ppm of dissolved carbon dioxide should trigger hyperventilation to blow off the excess CO2 going into the lymph, but strangely enough, that doesn't happen. The answer why should be obvious...
Bottom line, there's just no way for oxygenated water to give the same effect as a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, no matter how petulant and childish some self-described "engineer" becomes.
HELLO Zixar! Maybe we're finally getting somewhere. If you rethink your last post realizing that the saturation of oxygen in water at 100 F is not 3 but 6.8 ppm, you'll see exactly what I have been talking about for the last two months.
The number you call saturated (3 ppm) is the maximum concentration that can be delivered when healthy hemoglobin drops it's oxygen off into the plasma at a capillary, because hemoglobin cannot deliver oxygen at a pressure greater than 39 mm Hg. As we age that goes down, and down, and down- unless we drink oxygenated water!
So in the air, the oxygen partial pressure is 21% of 760 mm Hg or 160 mm Hg. By the time it gets into the alveolus of the lungs it's only about 105 mm Hg. By the time it gets into the arterial system it is only about 95 mm Hg and by the time it gets through the capillaries and is knocking on the door of the capillary wall, including the oxygen furnished by the unloading of hemoglobin, it is only a maximum of 39 mm Hg (ie. only 3 ppm oxygen generally in the plasma). The drop of pressure in the capillaries is by far the larget single oxygen pressure drop in the whole circulatory system- from 95 to 39 mm Hg.
But then it must cross the capillary membrane and get into the interstitial fluid, which drops it further to about 25 mm Hg. It drops further in pressure as it crosses the cell membrane so that in the cystol, knocking at the door of the mitochondria, where it is actually used for combustion (metabolism) it is 10 mm Hg down to zero mm Hg. And it is this range, 0- 10 mm Hg that is the difference between life and death.
The lecture notes in front of me give as reading assignment, West, J.B. "Respiratory Physiology- The Essentials" (4th Ed.) and Mines, AH., "Respiratory Physiology", Raven Press, Chapters 4, 5, & 6. The lecture was by a Dr. Baer, entitled, "Oxygen & Carbon Dioxide Transport By Blood". Hopefully you can find it with your search engine as I don't know the site location. The paper is 16 pages long and is excellent.
But now let's say you drink a 16 oz bottle of water that is nice and cold, say 40 F, is saturated with oxygen (which is about 65 ppm at 40 F) and do so on an empty stomach. Even if you drink it all at once, you will not burp. And if you are standing or sitting upright, the water has about an 18 inch drop to get to the small intestines. It probably won't get to the small intestines as fast as merely pouring the water out in front of you from the height of the mouth, but from Pakdaman's work of long ago, it appears that the plasma oxygen concentration goes up about 18% in a matter of five minutes or so and stays there for about an hour. So the processing of the water and the oxygen with it starts pretty darn fast.
Since you can feel the cold water going down to the stomach it appears that it doesn't warm all the way up to 100F before reaching the small intestines. But lets say it warms half the way up before reaching there. Still one does not burp, meaning that any oxygen that comes out of the water as the temperature rises (say 65 ppm to 35 ppm) gets absorbed by the tissues lining the mouth, tongue, stomach, etc. and the water they are immersed in. Actually, my guess is that the few seconds it takes to get to the small intestine doesn't heat 16 oz. of water much at all. And once there it goes wherever the pressure gradient is highest. As one paper I read said, the body will take care of it's pressure requirements before all else- including the pressure gradient from water with oxygen at close to 760 mm Hg to plasma at 39 mm Hg in the capillaries and to water in the interstitial space that is only about 30 mm Hg.
But before you get to thinking that this can kill you, think again. Hyperbaric therapy begins above 760 mm Hg oxygen partial pressure. And the literature published by the medical doctors in that field state that people can be kept alive that have no hemoglobin function if they can get the plasma oxygen concentration above 30 ppm. The hyperbaric pressure needed to do that is 30 divided by 6.8 (the solubility of oxygen in fresh water at 100 F) or 4.4 atmospheres. I'm not recommending that at all and have no interest in becoming a medical doctor. I'm just saying that people with no hemoglobin function whatsoever can be kept alive in a hyperbaric chamber if the plasma oxygen concentration can be gotten above 30 ppm. It's been done.
In the hypothetical case above, drinking a cold glass of oxygen saturated water, remember that we are not overwhelming the body's ability to handle it at all. As I said early on in this thread, the body is 60% water and so a 200# person will consist of 120# of water on average. We're adding 1# to 120#, or less than 1%, to the water content of the body. But if the 120# of water, whether in the circulatory system, the lymph system, the interstitial spaces or in the cells themselves (which, by the way contain two thirds of the body's water), contains on average 3 ppm oxygen, and we add 1# containing 65 ppm, the resulting average oxygen concentration in the body's water now becomes (120x3 + 65x1)/121 or 3.5 ppm-still way below the saturation point. That's a 17% increase in all the water in the body and it's going to help you not hurt you.
How long it takes to get everywhere in the body, and how it gets there remains to be seen, whether through the lymph system, circulatory system, directly into the intestitial spaces, or directly into the cells it first meets on it's way down the hatch, and in what ratios, the fact is that it does do so.
So just put 6.8 where you figured saturation was 3 and report back. Thanks for the input.
Ok, you've still got some stuff you haven't accounted for.
1) The stomach is not always open to the duodenum--because of the pyloric valve.
2) Water reabsorption takes place mainly in the large intestine, not the small.
3) Water absorption is not 100% efficient.
4) Plasma is not water. It has enough other stuff dissolved in it that its oxygen carrying capacity is feeble. Hence, hemoglobin. Raising the oxygen content of plasma requires maintaining a pressure above normal equilibrium, and even if it could be done with water, the binding sites on deoxygenated hemoglobin have a high enough affinity for oxygen that the majority of any possible excess oxygen delivered into the bloodstream would simply reoxygenate depleted hemoglobin--pink veins.
5) Explain the mechanism by which age affects hemoglobin function.
6) The big craze in alternative medicine a few years back was "antioxidants" like vitamin E, etc. Apparently, free oxygen in the body was a menace not too long ago--and the proponents of antioxidants were just as fervent about their claims as you are. You can't both be right, so who's to tell?
Ok, you've still got some stuff you haven't accounted for
Zixar: I'm still waiting on you to redo your previous post and admit that the solubility of oxygen in the water fraction of of the blood, the plasma, is much more than 3 ppm.
I'm also waiting on you to answer Oldiesman's questions. In the mean time I'll merely point out that resorption in the bowel, of the water secreted with bile for digestion, is different than absorption of water in the small intestine on an empty stomach. It remains that 80% of the water we drink is absorbed in the small intestine, not the bowel.
I'm also waiting on you to admit that oxygen in welding grade oxygen bottles is the same as oxygen in medical grade oxygen bottles.
I'm also waiting on you to admit that the majority of water we drink goes into the lymph system and gets distributed to the entire body without necessarily having to go into the circulatory system first.
And it would be helpful if you admitted that every molecule of the oxygen we breathe has to get dissolved in water (the plasma) in the lungs before it can even get close to hemoglobin in a red blood cell. In other words, hemoglobin is not the be all and end all of oxygen transport in the body but is rather a subset of that transport, even though a very important one.
Granted that hemoglobin loading and unloading is a facinating study in itself, but so also is the lymph system, and you apparently still don't want to talk about that in any detail.
Come to think about it, seems that with the discussion of the lacteals and all the other lymph nodes in the body that are part of the lymph system, that you aught to admit that the lymph system is not limited to "leakage" from the capillaries going right back to the blood system.
As for Long Gone's question of all the hydrochloric acid in the stomach and enzymes secreted for digestion, perhaps you should address that as well. I rather suspect that the pyloric valve closes when the stomach is full of food, not necessarily when we drink water on an empty stomach.
Reports on drinking oxygenated water on a full stomach, or while eating, indicate that there is no positive effect on performance in horses. But there is a positive effect when consumed on an empty stomach (and every athlete knows that you work out on an empty stomach, not a full one.) It seems that about all oxygen does on a full stomach is neutralize hydrochloric acid- no damage, but then no help either. Bile secreted in the duodinum during digestion does a good job of neutralizing acid, and I rather suspect that the main function of the pyloric valve is to regulate how much food is emptied into the small intestine and when.
Zixar, I am taking Alpha Lipoic Acid, which is an antioxidant.
Are you saying that the use of Penta and other oxygenated water works against these antioxidants?
Also are free radicals the same as "free oxygen"?
Hello Oldiesman. Since it's been a week now that Zixar has not answered your questions, allow me to take a shot at them.
First of all, from the "flavor" of all of Zixar's previous posts, his "free oxygen" comment appears to be more smoke and mirrors designed to confuse the issue and put molecular oxygen in the category of "free radicals", oxygen free radicals" and "reactive oxygen species".
Fact is that molecular oxygen, O2, is neither free nor a radical. We either pay the energy cost required to get it into our system by breathing, or, as suggested in this thread, we can pay the cost of maximizing it's presence in water and then drinking it. The second option does not replace the first, but it does inhance it by increasing the partial pressure and concentration of oxygen in the entire body- while at the same time increasing our hydration level as well. A bonifide two-for-one deal!
Secondly, molecular oxygen is not a radical, it is a molecule. A radical is part of a molecule, and the term "free radical" is used of those distructive ions (radicals) that participate in one reaction and then move on to participate in another, and another, as they do their destructive work. "Oxygen free radicals" are ions that contain oxygen.
Finally, the term "reactive oxygen speces" seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to include molecular oxygen in the category of "free radical" when it is not. In the nature of problem solving, the problem cannot be the solution as well. Molecular oxygen is the solution to the body's problems, not their cause.
Regarding your second question about antioxidants, the class of chemical reactions called "redox" reactions (oxidation-reduction reactions) involves two or more molecules reacting with each other such that one is oxidized and the other reduced. There may be no oxygen involved in the reaction at all. I suppose that oxygen was used as the zero point on the oxidation scale because it is so common.
For example, in extractive metallurgy, many metals begin their journey from being in the ground as sulfide ores. A common process for concentrating these ores is to grind them fine and bubble them up through water with a pinch of this or that (eg. pine tar) added to the water as wetting agents that will captivate the sulfide ore so it attaches to an air bubble. The air bubbles do nothing to the gangue- so the sulfide ore floats to the top on the bubbles and the gangue stays on the bottom. It is entirely a physical process, not a chemical one.
But once the ore is concentrated, it then goes into a furnace and various fluxes are added, including carbon. The metalic ion is reduced to metal (ie. the metalic ion gets electrons to negate it's positive charge) and the sulfide loses it's excess electrons and is oxidixed.
And so, the class of foods called antioxidants are those that work against free radical formation. For example, iron has a great affinity for oxygen, as anybody who ever lived in Cleveland during the chrome plated car bumper era knows. Given a few short years, many cars had the iron in the bumpers completely chewed away by the salt water from the roads in winter time and the oxygen it contained, so that only the plate- of copper, nickel and chrome- remained hanging on.
What people may not know is that at the surface of a piece of iron left out to rust, the color is reddish brown, the color of Fe+3. But if one takes a miner's pick and hammers on the rust, underlying the reddish brown will be black Fe+2 (the reduced form of iron oxide). The surface is Fe+3 (the oxidized form of iron oxide). And the dirty rotten iron atom goes easily from +2 to +3 valence and back again and so is a worthy oxygen transport system to take the oxygen from the air to the good metal hidden beneith all that rust- particularly in a salt water solution. The copper, nickel, chrome plate has no such mechanism and so survives long after the iron has all turned to rust.
So also, in hemoglobin the iron ion in the heme molecule needs to be in the +2 valence state in order for it to pick up oxygen and transport it. If it is in the +3 state it is called methemoglobin and can hold no oxygen. So Fe+2 is the reduced state (closer to metal) and Fe+3 is the oxidized state. Although I am no expert on antioxidants and their role in the body, it seems apparent that, for one thing, they would tend to keep the iron ion in hemoglobin in the +2 state rather than the +3 state where it can do no good.
Along these lines, the hemoglobin molecule is shaped like a bean, C shaped if you will. But it has two states, a closed one and an open one, and O or a C. While traveling through the blood stream it is in the O state and only opens to the C state to grab onto oxygen in the lungs or when it is squeezed in the capillary to give up one or more oxygen molecules.
The dynamics of hemoglobin loading depends on how much oxygen is around to be grabbed onto, the plasma oxygen concentration, but also depends on the water quality around it, since it'a ability to load requires that water line the inside of the C before oxygen can get to the heme group.
In the blood stream generally, the iron would soon be oxidized to the +3 state if the "bean" did not stay tightly closed- oxygenated water or no oxygenated water. And so hemoglobin does quite an acrobatic act as it flows through the body- and too much iron in the system is as bad as not enough iron in the system. Like most things in the body, and in life as well, it's quite a balancing act.
My experience with oxygenated water is that it helps this balancing act, not hurts it in the least. Hypoxia (too little oxygen) is the problem, not hyperoxia (too much oxygen)! If it were possible to get more than enough oxygen by drinking oxygenated water, (and I don't think it is), the body has a ready system to slow things down- breathe less frequently or less deeply, both of which options mean the body has to expend less energy to breathe and the heart has to pump with less intensity and/or frequency- a very good thing.
Anyway, this whole debate seems to go back and forth from "won't work" to "it's dangerous", depending on the mood of the adverasries. My claim is that it does work and is not dangerous. And that claim comes from knowledge and reason, not blind studies of the blind leading the blind into the ditch.
I don't know of anything that makes antioxidants a "fad". And oxygenated water has been around long enough that it also is not a "fad".
I should warn the medical profession that there are a lot of unemployed engineers around these days due to the systematic efforts to bring America down to the "world class" level (since it is not possible to bring the rest of the world up to where America was in standard of living.) And all these engineers can read and understand what they read every bit as well as medical doctors can. Some may even go to the bother of learning yet another foreign language, medicalese.
Even the old "sawbones" (surgeons) can't blow much smoke in our faces any more, given the internet, even though the engineers I know would much rather cut on metal than cut on people. I respect a sergeon's skill with a scalpel, but if they want to claim that what we eat, drink, and breathe is their exclusive domain to determine, they'd better go back to school and learn these areas because they didn't learn them in medical school. And, it seems to me, we're fast aproaching the time when no one can afford medical insurance or the high cost of medical care, and so we'd better take our health back into our own hands or we'll surely end up both broke and dead.
Hope that helps Oldiesman. We're a week closer to spring and motorcycle riding time!
Anyway, this whole debate seems to go back and forth from "won't work" to "it's dangerous", depending on the mood of the adverasries.
For the record, my assessment is that it is probably not dangerous, but that it most likely doesn't work - at least not by the process that you have claimed it works. Your process/explanation defies/contradicts known biological processes.
quote:
My claim is that it does work and is not dangerous. And that claim comes from knowledge and reason, not blind studies of the blind leading the blind into the ditch.
David, your claim, as I see it, comes from not from knowledge and reason, but rather from anecdotal evidence and a speculative process backed in to support a preconcieved conclusion/ belief based upon that anecdotal evidence.
Your portrayal of good research techniques in the form of double blind studies as the "blind leading the blind" only makes me tend to disbelieve even more. Double blind studies serve to remove the bias of the researcher - something you seem to disapprove of. I wonder why.
For the record, my assessment is that it is probably not dangerous, but that it most likely doesn't work
quote:
Double blind studies serve to remove the bias of the researcher - something you seem to disapprove of. I wonder why.
Goey: Your second comment is largely answered by your first. If something is not dangerous, why would their need to be any double blind studies?
As I've stated, these kind of studies are not in the realm of science but rather in the realm of probability and statistics. They do not show cause and effect like physics, chemistry, and the other exact sciences do. Engineers do not use them because engineers are required to show cause and effect in their designs. In fact, I cannot think of a single engineering course through college that even introduced the concept of P numbers. I only know about them because of the various statistics courses I took as electives- "an estimate that the probability of a hypotheses being true is correct".
Fact is that I'm appauled at all the pill ads on TV these days and especially their disclaimers- "don't take this if you have liver, kidney, etc., problems and if in doubt consult your doctor", and then the common side effects listed, nausea, high blood pressure, diaherrea, constipation, etc.- all of which speak to the danger, not the safety, of the pills. And these all have passed the test of "pear reviewed", "properly designed", "published" (in an acceptable journal- preferably the New England Journal of Medicine backed by Harvard), "AMA approved" tests that are commonly double blinded, crossover tests. The "proven effective" is merely an add on to the main reason for the study, to show they are "safe" inspite of the fact that they are not 100% safe, merely 95%, 99.5%, or 99.9% safe under "normal" conditions- which means they are not safe!
As far as your comment about removing bias, get real. These studies are funded by folks wanting to make money and greed is the biggest bias of all!
Finally, the word ANECDOTAL, in its original sense means a secret history, or facts not generally known. If you doubt that, just look up the word in Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). It has come to mean of questionable validity by the same folks that brought you statistical horsedang in the guise of science. So cut the crap about "anecdotal evidence" and limit your questions to evidence without the slur word in front of it. I've reported plenty of evidence and none of it is in the private domain.
The biggest evidence is all that bottled water on grocery shelves these days- at least some of which- Dissanti, Aquafina, Penta Water, in particular- have oxygen added. My thesis is that the added oxygen is the reason why for years now there has been more space allotted to water on grocery shelves than 20 or 30 years ago. This is observable fact, not anecdotal evidence. And that fact alone shows the stupidity of the argument that one should not drink oxygenated water until the medical profession gets good and ready to endorse it.
But that's not all. You have, on this forum, numerous people, including myself, who have publically stated that they drank oxygenated water and found it benificial. I've even reported that it helped various animals and that they like it and drink more of it than tap or well water. So call us all liars if you will, but don't blow smoke in our faces with the word anecdotal and fear tactics about it not being safe. All the bottled water sold these days speaks to millions of others who have benifited as well, or are at least buying it to try it out. All I know is that on a scale of 1 to 10, I'll bet my money on the medical profession being the bigger rip off artists than the bottled water folks.
But after three months of discussion here, I have yet to hear from anyone that actually made their own oxygenated water (other than Kit Sober, who had been making it for herself long before this thread started.) Obviously money can be made by doing so but that was not my intent in starting this thread and telling everyone how to make it themselves. But the profit motive is a very good reason why bottled water manufacturers, as well as the medical profession, won't tell you that it works or how it works. So get off the double blind study routine. If you currently make the water yourself and sell it for profit, I'll understand your motives for trying to shut this thread down. Otherwise, it would be more helpful to explain to those interested what happens to water when you drink it, oxygenated or not. It is amazing to me the dirth of information on that subject on the internet. I remain at the point that any oxygen dissolved in it will go the same places that water does- until is it used by the body.
For the record, my assessment is that it is probably not dangerous, but that it most likely doesn't work
quote:
Double blind studies serve to remove the bias of the researcher - something you seem to disapprove of. I wonder why.
Goey: Your second comment is largely answered by your first. If something is not dangerous, why would their need to be any double blind studies?
ummm...to see if it works -->
quote:
Finally, the word ANECDOTAL, in its original sense means a secret history, or facts not generally known. If you doubt that, just look up the word in Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). It has come to mean of questionable validity by the same folks that brought you statistical horsedang in the guise of science. So cut the crap about "anecdotal evidence" and limit your questions to evidence without the slur word in front of it. I've reported plenty of evidence and none of it is in the private domain.
Anecdotal isn't a slur word. It just means that it's merely unsupported, not that it's necessarily wrong. --> Telling us that you drank oxy water and felt better is anecdotal evidense. Maybe it was the water that made you feel better, maybe not. In this case we don't know for sure without more information.
quote:
The biggest evidence is all that bottled water on grocery shelves these days- at least some of which- Dissanti, Aquafina, Penta Water, in particular- have oxygen added. My thesis is that the added oxygen is the reason why for years now there has been more space allotted to water on grocery shelves than 20 or 30 years ago. This is observable fact, not anecdotal evidence. And that fact alone shows the stupidity of the argument that one should not drink oxygenated water until the medical profession gets good and ready to endorse it.
The only thing that it's evidense of is that people will buy it. If something is merchandised correctly, it will sell. Hell, we have a saying in the grocery business: "If you put a 'closeout - 50% off' sign on a sack of dang, it will be sold out by the end of the day"
If something is merchandised correctly, it will sell.
Yeah. ... Ohh, like PFAL. ;)-->
And that ain't anecdotal.
Davey, the more you talk, the more questionable is the logic of your basis and claim that the majority of the medical profession is incompetent/dishonest. I don't know what valid objection/experience you had with individual doctors, but that you paint the medical community with such a broad brush as you do definitely doesn't help your credibility any either.
As I've stated, these kind of studies are not in the realm of science but rather in the realm of probability and statistics. They do not show cause and effect like physics, chemistry, and the other exact sciences do.
Physics and chemistry as we know it do not require probablity and statistics, or double blind tests. That is correct.
However biology is also a science, but many studies done with living systems do require them...especially those regarding humans. People have perceptions - they see things and are thinking creatures. Double blind means that when a study is set up, neither the subject nor the clinician knows what treatment the subject is getting. This is done on purpose to remove the possibility of any subtle clues being passed on to the subject...and the subject thereby jumping to conclusions based on this.
This is absolurely necessary since humans are dynamic systems. They change second to second. If a test runs over a period of hours, the patient's body has run through so many processes simultaneously that statistical analyses are necessary. That's the only way to have any verifiable information regarding it.
quote:
engineers do not use them because engineers are required to show cause and effect in their designs. In fact, I cannot think of a single engineering course through college that even introduced the concept of P numbers. I only know about them because of the various statistics courses I took as electives- "an estimate that the probability of a hypotheses being true is correct".
Engineers work with static systems. Once the system is built, there is no possibiity of it's changing.
Statements likethis
quote:
So cut the crap about "anecdotal evidence"
and this
quote:
So get off the double blind study routine
are not only rude, but ignorant.
And it is absolutely true that anecdotal evidence is not a "slur" I is, however inferior just because it has not been supported by the kind of tests needed in human subjects...i.e.double blind studies.
All science begins with anecdotal evidence. When Banting and Best discovered the role of the pancreas and insulin in the body it originated by anecdotal evidence! {ants collected in the runs of dogs who's pancreas was removed whereas no ants collected in the pens of dogs who did not have this done.
I find much of your "enginereize" hard to swallow because it comes with such an air of superiority and condecention. Do you really believe that engineers are on the top of the food chain in scientific endeavors? Because that's what you convey in your acrid abrasive posts.
Goey: Your second comment is largely answered by your first. If something is not dangerous, why would their need to be any double blind studies?
Huh?
Where did you go to school? Danger is not the only thing in question. Good studies change my weak "probably not" to a more definitive probably not - or to even a probably yes.
Double blind studies are not simply used to determine danger as you attempted to suggest. They also serve to determine (as in this case) whether or not there is any scientifically measurable benefit while removing any researcher bias.
I'll dispense with anymore comments on the rest of you dissertation, cause it is quite obvious to me (and should be to anyone else with any education beyond high school) that your understanding of scientific testing processes is quite errant.
God forbid that the drug companies would take your advice and abandon testing their products with double blind studies. We would probably all be sick or dead in no time.
Hey, I've got this really cool new heart medicine. Cures heart diesase. Proof? Tests? Don't need no stinking tests! Thats the blind leading the blind! Tests are stupid and unnecessary! Trust me it works. I took it and my heat disease is cured !
How do I know? Cause I feel better dangit! No, I don't need to have my heart checked - that's silly! I just know the blockage is gone! Why? Cause I feel better and that's all the proof I need!
This stuff is made of special "clusterd alcohol". Alcohol that has been modified by high intensity (104 db) ultrasonic waves at the molecular resonance frequency of ethyl alcohol . When the alcohol is resonated and becomes so modified it has the unique ability to disolve arterial plaque like 409 disolves grease! And hey, you can even make it at yourself at home! Freaking amazing!
Of course the medical profession says it won't work! Idiots!
Besides, they don't want a cure for heart diesase, cause if there was, they would be out of a job! That just makes my point even stronger!
Start with a good stereo (less than .1% total harmonic distortion) and a gallon of Jack Daniel's ....
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
72
106
68
48
Popular Days
Jan 29
30
Apr 26
21
Jan 18
17
Feb 9
16
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 72 posts
David Anderson 106 posts
krys 68 posts
oldiesman 48 posts
Popular Days
Jan 29 2005
30 posts
Apr 26 2005
21 posts
Jan 18 2005
17 posts
Feb 9 2005
16 posts
David Anderson
Goey: The best I've been able to find out is that 80% of the water we consume enters the body at the small intestines. It's a guess that 2/3 of this water goes directly into the lacteals and 1/3 goes into the blood stream, and that guess is based on the relative size of each "pipe", circulatory and lymph, that comes out of each villi. It assumes that there are plenty of aquaporin to let the water pass through the blood membrane, because, if not, much more would go directly into the lacteal system that has no such membrane to restrict it from entering.
As an aside, it seems that the tongue is filled with lymphatics and so no doubt some water we drink gets into the body right at the tongue and gums and mouth. No doubt more gets absorbed as we swallow and in the stomach. But evidently 80% remains to be absorbed in the small intestine. Otherwise, it seems to me, we'd all have the runs all the time and no solid feces at all. Granted that the bowel reabsorbs water that is secreted with bile just below the stomach, but if it also had to absorb the water we drink as well, it seems it would soon be overwhelmed.
Anyway, I'll be happy to be corrected if you find a more definative work on how the water we drink gets absorbed by the body. At this point all I really know is that it doesn't all get absorbed by the blood stream before it can do any good. The blood system is only half the size of the lymphatic system and so it is fair to assume that twice as much water is in it as is in the blood system.
How all the water we drink (about 3 pounds (48 ounces) a day in the average person) gets to every place in the body so that the body is kept at an average composition of 60% water, is still way beyond me to figure out. But I now know that there are all kinds of cross links in the lymph system that are not found in the circulatory system. I also now know that the walls of the lymph system are much thinner and more fragile than those of the circulatory system and so gas (oxygen) transport across them is much easier.
So if we drink a bottle of coke, the water in it will be saturated with carbon dioxide (which is 22 times more solubile in water than oxyygen is) and this carbon dioxide will go whereever water goes. The same applies to to a bottle of oxygen saturated water. The oxygen will go wherever the water goes.
In the first case, the carbon dioxide is unwanted by the body and so the body wants to get rid of it from the time it enters the mouth. Therefore the burps that have been brought up from time to time here, because everyone has had that experience drinking soft drinks.
But in the second case every cell of the body wants the oxygen in the water and so will take it whereever they find it. If the lymph system is filled with carbon dioxide gas in water there can only be trouble. If it's filled with oxygen in water it must lead to good health. Not that it will overcome in an instant any and every disease that has taken years and years to manifest itself, but it is going to help, not hurt- how little or how much it helps remains to be seen, not waited on until the medical profession gets good and ready to tell us.
In fact, this is the principle behind hyperbaric treatment for the bends. With the bends, the nitrogen solubilized in the water of the body under pressure begins to come out of solution as the pressure returns to normal, and this causes nitrogen gas bubbles to form in the blood stream, which then plug it up arteries and cause stroke. The solution is to pressurize the body in a hyperbaric chamber under an oxygen atmosphere, thereby reducing the amount of nitrogen in the blood stream by exhaling it. As the pressure is gradually reduced back to atmospheric, the excess oxygen in the blood, the oxygen needed to displace the excess nitrogen, is used up by the body and so no oxygen gas bubbles form and the victim recovers from the bends.
Unfortunately, the medical profession has limited the use of hyperbarics for most of the past century to cases of the bends instead of everything else it's good for as well. As reported early in this thread, it works for strokes of all kinds and yet when the medicare regs came out in the early 70's it was not approved for stroke victims because "it would break the bank", ie, social security would have been in deep trouble long before now- too many people on social security would have been healed and lived too long for the system to stand.
Around the time I started this thread two friends ended up in the hospital for a week. One, Rich, spent the week with an oxygen tube up his nose. The bills for both of them exceeded $80,000 and neither of them had any surgery but suposedly were there only for observation.
While visiting one evening Rich's doctor came in and I tried to bring up the matter of hyperbaric treatment. He'd been a doctor for many years and only replied that he'd seen one at another local hospital where he'd worked years prior but that doctors had mostly lost interest in the therapy. He said that Rich's problem was not lack of oxygen.
So here I was, looking at Rich with an oxygen tube up his nose and his doctor saying that oxygen was not his problem. That's the arrogance of the medical profession these days. By the end of the week Rich felt much better but the doctor did not prescribe oxygen for him. His problem was congestive heart failure and the doctor didn't seem to think that lack of oxygen had anything to do with it- except he'd ordered a tube stuck up his nose with oxygen coming out of it for a week.
The doctor clearly didn't want to discuss oxygen and immediately started his backward shuffle to get out of the room. So I asked him if he'd done blood gas levels and he said they weren't needed, but allowed that they were easy to do. That's when I knew he was lying because they are not easy to do- especially when the sample has to be passed through lots of hands before testing so that everyone can share in the $80,000 bill. Plasma oxygen must be measured immediately as it keeps being used up on it's way to the lab.
Anyway, the doctors parting shot when he reached the door was "ve vill put that out of our minds". Five minutes max he was in the room.
Along these lines, recently I read that over half of the bankrupcies in this country last year were middle class families with health insurance that had to declare bankrupcy because their share of the medical bills was too much for them to handle. After seeing the huge stack of bills for Rich and Mary Ann, I don't doubt that for a minute. And, what's worse, is that every page says to report fraud and overbilling, except that if one does that, Medicare and Medicaid will simply not pay the bill and leave it to folks like Rich and Mary Ann to pay it themselves and be forced into bankrupcy. And that's just one story of many that I know.
So do I hate the medical profession, you bet I do. I've met fine doctors but would be surprised it more than ten percent of doctors in general are even honest let alone capable. But $80,000 for a weeks stay for two at Hotel Hospital, does put the cost of oxygenated water into perspective in a hurry. Rich and Mary Ann didn't even have their own room but had to visit each other when they could down the hall.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Please explain to us then why the numbers of those who actually do suffer at the hands of doctors don't statistically coincide with the work of this supposed other 90% who are supposedly quacks?
Thanks for answering my question, even if it has been done in such a round-about, 'talk to another person to avoid directly answering the first' manner. (Which is kinda rude, doncha think?)
And painting the whole (even 90%) medical profession with such a broad brush after getting lousy treatment from a few (thats right, a few) bad apples, is like blaming all engineers due to the flawed designs (and ones begging for lawsuits) of the few crackpots, ... wouldn't you agree?
Oh, and from what I hear, engineers don't do so shabby in the $$$$ making department either. Plus engineers don't have the finacial burden of being required to have pricey malpractice insurance (like ALL medical doctors are required to have) to practice their trade. So you might calculate that into your 'anti-A.M.A.' formula while you're at it.
Heh! Hate the medical profession do ya? Just wait till you have to require the services of a surgeon, ... then where will you be, hmmm? Kinda like the guy who damns all attorneys, ..... until he needs one.
;)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
GarthP: Since you are so starved for attention and recognition on this thread I'll give you some, in the hope that you'll finally shut up and not clutter the place with everything but questions or comments on on oxygenated water.
Actually I'm quite surprised that you didn't latch onto the word hate and launch into a dissertation on how we should love everyone and everything. Then your fellow-travelers could list all the scriptures of what God hates and everyone could suffer through another hundred posts before finding any more information about oxygenated water.
But, alas, you chose to focus on my 90% rule (ie. only 10% of any given group of people are firing on all cylinders at any given time- that's my theory of relativity in case you didn't know). Then you just have to change it as in the above quote from you. I didn't say that 90% of medical doctors were quacks. So please cease and desist from puting words in my mouth. I'm quite capable of choosing my own words, even though, in hind sight, my statement might have been better said by saying that I hated what the medical profession had become- the snake oil salesmen of the twentieth and twenty first centuries- pills and the knife.
There are two things I recall that God hates, a lying tongue and feet that run to mischief. Do consider that the next time you want to distort what I say or strain out gnats and swallow camels.
To the rest of you, sorry again for the interruption. The problem generally in talking about gasses, weither oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, or most others, is that one can't see them, can't smell them, feel them, weight them, or even determine that they exist except indirectly. It wasn't until oxygen was discovered, and determined to be only 21% of the weight of air, that we even knew it existed. Of course it existed since Adam, we just didn't know it.
We know there is air in our tires because we hear something coming out when one gets punctured by a nail. And we know a little about pressure because the tire is flat when all the air leaks out and it's inflated again when we get it fixed. The guy that fixes it might even ask you how much pressure you want in your tire because the ride is a little better if the pressure is 28 psi. But you get better gas milage (even if only a little better) if your tires are inflated to 32 psi. So it's our choice- provided we stay within the limits that the tire was designed for. It always tells you in the fine print on the tire.
Then there's the matter of how fast or how slow something happens, it's rate- as in the hourly rate you get paid for work. It physicaly takes time to do anything. With computer chips they talk about nanoseconds, which is one billionth of a second. Not much time but time nevertheless.
In the case of water saturated with oxygen under an oxygen atmosphere, how long all the oxygen remains in the water once the bottle is opened and left with air above it depends on a number of things, chief of which are temperature of both the water and the air above it, and the time relationship of the composition of the air immediately above the water. In other words, just because the air in your kitchen is 21% oxygen, that doesn't mean that the air at the surface of the water is 21% oxygen- simply because oxygen is coming out of the water and making the air at the surface much richer in oxygen than that in the room generally.
So if you asked me how long water with 75 ppm oxygen in it will stay at 75 ppm, I'd reply that it would be less than that in a matter of minutes, even if you kept the water near freezing. If you asked me how long it stayed above 40 ppm I'd say at least overnight (again assuming the water was kept close to freezing). If you asked me how long it would take for the oxygen content to get down to 15 ppm (where many of the bottled water oxygen contents are to begin with) I'd say days.
If you asked me how long it would take for the oxygen content to get down to the same amount as is in your tap water (0-8 ppm), I'd likely say weeks, if not months!
There's another factor that's involved, namely the relative solubilities of oxygen and nitrogen in water. Nitrogen is less soluble in water than oxygen is. And so, even with 79% nitrogen and only 21% oxygen above the water/air interface, it takes longer than one would expect for the nitrogen to again replace oxygen in water. You might say that water loves oxygen more than it loves nitrogen. So it hangs onto oxygen as long as it can before nitrogen overwhelms it. It's the reason I was so surprised that oxygenated water stayed above 40 ppm in a horses water bucket over night (starting out at 75 ppm).
As I mentioned a few posts ago, carbon dioxide is 22 times as soluble in water than oxygen is. Fortunately air doesn't contain very much carbon dioxide. In fact there is so little carbon dioxide in air that it's just included in the "other" when one wants to get more precise than 21% oxygen, 79% nitrogen. Actually, the 79% nitrogen is only 78% nitrogen and the "other" is 1%. Of the "other" the vast majority is argon. So that leaves only a very little of a very little that is left for carbon dioxide.
For those of you who may not know, the solid form of carbon dioxide is dry ice. You can make your own soft drink by throwing a little piece of dry ice into water and adding some sugar and whatever tasty thing you like- like lemon or lime, or whatever. I'm not recommending it because the body really doesn't want any more CO2. But if you have access to dry ice it's cheaper than buying soft drinks at the store. Just don't put a cap on the concoction before all the dry ice is gone or you're likely to have the bottle burst on you and a mess all over the place- sort of like opening a can of coke or pepsi that's warm and has been dropped!
Finally, to give you a picture of what happens to an open or closed bottle, allow me to tell yet another story.
I had occassion to teach a high school chemistry class back in the mid 79's for a couple of months and we were getting into the matter of vapor pressure. So I took an empty gallon can (like the square gallon cans one used to keep gasoline in) put an inch or two of water in the bottom, and asked the class what they thought would happen if I heated the water to boiling, screwed the top on, and then put the can into cold water.
Some speculated that the can would blow up, others said that nothing would happen, and I don't think anybody even suspected that a pair of invisable hands would descend from heaven and crush that can. So after they were through speculating I got the water to boiling, so that one could see steam coming out the spout. The steam drove out all the air above the water so that all that was left in the can was water vapor and liquid water- both at 212 F.
When I put the cap on and cooled both the vapor and water, the temperature dropped to the point that a vacuum was created in the can as the vapor went back to liquid water. The demonstration was dramatic- just like an ivisable pair of hands crushed the can.
So one of the students asked what would happen if I again heated the water with the cap on. So I said, "Let's see". As the water heated up the vapor pressure again increased and ever so slowly the can started to undo the damage caused by the invisable hands. Don't know what the pressure was inside since I didn't have a pressure gauge attached to it. Couldn't have been much. But before the can got back to it's original shape it sprung a leak and with it a psssst with a pin point jet of steam coming out. They all dove under their desks!
They were in no danger at all, but thought they were. And so it appears to be on this thread about oxygenated water. If one doesn't have a feel for what a millimeter of mercury pressure is, or a psi, one can easily figure that one of them can cause an explosion. Just like the comments about oxygen in the room or the refrigerator on this thread. Fact is that if you have a candle burning in the living room and you replace the air in the room with pure oxygen, the candle will burn five times as fast, maybe even a little faster than that since the flame temperature will go up. But it won't explode the room. And it won't light a candle that is not burning. Oxygen is the agent that causes combustable things to burn, it does not burn itself. It is to be used with caution for that very reason, things burn five times faster if they are set on fire in an oxygen atmosphere rather than in air.
On the other side of the coin, someone using oxygen from an oxygen generator should be aware that they are consuming the oxygen in the room and increasing the nitrogen concentration as the oxygen generator seperates the two- if they don't have adequate ventilation to the room. In the extreme, you'll notice that the lit candle will go out!
But opening a window or door, even in the dead of winter, has been a easy solution to that problem for a very long time. Nothing like a breath of fresh air. And due to another gas law, or rather a combination of them, PV=nRT, one can readily see that if the pressure is atmospheric, and the volume of the room doesn't change, then an inflow of very cold air will increase the oxygen concentration much faster than if it is warm air coming in. (in the "puvnert" equation n represents the mass of air/oxygen, R is a constant, so that if T goes down, n must go up, given that both P and V are constant.) (Sorry about that mathmatics, I've tried to keep it to a minimum but just couldn't help myself.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Dave,
Starved for attention and recognition, am I? Is that all you care to render me as? My good man, the reason for my repeated questions is because you wouldn't answer them the first time around, and I believed them to be honest enough questions to deserve being dealt with. Plus I find it kind of odd that the questions you only want to deal with are the 'friendly' ones, the ones that pose no challenge. (Kinda like the President, sorry to say) Sorry guy, but a real scientist/doctor/engineer can't have it that way.
Plus my comments do relate to oxygenated water; as far as dealing with how you deal with others who challenge your views on the topic. See (and think about) my first post in this thread, and you'll see.
Davey, stating "I've met fine doctors but would be surprised it more than ten percent of doctors in general are even honest let alone capable." IS portraying that 90% of the medical profession are quacks, because what is a quack but a doctor who is incapable and dishonest, hmmm? But I notice that even here you caught yourself and revise your position to say:
Well, sort of. Now you seem to think your position redeemed in that you don't think of them as quacks, but ONLY as 'snake oil salesmen'. ... ((whew)) Boy that was close, huh?
Sorry Charlie, no sale.
So since God hates the lying tongue and feet that run to mischief, and since you are doing some fancy dishonest dancing on your own, even right in the middle of your last post here, ..... does that mean that God hates YOU?
-->
You knoew a lot about engineering and related topics, I'll give you credit for that (See? I can be fair). But I wouldn't DARE put your ((cough)) 'honest' medical knowledge and skills up against 99% of the medical community, including even many of the genuine quacks. Why?
You'd lose, chief. ..... Badly
........ and so would your potential patients.
:(-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
There's been something nagging at the corner of my mind about this stupid oxywater junk the whole time, but I just figured out what it is.
Even though blood plasma is mostly water, it already has quite a lot of stuff dissolved in it--salt, glucose, various minerals like potassium, calcium, magnesium, etc. It's also relatively hot--98.6 degrees Fahrenheit/37 Celsius. In other words, the solubility of oxygen in plasma must be even less than its solubility in distilled water--and it is. According to the Anesthesiology department at the University of Virginia, arterial blood plasma can only carry 3 milligrams of dissolved O2 per liter. That's a grand total of 3 ppm, period. Three. Not 45 or 60, THREE. In fact, 98% of all the oxygen in your bloodstream is bound to hemoglobin in red blood cells, not dissolved in plasma.
Now, David likes to try to bury unsupportive evidence under a mountain of haughty, smarter-than-thou, pseudo-scientific doublespeak, but all his logorrhea can't cover up the plain truth. He likes to tout oxygenated water (bunk) in the same breath as hyperbaric oxygen treatments (which do have legitimate medical uses). Now, yes, if you increase the pressure, you can get more oxygen to dissolve in blood plasma. HOWEVER, drinking fizzy water can't do the same thing, because no matter what the partial pressure of oxygen is at the water's surface, the partial pressure of the surrounding atmosphere is lower. Hence, the oxygenated water must start outgassing its oxygen in order to reach equilibrium with the surrounding environment. The oxygen comes out of the water, but it has nowhere to go. It can't be dissolved into blood plasma because the plasma is already saturated. If any survived the trip through the lymphatic system, the only place for the oxygen to go is into the hemoglobin of red blood cells. The easy test to see if the oxygen level is rising is to check the color of your veins. If any excess oxygen were available, the venous blood should be less blue. If it were enough to keep the system saturated, your veins would almost turn invisible through your pink skin. (Reddish veins are also a symptom of carbon monoxide poisoning, so beware...)
There's another problem. If the carbon dioxide level in the blood drops below a certain level, serious health problems will result from respiratory alkalosis. Ever feel light-headed from blowing up party balloons--that's a mild form of CO2 deficiency. Hyperventilating does the same thing--so much so that a sufferer can pass out from CO2 loss. If the plasma has more oxygen dissolved in it than leaves it room for dissolved CO2, the body will go into the same type of alkalotic shock.
Too much CO2 is even more dangerous. Since David claims that carbon dioxide is many times more soluble in water than oxygen (and that's true), drinking a Coke with 900 ppm of dissolved carbon dioxide should trigger hyperventilation to blow off the excess CO2 going into the lymph, but strangely enough, that doesn't happen. The answer why should be obvious...
Bottom line, there's just no way for oxygenated water to give the same effect as a hyperbaric oxygen chamber, no matter how petulant and childish some self-described "engineer" becomes.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
HELLO Zixar! Maybe we're finally getting somewhere. If you rethink your last post realizing that the saturation of oxygen in water at 100 F is not 3 but 6.8 ppm, you'll see exactly what I have been talking about for the last two months.
The number you call saturated (3 ppm) is the maximum concentration that can be delivered when healthy hemoglobin drops it's oxygen off into the plasma at a capillary, because hemoglobin cannot deliver oxygen at a pressure greater than 39 mm Hg. As we age that goes down, and down, and down- unless we drink oxygenated water!
So in the air, the oxygen partial pressure is 21% of 760 mm Hg or 160 mm Hg. By the time it gets into the alveolus of the lungs it's only about 105 mm Hg. By the time it gets into the arterial system it is only about 95 mm Hg and by the time it gets through the capillaries and is knocking on the door of the capillary wall, including the oxygen furnished by the unloading of hemoglobin, it is only a maximum of 39 mm Hg (ie. only 3 ppm oxygen generally in the plasma). The drop of pressure in the capillaries is by far the larget single oxygen pressure drop in the whole circulatory system- from 95 to 39 mm Hg.
But then it must cross the capillary membrane and get into the interstitial fluid, which drops it further to about 25 mm Hg. It drops further in pressure as it crosses the cell membrane so that in the cystol, knocking at the door of the mitochondria, where it is actually used for combustion (metabolism) it is 10 mm Hg down to zero mm Hg. And it is this range, 0- 10 mm Hg that is the difference between life and death.
The lecture notes in front of me give as reading assignment, West, J.B. "Respiratory Physiology- The Essentials" (4th Ed.) and Mines, AH., "Respiratory Physiology", Raven Press, Chapters 4, 5, & 6. The lecture was by a Dr. Baer, entitled, "Oxygen & Carbon Dioxide Transport By Blood". Hopefully you can find it with your search engine as I don't know the site location. The paper is 16 pages long and is excellent.
But now let's say you drink a 16 oz bottle of water that is nice and cold, say 40 F, is saturated with oxygen (which is about 65 ppm at 40 F) and do so on an empty stomach. Even if you drink it all at once, you will not burp. And if you are standing or sitting upright, the water has about an 18 inch drop to get to the small intestines. It probably won't get to the small intestines as fast as merely pouring the water out in front of you from the height of the mouth, but from Pakdaman's work of long ago, it appears that the plasma oxygen concentration goes up about 18% in a matter of five minutes or so and stays there for about an hour. So the processing of the water and the oxygen with it starts pretty darn fast.
Since you can feel the cold water going down to the stomach it appears that it doesn't warm all the way up to 100F before reaching the small intestines. But lets say it warms half the way up before reaching there. Still one does not burp, meaning that any oxygen that comes out of the water as the temperature rises (say 65 ppm to 35 ppm) gets absorbed by the tissues lining the mouth, tongue, stomach, etc. and the water they are immersed in. Actually, my guess is that the few seconds it takes to get to the small intestine doesn't heat 16 oz. of water much at all. And once there it goes wherever the pressure gradient is highest. As one paper I read said, the body will take care of it's pressure requirements before all else- including the pressure gradient from water with oxygen at close to 760 mm Hg to plasma at 39 mm Hg in the capillaries and to water in the interstitial space that is only about 30 mm Hg.
But before you get to thinking that this can kill you, think again. Hyperbaric therapy begins above 760 mm Hg oxygen partial pressure. And the literature published by the medical doctors in that field state that people can be kept alive that have no hemoglobin function if they can get the plasma oxygen concentration above 30 ppm. The hyperbaric pressure needed to do that is 30 divided by 6.8 (the solubility of oxygen in fresh water at 100 F) or 4.4 atmospheres. I'm not recommending that at all and have no interest in becoming a medical doctor. I'm just saying that people with no hemoglobin function whatsoever can be kept alive in a hyperbaric chamber if the plasma oxygen concentration can be gotten above 30 ppm. It's been done.
In the hypothetical case above, drinking a cold glass of oxygen saturated water, remember that we are not overwhelming the body's ability to handle it at all. As I said early on in this thread, the body is 60% water and so a 200# person will consist of 120# of water on average. We're adding 1# to 120#, or less than 1%, to the water content of the body. But if the 120# of water, whether in the circulatory system, the lymph system, the interstitial spaces or in the cells themselves (which, by the way contain two thirds of the body's water), contains on average 3 ppm oxygen, and we add 1# containing 65 ppm, the resulting average oxygen concentration in the body's water now becomes (120x3 + 65x1)/121 or 3.5 ppm-still way below the saturation point. That's a 17% increase in all the water in the body and it's going to help you not hurt you.
How long it takes to get everywhere in the body, and how it gets there remains to be seen, whether through the lymph system, circulatory system, directly into the intestitial spaces, or directly into the cells it first meets on it's way down the hatch, and in what ratios, the fact is that it does do so.
So just put 6.8 where you figured saturation was 3 and report back. Thanks for the input.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zixar
Wow. Not a single snide remark. Good sign.
Ok, you've still got some stuff you haven't accounted for.
1) The stomach is not always open to the duodenum--because of the pyloric valve.
2) Water reabsorption takes place mainly in the large intestine, not the small.
3) Water absorption is not 100% efficient.
4) Plasma is not water. It has enough other stuff dissolved in it that its oxygen carrying capacity is feeble. Hence, hemoglobin. Raising the oxygen content of plasma requires maintaining a pressure above normal equilibrium, and even if it could be done with water, the binding sites on deoxygenated hemoglobin have a high enough affinity for oxygen that the majority of any possible excess oxygen delivered into the bloodstream would simply reoxygenate depleted hemoglobin--pink veins.
5) Explain the mechanism by which age affects hemoglobin function.
6) The big craze in alternative medicine a few years back was "antioxidants" like vitamin E, etc. Apparently, free oxygen in the body was a menace not too long ago--and the proponents of antioxidants were just as fervent about their claims as you are. You can't both be right, so who's to tell?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Zixar, I am taking Alpha Lipoic Acid, which is an antioxidant.
Are you saying that the use of Penta and other oxygenated water works against these antioxidants?
Also are free radicals the same as "free oxygen"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Zixar: I'm still waiting on you to redo your previous post and admit that the solubility of oxygen in the water fraction of of the blood, the plasma, is much more than 3 ppm.
I'm also waiting on you to answer Oldiesman's questions. In the mean time I'll merely point out that resorption in the bowel, of the water secreted with bile for digestion, is different than absorption of water in the small intestine on an empty stomach. It remains that 80% of the water we drink is absorbed in the small intestine, not the bowel.
I'm also waiting on you to admit that oxygen in welding grade oxygen bottles is the same as oxygen in medical grade oxygen bottles.
I'm also waiting on you to admit that the majority of water we drink goes into the lymph system and gets distributed to the entire body without necessarily having to go into the circulatory system first.
And it would be helpful if you admitted that every molecule of the oxygen we breathe has to get dissolved in water (the plasma) in the lungs before it can even get close to hemoglobin in a red blood cell. In other words, hemoglobin is not the be all and end all of oxygen transport in the body but is rather a subset of that transport, even though a very important one.
Granted that hemoglobin loading and unloading is a facinating study in itself, but so also is the lymph system, and you apparently still don't want to talk about that in any detail.
Come to think about it, seems that with the discussion of the lacteals and all the other lymph nodes in the body that are part of the lymph system, that you aught to admit that the lymph system is not limited to "leakage" from the capillaries going right back to the blood system.
As for Long Gone's question of all the hydrochloric acid in the stomach and enzymes secreted for digestion, perhaps you should address that as well. I rather suspect that the pyloric valve closes when the stomach is full of food, not necessarily when we drink water on an empty stomach.
Reports on drinking oxygenated water on a full stomach, or while eating, indicate that there is no positive effect on performance in horses. But there is a positive effect when consumed on an empty stomach (and every athlete knows that you work out on an empty stomach, not a full one.) It seems that about all oxygen does on a full stomach is neutralize hydrochloric acid- no damage, but then no help either. Bile secreted in the duodinum during digestion does a good job of neutralizing acid, and I rather suspect that the main function of the pyloric valve is to regulate how much food is emptied into the small intestine and when.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Hello Oldiesman. Since it's been a week now that Zixar has not answered your questions, allow me to take a shot at them.
First of all, from the "flavor" of all of Zixar's previous posts, his "free oxygen" comment appears to be more smoke and mirrors designed to confuse the issue and put molecular oxygen in the category of "free radicals", oxygen free radicals" and "reactive oxygen species".
Fact is that molecular oxygen, O2, is neither free nor a radical. We either pay the energy cost required to get it into our system by breathing, or, as suggested in this thread, we can pay the cost of maximizing it's presence in water and then drinking it. The second option does not replace the first, but it does inhance it by increasing the partial pressure and concentration of oxygen in the entire body- while at the same time increasing our hydration level as well. A bonifide two-for-one deal!
Secondly, molecular oxygen is not a radical, it is a molecule. A radical is part of a molecule, and the term "free radical" is used of those distructive ions (radicals) that participate in one reaction and then move on to participate in another, and another, as they do their destructive work. "Oxygen free radicals" are ions that contain oxygen.
Finally, the term "reactive oxygen speces" seems to me to be a deliberate attempt to include molecular oxygen in the category of "free radical" when it is not. In the nature of problem solving, the problem cannot be the solution as well. Molecular oxygen is the solution to the body's problems, not their cause.
Regarding your second question about antioxidants, the class of chemical reactions called "redox" reactions (oxidation-reduction reactions) involves two or more molecules reacting with each other such that one is oxidized and the other reduced. There may be no oxygen involved in the reaction at all. I suppose that oxygen was used as the zero point on the oxidation scale because it is so common.
For example, in extractive metallurgy, many metals begin their journey from being in the ground as sulfide ores. A common process for concentrating these ores is to grind them fine and bubble them up through water with a pinch of this or that (eg. pine tar) added to the water as wetting agents that will captivate the sulfide ore so it attaches to an air bubble. The air bubbles do nothing to the gangue- so the sulfide ore floats to the top on the bubbles and the gangue stays on the bottom. It is entirely a physical process, not a chemical one.
But once the ore is concentrated, it then goes into a furnace and various fluxes are added, including carbon. The metalic ion is reduced to metal (ie. the metalic ion gets electrons to negate it's positive charge) and the sulfide loses it's excess electrons and is oxidixed.
And so, the class of foods called antioxidants are those that work against free radical formation. For example, iron has a great affinity for oxygen, as anybody who ever lived in Cleveland during the chrome plated car bumper era knows. Given a few short years, many cars had the iron in the bumpers completely chewed away by the salt water from the roads in winter time and the oxygen it contained, so that only the plate- of copper, nickel and chrome- remained hanging on.
What people may not know is that at the surface of a piece of iron left out to rust, the color is reddish brown, the color of Fe+3. But if one takes a miner's pick and hammers on the rust, underlying the reddish brown will be black Fe+2 (the reduced form of iron oxide). The surface is Fe+3 (the oxidized form of iron oxide). And the dirty rotten iron atom goes easily from +2 to +3 valence and back again and so is a worthy oxygen transport system to take the oxygen from the air to the good metal hidden beneith all that rust- particularly in a salt water solution. The copper, nickel, chrome plate has no such mechanism and so survives long after the iron has all turned to rust.
So also, in hemoglobin the iron ion in the heme molecule needs to be in the +2 valence state in order for it to pick up oxygen and transport it. If it is in the +3 state it is called methemoglobin and can hold no oxygen. So Fe+2 is the reduced state (closer to metal) and Fe+3 is the oxidized state. Although I am no expert on antioxidants and their role in the body, it seems apparent that, for one thing, they would tend to keep the iron ion in hemoglobin in the +2 state rather than the +3 state where it can do no good.
Along these lines, the hemoglobin molecule is shaped like a bean, C shaped if you will. But it has two states, a closed one and an open one, and O or a C. While traveling through the blood stream it is in the O state and only opens to the C state to grab onto oxygen in the lungs or when it is squeezed in the capillary to give up one or more oxygen molecules.
The dynamics of hemoglobin loading depends on how much oxygen is around to be grabbed onto, the plasma oxygen concentration, but also depends on the water quality around it, since it'a ability to load requires that water line the inside of the C before oxygen can get to the heme group.
In the blood stream generally, the iron would soon be oxidized to the +3 state if the "bean" did not stay tightly closed- oxygenated water or no oxygenated water. And so hemoglobin does quite an acrobatic act as it flows through the body- and too much iron in the system is as bad as not enough iron in the system. Like most things in the body, and in life as well, it's quite a balancing act.
My experience with oxygenated water is that it helps this balancing act, not hurts it in the least. Hypoxia (too little oxygen) is the problem, not hyperoxia (too much oxygen)! If it were possible to get more than enough oxygen by drinking oxygenated water, (and I don't think it is), the body has a ready system to slow things down- breathe less frequently or less deeply, both of which options mean the body has to expend less energy to breathe and the heart has to pump with less intensity and/or frequency- a very good thing.
Anyway, this whole debate seems to go back and forth from "won't work" to "it's dangerous", depending on the mood of the adverasries. My claim is that it does work and is not dangerous. And that claim comes from knowledge and reason, not blind studies of the blind leading the blind into the ditch.
I don't know of anything that makes antioxidants a "fad". And oxygenated water has been around long enough that it also is not a "fad".
I should warn the medical profession that there are a lot of unemployed engineers around these days due to the systematic efforts to bring America down to the "world class" level (since it is not possible to bring the rest of the world up to where America was in standard of living.) And all these engineers can read and understand what they read every bit as well as medical doctors can. Some may even go to the bother of learning yet another foreign language, medicalese.
Even the old "sawbones" (surgeons) can't blow much smoke in our faces any more, given the internet, even though the engineers I know would much rather cut on metal than cut on people. I respect a sergeon's skill with a scalpel, but if they want to claim that what we eat, drink, and breathe is their exclusive domain to determine, they'd better go back to school and learn these areas because they didn't learn them in medical school. And, it seems to me, we're fast aproaching the time when no one can afford medical insurance or the high cost of medical care, and so we'd better take our health back into our own hands or we'll surely end up both broke and dead.
Hope that helps Oldiesman. We're a week closer to spring and motorcycle riding time!
Edited by David AndersonLink to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
less filling!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
... Tastes great!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
wanna mud-wrestle?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
...in oxygenated mud?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
Thanks for the explanations David.
Been riding the bikes all winter...just went out yesterday in fact. Riding in frozen weather is brutal.
:)-->
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Posted by David,
For the record, my assessment is that it is probably not dangerous, but that it most likely doesn't work - at least not by the process that you have claimed it works. Your process/explanation defies/contradicts known biological processes.
David, your claim, as I see it, comes from not from knowledge and reason, but rather from anecdotal evidence and a speculative process backed in to support a preconcieved conclusion/ belief based upon that anecdotal evidence.
Your portrayal of good research techniques in the form of double blind studies as the "blind leading the blind" only makes me tend to disbelieve even more. Double blind studies serve to remove the bias of the researcher - something you seem to disapprove of. I wonder why.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
David Anderson
Goey: Your second comment is largely answered by your first. If something is not dangerous, why would their need to be any double blind studies?
As I've stated, these kind of studies are not in the realm of science but rather in the realm of probability and statistics. They do not show cause and effect like physics, chemistry, and the other exact sciences do. Engineers do not use them because engineers are required to show cause and effect in their designs. In fact, I cannot think of a single engineering course through college that even introduced the concept of P numbers. I only know about them because of the various statistics courses I took as electives- "an estimate that the probability of a hypotheses being true is correct".
Fact is that I'm appauled at all the pill ads on TV these days and especially their disclaimers- "don't take this if you have liver, kidney, etc., problems and if in doubt consult your doctor", and then the common side effects listed, nausea, high blood pressure, diaherrea, constipation, etc.- all of which speak to the danger, not the safety, of the pills. And these all have passed the test of "pear reviewed", "properly designed", "published" (in an acceptable journal- preferably the New England Journal of Medicine backed by Harvard), "AMA approved" tests that are commonly double blinded, crossover tests. The "proven effective" is merely an add on to the main reason for the study, to show they are "safe" inspite of the fact that they are not 100% safe, merely 95%, 99.5%, or 99.9% safe under "normal" conditions- which means they are not safe!
As far as your comment about removing bias, get real. These studies are funded by folks wanting to make money and greed is the biggest bias of all!
Finally, the word ANECDOTAL, in its original sense means a secret history, or facts not generally known. If you doubt that, just look up the word in Noah Webster's American Dictionary of the English Language (1828). It has come to mean of questionable validity by the same folks that brought you statistical horsedang in the guise of science. So cut the crap about "anecdotal evidence" and limit your questions to evidence without the slur word in front of it. I've reported plenty of evidence and none of it is in the private domain.
The biggest evidence is all that bottled water on grocery shelves these days- at least some of which- Dissanti, Aquafina, Penta Water, in particular- have oxygen added. My thesis is that the added oxygen is the reason why for years now there has been more space allotted to water on grocery shelves than 20 or 30 years ago. This is observable fact, not anecdotal evidence. And that fact alone shows the stupidity of the argument that one should not drink oxygenated water until the medical profession gets good and ready to endorse it.
But that's not all. You have, on this forum, numerous people, including myself, who have publically stated that they drank oxygenated water and found it benificial. I've even reported that it helped various animals and that they like it and drink more of it than tap or well water. So call us all liars if you will, but don't blow smoke in our faces with the word anecdotal and fear tactics about it not being safe. All the bottled water sold these days speaks to millions of others who have benifited as well, or are at least buying it to try it out. All I know is that on a scale of 1 to 10, I'll bet my money on the medical profession being the bigger rip off artists than the bottled water folks.
But after three months of discussion here, I have yet to hear from anyone that actually made their own oxygenated water (other than Kit Sober, who had been making it for herself long before this thread started.) Obviously money can be made by doing so but that was not my intent in starting this thread and telling everyone how to make it themselves. But the profit motive is a very good reason why bottled water manufacturers, as well as the medical profession, won't tell you that it works or how it works. So get off the double blind study routine. If you currently make the water yourself and sell it for profit, I'll understand your motives for trying to shut this thread down. Otherwise, it would be more helpful to explain to those interested what happens to water when you drink it, oxygenated or not. It is amazing to me the dirth of information on that subject on the internet. I remain at the point that any oxygen dissolved in it will go the same places that water does- until is it used by the body.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
David, I never realized that Dasani and Aquafina water are oxygenated also. Do you know how much oxygen they have as opposed to Penta?
Also, what do you make of the claim by hiOsilver water that glass bottled water retains the oxygen better than plastic bottles?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Yeah. ... Ohh, like PFAL.
;)-->
And that ain't anecdotal.
Davey, the more you talk, the more questionable is the logic of your basis and claim that the majority of the medical profession is incompetent/dishonest. I don't know what valid objection/experience you had with individual doctors, but that you paint the medical community with such a broad brush as you do definitely doesn't help your credibility any either.
As a matter of fact, it skewers it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
krys
Physics and chemistry as we know it do not require probablity and statistics, or double blind tests. That is correct.
However biology is also a science, but many studies done with living systems do require them...especially those regarding humans. People have perceptions - they see things and are thinking creatures. Double blind means that when a study is set up, neither the subject nor the clinician knows what treatment the subject is getting. This is done on purpose to remove the possibility of any subtle clues being passed on to the subject...and the subject thereby jumping to conclusions based on this.
This is absolurely necessary since humans are dynamic systems. They change second to second. If a test runs over a period of hours, the patient's body has run through so many processes simultaneously that statistical analyses are necessary. That's the only way to have any verifiable information regarding it.
Engineers work with static systems. Once the system is built, there is no possibiity of it's changing.
Statements likethis
and this
are not only rude, but ignorant.And it is absolutely true that anecdotal evidence is not a "slur" I is, however inferior just because it has not been supported by the kind of tests needed in human subjects...i.e.double blind studies.
All science begins with anecdotal evidence. When Banting and Best discovered the role of the pancreas and insulin in the body it originated by anecdotal evidence! {ants collected in the runs of dogs who's pancreas was removed whereas no ants collected in the pens of dogs who did not have this done.
I find much of your "enginereize" hard to swallow because it comes with such an air of superiority and condecention. Do you really believe that engineers are on the top of the food chain in scientific endeavors? Because that's what you convey in your acrid abrasive posts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Goey
Where did you go to school? Danger is not the only thing in question. Good studies change my weak "probably not" to a more definitive probably not - or to even a probably yes.
Double blind studies are not simply used to determine danger as you attempted to suggest. They also serve to determine (as in this case) whether or not there is any scientifically measurable benefit while removing any researcher bias.
I'll dispense with anymore comments on the rest of you dissertation, cause it is quite obvious to me (and should be to anyone else with any education beyond high school) that your understanding of scientific testing processes is quite errant.
God forbid that the drug companies would take your advice and abandon testing their products with double blind studies. We would probably all be sick or dead in no time.
Hey, I've got this really cool new heart medicine. Cures heart diesase. Proof? Tests? Don't need no stinking tests! Thats the blind leading the blind! Tests are stupid and unnecessary! Trust me it works. I took it and my heat disease is cured !
How do I know? Cause I feel better dangit! No, I don't need to have my heart checked - that's silly! I just know the blockage is gone! Why? Cause I feel better and that's all the proof I need!
This stuff is made of special "clusterd alcohol". Alcohol that has been modified by high intensity (104 db) ultrasonic waves at the molecular resonance frequency of ethyl alcohol . When the alcohol is resonated and becomes so modified it has the unique ability to disolve arterial plaque like 409 disolves grease! And hey, you can even make it at yourself at home! Freaking amazing!
Of course the medical profession says it won't work! Idiots!
Besides, they don't want a cure for heart diesase, cause if there was, they would be out of a job! That just makes my point even stronger!
Start with a good stereo (less than .1% total harmonic distortion) and a gallon of Jack Daniel's ....
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
So Goey,
Where do I sign on the green card for this fantasmic program?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.