Talk:Liquid oxygen supplement

2009 comments

More sources - http://www.nutraoxygen.com/ - a website selling it http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18925412.300-feedback.html - another new scientist article Smartse (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereas I have no quarrel with the opinion that this product is not effective, I think the tone of this article is inappropriate and it has no input from an opposing source. In particular, I don't see the relevance of saying it's more expensive than champagne when the same is true of most medication, orthodox or otherwise. It's a meaningless comparison.

Nineteenthly (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

How do you think it can be improved? The article was previously tagged with NPOV and I worked to improve it and the editor who tagged it was happy to remove it afterwards. The information in the article is all sourced and I couldn't find anything else written by a reliable source. Smartse (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You're dismissing all sites supporting liquid oxygen as immediately unreliable. This article is completely biased, and serves only to denigrate the product. Its tone is completely unencyclopedic, too. Overall, this article either needs to be fixed. If an unbiased article on Adolf Hitler can be written, one can certainly be written on some random bit of medical quackery. Read another Wikipedia article, use it as a guide. 12.183.52.105 (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The article is only saying what the sources say - if something is a quack product then that is what the article will say. I've spent some time before looking for alternative sources but if anyone can find a source with a different POV then please do add it. To the above IP editor - if you can find a site that supports supports liquid oxygen but does not sell it then I would certainly be interested to read it. Smartse (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This would seem to be about essentially the same product too, and another

This would seem to counter that but as anyone can see from reading anything else related to this published by a reliable source what the article claims is false.

This is my favourite find:

"Why do you need extra oxygen since plenty of oxygen is in the air?

Scientists were stunned to discover that atmospheric oxygen content in ancient times measured twice as high as that of today: It was 38 percent 10,000 years ago, compared to the 21 percent of today, getting lower and lower due to pollution and industrialization. We are simply NOT getting as much oxygen as our human bodies were designed for!" Funny how a fifth of the atmosphere has disappeared without anyone noticing....

I can't find anything on google scholar either. Smartse (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

This paragraph above and indeed the argument that "liquid oxygen" can help increase oxygen levels in the body are both inidicative of a profound lack of understanding of chemistry or physiology. Firstly, the amount of dissolved oxygen in a bottle of supplemnt is very much limited by the solubility of oxygen in the liquid in question or alternatively the ammount of hydrogen peroxide (where the oxygen is incorporated in the molecule rather thamn dissolved)present in the liquid. In both these cases, the maximum amount of oxygen that coukld be even theoretically liberated is infinitessimally small compared to that absorbed by normal breathing. Secondly if the liquid is drunk, there is no mechanism in the digestive system for the absorption of oxygen throught the stomach or bowel. That is the function of the respiratory system, not rhe digestive system. Thirdly and mosty damningly the level of oxygen in normal blood pumped fom the lungs is at saturation level. It can't absorb any more. The oxygen monitors that we have clipped to our finger tips when in hospital monito this. When it drops below 90% of saturation level, the patient will be very weak. These oxygen supplements cannot therefore be of any help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.126.202 (talk) 18:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

doesn't a mother's breast milk contain hydrogen peroxide? perhaps it is not as simple as accusing others of profound lack of understanding of chemistry and physiology? do you what happens when you ADD all the vitamines together at different ratios, that combined with environmental influences as well as genetic? Good luck. Do you know how many hair is on your head unless your bald? What physiology are you talking about? Chemistry knows a lot but is never allowing others to know what it doesn't have a clue about. Good day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.236.17 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

As no specific points have been raised as to how the article is POV I've removed the tag. If you think there is a problem please raise it here before reinstating the tag. Smartse (talk) 19:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Consumption of actual liquid oxygen would be highly ill-advised- I laughed. What a fine understatement.109.78.70.69 (talk) 00:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: hydrogen peroxide I think that this an incorrect reference. The NS article referenced is headed "Sorry, Mr bin Laden, sir..." and appears to be about the US no-fly list. Hedles (talk) 20:48, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

References

antibiotic property?

the product the article is about is also being marketed for long term water storage - are the claims about it's bactericidal properties true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.194.78.75 (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2013 (UTC)