In small doses, toxic gases can be medicinal

In small doses, toxic gases can be medicinal

www.latimes.com

These unwholesome components of smog, automobile emissions and industrial exhaust also happen to be essential chemicals in the body, where they exist in minute amounts. Called "gaseotransmitters," they lower blood pressure, block inflammation and regulate oxygen use.

(visit the link for the full news article)

So lately I've been putting some dots together.... and this article is a stepping stone along that path. The Article talks about a lot of different gasses, such as Carbon Monoxide... the one I like to focus on is Hydrogen Sulfide

So it goes like this... Beans are good for you for a lot of reasons, and are found to be a key ingredient in diets associated with longevity.

But why? Well beans have zero cholesterol... good or bad....and they also are low in fat.... and are great sources of protein...

Yet none of these things lower your risk of cancer... but these elements do have a lot to do with other health types.... Yet the absence of cancer is a key element of longevity. Cancer comes from wear and tear without proper cell death occurring. In some cases where genes are damaged due to inflammation, radiation etc... some of our genes are repair driods BRCA1 and BRCA2, which if also damaged can lead to greater incident of cancer as well, unless those cells with damage are killed off.

Enter Hydrogen Sulfide....

Now the article I have linked to in the OP talks about Hydrogen Sulfide lowering blood pressure, as well as relaxing... here is another example Smell a Fart, Save a Life

Here is another article Could hydrogen sulfide hold the key to a long life?

There have been studies which show that colon cancers patients often have elevated levels of H2S in the GI tract. In the past this has been assumed to be a Cause and effect relationship, assuming the H2S was a causative factor.

However when you look at the foods which generate the most Hydrogen Sulfide (Onions, Broccoli, Beans, Garlic, Watercress, Brussels Sprouts) We see a list of foods which are associated with longevity!

Anyway, this article goes on to talk about amazing effects of Carbon Monoxide etc in small doses... and is an enjoyable read.









www.latimes.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I find it amusing that this was in the LA Times. LA, one of the smoggiest cities (if not THE smoggiest) in the US publishes an article saying that smog (in small amounts) is good for you. Sadly, people will read that crap and believe it.

Cheers!

I will refer to this article when its chili night at my house. I've always told my wife not to worry about the after effects.

Score!!

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I find it amusing that this was in the LA Times. LA, one of the smoggiest cities (if not THE smoggiest) in the US publishes an article saying that smog (in small amounts) is good for you. Sadly, people will read that crap and believe it.

Note that it says small amounts...

Cyanide is supposed to destroy cancer cells if ingested in small quantities, such as in apricot pips

Normal cells contain an enzyme called rhodanese, which combines with free cyanide, thus binding it so that it's harmless. This frees the glucose that had been combined with the cyanide, making it available for conversion to energy. Cancer cells, though, contain very small amounts of rhodanese. However, they do have large quantities of beta-glucosidase, which is in short supply in normal cells. Beta-glucosidase separates the glucose bound with cyanide and leaves the volatile hydrogen cyanide form. This effectively frees the cyanide to act as a poison inside the cancerous cell. Thus, the cancerous cell, in grabbing its nutrition, frees a poisonous substance inside its own skin. So, the hyperreactive hydroden cyanide is free to do its nasty work only inside cells that are destructive. There's a little poetic justice in that!

Apricot Pits to Treat & Prevent Cancer

Originally posted by HunkaHunka

But why? Well beans have zero cholesterol... good or bad....and they also are low in fat.... and are great sources of protein...

Sorry, but I have to comment on a few things here.

Dietary cholesterol does not affect serum cholesterol levels in humans. So, whether or not beans have cholesterol is irrelevant. And there is no such thing as good or bad cholesterol. Cholesterol is cholesterol. And it's an essential nutrient for proper cell function. The terms "good" and "bad" cholesterol are respectively referring to LDL and HDL, which are proteins that transport blood lipids. Food stuff don't have HDL and LDL, therefore they don't have good or bad cholesterol.

Beans are low in fat, yes. But there's no reason to imply that because they're low in fat they are healthy.

However when you look at the foods which generate the most Hydrogen Sulfide (Onions, Broccoli, Beans, Garlic, Watercress, Brussels Sprouts) We see a list of foods which are associated with longevity!

Interesting. I've not heard of this before and, I must admit, I'm curious enough to do a little digging myself. Nice find.

I think it's also worth pointing out, however off-topic it may be, that what determines a compound's toxic effects on one's body is the dose. People have to realize that while, yes, there are potentially toxic chemicals in the foods and liquids we consume, small amounts most often prove to be harmless. Remember, the body is readily available to remove toxins, and is quite efficient at it as long as the dose remains below the respective threshold.

Raise your hand if you want to volunteer..


WHAT NO HANDS????

You can count me out on the idea

If someone wants to huff toxic gas more power to them it's their right.

I think the researches should test this out over a 10 year period lets see what happens.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd
I think it's also worth pointing out, however off-topic it may be, that what determines a compound's toxic affects on one's body is the dose. People have to realize that while, yes, there are potentially toxic chemicals in the foods and liquids we consume, small amounts most often prove to be harmless.

To me, not only is that extremely ON-topic, but it's one of the most important points in the thread. Things which may be beneficial in small or moderate amounts may be harmful, toxic, even fatal in larger amounts.

Just look at water. Get too little and you'll die. More is better up to a point, then diminishing returns yield no benefit at some point. As water intake increases eventually even it can have very negative effects.

Take a one-a-day vitamin, it might make you healthier, Eat the whole bottle of vitamins and it can make you very sick.

Eat a few Apple seeds with your apple (per the cyanide post), no real harm done, but save up a bunch of apple seeds and eat them all at once, and you could get extremely sick.

So absolutely, yes, it's all about dosage.

I won't say I'm convinced how beneficial smog or CO are in small doses, but if the dosage is small enough I can believe it's at least relatively harmless and not too toxic.

Carbon monoxide and smog aside - although the question of who in this world that isn't a !Kung bushman hasn't experienced small amounts of those remains - we've been using toxic gases for "medicinal" purposes for years. Take chlorine in the water - toxic to humans, but also toxic to everything else and so, used in the right amounts, can kill other (harmful and otherwise) life-forms without killing us and thus (so far as we believe) prolonging our lives. The same principles apply to some chemotherapies for cancers and parasitic eukaryotic organisms - most, if not all, medicines which kill non-bacterial cells (The difference in structure of cell between eukaryotic and prokaryotic cells means that antibacterial drugs can have absolutely no effect on eukaryotic cells) can kill all of them, but by varying the dosage, we try to find ones that kill all the unwanted (parasites or cancer) cells before they kill too many of the wanted (the ones necessary for the patient to survive) cells.

I do still have to wonder who they found who had not experienced at least some smog in their life-time and wasn't adversely effected, longevity-wise, by the absence of an effective health service.

reply to post by HunkaHunka

The mentally ill have high rates of smoking.
Tobacco increases the effectiveness of psychotropic drugs.

Originally posted by Aggie Man
I find it amusing that this was in the LA Times. LA, one of the smoggiest cities (if not THE smoggiest) in the US publishes an article saying that smog (in small amounts) is good for you. Sadly, people will read that crap and believe it.

What's more sad? That people will believe it because it's based on actual experiments, or that people won't believe it simply because they are ignorant of the fact?

Thanks for sharing ,this is interesting .Hope that the scientists can apply them in clinical study ,making full use of these toxic gas,but maybe it is dangerous to be in close distance with them .

Originally posted by RRokkyy
reply to post by HunkaHunka

 

The mentally ill have high rates of smoking.
Tobacco increases the effectiveness of psychotropic drugs.

Actually there is a Nicotine derivative which allows for greater concentration... this is why many Schizophrenics have self medicated with cigarettes for as long as they've been available...