another viewpoint
Question:
Our closest ancestors 3.5 billion years ago were blue-green algae. These ancestors were responsible for the change in atmospheric composition through photosynthesis.
Response:
I’ve only been on this group for one month, but I am all for alternative medicine and am currently taking something that has helped my respiratory system significantly. I still have asthma and use inhalers, but my doctor was able to reduce my puffs because of this alternative thing. And it is safe. As a Graduate Student in Nutrition (on hold) I know there can be alot of junk out there that people are selling, but there is also some good stuff.
Are you studying to become certified as a Registered Dietitian? In general being a ‘nutritionist’ means nothing. "Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off." General Colin Powell
Response:
And exactly what is this "something" that you are taking for your asthma that is considered to be safe? And so what exactly is this "good stuff" that people are selling. Are you sure your reduction in medications is not a result of a placebo effect (you think they are working…..and so your body responds)?
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I’ve only been on this group for one month, but I am all for alternative medicine and am currently taking something that has helped my respiratory system significantly. I still have asthma and use inhalers, but my doctor was able to reduce my puffs because of this alternative thing. And it is safe. As a Graduate Student in Nutrition (on hold) I know there can be alot of junk out there that people are selling, but there is also some good stuff. Thanks Colleen. Raquel Hi Everyone, I came across this online book, "NATURE CURE" for Asthma while searching the web for something else and thought I’d pass the URL along to you guys. It has some interesting information on diet for asthmatics; it’s an online book entitled, " A complete Handbook of Nature Cure". http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/ncure/index.htm (part 3, #29–asthma.) http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/ncure/chap29.htm Now, don’t start shooting flames at me, I’ve been reading (and posting) on our alt.support.asthma newsgroup for over 5 years and I know how some of you guys get all cranked up when anyone dares to mention anything to do with alternative treatments for asthma.
) So, that said, I’m not promoting ANYTHING, just passing along the webpage for those of you who may be interested in reading the part on Asthma. I found it interesting. Maybe some of the information will help someone in the group. Have a real good weekend, Cheers, Colleen Before you buy.
Response:
I’ve got a question. I don’t know who has been saying what, because to be honest, I have only been following this thread half-heartedly
This portion of the thread diverged from Colleen’s original poster, poster): – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I read that book also, but what confuses me , is that I thought the greenhouse gases or whatever they call them in the atmosphere are increasing, and that would mean the co2 in the atmosphere is increasing, which would mean with the same breathing we would be breathing in MORE co2, not less.The entire thing is confusing as all h—!Also, I read that ages ago we had more co2 in the atmosphere than we have now. How could that be? We have more people now than back in prehistoric times, breathing out more co2, and the trees breathing in the co2 were chopped down. ?? If you are talking about the Buteyko method, I bought two books on it and have looked at websites about it, and it is based on an understanding of physiology, right or wrong. I don’t know, but I’m not a doctor. The premise that the carbon dioxide content of the planet used to be much higher than it is now, and we need to breath in higher content of this co2 than we do now or otherwise compensate , is a position from reason, and certainly deserves discussion.
I’m merely putting the numbers that were presented in perspective. (so sorry to Michael Lim if I put words in his mouth or something)
Actually what you wrote, reads better than the stuff I left out of my previous post. And again, I did not post the atmospheric CO2 theory. Anyway, I think that people are arguing that because the Earth may have had higher carbon dioxide levels 3.5 billion years ago, then somehow humans are used to this level and are suffering now. OK, my problems are: – we don’t know if humans existed that far back (see below) – even if humans did, they probably didn’t look like we look like now (more on this in my question)
Yes and yes. If you’re comparing primordial proteins, RNA, etc., to their present day versions, you could talk about changes over a 3.5 billion year time span. If you’re comparing the respiratory needs of non-oxygen using unspecialized microscopic life to the respiratory needs of oxygen using specialized human cells, well … You people
Read "buteyko posters", I did not posit this theory. seem to be forgetting all about a thing called evolution. It applies not only to humans, but to all other animals. We aren’t like what we were like 3.5 billion years ago. In fact, something like 99% of the life forms that existed back then are extinct now! So, how can you
Read "buteyko posters", I did not posit this theory. suggest that earlier levels of carbon dioxide, especially going back 3.5 billion years ago (!!!), would have an effect on how we breathe now?
The one’s who post that this has an effect, if they reply at all, point to biochemical studies, on oxygen use by organisms. However, see "non- oxygen using" response. if … earlier levels of carbon dioxide effect today’s breathing, why doesn’t it affect other animals? Why is asthma largley a human illness? Yes, I’ve seen strange articles entitled "Horses get asthma too!" but well, with horses, I’d start to suspect breeding to be the real cause.
Valid point. While writing my previous post, I thought of results from primate physiology studies. But then we’re getting into the realm of ‘animal’ newsgroups. Multiple of 1900AD Years ago atmospheric CO2 3,500,000,000 100 (approx) 35,000,000 2 3,500,000 1.1 Eve, Leake 2,000,000 1.1 Dawn of Man, Clarke I sure as heck can’t remember my numbers, but it doesn’t matter. No one really knows exactly when we first appeared, especially when you count the different forms we seemingly came in.
First I need to ammend the 3.5 million year marker: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2106hum1.html "In the remote past, more than three million years ago, a tiny female lived by a lake on the edge of the lush forests of Africa. She was part ape, part human." What you wrote, is one of the points of my chart. We’re supposed to be dealing with humans, not protein strands. The dividing line of what is construed to be ‘human’, is 3 million years. Homo Sapien, nearly all current internet users, has a 120,000 year lineage (or 10,000 years*). * Let’s not go there. if your numbers above are correct … there was a LOT of time that had already passed since the ultimately high levels of carbon dioxide anyway!
The original author (not me) uses 3.5 billion year and "100 times" to get the attention of the reader. But working the figures as relates to human existance, the "100 times" does not apply. Run to multiple decimal points, the actual differences are fairly small; a 3.5 billion to 1 slope. But for the purposes of discussion I used "1.1" and "1.0". I should note here that the "100 times" figure is not directly confirmable; without advanced temporal technology you can’t get a real 3.5 billion year old atmosphere sample. It’s a matter of finding ‘uncontaminated’, highly isolated, etc., 3.5 billion year old rock samples and extracting captured air, or working backwards the chemical reactions evident in the rock sample, etc. Or creating physical representations of what the primordial atmosphere might have been like, add rocks, examine the chemical reactions in the rock. Etc. If, as the originating author believes, asthma is due human adaption to decreased atmospheric CO2, then the converse should hold: increased atmospheric CO2 would reduce asthma. CO2 Years ago ppmv 150 277 100 295 50 312 20 338 0 369 I’d would have added correlations and notable quotes, but I believe the above bespeaks volumes. Sorry for continuing the thread, but I had to point out my problems with what has been said, and ask my questions.
Legitimate problems and questions. Just, again, not my position. // "Anyone who thinks lab work is pure routine has obviously never done any!" Kathy Oltion Before you buy.
Response:
The premise that the carbon dioxide content of the planet used to be much higher than it is now, and we need to breath in higher content of this co2 than we do now or otherwise compensate , is a position from reason, and certainly deserves discussion.
FYI, this was disproved a long time ago. This theory was the result of one flawed experiment that attempted to determine CO2 content by analyzing specific rocks. The methods were flawed and produced erroneous results. Of course the quacks have expanded upon this – ignoring the fact that the original premise is known to be incorrect. "Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off." General Colin Powell
Response:
I read that book also, but what confuses me , is that I thought the greenhouse gases or whatever they call them in the atmosphere are increasing, and that would mean the co2 in the atmosphere is increasing, which would mean with the same breathing we would be breathing in MORE co2, not less.The entire thing is confusing as all h—!Also, I read that ages ago we had more co2 in the atmosphere than we have now. How could that be? We have more people now than back in prehistoric times, breathing out more co2, and the trees breathing in the co2 were chopped down. ??
And in a similar query. If you are talking about the Buteyko method, I bought two books on it and have looked at websites about it, and it is based on an understanding of physiology, right or wrong. I don’t know, but I’m not a doctor. The premise that the carbon dioxide content of the planet used to be much higher than it is now, and we need to breath in higher content of this co2 than we do now or otherwise compensate , is a position from reason, and certainly deserves discussion. The quack website says they want more information and experience with it before they reach a conclusion.
Repeat: Britannica posits that 3.5 Billion years ago atmospheric CO2 was 100 times the level of today. Very roughly, if the decrease is linear, every 35 million years (for discussion purposes only, it’s late I’m tired), lose 1 1900AD level of atmospheric CO2. Let’s oversimplfy (calculations very approximate, don’t use this for a lab paper): Multiple of 1900AD Years ago atmospheric CO2 3,500,000,000 100 (approx) 35,000,000 2 3,500,000 1.1 Eve, Leake 2,000,000 1.1 Dawn of Man, Clarke 10,000 1.0 Human civilization 100 1.0 1900AD 50 1.0 Decrease in asthma rate(?) 20 1.1 Increase in asthma rate(?) 0 1.2 2000AD, US DOE If your queries are not getting the results you expect, you should post your query on the buteyko mailing list, of which you are a member. // "Fashions come and fashions go; some run deep, and when they change, certain adjustments are required…." Catherine Wells Before you buy.
Response:
People are always scared of what they don’t understand!
I think this is a wrong statement.I hope you are speaking for yourself and not the for everyone else.
Response:
Britannica posits that 3.5 Billion years ago atmospheric CO2 was 100 times the level of today. Very roughly, if the decrease is linear, every 35 million years (for discussion purposes only, it’s late I’m tired), lose 1 1900AD level of atmospheric CO2.
I’ve got a question. I don’t know who has been saying what, because to be honest, I have only been following this thread half-heartedly, but I’ve got to ask my question anyway. (so sorry to Michael Lim if I put words in his mouth or something) Anyway, I think that people are arguing that because the Earth may have had higher carbon dioxide levels 3.5 billion years ago, then somehow humans are used to this level and are suffering now. OK, my problems are: – we don’t know if humans existed that far back (see below) – even if humans did, they probably didn’t look like we look like now (more on this in my question) My question: You people seem to be forgetting all about a thing called evolution. It applies not only to humans, but to all other animals. We aren’t like what we were like 3.5 billion years ago. In fact, something like 99% of the life forms that existed back then are extinct now! So, how can you suggest that earlier levels of carbon dioxide, especially going back 3.5 billion years ago (!!!), would have an effect on how we breathe now? One of the most amazing things about the human animal is our ability to adapt… It’s why we’re now at the top of the food chain… One more question: if you are actually correct in that earlier levels of carbon dioxide effect today’s breathing, why doesn’t it affect other animals? Why is asthma largley a human illness? Yes, I’ve seen strange articles entitled "Horses get asthma too!" but well, with horses, I’d start to suspect breeding to be the real cause. Let’s oversimplfy (calculations very approximate, don’t use this for a lab paper): Multiple of 1900AD Years ago atmospheric CO2 3,500,000,000 100 (approx) 35,000,000 2 3,500,000 1.1 Eve, Leake 2,000,000 1.1 Dawn of Man, Clarke
I sure as heck can’t remember my numbers, but it doesn’t matter. No one really knows exactly when we first appeared, especially when you count the different forms we seemingly came in. Anyway, even if that number is correct, I still remember reading in one of my books on evolution (sorry, don’t have it with me – that course was done a couple of years ago), that it has been discovered that evolution occurs basically in big leaps, every some-thousand or so years. I forget the number, but I think it was 60. Anyway, in the amount of time that has passed, we’ve had the chance to evolve a lot! Also, if your numbers above are correct (or close or whatever), there was a LOT of time that had already passed since the ultimately high levels of carbon dioxide anyway! Sorry for continuing the thread, but I had to point out my problems with what has been said, and ask my questions. Vicky
Response:
I’ve only been on this group for one month, but I am all for alternative medicine and am currently taking something that has helped my respiratory system significantly. I still have asthma and use inhalers, but my doctor was able to reduce my puffs because of this alternative thing. And it is safe. As a Graduate Student in Nutrition (on hold) I know there can be alot of junk out there that people are selling, but there is also some good stuff. Thanks Colleen. Raquel – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Hi Everyone, I came across this online book, "NATURE CURE" for Asthma while searching the web for something else and thought I’d pass the URL along to you guys. It has some interesting information on diet for asthmatics; it’s an online book entitled, " A complete Handbook of Nature Cure". http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/ncure/index.htm (part 3, #29–asthma.) http://www.healthlibrary.com/reading/ncure/chap29.htm Now, don’t start shooting flames at me, I’ve been reading (and posting) on our alt.support.asthma newsgroup for over 5 years and I know how some of you guys get all cranked up when anyone dares to mention anything to do with alternative treatments for asthma.
) So, that said, I’m not promoting ANYTHING, just passing along the webpage for those of you who may be interested in reading the part on Asthma. I found it interesting. Maybe some of the information will help someone in the group. Have a real good weekend, Cheers, Colleen
Before you buy.
Response:
People are afraid of what they do not understand and are also afraid of what they do understand because they are not certain they understand it or not. Do you understandd?
Response:
Re: another viewpoint Help Sorry Allan, that’s not what I’ve been saying at all. What I’ve been saying is that these non-drug methods of dealing with asthma should be looked at and discussed in a polite,considerate, and respnsible manner. They should not be instantly dismiessed and denigrated simply because they deal with somthing other than drugs. At no time did I say that all, or even any, alternative treatments were "shrouded in timeless wisdom." Some of them are absolute crap. What I’m saying is that a greater level of respect and decency needs to be present here. That these alternataives should be read about, questions asked, answers given, and the methods disucssed. They should not be immediatelyl isulted and dismissed simply becusae they deal with something other than drugs.
No fear here, and I’ve visited the website in question, where enemas and diets including prunes figure prominently in the treatment regimen (carry Fleets and lots of coins for the restrooms instead of inhalers). Your presumption that people who dismiss quackery ‘just don’t understand’ sounds like evangelism–only the annointed and receptive (read gullible) can appreciate the subleties of the Eastern methods. After all, they’ve been around for centuries, so they must be shrouded in timeless wisdom (so has the hanging of garlic to ward off vampires). These practicioners shrink from subjecting their techniques to the scientific method, and cry ‘conspiracy’ when that is pointed out…
People are always scared of what they don’t understand!
Yet more bigoted ramblings ……
Just out of idle curiosity – is the book based on science? Hello Colin,
) Whose Science? Western or Eastern? ????? I am talking about the scientific method. Like mathematics there is no ‘eastern’ nor ‘western’ version. There is only correct science and incorrect science. However, I believe it is based on Eastern Philosophy. Philosophy has nothing to do with science. Philosophy is about beliefs, and has very little to do with physical reality. If it can change according to a philosophical viewpoint, then it is a belief – not fact. If it cannot be changed by philosophical viewpoint, then it is a fact. For example the biochemical processes that constitute asthma are fact – they are going to remain the same no matter what you believe about them. My studies in philosophy are focused in the field of ethics. I have no interest in authors who apparently do not even understand what philosophy even is. "Being responsible sometimes means pissing people off."
Categories:
