How to solve the problem of excess oxygen?

rupol2000

Gold Member
Aug 22, 2021
18,215
2,621
138
Oxygen concentration over 20% in the air becomes toxic and poisons the body. This means that on the plain, people live at the maximum permissible concentration. Those who live in mountainous areas are at less risk, there is an oxygen content of about 15%.
What will happen if the concentration increases?

Moreover, even this concentration is destructive. Oxidative effects are the cause of aging and cancer(due to free radicals and so on).

How can the problem of excess oxygen be solved?

And how will you protect yourself from the action of oxygen in the current situation? Smoking tobacco helps to solve this problem, what do you think?

PS this is not a joke, everything is based on strictly scientific data
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #5
This is a real topic, don't turn it into a circus
 
Oxygen concentration over 20% in the air becomes toxic and poisons the body. This means that on the plain, people live at the maximum permissible concentration. Those who live in mountainous areas are at less risk, there is an oxygen content of about 15%.
What will happen if the concentration increases?

Moreover, even this concentration is destructive. Oxidative effects are the cause of aging and cancer(due to free radicals and so on).

How can the problem of excess oxygen be solved?

And how will you protect yourself from the action of oxygen in the current situation? Smoking tobacco helps to solve this problem, what do you think?

PS this is not a joke, everything is based on strictly scientific data

Why would oxygen levels increase above 20%?

Is there any data to suggest people who smoke are less likely to get other cancers than lung cancer?

Is there any data to suggest those in mountain areas are less likely to get cancer?


Lowest rates are in Arizona, Utah and New Mexico. Colorado and Wyoming don't seem to be lower than Florida and California etc.
 
Why would oxygen levels increase above 20%?

Is there any data to suggest people who smoke are less likely to get other cancers than lung cancer?

Is there any data to suggest those in mountain areas are less likely to get cancer?
This is the usual scientific data, it is due to the oxidative action of mitochondria and apoptosis initiated by the mitochondria. We are not talking about the lungs, these are oncogenes of the whole organism.
There is no data on the role of smoking, but since smoking interferes with oxygen exchange, this should work.
 
in my experience smokers and especially those who use opiates are the least visually aging, can anyone confirm this from their own experience? Those who consume alcohol age the most.

it could all be related to oxygen. Opiates inhibit respiration, and smoking interferes with oxygen metabolism.
Who agrees that heroin addicts usually look younger?
 
This is the usual scientific data, it is due to the oxidative action of mitochondria and apoptosis initiated by the mitochondria. We are not talking about the lungs, these are oncogenes of the whole organism.
There is no data on the role of smoking, but since smoking interferes with oxygen exchange, this should work.

Well, I get the whole thing that oxygen is a poison. That's why we have to breathe so often, because we can't store it for a long time in the body, unlike water or energy.

However there doesn't seem to be any difference in the cancer levels in a place like Colorado, way up high, and a place low like Florida. So, either there are other issues at play which make seeing such data very difficult, or the amount of oxygen in the air from 15% to 20%


Here's a chart. So, in Florida there's 21% effective oxygen and in Colorado 17% - 15% in livable areas. But no difference in cancer rates.....
 
Here's a chart. So, in Florida there's 21% effective oxygen and in Colorado 17% - 15% in livable areas. But no difference in cancer rates.....
This is too little to be representative stat, there are other oncogenic factors. And it's not just about cancer but also about aging.
 
This is too little to be representative stat, there are other oncogenic factors. And it's not just about cancer but also about aging.

Well, Florida has lots of old people.

Florida is 5th for median age, at 42.5 (45 being the highest and Texas at 35 the lowest).

So.... you're still a very, very long way off having a decent argument here.
 
Oxygen concentration over 20% in the air becomes toxic and poisons the body. This means that on the plain, people live at the maximum permissible concentration. Those who live in mountainous areas are at less risk, there is an oxygen content of about 15%.
What will happen if the concentration increases?

Moreover, even this concentration is destructive. Oxidative effects are the cause of aging and cancer(due to free radicals and so on).

How can the problem of excess oxygen be solved?

And how will you protect yourself from the action of oxygen in the current situation? Smoking tobacco helps to solve this problem, what do you think?

PS this is not a joke, everything is based on strictly scientific data

Those who live in mountainous areas are at less risk, there is an oxygen content of about 15%.


What is the other 85%?
 
Well, Florida has lots of old people.
Oncology and old age are directly related, because aging reduces immunity, and oncology depends on immunity.
Therefore, if oxygen leads to aging, it cannot be non-oncogenic.
 

Forum List

Back
Top