Man in a glass box

[danbaron]

But, could he do it while buried in a coffin?

(People in the cemetery do it for years.)

Or, could he do it if the box was instead filled with mushrooms?

Who is impressed?!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/8768763/Scientist-to-stay-in-airtight-box-for-two-days.html

[kryton9]

It seems he is doing it to show the importance of plants and how they give off oxygen in photosynthesis. Although I don't know of anyone who thinks plants and trees are not important. But I always liked scientific demonstrations and why not see a man in a glass box try to last that long from plant produced oxygen. At least he has the sense that he will come out early if things go wrong, so it is not like those magician's stunts where it is do or die.

I was surprised by the fewer number of plants than what I would have expected.

[matthew]

Some years ago I saw a documentary on television where a group of American Scientists did something similar. It was called Biosphere 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2) but the experiment ultimately failed because Microbes in the soil lowered the Oxygen levels & the Scientists began to have difficulty breathing. They've got a very interesting Website here (http://www.b2science.org) where you can find out more.

[danbaron]

I was just joking about it.

It's a good idea.

If I remember correctly, Biosphere 2 demonstrated that making a completely independent ecosystem, is not so easy.

And, that is exactly what you would have to have for a long space trip.

If I'm correct, there were also personality problems.

And, you can't have those on long space trips.

If there are 100 people in the vehicle, and 1 decides to sabotage it, how could you prevent it?

-----------------------------------------------------

Could we put some kind of little floating plants (atmospheric algae?) in the air, to reduce the CO2?

[Charles Pegge]

The best plants to use would be grassy crops such as maize, assuming the glass box has a tropical climate inside with plenty of light.

If you were to use mushrooms instead of plants they would take all your oxygen and eat you!

http://www.palaeobiology.org.uk/projects_05.htm

[danbaron]

"Plants with the C4 photosynthetic pathway rank among the world's most important crops and noxious weeds. Maize, Sorghum and Millet are staple foods throughout the tropics, Sugarcane is traded globally, and 14 out of the world's 18 worst weeds are C4 plants."

I'll comment on this just for the sake of having something to write.

I don't know about this, and, I'm not going to look, that would spoil my (maybe idiosyncratic, cuckoo?) view.

But, I've thought about this before.

My guess is that there is no precise definition of what constitutes a weed.

Of course, I may absolutely be wrong, but, it seems to me that which plants are weeds, is subjective - if you don't like a particular plant, then, for you, it is a weed.

I guess weeds could also be defined as plants which are almost impossible to eradicate.

For instance, if it doesn't rain for six months, and every other plant is dead, but one plant is thriving, then, that plant is a weed.

I guess you could also classify a weed as a plant which is so strong, and spreads so fast, that it destroys all other types of plants (except possibly, for other types of weeds).

Maybe that could be a new sport - you breed a super weed, and it battles another super weed to the death. The floor of a stadium would be plowed, and one of the weeds would be planted at each end of the "playing field". The spectators would watch the action from the stands - which weed would ultimately prevail, overpowering the other, and blanketing the field? What could be more exciting? (Most likely you would need a large police presence, to prevent the fans from rioting and killing each other.)

[danbaron]

Thank God for the humanitarians at Monsanto, who put what is right ahead of what is profitable!

It's Roundup time!

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2011/09/20-8

(Do you think a good case could be made that corporations primarily function for the common good, that they increase the likelihood of the survival of humanity, and of all the other species too? I mean, they are part of humanity, so, if humanity dies, so do they, yes? They must consider that fact in their plans, I mean, they're not crazy, right?)

[danbaron]

I guess the idea is that in the 1990s, Monsanto introduced Roundup, and simultaneously introduced, "Roundup Ready", GMO seeds.

The ingredient in Roundup, is glyphosate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glyphosate)
It must be a herbicide that initially killed everything, except crops that were, "Roundup Ready".

So, effectively, Monsanto together marketed a poison, along with its antidote - nice, huh?

So, what happens, if your are crops are not, "Roundup Ready", but your neighbor uses Roundup, and it finds its way to your crops?

I guess it would be, bye-bye crops - better buy some Monsanto seed.

In 1995, no weed species was glyphosate-resistant, 21 are today, and the number is growing by 1-2 per year.

The result is that now "super-weeds" have evolved, and are evolving, which are virtually impossible to kill.

Until recently, there has been almost no publicity about this unintended consequence, because, the industry (Monsanto) has controlled the flow of information.

In 1992, 11,000 tons of glyphosate were used on US crops, and in 2007, 88,000 tons were used on US crops.

After 2007, you have to guess, because, the USGS stopped updating its pesticide use database in 2008.

I wonder why.

Never forget, the "free-market" is always best for everyone.

Government Regulations = BAD

Unrestrained Capitalism = GOOD