this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
903 points (97.3% liked)

Science Memes

10348 readers
1477 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.


Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Death breathers are made of electric thinking meat. Life is fucking rad.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 day ago

does lemmy have an equivalent to/r/hfy ? This has big /r/hfy energy.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 1 day ago (1 children)

In Becky Chambers' Wayfarer series, there is a species who actually breathes methane. The focus though is less on how that actually happens and more on how they navigate as the only species for whom oxygen is toxic. It's a great series, btw. It's a not-quite-as-optimistic as star trek future, but still optimistic and with a vast range of species who are all intermingling as learning how to get along.

[–] BeneGesseritWitch 2 points 1 day ago

Added this to my reading list, looks good. Thanks!

[–] [email protected] 14 points 2 days ago

Explains why we tend to spontaneously combust at times

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 day ago (3 children)

I'm just going to ask because I think this is true but I'm not certain and nobody's talking about it. Antioxidants are BS right?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxidative_stress#Diseases

Antioxidants may help with some of those conditions, but others are based on such underlying dysfunction that it would be like trying to bailing out a boat with big hole in the side. They're just not gonna do anything for you.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago

A bit Overblown, but not really bs, from what I researched a bit ago

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago (3 children)

The dietary antioxidant fad is mostly BS. They're supposedly meant to counteract oxidative stress and specifically free radicals. Both of those things are part of a healthy life and you would die without them. So any real impact is not so simple as "just counteract those bad things". Dietary antioxidants don't always lead to higher intracellular antioxidant levels, either.

Some dietary antioxidants so lead to higher intracellular levels and may help buffer oxidative stress (like from exercise) but there isn't much evidence that it doesn't just boil down to "eating your vegetables is good for you".

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 14 hours ago) (1 children)

Sleeping more (and in tact with your circadial rhytm) and drinking more water keeps the radicals at a lower level tho, keeping you healthier in age. That or fasting like a fakir your whole life, keeping your cells in an "safe energy and clean up" mode.

Edit: radicals, not oxidants

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] rhombus 1 points 1 day ago

It’s not that free radicals are good (they are necessary, but excess free radicals are definitely bad), but more so that there is no solid research to suggest that dietary antioxidants have any effect whatsoever. All the studies that show any beneficial effect have been shown to have major flaws or have not been able to be reproduced consistently.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

Oxidative Stress is not part of a healthy life. It's literally stress on your cells ability to respirate and detoxify. It causes DNA fragmentation in low amounts and apoptosis/cell death among other serious biological complications like cancer with high enough severity.

[–] rhombus 1 points 1 day ago

It’s more complicated than good or bad. High levels/sustained stress are definitely bad, but there’s some research to suggest that short-term oxidative stress is an important trigger for various responses in cells.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago (10 children)

So if this is true, why do we need it to live?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 day ago

It's not true. It's sophomore high school biology students making memes about things they only have a cursory understanding of.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (3 children)

There are anaerobic bacteria that don't need oxygen to survive. That was the norm before The Great Oxidation Event when cyanobacteria started releasing oxygen into the atmosphere during photosynthesis. Prior to that there was very little oxygen in the atmosphere, and anaerobic bacteria ruled the world.

After the GOE the high concentration of oxygen killed off most of the anaerobic bacteria, and what was left were organisms that made a blood truce with oxygen. Aerobic organisms gained incredible power from utilizing oxygen for metabolism, but eventually die from the accumulated damage the oxygen does to them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

There were even some found in uran mine pockets, that live off radiation. Others again by reducing metals. It only really needs that sweet electron difference.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So it's theoretically possible that some of those anaerobic bacteria survived for 4 billion years and are plotting revenge against us right now?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Yes... But no.

They don't need to plot anything. We are already consuming oxygen and replacing it with carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide.

Or perhaps this was their plan all along??

DUN DUN DUNNN

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 day ago

Wow, I know so little about this topic and I'm learning all kinds of cool things. Thanks for the comment. I'd never thought about aerobic being the opposite of anaerobic before either.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Because we evolved on the Death Planet, and life, uh, finds a way

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Organisms need some oxidizing agent to respire. We use oxygen because it's very highly reactive and thanks to photosynthesis is goddamn everywhere.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can you explain that first part in more detail? I really know nothing about this and I'm curious to hear more.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Fire gets it's energy from fuel+oxygen. Most life does too. Plants (and other photosynthetic organisms) can also get energy from light but that requires you to sit in the sun doing not much for a long time. There's also chemosynthesis, where energy is obtained from a chemical reaction, but that's usually not nearly as powerful as oxidation.

Put another way, a car with NOS is way faster and more powerful than one without. So too is life that uses oxygen more powerful than life that doesn't.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 day ago

When we and other known organisms take energy from food we are actually taking molecules with higher-energy electrons, converting them into the high-energy molecules our cellular processes can use to do make cell things happen, and producing very similar molecules with lower-energy electrons. Rather than infinitely accumulating these molecules, our cells dump low-energy electrons onto another molecule that is amenable and thereby convert into a molecule ready to accept high-energy molecules from food (with a bunch of steps in between).

For us, as aerobes, the electron acceptor at the end of respiration is oxygen.

Oxygen as an electron receptor is newer than several others. Anaerobes came first. It was only after photosynthesis had produced a ton of atmospheric oxygen that it became a viable option, really. But it O2 is a comparatively good electron acceptor because the process in which it accepts those electrons allows cells to grab quite a bit of energy from that last step. It is fairly "electron needy" compared to earlier electron acceptors.

So, basically, aerobes get more energy per food unit (sugar molecule) than the vast majority of other creatures. You need it to live because it is an essential part of how your cells get food, namely, how it can recycle molecules at the last step of the respiration cycle.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Because our atmosphere is full of oxygen and nitrogen. Oxygen happened to be the chosen option for some reason, probably because nitrogen might not be reactive enough, idk I'm not a biologist or a chemist forget what i said

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 days ago

I wonder if you could something like a magnesium atomosphere where if a human it got a hole in their suit it would cause them to burst into flames as the outside pressure forced it's way in then reacted with the oxygen and water in our suit and body

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (2 children)

I guess this is why rich ghouls and professional athletes are into cryotherapy for anti-aging. Like that weird billionaire who also stole blood from his son. What's the consensus on that, is it a grift or do serious scientists think you can really extend your life by regularly locking yourself in a cold chamber or dunking yourself in an ice bath for a few minutes every day?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 day ago

Rusting your insides

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›