Sandalwood Poisonous?
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten?
|
Curious schreef
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten? * * * I can't really say and I doubt if anybody could. However, on the whole poisonous woods are ususally most dangerous if the poison is extracted first or if the wood is divided into very small particles (by sanding and such) and can be breathed in. On the whole wood itself is not digested, meaning that the stuff in the wood stays in. However IIRC there are a few woods that are poisonous to the touch (when fresh), and quite a few more that cause allergic reactions (susceptibility varies). I would expect sandalwood not to be poisonous when eaten, but strongly suggest you don't try to test this (it costs like crazy too). PvR |
Curious schreef
Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten? * * * Another aspect is poisonous to whom? Things harmless to humans can be poisonous to pets. Apparently chocolate can be lethal to dogs, and avocado fruits to birds. Woods guaranteed to be non-poisonous when ingested are a fairly hot topic for bird owners, wanting to put sticks, roosts, etc in with their bird. A few woods are known to be poisonous when ingested (black walnut to horses is often mentioned, as is yew to apparently everybody). PvR. |
|
In article ,
Gautam Majumdar wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:24:18 +0100, Curious wrote: Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten? Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic (ancient Indian) system. Geez mate, that hardly proves it's not poisonous! In fact, many lethal compounds are used in medicine for the very reason that they are extremely biologically active. I hardly need mention they need to be used with precision and caution. :) Mind you, it's possible that sandalwood oil is relatively safe. Indeed there is some data on the Australian product from _Santalum spicatum_ that has found no serious problems: http://www.aromarich.btinternet.co.uk/sandalwood2.html But, mind you again, that page is from an aromatherapy site, so perhaps should itself be taken with a grain of salt. ;-) E.g. see: http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~no...********books7. htm At http://www.wrc.net/phyto/Chandana.html there is an indication of possible toxic effects from _S. album_ oil: quoting Toxicity: Possible cytochrome p-450 inducement in high doses long term (Jones et al 1994). Essential oil reported to have a "baneful effect upon the kidneys" in larger doses (Nadkarni 1976, 1102). /quoting The references are given on that page -- and it might be noted that the article by Jones et al. actually referred to quandong (_Santalum acuminatum_). Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
In article ,
Gautam Majumdar wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:24:18 +0100, Curious wrote: Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten? Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic (ancient Indian) system. As with almost anything, the dose makes the poison. A few minutes with google reveals that for the oil of Santalum album the oral LD50 in rats is 5580 mg/kg and the skin LD50 is 5.00 g/kg. I don't know why they don't standardize the units, but as far as acute toxicity you'd have to drink a cup or two to poison yourself to death with it, and you'd probably die of intestinal impaction before you could eat enough sandalwood sawdust to kill you. That said, unsurprisingly the oil is an irritant to skin, eyes and mucous membranes, and people can develop an allergic reaction to it. More interesting is that it's believed to have some kidney toxicity, and has been established to induce cytochrome P-450 in the liver and also act as a cyclooxygenase inhibitor. This means that it can potentiate, antagonize or interfere with a lot of different prescription drugs and as a diuretic may cause hypokalemia especially in conjunction with other drugs. The US FDA rates it as GRAS (generally recognized as safe) as a food, drug or cosmetic additive. GRAS mainly means that it's been in use for a long time as such without any evident harm caused by it, although it hasn't been formally tested for safety. It appears that no research has been done on long-term issues like mutagenicity, carcinogenicity or teratogenicity, or effects of prolonged high dosages on any organs or systems. There is some research indicating anti-fungal and anti-bacterial action, unsurprising since that's probably its function in the plant. What little science I can find was mostly done with S.album, but there are a lot of other species used. It's been overharvested in India, so a lot of sandalwood and sandalwood oil now comes from S.spicatum in Australia, and from other species elsewhere. Essential oils (mainly terpenes) have a wide range of medicinal and toxic effects, and may vary quite a lot between species. Since there's no authority to guarantee purity, sandalwood oil is often adulterated with other materials, notably castor oil, and other woods treated with sandalwood oil are sold as sandalwood. At any rate, used sensibly neither the wood nor the oil are likely to harm you, but don't get carried away. Even the innumerable web sites that sell the stuff for its vaguely medical and magical properties have enough sense to recommend caution, even if they can't agree whether its "ruling planet" is the moon or Uranus. While sorting through the swamp of entrepreneurial new age sites google turned up, I ran into a paper describing some research testing 53 different essential oils for their insecticidal effect on a particularly troublesome species of white fly in greenhouses in Korea. About half the oils tested had an 80% or better kill rate on eggs, and some had good effect against adults. One of the best was peppermint oil. This is encouraging since some of these greenhouse species have developed resistance against most chemical insecticides, and white fly is a big problem on edible crops like greenhouse tomatoes where limiting pesticide residues is very important. Of course, any discussion of herbal remedies these days has to have personal anecdotes to prove a point. I've been using a rather nice sandalwood scented soap from China for many years and I'm not dead yet. It's denser than the North American soaps because it doesn't have air whipped into it to make it float, so it doesn't dissolve away as fast in the shower. It's cheap, too. I like the scent a lot. But my husband finds that it aggravates a chronic skin condition he has, so he uses Ivory now. There's no telling if it's the sandalwood or another ingredient at fault, however. Or maybe there's an astrological incompatibility, right? |
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:27:22 +0100, Phred wrote:
In article , Gautam Majumdar wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:24:18 +0100, Curious wrote: Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten? Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic (ancient Indian) system. Geez mate, that hardly proves it's not poisonous! In fact, many lethal compounds are used in medicine for the very reason that they are extremely biologically active. I hardly need mention they need to be used with precision and caution. :) I agree; whether something is harmful to use depends mainly on the dose. Some of our cherished food supplements, even essential neutrients such as Vitamin A, could cause harm and even death if taken in large doses. But we don't call them poisonous because they are not harmful when used in intended ways. Mind you, it's possible that sandalwood oil is relatively safe. Indeed there is some data on the Australian product from _Santalum spicatum_ that has found no serious problems: http://www.aromarich.btinternet.co.uk/sandalwood2.html Sandalwood oil is used by many people in the Indian subcontinent for skin conditions, both for medicinal and cosmetic purposes. It is not used internally excepting in minute quantities in some Ayurvedic medicine. When I said that it is not poisonous, I meant these uses. It may not be safe if somebody drinks a litre of it. At http://www.wrc.net/phyto/Chandana.html there is an indication of possible toxic effects from _S. album_ oil: quoting Toxicity: Possible cytochrome p-450 inducement in high doses long term (Jones et al 1994). Essential oil reported to have a "baneful effect upon the kidneys" in larger doses (Nadkarni 1976, 1102). /quoting The references are given on that page -- and it might be noted that the article by Jones et al. actually referred to quandong (_Santalum acuminatum_). -- Gautam Majumdar Please send e-mails to |
In article , Gautam Majumdar wrote:
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 14:27:22 +0100, Phred wrote: In article , Gautam Majumdar wrote: On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:24:18 +0100, Curious wrote: Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten? Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic (ancient Indian) system. Geez mate, that hardly proves it's not poisonous! In fact, many lethal compounds are used in medicine for the very reason that they are extremely biologically active. I hardly need mention they need to be used with precision and caution. :) I agree; whether something is harmful to use depends mainly on the dose. Some of our cherished food supplements, even essential neutrients such as Vitamin A, could cause harm and even death if taken in large doses. But we don't call them poisonous because they are not harmful when used in intended ways. G'day again mate, Somewhat off-topic in s.b.botany but your mention of Vitamin A reminded me of the likely cause of disaster in one of the early Antarctic expeditions. They were pretty much starving and started eating the dogs. This included the liver, so it's reasonably suspected at least one poor bloke finally died of Vitamin A poisoning! quoting from http://www.aad.gov.au/default.asp?casid=7043 Mawson himself led the 'Far Eastern' sledging expedition with Belgrave Ninnis, a Swiss doctor, and Xavier Mertz, an English army lieutenant. The expedition was five weeks old and 500 km out when disaster struck: Ninnis, with one of the two sleds and most of the party's supplies, was lost down an immense crevasse. Mertz was to die on the return journey, possibly from Vitamin A poisoning from eating the livers of husky dogs. But Mawson survived after an epic solo journey during which he had to haul himself on the end of a rope out of a deep crevasse. It was one of the great polar stories of survival. /quoting Mind you, it's possible that sandalwood oil is relatively safe. Indeed there is some data on the Australian product from _Santalum spicatum_ that has found no serious problems: http://www.aromarich.btinternet.co.uk/sandalwood2.html Sandalwood oil is used by many people in the Indian subcontinent for skin conditions, both for medicinal and cosmetic purposes. It is not used internally excepting in minute quantities in some Ayurvedic medicine. When I said that it is not poisonous, I meant these uses. It may not be safe if somebody drinks a litre of it. At http://www.wrc.net/phyto/Chandana.html there is an indication of possible toxic effects from _S. album_ oil: quoting Toxicity: Possible cytochrome p-450 inducement in high doses long term (Jones et al 1994). Essential oil reported to have a "baneful effect upon the kidneys" in larger doses (Nadkarni 1976, 1102). /quoting The references are given on that page -- and it might be noted that the article by Jones et al. actually referred to quandong (_Santalum acuminatum_). Cheers, Phred. -- LID |
Gautam Majumdar wrote in message .uk...
On Sat, 21 Aug 2004 06:24:18 +0100, Curious wrote: Is sandalwood poisonous if eaten? Can't say about sandalwood as a whole but sandalwood oil is not poisonous to humans. It is used in various medicinal preparations of the Ayurvedic (ancient Indian) system. I was thinking of making a thin watery drink with the following whole ingredients [raw, natural, organic, un-processed, solid, all products whole and not juiced] with my VitaMix blender: 1. Sandalwood 2. Licorice 3. Betal Leaf [Paan] 4. Mints [peppermint, spearmint, wintergreen, etc.] 5. Garlic 6. Cinnamon 7. Ginger 8. Tamarind 9. Anice 10. Parsley 11. Holy Basil [Tulsi] 12. Scallions 13. Lime 14. Lemon 15. Mustard Leaves 16. Lavender 17. Rose petals 18. Parrot Tulip petals 19. Turmeric The flavors/aromas should be equally strong. This means that less amounts of the stronger-flavored/stronger-aroma plants should be used. Another thing in consideration is the causticity -- paan, ginger and some of the others have caustic qualities. The higher the causticity of the plant the less of it should be added. I might add some other plants! |
Why?
M. Reed I was thinking of making a thin watery drink with the following whole ingredients [raw, natural, organic, un-processed, solid, all products whole and not juiced] with my VitaMix blender: 1. Sandalwood 2. Licorice 3. Betal Leaf [Paan] 4. Mints [peppermint, spearmint, wintergreen, etc.] 5. Garlic 6. Cinnamon 7. Ginger 8. Tamarind 9. Anice 10. Parsley 11. Holy Basil [Tulsi] 12. Scallions 13. Lime 14. Lemon 15. Mustard Leaves 16. Lavender 17. Rose petals 18. Parrot Tulip petals 19. Turmeric The flavors/aromas should be equally strong. This means that less amounts of the stronger-flavored/stronger-aroma plants should be used. Another thing in consideration is the causticity -- paan, ginger and some of the others have caustic qualities. The higher the causticity of the plant the less of it should be added. I might add some other plants! |
Monique Reed wrote in message ...
Why? M. Reed Because it's a drinkable Dagwood sandwich? -- Also puzzled, Chris Green |
Monique Reed wrote in message ...
Why? I like the clean feeling it would give. I would this to be my meals. A meal's amount for breakfast, a meal's amount for lunch, and a meal's amount for dinner. |
Curious schreef
I like the clean feeling it would give. I would this to be my meals. A meal's amount for breakfast, a meal's amount for lunch, and a meal's amount for dinner. * * * A religious ritual? PvR |
With that concoction, I doubt if you would feel clean. You would more likely
feel pretty sick. Better talk to your doctor. Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming train." Robert Lowell (1917-1977) |
You want this to be your only source of nourishment? I think perhaps
you might want to consult a nutritionist. You will will be deficient in protein and probably other essential parts of a balanced diet. M. Reed Curious wrote: Monique Reed wrote in message ... Why? I like the clean feeling it would give. I would this to be my meals. A meal's amount for breakfast, a meal's amount for lunch, and a meal's amount for dinner. -- ˙WPC5 |
Monique Reed schreef
You want this to be your only source of nourishment? I think perhaps you might want to consult a nutritionist. You will will be deficient in protein and probably other essential parts of a balanced diet. * * * Deficient is not the right word. Just about anything necessary is absent, except (likely) water. I would not want to guarantee that it does contain enough water. It is either meant as a method of fasting or as a magic / religious method to derive nutrition from another dimension. PvR |
|
In article ,
Christopher Green wrote: 2. Licorice Also GRAS. Good for you in small quantities. Larger quantities of glycyrrhizin, the active principle, have been known to cause edema and are moderately estrogenic. It also causes and exacerbates hypertension in large quantities or taken regularly. For this reason, "licorice" candy is now made with aniseed instead. The mechanism is by inhibiting an enzyme in the corticosteroid system, causing the kidney to retain water and sodium, and excrete potassium. Not only can licorice precipitate strokes and other hypertension related effects, but the associated hypokalemia can cause heart arrythmias and other EKG changes in otherwise healthy people, as well as muscle weakness, increased thirst and increased urination. There are many reports of "treatment-resistant" hypertension caused by consumption of large quantities of old style licorice candy, licorice tea or herbal remedies containing a lot of licorice root taken regularly. But a "thin, watery drink" of this stuff would meet just about none of the nutritional needs of anybody. Overall, this sounds like a Really Bad Idea. What sources have led you to believe that a diet of this would be good for you? The original poster said: I was thinking of making a thin watery drink with the following whole ingredients [raw, natural, organic, un-processed, solid, all products whole and not juiced] with my VitaMix blender: The irrational belief that nature is benign and plants are there for human benefit, while technology is evil, and its products are designed to make money at the expense of the environment and human health has become so widespread as to be the unconscious basis of thought and decision making about health for many people. There's a *lot* of money to be made pandering to this mindset, and key words like raw, natural, organic, unprocessed, whole, etc. are a characteristic part. People are afraid of "drugs", but "herbs" are "natural", untouched by evil "processing" and therefore intrinsically good, provided by kindly Mother Nature to heal all our ills, unlike the doctors and pharmaceutical companies that just want to profit from our suffering. I could go on for pages about the problems with these beliefs, but I won't. They are part of a powerful trend toward magical thinking and rejection of science and rational thought which has been building up for decades in the US, and has profound effects on that country, its citizens and the world it dominates. At least the poster didn't include natural herbs like tobacco, potato leaves, foxglove and oleander in his proposed brew, nor wish to add natural minerals like lead, cadmium, mercury, antimony and arsenic. |
schreef
to add natural minerals like lead, cadmium, mercury, antimony and arsenic. * * * Surely in the popular mind these minerals are firmly connected to either chemistry or alchemy and are not "natural". PvR |
Gautam Majumdar wrote in message .uk...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 05:26:10 +0100, Christopher Green wrote: 3. Betal Leaf [Paan] Chewing betel (paan, paan masala) is a significant cause of cancer in Asian countries where this is a practice. Making a steady diet of any significant amount of it would be unwise at best. A few of the items in your list are not entirely safe, but only dangerous in large quantity or long-term use. Betel (paan) is the most dangerous, but not very. Some of these are definitely inappropriate for pregnant women. Betel (Paan) leaf is not particularly carcinogenic - it is the other things those are added to make it a chewable item. Those include quicklime, betel nuts (supari), various colouring agents, sugars & finally tobacco leaf. This last one is probably the most carcinogenic as the incidence of oral cancer is similar for chewing paan with one of the tobacco preparations and the processed tobacco (jarda, docta, khaini, gundi, etc) by itself. You're right, betel preparations containing tobacco are far more carcinogenic, but there is some substantiation of betel alone being carcinogenic. The reports I've seen concentrate on the nuts rather than the leaves. -- Chris Green |
|
|
In article ,
Curious wrote: It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate. Your stools are mainly composed of bacteria and dead intestinal lining cells, especially if you eat a typical American diet that is low in fibre and high in protein and refined grains. So they've already fed on your stools and turned them into more bacteria. Besides, defecation is good for you. Low fibre diets are strongly associated with a range of ailments from the merely painful and embarrassing like hemorrhoids and anal fissures to the life-threatening like appendicitis and diverticulitis to colon cancer which is usually fatal unless detected early. |
|
(Curious) wrote in message . com...
wrote in message ... In article , Curious wrote: It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate. Your stools are mainly composed of bacteria and dead intestinal lining cells, especially if you eat a typical American diet that is low in fibre and high in protein and refined grains. So they've already fed on your stools and turned them into more bacteria. Besides, defecation is good for you. Low fibre diets are strongly associated with a range of ailments from the merely painful and embarrassing like hemorrhoids and anal fissures to the life-threatening like appendicitis and diverticulitis to colon cancer which is usually fatal unless detected early. What I was saying is that these genetically-engineered bacteria can feed on the stools as they are made. This have the same cleaning effect as defecating but w/out the need to defecate. IOW, gene-modified bacteria do that work for you. Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For example, there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed on the petroleum dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the bacteria can be more "task-oriented". You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste bacteria somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time. Mike. |
This is sooo silly. If you are not happy with the way God made you, discuss it
with your pastor. Stop wasting our time. Iris, Central NY, Zone 5a, Sunset Zone 40 "If we see light at the end of the tunnel, It's the light of the oncoming train." Robert Lowell (1917-1977) |
(Mike Lyle) wrote in message om...
(Curious) wrote in message . com... wrote in message ... In article , Curious wrote: It would be nice to genetically-engineer some bacteria to feed on our stools in our colons. That way we would never need to defecate. Your stools are mainly composed of bacteria and dead intestinal lining cells, especially if you eat a typical American diet that is low in fibre and high in protein and refined grains. So they've already fed on your stools and turned them into more bacteria. Besides, defecation is good for you. Low fibre diets are strongly associated with a range of ailments from the merely painful and embarrassing like hemorrhoids and anal fissures to the life-threatening like appendicitis and diverticulitis to colon cancer which is usually fatal unless detected early. What I was saying is that these genetically-engineered bacteria can feed on the stools as they are made. This have the same cleaning effect as defecating but w/out the need to defecate. IOW, gene-modified bacteria do that work for you. Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For example, there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed on the petroleum dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the bacteria can be more "task-oriented". You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste bacteria somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time. Genetically-engineered bacteria can specifically feed on the waste products and their odors and convert them to substances the human body can use. Same with the urinary system. Bacteria can be genetically-modified so that they feed on urea and other urine-specific constituents so that one does not need to urinate and so the waste is converted to useful substacnes the subject can use. Why not also modify the microbes so that they can feed use necessary nutrients from plants? That way we won't need to eat. Mike. |
(Curious) wrote in
m: (Mike Lyle) wrote in message om... (Curious) wrote in message Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For example, there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed on the petroleum dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the bacteria can be more "task-oriented". You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste bacteria somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time. Genetically-engineered bacteria can specifically feed on the waste products and their odors and convert them to substances the human body can use. Same with the urinary system. Bacteria can be genetically-modified so that they feed on urea and other urine-specific constituents so that one does not need to urinate and so the waste is converted to useful substacnes the subject can use. Why not also modify the microbes so that they can feed use necessary nutrients from plants? That way we won't need to eat. There is a limit on some of that. Urine is also very important in maintaining electrolyte balances. Perhaps you could get a bacteria to turn the urea back into amino acids that your body can use, but you will still need to do something about the excess of sodium, or even other salts that your body may want to get rid of. This is not counting excess water. As far as converting feces and odors into substances that the body can use, that would require lots of energy. There is already a system where this occurs, namely the rest of the environment. Sean |
Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1095192952.JmN+ogXFOrnjnH4ClqAdGw@teranews. ..
(Curious) wrote in m: (Mike Lyle) wrote in message om... (Curious) wrote in message Natural bacteria feed on whatever is their. Bacteria could be gene-modified into "eating" only specfic substances. For example, there was a strain of gene-modified bacteria to feed on the petroleum dumps of the sea. If gene-modified, the bacteria can be more "task-oriented". You'd have to get rid of the bacterial waste and the waste bacteria somehow. And you'd fart like crazy. All the time. Genetically-engineered bacteria can specifically feed on the waste products and their odors and convert them to substances the human body can use. Same with the urinary system. Bacteria can be genetically-modified so that they feed on urea and other urine-specific constituents so that one does not need to urinate and so the waste is converted to useful substacnes the subject can use. Why not also modify the microbes so that they can feed use necessary nutrients from plants? That way we won't need to eat. [...] As far as converting feces and odors into substances that the body can use, that would require lots of energy. There is already a system where this occurs, namely the rest of the environment. Of course. But I'm enjoying this trip to lunar park. And the idea of not needing to eat? Spike Milligan territory, and it could be made into a very funny story. But away from surrealist humo[u]r, you can't get out more than you put in; and I can't quite visualize the GM bacteria which would recycle your body-heat and exhaled CO2 for you, not to mention trifles like shed hair, skin, and nail-clippings. Is it time to get onto sex yet...? Mike. |
|
|
Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1095655347.512RUex2R1ahcHuyJgpTGw@teranews. ..
You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do need light for them to take care of the CO2. Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic bacteria be better for this application? |
|
|
Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1096397186.3WUZQGoSSox59jJh7ILi3A@teranews. ..
(Curious) wrote in om: Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1095655347.512RUex2R1ahcHuyJgpTGw@teranews. .. You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do need light for them to take care of the CO2. Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic bacteria be better for this application? No, because the chemical energy they need has to come from somewhere, and the chemicals that can be used by chemosynthetic bacteria are generally immediatly toxic to humans. If you want them to use sugars from your blood, well, the inefficiencies of thermodynamics mean that they will end up creating more CO2 than they use. Sean There are some bacteria that use CO2 and give out oxygen |
(Curious) wrote in
om: Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1096397186.3WUZQGoSSox59jJh7ILi3A@teranews. .. (Curious) wrote in om: Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1095655347.512RUex2R1ahcHuyJgpTGw@teranews. .. You could put some Cyanobacteria in your blood, but you do need light for them to take care of the CO2. Cyanobacteria are photosynthetic. Wouldn't chemosynthetic bacteria be better for this application? No, because the chemical energy they need has to come from somewhere, and the chemicals that can be used by chemosynthetic bacteria are generally immediatly toxic to humans. If you want them to use sugars from your blood, well, the inefficiencies of thermodynamics mean that they will end up creating more CO2 than they use. Sean There are some bacteria that use CO2 and give out oxygen Yes. There are. Parts of this thread actually discuss that, they are called Cyanobacteria, and they are photosynthetic. Sean |
Sean Houtman wrote in message news:1097638184.eLdCiXkY8VVSsCiH6cCP0g@teranews. ..
Yes. There are. Parts of this thread actually discuss that, they are called Cyanobacteria, and they are photosynthetic. Sean Is it feasible to genetically-engineer bacteria to use acids, acidic substances, sulphides, oxides [including smoke], ketones, skatole, phosphides, sulfates, phopshates, halogens [atomic, ionic, isotopic], carbon [ash, charcoal, etc.] lipids [including gasoline], chlorine [atomic, ionic, and isotopic], alcohols [organic OH- compounds], radioactive wastes, histamines, salts, and urea for energy? |
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:36 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GardenBanter