http://www.indiegogo.com/SuperPothos/x/1889244?c=home”

or I could upload the pdf for the list. Is it possible to do that in
google groups?

Only to a binary group which rec.gadens isn't.

D

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 9:29:49 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:


http://www.indiegogo.com/SuperPothos/x/1889244?c=home”



or I could upload the pdf for the list. Is it possible to do that in

google groups?



Only to a binary group which rec.gadens isn't.



D

Too bad. Will one of the other options work ?

On 1/2/2013 9:48 PM, Stuart Strand wrote:
Not on my budget. I see on net that some plants are better than others.



I'd go for them if so inclined but I'm not. I'm not afraid of a ppb



of any common chemical in the air I breathe.



Yeah, Frank, but I'll bet that you're not as susceptible to those common known carcinogens as the babies that spend all of their time breathing those common home air pollutants.





Maybe. I'm a retired chemist and have been exposed to more of these

things then the average person and, so far, am cancer free.



I understand that we chemists live longer than average - must be all

those chemicals.

Frank, back in the day I knew chemists who routinely smoked in the lab; you could tell because there were lots of burn marks along the edge of the lab bench. And these were organic chemists, with flammable solvent bubbling away in the nearby hood! LOL! But they would assure me that, no worries: they hadn't been blown up yet.

If you are a scientist, you should read the literature on toxicology and not spout nonsense.


Maybe I am being flippant but I'm probably in the upper 1% of those with
a knowledge of toxicology.

I had lunch with a government official one day that told me he did not
want a single molecule of a chlorine containing compound in his glass of
water. I did not have the time or inclination to teach him about
Avogadro's number.

Those that practice chemo-phobia on the uninitiated try to scare them by
telling them of the nasties in their air, food and drink even though
they are present in quantities far below where they can cause any harm.

You won't be selling your plants to me

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 12:32:53 PM UTC-8, Frank wrote:
On 1/2/2013 9:48 PM, Stuart Strand wrote:

Not on my budget. I see on net that some plants are better than others.







I'd go for them if so inclined but I'm not. I'm not afraid of a ppb







of any common chemical in the air I breathe.







Yeah, Frank, but I'll bet that you're not as susceptible to those common known carcinogens as the babies that spend all of their time breathing those common home air pollutants.











Maybe. I'm a retired chemist and have been exposed to more of these



things then the average person and, so far, am cancer free.







I understand that we chemists live longer than average - must be all



those chemicals.



Frank, back in the day I knew chemists who routinely smoked in the lab; you could tell because there were lots of burn marks along the edge of the lab bench. And these were organic chemists, with flammable solvent bubbling away in the nearby hood! LOL! But they would assure me that, no worries: they hadn't been blown up yet.



If you are a scientist, you should read the literature on toxicology and not spout nonsense.





Maybe I am being flippant but I'm probably in the upper 1% of those with

a knowledge of toxicology.



I had lunch with a government official one day that told me he did not

want a single molecule of a chlorine containing compound in his glass of

water. I did not have the time or inclination to teach him about

Avogadro's number.



Those that practice chemo-phobia on the uninitiated try to scare them by

telling them of the nasties in their air, food and drink even though

they are present in quantities far below where they can cause any harm.



You won't be selling your plants to me

I'm sure not going to change your mind, but others less opinionated might want to learn about very real risks associated with indoor air pollutants by reading this short review of the scientific studies of these pollutants:

http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...pdf?1357159066

or

http://preview.tinyurl.com/b3zjt2y

In article ,
Stuart Strand wrote:

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:34:43 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Stuart Strand wrote:

Dear David (and Billy),



Sorry to be delayed in replying. I wanted to give you a summary of

the latest research, so I had to bring myself up to speed with recent

meta-analyses of the growing home air pollution literature. Also the

holidays got in the way.



Anyway I have posted a short summary (pdf) with citations on the

SuperPothos website (in the Gallery tab), titled "Levels and risks of

indoor air pollutants"



thanks





http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...30102121643-Le
vels_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357157806





This URL gives me a 403 error, security.



D

OK, sorry about the confusion. Two options:

1. Try this URL:
http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...2123743-Levels
_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357159066

2. Go to the indiegogo website, click on the gallery tab and download the pdf
labeled "Levels_of_indoor_air_pollutants"

http://www.indiegogo.com/SuperPothos/x/1889244?c=home

It's a little confusing in that you seem to be suggesting at least two
products. One to remove benzene and chloroform. and another to remove
chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride and styrene. What, no aldehyde
removal for our FEMA trailer homes? What are suggested levels for these
toxins, and what are their household levels typically? Yeah, I could
look it up, but you are the one doing the selling. Sell me.

A little quantification would also be nice. Compared to other house
plants, like a natural pothos, with equal surface areas, at STP, how
much time is required to remove a given amount of benzene, or
chloroform from the test area?


Do you realize that a cytochrome P450 2E1 enhanced tobacco plant would
be of little interest to gardeners (as a house plant?) because of the
mosaic tobacco virus? Removing chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride
and styrene from the home environment is a desirable action, but
removing the sources of this contamination may be more practical.


Lastly, please don't try to dissuade Frank from smoking around open
containers of ether.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Next time vote Green Party

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:49:05 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Stuart Strand wrote:



On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:34:43 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:

Stuart Strand wrote:



Dear David (and Billy),







Sorry to be delayed in replying. I wanted to give you a summary of



the latest research, so I had to bring myself up to speed with recent



meta-analyses of the growing home air pollution literature. Also the



holidays got in the way.







Anyway I have posted a short summary (pdf) with citations on the



SuperPothos website (in the Gallery tab), titled "Levels and risks of



indoor air pollutants"







thanks











http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...30102121643-Le

vels_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357157806











This URL gives me a 403 error, security.







D



OK, sorry about the confusion. Two options:



1. Try this URL:

http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...2123743-Levels

_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357159066



2. Go to the indiegogo website, click on the gallery tab and download the pdf

labeled "Levels_of_indoor_air_pollutants"



http://www.indiegogo.com/SuperPothos/x/1889244?c=home



It's a little confusing in that you seem to be suggesting at least two

products. One to remove benzene and chloroform. and another to remove

chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride and styrene. What, no aldehyde

removal for our FEMA trailer homes? What are suggested levels for these

toxins, and what are their household levels typically? Yeah, I could

look it up, but you are the one doing the selling. Sell me.



A little quantification would also be nice. Compared to other house

plants, like a natural pothos, with equal surface areas, at STP, how

much time is required to remove a given amount of benzene, or

chloroform from the test area?





Do you realize that a cytochrome P450 2E1 enhanced tobacco plant would

be of little interest to gardeners (as a house plant?) because of the

mosaic tobacco virus? Removing chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride

and styrene from the home environment is a desirable action, but

removing the sources of this contamination may be more practical.





Lastly, please don't try to dissuade Frank from smoking around open

containers of ether.



--

Welcome to the New America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

or

E Pluribus Unum

Next time vote Green Party

Happy to clear up issues: We are presently proposing only one gene in houseplants: the mammalian cytochrome P450 2E1, which attacks and degrades benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, dichlorobenzene, and several other volatile organic compounds that frequently exceed health standards in home air. Formaldehyde is a desirable target of course, but 2E1 does not degrade formaldehyde. We are looking at other formaldehyde degrading genes for future work, but so are other groups in China and Japan, especially.

Of course we don't propose to use transgenic tobacco as a houseplant, that would be impractical for a variety of reasons. But since tobacco is easily transformed we transformed it as a proof -of-concept. Tobacco transformed with 2E1 degraded benzene and the other pollutants more than 20x faster than untransformed tobacco in small scale experiments. We expect that transformed pothos ivy will have the same increased pollutant destroying capability.. We think we are already close to having a 2E1 transformed pothos and will have confirming data this week.

As for the pollutant levels that are present in homes, the little review I wrote gives a good summary of the current literature.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/b3zjt2y

I don't think it is too difficult to read, but to summarize, most US homes have levels of benzene (2ug/m3) that are close to or exceed maximum health standards for chronic exposures (0.3 ug/m3). the same applies to dichlorobenzene (2 and 0.9 ug/m3 respectively) and carbon tetrachloride (0.6 and 0.24 respectively). Chloroform levels in showering typically exceed the one hour acute exposure standards (150 ug/m3).

As far as getting rid of sources, that is certainly the best mitigation action, but it is not easy. Benzene is emitted from fuel storage in attached garages, so you would need to find another place to park your car and store your lawn mover, no smoking, no indoor fires, including perhaps cooking. Chloroform is present in all chlorinated water, so, unless you use your own well, you will need a whole house activated carbon filtration, with frequent and costly switching out of the filter. Carbon tet comes from outside (as does a lot of benzene), so that is a problem. We think our superpothos would make a good alternative and could result in a decrease in the levels of these carcinogens, which even if the reduction is only partial would decrease cancers in the US.

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 7:49:02 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
Stuart Strand wrote:

On Tuesday, December 18, 2012 2:43:14 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott

wrote:

The air in your home may have more benzene and chloroform (two

cancer



causing pollutants) than is allowed in the workplace. Every time you



park your car in an attached garage or take a shower you are adding



benzene and chloroform to your home air.







Please explain where the benzene and chloroform gets into my

showerhead and



what concentration in the house air might develop from this practice

and how



that relates to the safety standards.



The chloroform is in all municipal drinking water that has been

disinfected with chlorine to prevent water borne disease (such as

cholera). Chloroform is formed from the reaction of the chlorine

with natural compounds (humics) are present in almost all waters.

Chloroform is volatile, meaning that it comes out of the water into

the air when you use hot water in your home. So you and your kids

breathe this carcinogen.



Benzene comes from different sources in the home, not the shower

(please read the FAQ!): cars parked in attached garages, fuel storage

in the home, solvents, paints, even inks, woodstoves, and -- the big

one -- second hand smoke.



Studies of volatile carcinogenic pollutants in the air in urban homes

around the world including the US found levels that ranged into the

regulated levels for benzene and chloroform and for formaldehyde

(which our GMO does not degrade). for citations see the full proposal

on our website. So most homes were below the workspace regulatory

levels, but consider this: children and their adult caretakers spend

nearly all of their time in these environments with these low level

known carcinogens. These exposures are important.





There is a movement that says you can sell anything in the western

world if



you invoke the boogieman of danger to children.



Our children are precious



Exactly the same emotive motherhood and apple pie statement as any salesman

would make. I thought that you were a scientist.





This idea tells us to buy



special products to sterilise the inside of our toilet bowls and

every



surface in our house and to have a machine on the wall that pumps out



perfume/insecticide/ bactericide all day at timed intervals.







Now I would much prefer to house full of plants to splashing

chemicals



everywhere but I am doing neither until both the need and efficacy is



demonstrated. Your web site seems devoid of both.





Dear David, If you live with chlorinated water, when you shower you

fill your home air with chloroform.



I don't. But for those who do how much chloroform and how much is

dangerous? Your FAQ has no numbers.



If you store your snow-blower or

lawnmower or park your car in your garage you "splash" benzene into

the air that your family breathes. Please read our website,

especially the FAQ, to really understand these important issues and

how our new technology can provide some relief.



I read it and if you had read my questions you would know the FAQ doesn't

address them. Until you provide evidence that there is a significant risk

I won't be giving you money to develop a product to deal with it. So far

you are still in the same category as those who want to charge me money to

turn my toilet water blue.



D

So, David, I have posted a detailed and quantitative reply. Have you no comment on the data?

I read it and if you had read my questions you would know the FAQ
doesn't

address them. Until you provide evidence that there is a
significant risk

I won't be giving you money to develop a product to deal with it.
So far

you are still in the same category as those who want to charge me
money to

turn my toilet water blue.



D

So, David, I have posted a detailed and quantitative reply. Have you
no comment on the data?

thanks, still digesting it.

D

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:14:23 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:
I read it and if you had read my questions you would know the FAQ

doesn't



address them. Until you provide evidence that there is a

significant risk



I won't be giving you money to develop a product to deal with it.

So far



you are still in the same category as those who want to charge me

money to



turn my toilet water blue.







D



So, David, I have posted a detailed and quantitative reply. Have you

no comment on the data?



thanks, still digesting it.



D

David, No problem, I don't think Superpothos is going to take off on Indiegogo anyway. I see from reading recent posts on the list that you are near Sidney and probably a little preoccupied right now. Best luck.

In article ,
Stuart Strand wrote:

On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:49:05 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Stuart Strand wrote:



On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:34:43 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:

Stuart Strand wrote:



Dear David (and Billy),







Sorry to be delayed in replying. I wanted to give you a summary of



the latest research, so I had to bring myself up to speed with recent



meta-analyses of the growing home air pollution literature. Also the



holidays got in the way.







Anyway I have posted a short summary (pdf) with citations on the



SuperPothos website (in the Gallery tab), titled "Levels and risks of



indoor air pollutants"







thanks











http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net.../2013010212164
3-Le

vels_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357157806











This URL gives me a 403 error, security.







D



OK, sorry about the confusion. Two options:



1. Try this URL:

http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...30102123743-Le
vels

_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357159066



2. Go to the indiegogo website, click on the gallery tab and download the
pdf

labeled "Levels_of_indoor_air_pollutants"



http://www.indiegogo.com/SuperPothos/x/1889244?c=home



It's a little confusing in that you seem to be suggesting at least two

products. One to remove benzene and chloroform. and another to remove

chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride and styrene. What, no aldehyde

removal for our FEMA trailer homes? What are suggested levels for these

toxins, and what are their household levels typically? Yeah, I could

look it up, but you are the one doing the selling. Sell me.



A little quantification would also be nice. Compared to other house

plants, like a natural pothos, with equal surface areas, at STP, how

much time is required to remove a given amount of benzene, or

chloroform from the test area?





Do you realize that a cytochrome P450 2E1 enhanced tobacco plant would

be of little interest to gardeners (as a house plant?) because of the

mosaic tobacco virus? Removing chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride

and styrene from the home environment is a desirable action, but

removing the sources of this contamination may be more practical.





Lastly, please don't try to dissuade Frank from smoking around open

containers of ether.



--

Welcome to the New America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

or

E Pluribus Unum

Next time vote Green Party

Happy to clear up issues: We are presently proposing only one gene in
houseplants: the mammalian cytochrome P450 2E1, which attacks and degrades
benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, dichlorobenzene, and several other
volatile organic compounds that frequently exceed health standards in home
air. Formaldehyde is a desirable target of course, but 2E1 does not degrade
formaldehyde. We are looking at other formaldehyde degrading genes for
future work, but so are other groups in China and Japan, especially.

Of course we don't propose to use transgenic tobacco as a houseplant, that
would be impractical for a variety of reasons. But since tobacco is easily
transformed we transformed it as a proof -of-concept. Tobacco transformed
with 2E1 degraded benzene and the other pollutants more than 20x faster than
untransformed tobacco in small scale experiments. We expect that transformed
pothos ivy will have the same increased pollutant destroying capability. We
think we are already close to having a 2E1 transformed pothos and will have
confirming data this week.

As for the pollutant levels that are present in homes, the little review I
wrote gives a good summary of the current literature.

http://preview.tinyurl.com/b3zjt2y

I don't think it is too difficult to read, but to summarize, most US homes
have levels of benzene (2ug/m3) that are close to or exceed maximum health
standards for chronic exposures (0.3 ug/m3). the same applies to
dichlorobenzene (2 and 0.9 ug/m3 respectively) and carbon tetrachloride (0.6
and 0.24 respectively). Chloroform levels in showering typically exceed the
one hour acute exposure standards (150 ug/m3).

As far as getting rid of sources, that is certainly the best mitigation
action, but it is not easy. Benzene is emitted from fuel storage in attached
garages, so you would need to find another place to park your car and store
your lawn mover, no smoking, no indoor fires, including perhaps cooking.
Chloroform is present in all chlorinated water, so, unless you use your own
well, you will need a whole house activated carbon filtration, with frequent
and costly switching out of the filter. Carbon tet comes from outside (as
does a lot of benzene), so that is a problem. We think our superpothos would
make a good alternative and could result in a decrease in the levels of these
carcinogens, which even if the reduction is only partial would decrease
cancers in the US.

Thanks for the information. How long would it take a SuperPothos (at
STP) with a surface area of 1 square meter to clear a room completely
of, say, 1 microgram of benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, or
dichlorobenzene?

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Next time vote Green Party

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:02:35 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Stuart Strand wrote:



On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:49:05 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:

In article ,



Stuart Strand wrote:







On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:34:43 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott wrote:



Stuart Strand wrote:







Dear David (and Billy),















Sorry to be delayed in replying. I wanted to give you a summary of







the latest research, so I had to bring myself up to speed with recent







meta-analyses of the growing home air pollution literature. Also the







holidays got in the way.















Anyway I have posted a short summary (pdf) with citations on the







SuperPothos website (in the Gallery tab), titled "Levels and risks of







indoor air pollutants"















thanks























http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net.../2013010212164

3-Le



vels_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357157806























This URL gives me a 403 error, security.















D







OK, sorry about the confusion. Two options:







1. Try this URL:



http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...30102123743-Le

vels



_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357159066







2. Go to the indiegogo website, click on the gallery tab and download the

pdf



labeled "Levels_of_indoor_air_pollutants"







http://www.indiegogo.com/SuperPothos/x/1889244?c=home







It's a little confusing in that you seem to be suggesting at least two



products. One to remove benzene and chloroform. and another to remove



chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride and styrene. What, no aldehyde



removal for our FEMA trailer homes? What are suggested levels for these



toxins, and what are their household levels typically? Yeah, I could



look it up, but you are the one doing the selling. Sell me.







A little quantification would also be nice. Compared to other house



plants, like a natural pothos, with equal surface areas, at STP, how



much time is required to remove a given amount of benzene, or



chloroform from the test area?











Do you realize that a cytochrome P450 2E1 enhanced tobacco plant would



be of little interest to gardeners (as a house plant?) because of the



mosaic tobacco virus? Removing chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride



and styrene from the home environment is a desirable action, but



removing the sources of this contamination may be more practical.











Lastly, please don't try to dissuade Frank from smoking around open



containers of ether.







--



Welcome to the New America.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg



or



E Pluribus Unum



Next time vote Green Party



Happy to clear up issues: We are presently proposing only one gene in

houseplants: the mammalian cytochrome P450 2E1, which attacks and degrades

benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, dichlorobenzene, and several other

volatile organic compounds that frequently exceed health standards in home

air. Formaldehyde is a desirable target of course, but 2E1 does not degrade

formaldehyde. We are looking at other formaldehyde degrading genes for

future work, but so are other groups in China and Japan, especially.



Of course we don't propose to use transgenic tobacco as a houseplant, that

would be impractical for a variety of reasons. But since tobacco is easily

transformed we transformed it as a proof -of-concept. Tobacco transformed

with 2E1 degraded benzene and the other pollutants more than 20x faster than

untransformed tobacco in small scale experiments. We expect that transformed

pothos ivy will have the same increased pollutant destroying capability.. We

think we are already close to having a 2E1 transformed pothos and will have

confirming data this week.



As for the pollutant levels that are present in homes, the little review I

wrote gives a good summary of the current literature.



http://preview.tinyurl.com/b3zjt2y



I don't think it is too difficult to read, but to summarize, most US homes

have levels of benzene (2ug/m3) that are close to or exceed maximum health

standards for chronic exposures (0.3 ug/m3). the same applies to

dichlorobenzene (2 and 0.9 ug/m3 respectively) and carbon tetrachloride (0.6

and 0.24 respectively). Chloroform levels in showering typically exceed the

one hour acute exposure standards (150 ug/m3).



As far as getting rid of sources, that is certainly the best mitigation

action, but it is not easy. Benzene is emitted from fuel storage in attached

garages, so you would need to find another place to park your car and store

your lawn mover, no smoking, no indoor fires, including perhaps cooking..

Chloroform is present in all chlorinated water, so, unless you use your own

well, you will need a whole house activated carbon filtration, with frequent

and costly switching out of the filter. Carbon tet comes from outside (as

does a lot of benzene), so that is a problem. We think our superpothos would

make a good alternative and could result in a decrease in the levels of these

carcinogens, which even if the reduction is only partial would decrease

cancers in the US.



Thanks for the information. How long would it take a SuperPothos (at

STP) with a surface area of 1 square meter to clear a room completely

of, say, 1 microgram of benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, or

dichlorobenzene?



--

Welcome to the New America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

or

E Pluribus Unum

Next time vote Green Party

Since uptake and degradation of trace pollutants is first-order (i.e., the degradation rate is proportional to the concentration remaining), this question should be restated as "How long would it take for 99% of the pollutant to be degraded". If we assume that the degradation rates we measured with the 2E1 transformed tobacco plants in 40 mL bottles also applies to the SuperPothos plants in a room, and we adjust for the difference leaf areas, then 1 m2 of plant leaf should take up 99% of the benzene in the room in about 1.6 hours. Similar times for chloroform and the other pollutants attacked by 2E1.

Of course, this question is best answered by experimentation.

In article ,
Stuart Strand wrote:

On Tuesday, January 8, 2013 9:02:35 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:
In article ,

Stuart Strand wrote:



On Sunday, January 6, 2013 3:49:05 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:

In article ,



Stuart Strand wrote:







On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 6:34:43 PM UTC-8, David Hare-Scott
wrote:



Stuart Strand wrote:







Dear David (and Billy),















Sorry to be delayed in replying. I wanted to give you a summary
of







the latest research, so I had to bring myself up to speed with
recent







meta-analyses of the growing home air pollution literature. Also
the







holidays got in the way.















Anyway I have posted a short summary (pdf) with citations on the







SuperPothos website (in the Gallery tab), titled "Levels and
risks of







indoor air pollutants"















thanks























http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net...iles/201301021
2164

3-Le



vels_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357157806























This URL gives me a 403 error, security.















D







OK, sorry about the confusion. Two options:







1. Try this URL:



http://d2oadd98wnjs7n.cloudfront.net.../2013010212374
3-Le

vels



_of_indoor_air_pollutants.pdf?1357159066







2. Go to the indiegogo website, click on the gallery tab and download
the

pdf



labeled "Levels_of_indoor_air_pollutants"







http://www.indiegogo.com/SuperPothos/x/1889244?c=home







It's a little confusing in that you seem to be suggesting at least two



products. One to remove benzene and chloroform. and another to remove



chloroform, benzene, carbon tetrachloride and styrene. What, no
aldehyde



removal for our FEMA trailer homes? What are suggested levels for these



toxins, and what are their household levels typically? Yeah, I could



look it up, but you are the one doing the selling. Sell me.







A little quantification would also be nice. Compared to other house



plants, like a natural pothos, with equal surface areas, at STP, how



much time is required to remove a given amount of benzene, or



chloroform from the test area?











Do you realize that a cytochrome P450 2E1 enhanced tobacco plant would



be of little interest to gardeners (as a house plant?) because of the



mosaic tobacco virus? Removing chloroform, benzene, carbon
tetrachloride



and styrene from the home environment is a desirable action, but



removing the sources of this contamination may be more practical.











Lastly, please don't try to dissuade Frank from smoking around open



containers of ether.







--



Welcome to the New America.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg



or



E Pluribus Unum



Next time vote Green Party



Happy to clear up issues: We are presently proposing only one gene in

houseplants: the mammalian cytochrome P450 2E1, which attacks and
degrades

benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, dichlorobenzene, and several
other

volatile organic compounds that frequently exceed health standards in
home

air. Formaldehyde is a desirable target of course, but 2E1 does not
degrade

formaldehyde. We are looking at other formaldehyde degrading genes for

future work, but so are other groups in China and Japan, especially.



Of course we don't propose to use transgenic tobacco as a houseplant,
that

would be impractical for a variety of reasons. But since tobacco is
easily

transformed we transformed it as a proof -of-concept. Tobacco
transformed

with 2E1 degraded benzene and the other pollutants more than 20x faster
than

untransformed tobacco in small scale experiments. We expect that
transformed

pothos ivy will have the same increased pollutant destroying capability.
We

think we are already close to having a 2E1 transformed pothos and will
have

confirming data this week.



As for the pollutant levels that are present in homes, the little review
I

wrote gives a good summary of the current literature.



http://preview.tinyurl.com/b3zjt2y



I don't think it is too difficult to read, but to summarize, most US
homes

have levels of benzene (2ug/m3) that are close to or exceed maximum
health

standards for chronic exposures (0.3 ug/m3). the same applies to

dichlorobenzene (2 and 0.9 ug/m3 respectively) and carbon tetrachloride
(0.6

and 0.24 respectively). Chloroform levels in showering typically exceed
the

one hour acute exposure standards (150 ug/m3).



As far as getting rid of sources, that is certainly the best mitigation

action, but it is not easy. Benzene is emitted from fuel storage in
attached

garages, so you would need to find another place to park your car and
store

your lawn mover, no smoking, no indoor fires, including perhaps cooking.

Chloroform is present in all chlorinated water, so, unless you use your
own

well, you will need a whole house activated carbon filtration, with
frequent

and costly switching out of the filter. Carbon tet comes from outside (as

does a lot of benzene), so that is a problem. We think our superpothos
would

make a good alternative and could result in a decrease in the levels of
these

carcinogens, which even if the reduction is only partial would decrease

cancers in the US.



Thanks for the information. How long would it take a SuperPothos (at

STP) with a surface area of 1 square meter to clear a room completely

of, say, 1 microgram of benzene, chloroform, carbon tetrachloride, or

dichlorobenzene?



--

Welcome to the New America.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg

or

E Pluribus Unum

Next time vote Green Party

Since uptake and degradation of trace pollutants is first-order (i.e., the
degradation rate is proportional to the concentration remaining), this
question should be restated as "How long would it take for 99% of the
pollutant to be degraded". If we assume that the degradation rates we
measured with the 2E1 transformed tobacco plants in 40 mL bottles also
applies to the SuperPothos plants in a room, and we adjust for the difference
leaf areas, then 1 m2 of plant leaf should take up 99% of the benzene in the
room in about 1.6 hours. Similar times for chloroform and the other
pollutants attacked by 2E1.

Of course, this question is best answered by experimentation.

I presume that is 99% of 2.04 micrograms of benzene.

Thank you.

It seems that you make a good case, and I would think that there are
many who would jump at your product. Personally, I prefer to reflect on
it for awhile, and see if there aren't any unintended consequences. In a
world where scalawags seem intent on poisoning the biosphere, your
plants may be needed by the entire world.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Next time vote Green Party

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:55:19 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:

Since uptake and degradation of trace pollutants is first-order (i.e., the

degradation rate is proportional to the concentration remaining), this

question should be restated as "How long would it take for 99% of the

pollutant to be degraded". If we assume that the degradation rates we

measured with the 2E1 transformed tobacco plants in 40 mL bottles also

applies to the SuperPothos plants in a room, and we adjust for the difference

leaf areas, then 1 m2 of plant leaf should take up 99% of the benzene in the

room in about 1.6 hours. Similar times for chloroform and the other

pollutants attacked by 2E1.



Of course, this question is best answered by experimentation.



I presume that is 99% of 2.04 micrograms of benzene.



Thank you.



It seems that you make a good case, and I would think that there are

many who would jump at your product. Personally, I prefer to reflect on

it for awhile, and see if there aren't any unintended consequences. In a

world where scalawags seem intent on poisoning the biosphere, your

plants may be needed by the entire world.



Yes 99% of any concentration. Of course transfer of the pollutant from the bulk air of the room to the surface of the leaves is different from that transfer in a small vial (our experiments so far), so we need better, bigger experiments with a real houseplant (not tobacco). But we can't do that without funding.

Should we turn our backs on a promising method for removal of known and serious pollutants because of fear of unstated unintended consequences. Compared to the ongoing and unacceptably high exposure of our children to these indoor air pollutants? When a cheap and efficient method for removal looks to be close at hand?

Part of our proposal for crowd sourced funding was to test the transformed pothos for increased invasiveness or fitness in the environment (which would be bad) so we planned tests for increased resistance to cold, resistance to a range of herbicides. Without funding, it will be hard to run all of these tests, but we will try.

But we can't test for the unimagined. If you or other list readers have specific fears about harm that would caused by the release of pothos (Epipremnum aureum) transformed with cytochrome P450 2E1, hygromycin resistance, and the GUS genes, please contact me so that we can design experiments to test.

In article ,
Stuart Strand wrote:

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 5:55:19 PM UTC-8, Billy wrote:

Since uptake and degradation of trace pollutants is first-order (i.e.,
the

degradation rate is proportional to the concentration remaining), this

question should be restated as "How long would it take for 99% of the

pollutant to be degraded". If we assume that the degradation rates we

measured with the 2E1 transformed tobacco plants in 40 mL bottles also

applies to the SuperPothos plants in a room, and we adjust for the
difference

leaf areas, then 1 m2 of plant leaf should take up 99% of the benzene in
the

room in about 1.6 hours. Similar times for chloroform and the other

pollutants attacked by 2E1.



Of course, this question is best answered by experimentation.



I presume that is 99% of 2.04 micrograms of benzene.



Thank you.



It seems that you make a good case, and I would think that there are

many who would jump at your product. Personally, I prefer to reflect on

it for awhile, and see if there aren't any unintended consequences. In a

world where scalawags seem intent on poisoning the biosphere, your

plants may be needed by the entire world.



Yes 99% of any concentration. Of course transfer of the pollutant from the
bulk air of the room to the surface of the leaves is different from that
transfer in a small vial (our experiments so far), so we need better, bigger
experiments with a real houseplant (not tobacco). But we can't do that
without funding.

Should we turn our backs on a promising method for removal of known and
serious pollutants because of fear of unstated unintended consequences.
Compared to the ongoing and unacceptably high exposure of our children to
these indoor air pollutants? When a cheap and efficient method for removal
looks to be close at hand?

Part of our proposal for crowd sourced funding was to test the transformed
pothos for increased invasiveness or fitness in the environment (which would
be bad) so we planned tests for increased resistance to cold, resistance to a
range of herbicides. Without funding, it will be hard to run all of these
tests, but we will try.

But we can't test for the unimagined. If you or other list readers have
specific fears about harm that would caused by the release of pothos
(Epipremnum aureum) transformed with cytochrome P450 2E1, hygromycin
resistance, and the GUS genes, please contact me so that we can design
experiments to test.

We will do these experiments as part of our diligence, but we don't expect to
find any increase in fitness because the genes have known function, and they
do not help the plant to our knowledge (and experience in the case of the
hygromycin resistance and GUS reporter gene). The 2E1 gene has been studied
for 20 years or more and its function is well described. It is a detoxifying
protein, one of the most powerful and important detoxifying enzymes known.
But plants expressing 2E1 (and the other 2) grow just like the untransformed
plants, no worse and no better.

Here is a question for those who consider transgenes to be pollutants: Can a
gene that codes for the degradation of important environmental pollutants be
considered a pollutant itself? When there are no plausible negative effect
scenarios? The definition of pollution requires that the pollutant causes
harm. Our plants do the opposite, they reduce harm.

I do wish to thank the list, especially David and Billy, for teaching me that
most people are ignorant of the seriousness of the risk of indoor air
pollutants, especially benzene and chloroform. I had assumed that the risk of
these pollutants would be an easy sell, but I was wrong.

Stuart

And here I thought you were a man of science, but what to my wondrous
eyes appear, but another Willy Loman.

It would have been an easier sell, if you would have attributed the
health costs of these toxics in terms of financial costs, quality of
life, or in terms of decreased mortality. You offered to solve a problem
whose dimensions were never illustrated. Are we talking about major
injuries to our metabolisms, or the loss of years, days, hours, minutes
from our lives? What is the cost of this ill defined cure? Will the
existence of your environmentally cleansing plants encourage industry to
release more pollutants into the environment? Did you mention any
financial gain that you might accrue from the sales of this product. Do
you have a prospectus for investors? When is your IPO?

In an age when our leaders tell us that to feed the poor, we must cut
the taxes of the rich, can anyone be above suspicion?

Oh yeah, thanks for ****ing me off. I'm sure you know what you can do
with your plants.

--
Welcome to the New America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA736oK9FPg
or
E Pluribus Unum
Next time vote Green Party

Stuart Strand wrote:

I do wish to thank the list, especially David and Billy, for teaching
me that most people are ignorant of the seriousness of the risk of
indoor air pollutants, especially benzene and chloroform. I had
assumed that the risk of these pollutants would be an easy sell, but
I was wrong.

Stuart

Most people in the USA are not sure that evolution is responsible for the
existence of those potted plants, that pests might evolve to become resitant
to sprays or that human activity is the cause of climate change. There is a
sizable number who believe in astrology and moonplanting, that Fox News is
giving them good information and that Osama Bin Laden is at this moment
having a beer with Elvis in a little bar in Tupelo. You should get out
more.

D