O2: How Much Do We REALLY Need?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Arctic Fox
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the minimum oxygen levels required for human survival and the physiological effects of varying oxygen concentrations. The normal atmospheric oxygen level is approximately 20.9%, with a tolerance for lower levels. At 17%, individuals begin to experience hypoxia, with symptoms worsening as levels drop. At 14-16%, effects include poor coordination and rapid fatigue, while 6-10% leads to nausea and unconsciousness. Below 6%, severe consequences occur, including convulsions and death within minutes.The conversation also touches on the potential dangers of high oxygen levels, such as increased flammability and oxygen toxicity, which can lead to brain damage and other health issues. While higher oxygen concentrations may offer some benefits, like improved cognitive function, they also pose risks, particularly at partial pressures above 1-2 atmospheres, where oxygen becomes poisonous. Hyperbaric chambers are mentioned as a therapeutic use of increased oxygen pressure, highlighting the complex balance of oxygen levels necessary for health and safety.
Arctic Fox
Messages
176
Reaction score
0
How much oxygen is absolutely required for the human body to survive?

If it depends on time, how about for 6 months, until the original O2 levels are back.

Earth is at, what, 23%? Could we survive on 8% for six months?
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
http://www.osha.gov/SLTC/smallbusiness/sec12.html

The normal atmosphere is composed approximately of 20.9% oxygen and 78.1% nitrogen, and 1% argon with small amounts of various other gases.

...

Oxygen deprivation is one form of asphyxiation. While it is desirable to maintain the atmospheric oxygen level at 21% by volume, the body can tolerate deviation from this ideal. When the oxygen level falls to 17%, the first sign of hypoxia is a deterioration to night vision which is not noticeable until a normal oxygen concentration is restored. Physiologic effects are increased breathing volume and accelerated heartbeat. Between 14-16% physiologic effects are increased breathing volume, accelerated heartbeat, very poor muscular coordination, rapid fatigue, and intermittent respiration. Between 6-10% the effects are nausea, vomiting, inability to perform, and unconsciousness. Less than 6%, spasmatic breathing, convulsive movements, and death in minutes.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Wow! I never would've thought...
And that's an excellent link, too. Thanks.

My next question: How much O2 is too much? I found this in your link;
the use of oxygen in place of fresh (normal) air for ventilation will expand the limits of flammability and increase the hazards of fire and explosion.

Is that the only problem? Is there a threshold on the amount of oxygen before it becomes a safety/flammability issue?

Could we have O2 at 50%? Would there be any benefits to breathing at increased O2 levels (memory, extended work times, concentration)?
 
There is such a thing as oxygen poisoning; too much oxygen can be quite harmful to the brain. Back when I did biology in college, my teacher mentioned this, and told us how breathing too deep and fast could make one feel rather giddy and unwell (which two members of my class proceeded to do, and then felt a little dizzy and ill. Don't try it.) I'm not sure exactly how this works. Perhaps this would be adressed better in the biology section.
 
Hyperventilation (lit. too much breathing) blows off the carbon dioxide in the blood stream too fast, increasing the pH in the bloodstream (respiratory alkalosis.) Breathing in and out of a bag increases the amount of carbon dioxide inhaled and helps return the body chemistry to normal.

Above a certain partial pressure, oxygen becomes poisonous. I can't remember what that value is, but I believe it's 1 or 2 atm. Hyperbarric chambers (which increase the total atmospheric pressure and thus the partial pressure of the oxygen) are used on severe burn victims (and if rumor is true, Michael Jackson sleeps in one. :smile: )
 
Hello, I’m currently writing a series of essays on Pangaea, continental drift, and Earth’s geological cycles. While working on my research, I’ve come across some inconsistencies in the existing theories — for example, why the main pressure seems to have been concentrated in the northern polar regions. So I’m curious: is there any data or evidence suggesting that an external cosmic body (an asteroid, comet, or another massive object) could have influenced Earth’s geology in the distant...
Thread 'The Secrets of Prof. Verschure's Rosetta Stones'
(Edit: since the thread title was changed, this first sentence is too cryptic: the original title referred to a Tool song....) Besides being a favorite song by a favorite band, the thread title is a straightforward play on words. This summer, as a present to myself for being promoted, I purchased a collection of thin sections that I believe comprise the research materials of Prof. Rob Verschure, who at the time was faculty in the Geological Institute in Amsterdam. What changed this...

Similar threads

Back
Top