Vmedvil Posted March 7 Report Posted March 7 (edited) Early experiments in Metamorphic Biomachine Plasmids such as Metamorphic Gel(https://www.scienceforums.com/topic/35125-t-cell-metamorphic-gel-infected/) showed that these Metamorphic Biomachine Plasmids reproduced quickly and were excellent for producing Viral Vectors due to their quick metabolism and reproduction. Later experiments in Metamorphic Biomachinery showed that it could be modified with the actual viral vectors coded into it along with Cas9(CRISPR) to insert and silence genes in targets such as human cells and bacterial cells without harming host while still having reproduction capabilities(Metamorphic Bio-Machinery For Biological Immortality - Biology - Science Forums). Now, I am going to begin researching how to produce large quantities of ozone with the Metamorphic Gel as the framework by modifying it genetically to include the biosynthesis of ozone used in the bacteria immune system of human phagcytosing Neutrophils. I consider that if the Metamorphic Biomachine Plasmids can produce large quantities of viral vectors then why would it now be able to produce a chemical in large quantities, however we will see the result. "Lerner and several other researchers, Wentworth found that antibodies and white blood cells make ozone and wield it as a weapon in the fight against bacteria (Science 2002, 298, 2195)." "Reactive oxygen species produced by phagocytosing neutrophils are essential for innate host defense against invading microbes. Previous observations revealed that antibody-catalyzed ozone formation by human neutrophils contributed to the killing of bacteria. In this study, we discovered that 4 amino acids themselves were able to catalyze the production of an oxidant with the chemical signature of ozone from singlet oxygen in the water-oxidation pathway, at comparable level to antibodies. The resultant oxidant with the chemical signature of ozone exhibited significant bactericidal activity in our distinct cell-free system and in human neutrophils. The results also suggest that an oxidant with the chemical signature of ozone produced by neutrophils might potentiate a host defense system, when the host is challenged by high doses of infectious agents. Our findings provide biological insights into the killing of bacteria by neutrophils." Link = Ozone production by amino acids contributes to killing of bacteria - PubMed (nih.gov) It seems the Water-oxidation pathway is the metabolic pathway that produces ozone in Human phagocytosing neutrophils, The Metabolic pathway's sequence must be sequenced from Human phagocytosing neutrophils which is probably in the NBCI(National Center for Biotechnology Information (nih.gov)) then can be chemically synthesized using DNA synthesis. Finally, the physical DNA being inserted into the Metamorphic Biomachine Plasmid to be replicated by it as it reproduces naturally. Lastly, after the Metamorphic Gel which is the Metamorphic Biomachine Plasmid we will be using for this eats sugar it will produce Ozone naturally from its metabolism because of the Human phagocytosing neutrophils' water oxidation pathway being inserted into the Metamorphic Gel's DNA structure. I think it is worth an experiment in real life because it could help solve the problem of ozone loss due to CFCs production during the 19th and 20th century by replacing it with more ozone to counteract this. Information about CFCs and Ozone Depletion "Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) are nontoxic, nonflammable chemicals containing atoms of carbon, chlorine, and fluorine. They are used in the manufacture of aerosol sprays, blowing agents for foams and packing materials, as solvents, and as refrigerants. CFCs are classified as halocarbons, a class of compounds that contain atoms of carbon and halogen atoms. Individual CFC molecules are labeled with a unique numbering system. For example, the CFC number of 11 indicates the number of atoms of carbon, hydrogen, fluorine, and chlorine (e.g. CCl3F as CFC-11). The best way to remember the system is the "rule of 90" or add 90 to the CFC number where the first digit is the number of carbon atoms (C), the second digit is the number of hydrogen atoms (H), and the third digit is number of the fluorine atoms (F). The total number of chlorine atoms (Cl) are calculated by the expression: Cl = 2(C+1) - H - F. In the example CFC-11 has one carbon, no hydrogen, one fluorine, and therefore 3 chlorine atoms. Refrigerators in the late 1800s and early 1900s used the toxic gases, ammonia (NH3), methyl chloride (CH3Cl), and sulfur dioxide (SO2), as refrigerants. After a series of fatal accidents in the 1920s when methyl chloride leaked out of refrigerators, a search for a less toxic replacement begun as a collaborative effort of three American corporations- Frigidaire, General Motors, and Du Pont. CFCs were first synthesized in 1928 by Thomas Midgley, Jr. of General Motors, as safer chemicals for refrigerators used in large commercial appilications1. Frigidaire was issued the first patent, number 1,886,339, for the formula for CFCs on December 31, 1928. In 1930, General Motors and Du Pont formed the Kinetic Chemical Company to produce Freon (a Du Pont tradename for CFCs) in large quantities. By 1935 Frigidaire and its competitors had sold 8 million new refrigerators in the United States using Freon-12 (CFC-12) made by the Kinetic Chemical Company and those companies that were licensed to manufacture this compound. In 1932 the Carrier Engineering Corporation used Freon-11 (CFC-11) in the worldís first self-contained home air-conditioning unit, called the "Atmospheric Cabinet".; Because of the CFC safety record for nontoxicity, Freon became the preferred coolant in large air-conditioning systems. Public health codes in many American cities were revised to designate Freon as the only coolant that could be used in public buildings. After World War II, CFCs were used as propellants for bug sprays, paints, hair conditioners, and other health care products. During the late 1950s and early 1960s the CFCs made possible an inexpensive solution to the desire for air conditioning in many automobiles, homes, and office buildings. Later, the growth in CFC use took off worldwide with peak, annual sales of about a billion dollars (U.S.) and more than one million metric tons of CFCs produced. Whereas CFCs are safe to use in most applications and are inert in the lower atmosphere, they do undergo significant reaction in the upper atmosphere or stratosphere. In 1974, two University of California chemists, Professor F. Sherwood Rowland and Dr. Mario Molina, showed that the CFCs could be a major source of inorganic chlorine in the stratosphere following their photolytic decomposition by UV radiation. In addition, some of the released chlorine would become active in destroying ozone in the stratosphere2. Ozone is a trace gas located primarily in the stratosphere (see ozone). Ozone absorbs harmful ultraviolet radiation in the wavelengths between 280 and 320 nm of the UV-B band which can cause biological damage in plants and animals. A loss of stratospheric ozone results in more harmful UV-B radiation reaching the Earth's surface. Chlorine released from CFCs destroys ozone in catalytic reactions where 100,000 molecules of ozone can be destroyed per chlorine atom. A large springtime depletion of stratospheric ozone was getting worse each following year. This ozone loss was described in 1985 by British researcher Joe Farman and his colleagues3. It was called ìthe Antarctic ozone holeî by others. The ozone hole was different than ozone loss in the midlatitudes. The loss was greater over Antarctic than the midlatitudes because of many factors: the unusually cold temperatures of the region, the dynamic isolation of this ìholeî, and the synergistic reactions of chlorine and bromine4. Ozone loss also is enhanced in polar regions as a result of reactions involving polar stratospheric clouds (PSCs)5 and in midlatitudes following volcanic eruptions. The need for controlling the CFCs became urgent. In 1987, 27 nations signed a global environmental treaty, the Montreal Protocol to Reduce Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer6, that had a provision to reduce 1986 production levels of these compounds by 50% before the year 2000. This international agreement included restrictions on production of CFC-11, -12, -113, -114, -115, and the Halons (chemicals used as a fire extinguishing agents). An amendment approved in London in 1990 was more forceful and called for the elimination of production by the year 2000. The chlorinated solvents, methyl chloroform (CH3CCl3), and carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) were added to the London Amendment. Large amounts of reactive stratospheric chlorine in the form of chlorine monoxide (ClO) that could only result from the destruction of ozone by the CFCs in the stratosphere were observed by instruments onboard the NASA ER-2 aircraft and UARS (Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite) over some regions in North America during the winter of 19927,8. The environmental concern for CFCs follows from their long atmospheric lifetime (55 years for CFC-11 and 140 years for CFC-12, CCl2F2)9 which limits our ability to reduce their abundance in the atmosphere and associated future ozone loss. This resulted in the Copenhagen Amendment that further limited production and was approved later in 1992. The manufacture of these chemicals ended for the most part on January 1, 1996. The only exceptions approved were for production within developing countries and for some exempted applications in medicine (i.e., asthma inhalators) and research. The Montreal Protocol included enforcement provisions by applying economic and trade penalties should a signatory country trade or produce these banned chemicals. A total of 148 signatory countries have now signed the Montreal Protocol. Atmospheric measurements CFC-11 and CFC-12 reported in 1993 showed that their growth rates were decreasing as result of both voluntary and mandated reductions in emissions9. Many CFCs and selected chlorinated solvents have either leveled off (Figure 1) or decreased in concentration by 19949,10. The demand for the CFCs was accomodated by recycling, and reuse of existing stocks of CFCs and by the use of substitutes. Some applications, for example degreasing of metals and cleaning solvents for circuit boards, that once used CFCs now use halocarbon-free fluids, water (sometimes as steam), and diluted citric acids. Industry developed two classes of halocarbon substitutes- the hydrochlorofluorocarbons (HCFCs) and the hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). The HCFCs include hydrogen atoms in addition to chlorine, fluorine, and carbon atoms. The advantage of using HCFCs is that the hydrogen reacts with tropospheric hydroxyl (OH), resulting in a shorter atmospheric lifetime. HCFC-22 (CHClF2) has an atmospheric lifetime of about 13 years11 and has been used in low-demand home air-conditioning and some refrigeration applications since 1975. However, HCFCs still contain chlorine which makes it possible for them to destroy ozone. The Copenhagen amendment calls for their production to be eliminated by the year 2030. The HFCs are considered one of the best substitutes for reducing stratospheric ozone loss because of their short lifetime and lack of chlorine. In the United States, HFC-134a is used in all new domestic automobile air conditioners. For example, HFC-134a is growing rapidly in 1995 at a growth rate of about 100% per year with an atmospheric lifetime of about 12 years12. (The "rule of 90" also applies for the chemical formula of HCFCs and HFCs.) Use of the CFCs, some chlorinated solvents, and Halons should become obsolete in the next decade if the Montreal Protocol is observed by all parties and substitutes are used. The science that became the basis for the Montreal Protocol resulted in the 1995 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. The prize was awarded jointly to Professors F. S. Rowland at University of California at Irvine, M. Molina at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, and Paul Crutzen at the Max-Planck-Institute for Chemistry in Mainz, Germany, for their work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone (in particular, by the CFCs and oxides of nitrogen)." Link = NOAA Global Monitoring Laboratory - Halocarbons and other Atmospheric Trace Species Edited March 8 by Vmedvil Quote
OceanBreeze Posted March 13 Report Posted March 13 Bad idea Vic. Like many people, you don’t seem to know that Ozone is a double-edged sword. The good Ozone is found in the stratosphere, the second layer of the earth's atmosphere, 10 to 30 miles above the surface. Life couldn't exist without this protective Stratospheric ozone, which is also called the “ozone layer.” Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally through the interaction of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation with molecular oxygen (O2). It takes a tremendous amount of energy, provided by the sun, to produce this Stratospheric ozone. Even if we had an energy source great enough to produce enough Ozone on Earth to increase the amount of Stratospheric ozone, we don't have a way to transport the ozone to the right places in the atmosphere. Since we can't make more Stratospheric ozone, the solution is to slow down the depletion rate back to its normal value that existed prior to the 1970’s. The only way to do that is to stop using ozone-depleting chemicals. The bad Ozone is Ozone is formed in the lower atmosphere close to the ground level, where people live, exercise and breathe. This Ozone is produced through chemical reactions between pollutants emitted from vehicles, factories and other industrial sources, fossil fuels, combustion, consumer products, evaporation of paints, and many other sources. Ozone has a very characteristic pungent odor, sometimes described as like chlorine bleach, and like chlorine bleach, ozone can cause harmful health effects and damage materials, depending on its concentration. Various Health Services advise the public not to use ozone generators in homes or offices. Hazardous ozone generators are often marketed for the purposes of aiding allergy sufferers, but actually emit harmful ozone gas that can cause asthma or other respiratory symptoms. Low level atmospheric ozone can damage the tissues of the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and result in symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness and worsening of asthma symptoms. In addition, ozone causes substantial damage to crops, forests and native plants. Ozone can also damage materials such as rubber and plastics. Trying to produce Ozone in large quantities by any means would be a mistake. Health Effects of Ozone in the General Population Moontanman 1 Quote
Vmedvil Posted March 14 Author Report Posted March 14 (edited) 19 hours ago, OceanBreeze said: Bad idea Vic. Like many people, you don’t seem to know that Ozone is a double-edged sword. The good Ozone is found in the stratosphere, the second layer of the earth's atmosphere, 10 to 30 miles above the surface. Life couldn't exist without this protective Stratospheric ozone, which is also called the “ozone layer.” Stratospheric ozone is formed naturally through the interaction of solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation with molecular oxygen (O2). It takes a tremendous amount of energy, provided by the sun, to produce this Stratospheric ozone. Even if we had an energy source great enough to produce enough Ozone on Earth to increase the amount of Stratospheric ozone, we don't have a way to transport the ozone to the right places in the atmosphere. Since we can't make more Stratospheric ozone, the solution is to slow down the depletion rate back to its normal value that existed prior to the 1970’s. The only way to do that is to stop using ozone-depleting chemicals. The bad Ozone is Ozone is formed in the lower atmosphere close to the ground level, where people live, exercise and breathe. This Ozone is produced through chemical reactions between pollutants emitted from vehicles, factories and other industrial sources, fossil fuels, combustion, consumer products, evaporation of paints, and many other sources. Ozone has a very characteristic pungent odor, sometimes described as like chlorine bleach, and like chlorine bleach, ozone can cause harmful health effects and damage materials, depending on its concentration. Various Health Services advise the public not to use ozone generators in homes or offices. Hazardous ozone generators are often marketed for the purposes of aiding allergy sufferers, but actually emit harmful ozone gas that can cause asthma or other respiratory symptoms. Low level atmospheric ozone can damage the tissues of the respiratory tract, causing inflammation and irritation, and result in symptoms such as coughing, chest tightness and worsening of asthma symptoms. In addition, ozone causes substantial damage to crops, forests and native plants. Ozone can also damage materials such as rubber and plastics. Trying to produce Ozone in large quantities by any means would be a mistake. Health Effects of Ozone in the General Population I didn't actually know that, thankfully, I haven't done this experiment yet. I never knew there was "Good" and "Bad" ozone however I am not an environmental scientist. I just assumed it would replace the Ozone layer if I produced Ozone using the Bio machines, Interesting. Edited March 14 by Vmedvil OceanBreeze 1 Quote
OceanBreeze Posted March 14 Report Posted March 14 13 hours ago, Vmedvil said: I didn't actually know that, thankfully, I haven't done this experiment yet. I never knew there was "Good" and "Bad" ozone however I am not an environmental scientist. I just assumed it would replace the Ozone layer if I produced Ozone using the Bio machines, Interesting. "I just assumed it would replace the Ozone layer if I produced Ozone using the Bio machines, Interesting." You have raised an interesting point, which I should have addressed before. That is, if CFCs, which are produced by human activities, which lead to elevated levels of tropospheric carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides and hydrogen oxides, and these gases participate in a series of chemical reactions with pollutants that deplete ozone; Why is it that the CFCs are able to be transported across the tropospheric-stratospheric boundary, while tropospheric ozone does not cross into the stratosphere? It would seem to any logical person if CFCs are transported to the stratosphere, the same must be true of ozone. The answer is not intuitive, but actually very simple: Because there are very much higher levels of ozone in the stratosphere, the net transfer of ozone is from the stratosphere to the troposphere. However, this exchange is minor and does not play a significant role in determining ozone abundances in both the stratosphere and troposphere. The Montreal Protocol and other major efforts are being undertaken to implement emission control strategies that will limit tropospheric pollutants such as CFCs, so that stratospheric ozone is expected to fully recover to normal levels over the next 50 to 100 years. Unfortunately, these initiatives are challenged by global industrialization which continues to create tropospheric pollutants, including CFCs, that are emitted both locally and from distant upwind sources, sometimes from other countries or continents, making the task to control these emissions that much more difficult. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.