originally posted by: criticalhit
1: The air will dissipate evenly as it circulates the globe and decline at the same rate everywhere.
2: That being the case the only way "plants" will help is in a dense indoor environment where the air is trapped
3: Fukushima wont eradicate Oxygen supply except for short term, smaller life forms adapt and repopulate quickly
Thank you, criticalhit, for responding to my post.
However, your response raises more issues than it resolves.
You say, "That being the case the only way "plants" will help is in a dense indoor environment where the air is trapped."
Now, what do you mean by "dense indoor environment?" Do you mean a typical housing unit with twice as many houseplants as one might typically have,
or do you mean that we all have to move into the Victorian-era glasshouse known as the Enid A. Haupt Conservatory, the centerpiece of the New York
Botanical Garden in the Bronx? Or, better yet, should we all move into the Biosphere in the middle of the desert?
You say: "Fukushima wont eradicate Oxygen supply except for short term, smaller life forms adapt and repopulate quickly."
What do you mean by "short term?" The situation of Fukushima's spewing contamination into the Pacific Ocean is projected to last 1,000 years or
more. Will your idea of "short term" be long enough to "do in" the human population due to suffocation... or not?
This issue of short term impact on the oxygen supply raises the age-old principle of "the bigger they are, the sooner they fall."
Think about dinosaurs, and what I believe led to their demise.
But first I need to digress to a discussion of basic geometry.
You should know that if you increase the linear dimensions of an object, the surface area of the object, and even more so, the volume of the object
will increase well out of proportion to the increase of the linear dimensions. The surface area increases proportionately to the square of the linear
dimension, while the volume increases proportionately to the cube of the linear dimension.
To illustrate, take a toddler's cubical block, you know the one with alphabet letters on each side. You will need eight of those blocks to build a
larger cube with only twice the linear dimensions while the surface area of the new, bigger block is now four times as much as the surface area of the
first block. If you want to build an even larger cube with triple the linear dimensions, you will find that ratio of linear to surface area to volume
will be: 3 units to 9 square units to 27 cubic units. In the case of the original cube (block), the ratio of surface area to volume is one to one; but
with the triple-size cube, the ratio of surface area to volume is 9 to 27 – big, big difference!
This same analysis applies to the area of inner surfaces as well, meaning ones that have been turned outside-in like the interior surface area of
oxygen-absorbing lung sacs: the larger the creature, the lower the ratio of oxygen absorbing capacity relative to the oxygen-carrying blood volume and
the total volume of the creature.
Conclusion: bigger creatures need a higher concentration of oxygen in the air to compensate for the relative deficiency of the oxygen-absorbing
capability of their lungs.
The dinosaur went extinct some 60,000,000 years ago while smaller pre-historic alligators, which have been around for over 200,000,000 years, did not
because back then there was some event that impaired the oxygen levels of the atmosphere. Those levels declined below a minimal threshold and became
inadequate for dinosaurs who had insufficient lung capacity due to their big size; they gasped for air, keeled over, and bit the dust. Meanwhile, the
alligators survived as did tiny dinos with wings who had much better oxygen absorbing capacity while also possessing the ability to fly to greener,
more oxygen-rich pastures as needed-be, and so they evolved into the birds of today.
It's a known fact that within species, including humans, smaller specimens have a greater life expectancy than the larger ones THIS IS BECAUSE THE
SMALLER ONES CAN ABSORB AND, THEREFORE, PROCESS OXYGEN BETTER RELATIVE TO THEIR SIZE AND VOLUME.
So, during this supposed "short term" oxygen problem of which you speak, you may see your big guys like Brad Garrett, American Gladiators, and
basketball players dropping like flies first while your puny little fellows are too lethargic to bury their dead. With this being the case, there
will be decomposing bodies everywhere releasing the super-potent greenhouse gas known as methane. Boy, oh, boy will it ever get hot and stinky out
[Ha, you paramedic guy basking in Costa Rica! I bet you didn't take this into account. You say that global warming is a load of bull****, and
anybody who buys into it is a jerk. Well, it's going to get hot, really hot south of the border there in Costa Rica, let me tell you.]
OK, OK, OK... let's say, for argument's sake, that this short term oxygen depletion problem does not do in any humans to any appreciable extent.
Well, what about cattle?
Heads of cattle have a much larger body size and volume than humans. Maybe a slight decline in oxygen levels in the air will be enough to do in our
You can't raise cattle indoors in a greenhouse conservancy like the one in the Bronx. This would be tantamount to putting a bull into a china
With all of this being the case, there won't be much beef to go around. This will put a major dent in the worldwide food supply, as if there wasn't
already a big enough dent from losing the seafood of the Pacific Ocean. And with the loss of beef will be the loss of dairy. No more gelato for you,
And with a whole bunch of cattle lying around dead, dying and decomposing, the methane problem from this state of affairs will dwarf the methane that
was previously released from the exhaust systems of those cattle. So, we are back to a very much aggravated greenhouse effect. Let me tell you: you
just can't win.
Oh, the humanity.
Lastly, you say (actually firstly, you say): "The air will dissipate evenly as it circulates the globe and decline at the same rate everywhere."
Well, yeah, of course, eventually everything will mix up uniformly, but just as wind-pattern maps illustrate the uneven distribution of radionuclides
from Fukushima, I'd imagine that oxygen levels in the air to the immediate east of the Atlantic would have to be greater than oxygen levels in the
air to the immediate east of the Pacific... if and when it comes down to that.