Remember me
▼ Content

Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification



Page 6 of 9<<<45678>>>
RE: recap01-06-2023 11:52
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
Hopefully, it does not cause too much confusion that "sea water" and "sulfate" are interchangeable as a name for the input of sulfate bearing sea water into low oxygen wetland sediment.

Sea water contains from 2650-2690 ppm sulfate.

In contrast, sea water contains from 8-11 ppm oxygen.

The energy yield for microorganisms who make their living oxidizing organic carbon is greatest when oxygen is used as oxidant (aerobic respiration).

Aerobic respiration of (reduced) organic carbon generates carbon dioxide as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

Much lower energy yield is acquired when sulfate is used by bacteria to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

At only 8-11 ppm, oxygen gets depleted very quickly in carbon rich sediment.

With 2650-2950 ppm sulfate remaining when the oxygen runs out, the next best available oxidant is most abundant, albeit for a much smaller energy yield.

One mole of organic carbon generates two moles of alkalinity when sulfate is used as oxidant by sulfate reducing bacteria.
RE: recap01-06-2023 11:53
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
sealover wrote:
One geoengineering approach to use coastal wetlands to generate alkalinity for the sea would also sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide.

Coastal deserts could be farmed for alkalinity by pumping sea water into them.

Constructed wetlands have been employed for more than 50 years to neutralize acid mine drainage. Constructed saltwater wetlands could use the same biogeochemical mechanisms to neutralize ocean acidification.

It could be as simple as a low earthen dam across a dry river outlet. Wind-driven or sea-wave powered pumps could give sea water the slight lift uphill. As the water drains back to the sea, it carries the alkalinity acquired from sulfate reduction in the low oxygen sediment.

Continuous pumping of sea water in would balance with continuous drainage and evaporation to establish a steady state of hypersalinity in the constructed, upland saltwater wetland. A high enough rate of continuous sea water input could establish a steady state of only slightly elevated salinity, tolerable for aquaculture.

The resources are already available on site at little or no cost. Unproductive land could be transformed into a sink to sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide, as well as a source of new alkalinity for the sea.



A word of caution about coastal desert chemistry.

You won't have to wait for the live wetland ecosystem to establish before you'll generate a whole lot of alkalinity.

Rewetting a dry desert soil with sea water could result in extremely high initial pH. A toxic witch's brew will be the immediate result, although capable of rapid self attenuation. An exceptionally high pH initial mix could contain toxic concentrations of arsenic, boron, selenium, even hexavalent chromium (of natural origin).

Within seconds of initial contact between the dry desert soil and applied sea water, the soil becomes a high pH chemical trap for CO2.

The pH will decline soon as alkali hydroxides absorb CO2 to become carbonates.

Self attenuation with decreasing pH as CO2 is absorbed will soon sequester arsenic, borate, etc. out of solution.


__________________________________________________________

Naturally-occurring hexavalent chromium can be found beneath desert soils. It is usually limited to the margins where the last inputs of groundwater dried up
as it became desert.

Hexavalent chromium is not our friend.

Trivalent chromium is common in many soils. It is benign, and not easily transformed into the carcinogenic hexavalent form.

The overwhelming majority of chromium in desert soil is trivalent Cr(III) occluded within the crystal lattice of rock minerals. A small amount of chromium(III) is present in material coating the surface of larger particles.

Before becoming desert, photosynthesis once provided the soil with organic carbon. The most enduring fraction of that soil organic matter were humic acids coating soil particle surfaces. Humic acids have cation exchange capacity to adsorb chromium(III) into tightly bound complexes. Occluded within the humic coating, the chromium(III) was never exposed to oxidation into hexavalent chromium.

Also cycled along with chromium(III), manganese adsorbed to humic acid cation exchange sites as a tightly bound complex. Manganese(II) is far more soluble than the oxidized form, manganese(IV). Manganese(II) is the mobile form that adsorbed to humic coatings on soil particle surfaces. With its reactive sites occluded from oxidation by formation of inner sphere complexes with organic ligands, manganese(II) remained intact in its chemically reduced form.

It's not easy to oxidize chromium(III) into hexavalent chromium. Oxygen isn't a powerful enough oxidant to do it. Hexavalent chromium rarely occurs in nature.

But there is an oxidant generated as a by-product during manganese oxidation, far more powerful than oxygen.

Under aerobic conditions, some bacteria acquire their energy by oxidizing manganese(II) into manganese(IV). These chemoautotrophic can use carbon dioxide as their carbon source and manganese oxidation as their energy source.

During oxidation of manganese(II) to manganese(IV), a tiny bit of highly oxidized manganese(VII) is generated as by product.

Manganese(VII) is a strong enough oxidant to turn chromium(III) into hexavalent chromium through purely abiotic mechanisms.

Manganese(II) and chromium(III) lived happily side-by-side within organic carbon matrix of humic coatings for centuries.

When the land became desert, input of new organic carbon ceased.

As the chromium(III)/manganese(II) bearing humic coatings decomposed, they no longer had the cation exchange capacity of the organic matrix to hold them or prevent their oxidation.

As manganese(II) oxidized to manganese(IV) by oxygen, by product manganese(VII) oxidized chromium(III) to hexavalent chromium.

----------------------------------------
Government Oversight and Mandated Remediation Caused Hex Chrome Hazard.

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

Picture a Superfund site. A former laboratory that once handled extremely hazardous substances. The lab has been shut down for decades.

That laboratory used to drain their sinks into a septic tank on site.

None of the deadly stuff went down the drain. Just the usual lab sink waste.

That laboratory waste water included hexavalent chromium, commonly used as an oxidant in laboratory procedures. It also included organic carbon, some of which came in from the toilets.

When the hexavalent chromium entered the septic tank, it was highly soluble and mobile. It traveled into the leaching field and along subsurface flow paths.

The hexavalent chromium had a very short half life after it left the laboratory.

After it stalled somewhere along the subsurface flow path and was adsorbed by soil organic matter, it was reduced to Cr(III). Organic carbon is a good reductant.

For decades the input of organic carbon and chromium continued.

Subsurface flow paths were loaded up with organic carbon, chromium(III) and manganese(IV).

When the lab sewer system was taken out of service, the supply of new organic carbon was cut off.

Like the desert margin, as the organic matter decomposed and exposed chromium and manganese to oxidation, hexavalent chromium was generated.
RE: recap01-06-2023 11:54
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
Microorganisms have evolved to use multiple oxidants and multiple reductants to acquire energy.

Some oxidants are much stronger than others. Same for reductants.

The highest energy yield comes from coupling the strongest available oxidant to the strongest available reductant.

Aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria get the most energy by using oxygen to oxidize hydrogen and generate water.

Hydrogen is such a strong reductant that even a very weak oxidant can be used to yield energy.

Ancient methanogenic bacteria used carbon dioxide as oxidant for hydrogen.

They generated methane gas for a slight energetic payoff.

Oxygen is such a strong oxidant that even a very weak reductant can be used to yield energy. Oxygen is the only naturally available oxidant strong enough to oxidize nitrite to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria, for a slight energetic payoff.

The most commonly used reductants in nature, in order of strength:

H2 > H2S > elemental-S > organic-S > iron(II) = Mn(II) > ammonia > nitrite

An even weaker reductant is used for most photosynthesis. Water is oxidized to oxygen gas in order to reduce carbon dioxide into organic carbon.

The most commonly used oxidants in nature, in order of strength:

O2 > nitrate > nitrite > iron(III) = Mn(IV) > sulfate > carbon dioxide

Competitive advantage goes to the organism that can best exploit the available reductants and oxidants.

So long as oxygen is available, nitrate reducers, iron/manganese reducers, sulfate reducers, methanogens, etc, are at a disadvantage.

So long as hydrogen is available, sulfur oxidizers, iron/manganese oxidizers, nitrogen oxidizers, etc., are all at a disadvantage.

This is just a short list of elements used by microorganisms for oxidation/reduction reactions. The complete list includes everything from arsenic to selenium.
RE: recap01-06-2023 11:55
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
There has been life on earth for at least 4000 million years.

There was no photosynthesis in the earliest days.

There was an abundance of energy-rich reductants available in the environment.

Hydrogen gas for example.

All a bacteria needed was an oxidant to take advantage of it.

Oxidants were scarce in those days.

No oxidants had yet been generated by photosynthesis.

The earth did provide a few. There was some nitrate here and there, some sulfate, some iron and manganese in oxidized state. But not much. A few localized niches for nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., where the earth provided oxidants.

One very weak oxidant that was abundant was carbon dioxide.

The first methanogenic bacteria evolved to couple hydrogen oxidation to carbon dioxide reduction. The product of their metabolism was methane gas.

The earth had no ozone shield to protect from ultraviolet.

Manganese was particularly sensitive to photo oxidation by sunlight.

Where sunlight photooxidized manganese(II) to manganese(IV), that manganese(IV) could then be used by microorganisms as oxidant.

After they used the manganese(IV) to oxidize (hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, iron, carbon, etc., they had manganese(II) leftover as a waste product.

Somehow, a bacteria had manganese(II) inside the cell that got photooxidized to manganese(IV). Somehow it evolved into recycling the manganese within the cell, reoxidizing it with sunlight over and over.

Somehow it evolved into an organic matrix structure to hold the manganese atom in place.

It wasn't photosynthesis. It was just intracellular photoxidation to generate an oxidant.

Somehow, that organic structure to hold the manganese atom expanded into a light harvesting apparatus. Able to use blue light rather than ultraviolet, and be competitive in zones of lower light intensity. Expanded further to even be able to use red light, making it competitive in even dimmer environments. But still not photosynthesis. It was only generating oxidant, not reducing carbon.

The sunlight wasn't the source of energy for the bacteria. It was just the spark that allowed the bacteria to exploit other sources of energy, such as the oxidation of hydrogen.

Well, it's getting late. I'll pick it up tomorrow, get into anoxygenic photosynthesis and banded iron formations, finally oxygenic photosynthesis which provided the oxygen that changed everything.

There was one weak
01-06-2023 16:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14379)
Im a BM wrote:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts. Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

What is the difference between naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and anthropogenic hexavalent chromium?

Suppose that we needed to separate a pile of thoroughly mixed hexavalent chromium into two piles, one of the naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and one of the anthropogenic hexavalent chromium. How would we go about accomplishing this?

RE: isotopic fractionation of anthropogenic Cr(VI)01-06-2023 19:02
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts. Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

What is the difference between naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and anthropogenic hexavalent chromium?

Suppose that we needed to separate a pile of thoroughly mixed hexavalent chromium into two piles, one of the naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and one of the anthropogenic hexavalent chromium. How would we go about accomplishing this?


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

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is synthesized by humans oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI).

Isotopic fractionation occurs during oxidation.

I'll have to look it up again, and I don't remember the specific stable isotopes of chromium, but the anthropogenic hex chrome is slightly enriched in one of them.

My last advice to the scientists was to do bulk isotopic analysis of chromium in a whole soil sample. Then do isotopic analysis of just the chromium that can be extracted with a citrate buffer. That's where all the hex chrome will be.

If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Stable isotope analysis has come a long way.
01-06-2023 21:27
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts. Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

What is the difference between naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and anthropogenic hexavalent chromium?

Suppose that we needed to separate a pile of thoroughly mixed hexavalent chromium into two piles, one of the naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and one of the anthropogenic hexavalent chromium. How would we go about accomplishing this?


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

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is synthesized by humans oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI).

Isotopic fractionation occurs during oxidation.

I'll have to look it up again, and I don't remember the specific stable isotopes of chromium, but the anthropogenic hex chrome is slightly enriched in one of them.

My last advice to the scientists was to do bulk isotopic analysis of chromium in a whole soil sample. Then do isotopic analysis of just the chromium that can be extracted with a citrate buffer. That's where all the hex chrome will be.

If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Stable isotope analysis has come a long way.


What microorganism creates hexavalent chromium?


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: Manganese oxidizing bacteria can provoke formation of hexavalent chromium01-06-2023 21:45
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts. Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

What is the difference between naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and anthropogenic hexavalent chromium?

Suppose that we needed to separate a pile of thoroughly mixed hexavalent chromium into two piles, one of the naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and one of the anthropogenic hexavalent chromium. How would we go about accomplishing this?


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

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is synthesized by humans oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI).

Isotopic fractionation occurs during oxidation.

I'll have to look it up again, and I don't remember the specific stable isotopes of chromium, but the anthropogenic hex chrome is slightly enriched in one of them.

My last advice to the scientists was to do bulk isotopic analysis of chromium in a whole soil sample. Then do isotopic analysis of just the chromium that can be extracted with a citrate buffer. That's where all the hex chrome will be.

If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Stable isotope analysis has come a long way.


What microorganism creates hexavalent chromium?


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

The microorganism that inadvertently creates hexavalent chromium are multiple species of manganese oxidizing bacteria.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria are EVERYWHERE, but only in rare environments do they bring about oxidation of trivalent chromium Cr(III) to hexavalent chromium Cr(VI).

In the case study described, the source of organic carbon entering the soil was shut off when they stopped using the septic tank.

The humic material coating surfaces along the subsurface flow path decomposed, without being replaced by new humic material from new organic carbon. The chemically reduced manganese Mn(II) that was sealed in the humic material becomes exposed to the solution. As does the trivalent chromium Cr(III) that previously sealed in humic material.

When manganese oxidizing bacteria exploit the Mn(II) in solution, the Cr(III) is there in solution at the same time.
02-06-2023 00:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Another repetition spam by talking to himself...
Im a BM wrote:
Hopefully, it does not cause too much confusion that "sea water" and "sulfate" are interchangeable as a name for the input of sulfate bearing sea water into low oxygen wetland sediment.

Sea water is not sulfate.
Im a BM wrote:
Sea water contains from 2650-2690 ppm sulfate.

Sulfate is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
In contrast, sea water contains from 8-11 ppm oxygen.

Water is H2O. There is a lot more than 11ppm water in seawater.
Im a BM wrote:
The energy yield for microorganisms who make their living oxidizing organic carbon is greatest when oxygen is used as oxidant (aerobic respiration).

Carbon isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Aerobic respiration of (reduced) organic carbon generates carbon dioxide as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

Carbon isn't organic. You can't reduce carbon. Oxidation is not reduction. Carbon dioxide is not carbon.
Im a BM wrote:
Much lower energy yield is acquired when sulfate is used by bacteria to oxidize organic carbon. Sulfate reduction generates alkalinity as the (oxidized) inorganic carbon product.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Sulfur is not carbon.
Im a BM wrote:
At only 8-11 ppm, oxygen gets depleted very quickly in carbon rich sediment.

There is more than 11ppm water in seawater or swamp water.
Im a BM wrote:
With 2650-2950 ppm sulfate remaining when the oxygen runs out, the next best available oxidant is most abundant, albeit for a much smaller energy yield.

Sulfate is not a chemical. Oxidation is not reduction.
Im a BM wrote:
One mole of organic carbon generates two moles of alkalinity when sulfate is used as oxidant by sulfate reducing bacteria.

Carbon isn't organic. pH is not measured in moles. Sulfate is not a chemical. Oxidation is not reduction.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-06-2023 00:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
...deleted spam...
Im a BM wrote:
Government Oversight and Mandated Remediation Caused Hex Chrome Hazard.

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts.

Hexavalent chromium is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

It is not alive.
Im a BM wrote:
Picture a Superfund site. A former laboratory that once handled extremely hazardous substances. The lab has been shut down for decades.

That laboratory used to drain their sinks into a septic tank on site.

None of the deadly stuff went down the drain. Just the usual lab sink waste.

That laboratory waste water included hexavalent chromium, commonly used as an oxidant in laboratory procedures. It also included organic carbon, some of which came in from the toilets.

When the hexavalent chromium entered the septic tank, it was highly soluble and mobile. It traveled into the leaching field and along subsurface flow paths.

The hexavalent chromium had a very short half life after it left the laboratory.

Carbon isn't organic. Hexavalent chromium is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
After it stalled somewhere along the subsurface flow path and was adsorbed by soil organic matter, it was reduced to Cr(III). Organic carbon is a good reductant.

For decades the input of organic carbon and chromium continued.

Subsurface flow paths were loaded up with organic carbon, chromium(III) and manganese(IV).
Carbon is not organic. There is no such chemical as 'hexavalent chromium'.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
When the lab sewer system was taken out of service, the supply of new organic carbon was cut off.

Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
Like the desert margin, as the organic matter decomposed and exposed chromium and manganese to oxidation, hexavalent chromium was generated.

No such chemical as hexavalent chromium.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-06-2023 00:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
...more talking to yourself...
Im a BM wrote:
Microorganisms have evolved to use multiple oxidants and multiple reductants to acquire energy.

No such thing as 'oxidants' or 'reductants'. Buzzword fallacies.
Im a BM wrote:
Some oxidants are much stronger than others. Same for reductants.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
The highest energy yield comes from coupling the strongest available oxidant to the strongest available reductant.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
Aerobic hydrogen oxidizing bacteria get the most energy by using oxygen to oxidize hydrogen and generate water.

...so these bacteria are explosive...right.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen is such a strong reductant that even a very weak oxidant can be used to yield energy.

No such thing as 'reductant' or 'oxidant'.
Im a BM wrote:
Ancient methanogenic bacteria used carbon dioxide as oxidant for hydrogen.

No such thing as an 'oxidant'. Carbon dioxide is not an oxidizer.
Im a BM wrote:
They generated methane gas for a slight energetic payoff.

Producing methane gas is an endothermic reaction. It COSTS energy to make it.
Im a BM wrote:
Oxygen is such a strong oxidant that even a very weak reductant can be used to yield energy.

No such thing as 'oxidant' or 'reductant'.
Im a BM wrote:
Oxygen is the only naturally available oxidant strong enough to oxidize nitrite to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria, for a slight energetic payoff.

Oxygen is not nitrogen.
Im a BM wrote:
The most commonly used reductants in nature, in order of strength:

NONE. No such word.
Im a BM wrote:
H2 > H2S > elemental-S > organic-S > iron(II) = Mn(II) > ammonia > nitrite

Sulfur is not organic. Nitrite is not a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
An even weaker reductant is used for most photosynthesis. Water is oxidized to oxygen gas in order to reduce carbon dioxide into organic carbon.

You cannot oxidize water. Carbon is not organic.
Im a BM wrote:
The most commonly used oxidants in nature, in order of strength:

O2 > nitrate > nitrite > iron(III) = Mn(IV) > sulfate > carbon dioxide[/quote]
NONE. There are no chemicals called 'nitrate', 'nitrite', 'sulfate'. Carbon dioxide is not an oxidizer.
Im a BM wrote:
Competitive advantage goes to the organism that can best exploit the available reductants and oxidants.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
So long as oxygen is available, nitrate reducers, iron/manganese reducers, sulfate reducers, methanogens, etc, are at a disadvantage.

Oxidation is not reduction.
Im a BM wrote:
So long as hydrogen is available, sulfur oxidizers, iron/manganese oxidizers, nitrogen oxidizers, etc., are all at a disadvantage.

Sulfur is not oxygen. Iron is not oxygen. Nitrogen is not oxygen. Hydrogen is not oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
This is just a short list of elements used by microorganisms for oxidation/reduction reactions. The complete list includes everything from arsenic to selenium.

You are clueless about oxidation/reduction reactions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-06-2023 01:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
..spamming to himself again...
Im a BM wrote:
There has been life on earth for at least 4000 million years.

How do you know? Were you there?
Im a BM wrote:
There was no photosynthesis in the earliest days.

How do you know? Were you there?
Im a BM wrote:
There was an abundance of energy-rich reductants available in the environment.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen gas for example.

Hydrogen is an element.
Im a BM wrote:
All a bacteria needed was an oxidant to take advantage of it.
Oxidants were scarce in those days.
No oxidants had yet been generated by photosynthesis.

No such thing as an 'oxidant'.
Im a BM wrote:
The earth did provide a few.

NONE. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
There was some nitrate here and there, some sulfate, some iron and manganese in oxidized state. But not much. A few localized niches for nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., where the earth provided oxidants.

Nitrate is not a chemical. Sulfate is not a chemical. Oxidant is a buzzword.
Im a BM wrote:
One very weak oxidant that was abundant was carbon dioxide.

Carbon dioxide is not an oxidizer.
Im a BM wrote:
The first methanogenic bacteria evolved to couple hydrogen oxidation to carbon dioxide reduction. The product of their metabolism was methane gas.

Methane does not contain oxygen.
Im a BM wrote:
The earth had no ozone shield to protect from ultraviolet.

How do you know? Were you there?
Im a BM wrote:
Manganese was particularly sensitive to photo oxidation by sunlight.

How? You say oxygen didn't exist!
Im a BM wrote:
Where sunlight photooxidized manganese(II) to manganese(IV), that manganese(IV) could then be used by microorganisms as oxidant.

After they used the manganese(IV) to oxidize (hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, iron, carbon, etc., they had manganese(II) leftover as a waste product.

Oxidation is not reduction.
Im a BM wrote:
Somehow, a bacteria had manganese(II) inside the cell that got photooxidized to manganese(IV). Somehow it evolved into recycling the manganese within the cell, reoxidizing it with sunlight over and over.

Somehow it evolved into an organic matrix structure to hold the manganese atom in place.

It wasn't photosynthesis. It was just intracellular photoxidation to generate an oxidant.

Somehow, that organic structure to hold the manganese atom expanded into a light harvesting apparatus. Able to use blue light rather than ultraviolet, and be competitive in zones of lower light intensity. Expanded further to even be able to use red light, making it competitive in even dimmer environments. But still not photosynthesis. It was only generating oxidant, not reducing carbon.

The sunlight wasn't the source of energy for the bacteria. It was just the spark that allowed the bacteria to exploit other sources of energy, such as the oxidation of hydrogen.

Well, it's getting late. I'll pick it up tomorrow, get into anoxygenic photosynthesis and banded iron formations, finally oxygenic photosynthesis which provided the oxygen that changed everything.

There was one weak

You can't 'generate an oxidant'. Buzzword fallacies. Meaningless jabberwocky.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
RE: recap02-06-2023 02:00
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
There has been life on earth for at least 4000 million years.

There was no photosynthesis in the earliest days.

There was an abundance of energy-rich reductants available in the environment.

Hydrogen gas for example.

All a bacteria needed was an oxidant to take advantage of it.

Oxidants were scarce in those days.

No oxidants had yet been generated by photosynthesis.

The earth did provide a few. There was some nitrate here and there, some sulfate, some iron and manganese in oxidized state. But not much. A few localized niches for nitrate reducers, sulfate reducers, etc., where the earth provided oxidants.

One very weak oxidant that was abundant was carbon dioxide.

The first methanogenic bacteria evolved to couple hydrogen oxidation to carbon dioxide reduction. The product of their metabolism was methane gas.

The earth had no ozone shield to protect from ultraviolet.

Manganese was particularly sensitive to photo oxidation by sunlight.

Where sunlight photooxidized manganese(II) to manganese(IV), that manganese(IV) could then be used by microorganisms as oxidant.

After they used the manganese(IV) to oxidize (hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, sulfur, iron, carbon, etc., they had manganese(II) leftover as a waste product.

Somehow, a bacteria had manganese(II) inside the cell that got photooxidized to manganese(IV). Somehow it evolved into recycling the manganese within the cell, reoxidizing it with sunlight over and over.

Somehow it evolved into an organic matrix structure to hold the manganese atom in place.

It wasn't photosynthesis. It was just intracellular photoxidation to generate an oxidant.

Somehow, that organic structure to hold the manganese atom expanded into a light harvesting apparatus. Able to use blue light rather than ultraviolet, and be competitive in zones of lower light intensity. Expanded further to even be able to use red light, making it competitive in even dimmer environments. But still not photosynthesis. It was only generating oxidant, not reducing carbon.

The sunlight wasn't the source of energy for the bacteria. It was just the spark that allowed the bacteria to exploit other sources of energy, such as the oxidation of hydrogen.

Well, it's getting late. I'll pick it up tomorrow, get into anoxygenic photosynthesis and banded iron formations, finally oxygenic photosynthesis which provided the oxygen that changed everything.

There was one weak
RE: recap02-06-2023 02:02
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I used to do the museum tour at Hamelin Pool Telegraph station where the Stromatolites live.Have a look at the website its an interesting place.This is where the first oxygen came from,The microscopic bacteria can remove the Oxygen from sea water and poop it as bubbles.There was an aquarium with some living rocks and during the day you can see the bubbles randomly being emitted.Other life forms wiped them out a long time ago but the water in the shallows of East shark bay are hyper saline and these very old creatures are still there.South of Perth there are lakes near the coast that have Thrombolites that are very similar


This is basically all true, except the assertion that "This is where the first oxygen came from".

Oxygen isn't easy to make. An electric current can transform water into hydrogen and oxygen gas, but it costs energy. It is not spontaneous.

4000 million years ago the earth's crust was still very actively spewing reductants to the surface. Volcanic activity was widespread and frequent. The planet was still getting hit with the occasional massive asteroid. These asteroid strikes caused even more massive release of reductants to the surface. Indeed, they are the benchmark events for the big chert layers at the bottom of banded iron formation sequences.

By 3000 million years ago, things had calmed down. Volcanic active was much less intense than before. We were't getting hit by massive asteroids any more.
And the supply of high energy reductants such as hydrogen was being depleted.

The oldest banded iron formations, the "microbanded" ones have only two kinds of material in the repeating layers. Chert, (iron + sulfur) mineral, chert, (iron + sulfur) mineral, chert, and on and on and on. These older banded iron formations are useless as iron ore. The iron layers are barely a couple of millimeters thick. The repetition is so consistent that they were once believed to be "annual varves", representing yearly seasonal shifts in sediment deposition.

I'll have to get back to how intracellular photooxidation evolved into photosynthesis later. When microbanded banded iron formations were created, there were already at least two kinds of anoxygenic photosynthesis. At least two different kinds of anoxygenic photosynthetic communities were competing for reductants and sunlight.

During periods when hydrogen was most abundant, the photosynthetic community that used hydrogen as reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis would win out. They got the most bang for the buck from the sunlight and they outcompeted the others. Their photosynthesis oxidized the hydrogen into water.
Water was the oxidized product of that photosynthesis.

When dihydrogen was less depleted by the photosynthetic bacteris, there was still plenty of hydrogen sulfide to use as reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis. A different community of photosynthetic bacteria could then become competitive. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide doesn't give as much bang for the buck from the sunlight, and they couldn't compete until the ones who depended on dihydrogen starved off.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide as reductant generates sulfate as the oxidized product of that photosynthesis. When the new community of H2S-based photosynthesis displaced the H2-based community, they changed the chemistry of the sea water by adding sulfate - an oxidant.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis using dihydrogen produces water as the oxidized product. Water isn't a very good oxidant. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide produces sulfate as the oxidized product. Sulfate is a mediocre oxidant, but it changed everything.

Each time the earth belched up another massive release of hydrogen, the hydrogen oxidizing photosynthetic community became dominant. Their debris rained down on the sea floor, piling up organic carbon. And no good oxidants to do anything with it. Carbon piled up.

Each time photosynthesis eventually depleted the available hydrogen enough for the hydrogen sulfide oxidizing photosynthetic bacteria to become dominant, an oxidant became available to enable microorganisms to exploit carbon on the sea floor. Carbon still piled up. But some of it was being lost via sulfate reduction by bacteria. Iron pyrite, among others, was being formed among the organic carbon on the sea floor.

When the microbanded banded iron formation sediments were first deposited, they consisted of alternating layers. Pure organic matter, organic matter plus pyrite, pure organic matter, organic matter plus pyrite, etc.

Over geologic time these carbon deposits became fossilized.

No, it wasn't "fossil fuel". The carbon got replaced by silica. The pure-silica chert layers of the banded iron formations are the fossils of the dead organic matter in the ancient seafloor.

Hmm, this is supposed to be about oxygen, so I'll jump ahead another 1000 million years.

The excited skin of the earth has calmed down over the years. Fewer and fewer reductants are being spewed out. Photosynthetic bacteria have had to evolve to use weaker and weaker reductants.

Dihydrogen gas and hydrogen sulfide were the best ones available before, but they are getting harder to find.

Well, there are other forms of reduced sulfur besides hydrogen sulfide that could be used. And they were. Arsenic was widely available and arsenite was a good reductant. Ferrous iron was a pretty good reductant. New photosynthetic communities evolved to exploit the next best available reductants. Sulfate, arsenate, and ferric iron were the oxidized products of photosynthesis released into the environment.

Skip, Skip, Skip.... Well, now we're getting desperate. Harder and harder to find a good reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis.

What about nitrite? That's a tough nut to crack. Gonna require a lot of voltage.
And somebody did it. Anoxygenic photosynthesis using nitrite as reductant generates nitrate as the oxidized product. Nitrate is a pretty powerful oxidant. But that took a lot of voltage from the photosystem to yank off its electron. Not much bang for the buck as far as energy captured during photosynthesis. But if nitrite is the only reductant in town, that's what you have to work with.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis using nitrite as reductant generated a powerful oxidant for microorganisms to exploit. Reductants that were too weak to be exploited using sulfate as oxidant could now be oxidized for profit using nitrate.

But even nitrite can be depleted. What's a photosynthetic bacteria to do? Well, that nitrite oxidizing photosystem generate a whole lot of voltage. Enough to oxidize water? Somebody did it. They used water as reductant in a photosystem that could generate so much voltage it could yank an electron right off a water molecule. The water falls apart and release oxygen. Oxygen is the oxidized product from using water as reductant for oxygenic photosynthesis.

Hardly any bang for the sunlight buck, compared to the old school anoxygenic photosynthesis using reductants much stronger than water. These oxygenic guys still can't compete in microsites where there is still enough hydrogen, hydrogen sulfide, (organic-S, elemental-S, sulfite), arsenite, ferrous iron, or nitrite to support anoxygenic photosynthesis.

Check out the switch hitter. A blue green bacteria that is perfectly capable of doing oxygenic photosynthesis. Put him in a hydrogen rich environment and he'll turn off one of his photosystems. He won't squander sun energy just to tear water apart. He'll just take up the hydrogen directly from the sea and get a whole lot more bang for the buck in photosynthesis.
RE: recap02-06-2023 02:02
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Nice work.The very basic single cell lifeform known as Stromatolites were all over the shallow warm seas of most of the planet.When the sun shines they literally fart oxygen.This put oxygen in the atmosphere.They still exist in Shark bay as the shallow ocean has little movement and evaporates rapidly in the hot conditions that exist there nearly all year round.The hyper saline water did and still does not allow the snails and other lifeforms that developed later to consume the stromatolites that are still doing their thing.I have seen this in person.Look it up for yourself and stop picking on my mate Sealover.You will scare him away before I have my fun


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

I totally respect your interest in paleobiogeochemistry.


So, banded iron formations are more than just the world's biggest deposits of iron ore.

They are among the oldest evidence of life on earth.

However, they represent photosynthetic ecosystem community succession.

Life was already pretty advanced by the time they formed.

The oldest banded iron formations are just shy of 4000 million years old.

They are the "microbanded" variety. No thick layers of high grade iron ore. Just a bunch of alternating thin (maybe 2 mm) layers.

They represent ecosystem community succession between just two types, back and forth. There are only two kinds of interlayered material. Pure chert and iron-and-sulfur-enriched chert.

The pure chert layer formed from sediment deposited following large release of hydrogen into the environment. Usually geologic activity, but sometimes following a big blow from an asteroid.

Anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen as reductant does not generate any oxidant, just water.

When the hydrogen became depleted, a new photosynthetic community came in. They did anoxygenic photosynthesis using hydrogen sulfide as reductant. This generates sulfate. Sulfate is an oxidant.

When hydrogen was abundant, there was no sulfate being generated. Organic matter piled on the sea floor with virtually no oxidants available to decompose it.

When hydrogen was depleted and a new photosynthetic community used hydrogen sulfide as reductant, the sulfate they generated was used as an oxidant in the sea floor. Sulfate reduction generated pyrite.

The alternating layers were originally deposited as pure organic matter or organic matter plus pyrite. Fossilization replaced carbon with silica.

The earth was very active in those days. It never took very long before a wave of geologic activity resulted in an abundance of hydrogen again.


About 1000-2000 million years later, very different kinds of banded iron formations were created. This was a much more complex community succession. There were more than two kinds of layers.

They always begin at the bottom with layers of pure chert, just under layers of chert plus iron and sulfur.

But then there are overlying layers of increasing iron content, with iron in an increasingly oxidized state. What the miners coveted were the top layers of each sequence, massive deposits of the purest ore.

Every once in a while, a huge asteroid would still strike and begin another sequence.

But now there wasn't going to be a rapid resupply in the relatively near future.

Unlike the microbanded iron formations, there was enough time for the hydrogen sulfide to run out as the next best reductant for anoxygenic photosynthesis. When they had to resort to iron reduction, using ferrous iron as reductant, they generated ferric iron as the oxidized product.

Ferric iron is a more powerful oxidant than sulfate. The chemistry of the sediments in the banded iron formations reflects the presence of this more powerful oxidant. A third distinct layer type in every sequence.

When ferric iron ran out, they resorted to using arsenite or nitrite as reductants for anoxygenic photosynthesis. This generated arsenate and nitrate, which are more powerful oxidants than sulfate or ferric iron. A fourth distinct layer type in many sequences.

When all the available reductants ran out, photosynthetic communities had to resort to oxygenic photosynthesis. Oxygenic photosynthesis using water as reductant generates oxygen, a very powerful oxidant. The sediments deposited in the presence of this powerful oxidant are quite distinct from those that underly them.
RE: recap02-06-2023 02:03
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Hi I feel the need to give you some background.3 years ago I was working on a house and the daughter had a little humpy shack down the back.She was a full on hippie chick and at some point she declared that CO2 is bad man as it is making the planet too hot.I said is it as I had no idea and started doing some research.I purchased a CO2 meter and started taking readings and CO2 was around 390-420 ppm all over the areas I went.If I blow on it it will go up to 6000-7000 ppm.The exhaust on my jeep spools up to 10,000 which I think might be the end of calibration but if I stand 4 feet away it is the same as anywhere else.My gas hotplates with all burners on struggles to get to 2000ppm till I burn my hand and my gas hot water unit shows nothing at the vent.I have done a primitive test with 2 small plastic greenhouses that I wished to have anyway and held one at 3000ppm in direct sunlight for 30 minutes and recorded no temperature rise on thermometers calibrated to .1 degree.I took a water sample from the beach at Trigg and it came up at 8.3 PH.The original set point is the reading at Mauna loa in 1958 that was actually 313ppm not 280 as declared and now it is around 400ppm.I have detected a small decrease over the time I have had the device.I have mainly done this stuff to find the truth and to be able to respond.This week a coworker stated something about sea levels and I said so what and he responded with too bad if you live on a pacific island.Please name the families that have had to move because of sea levels.The president of Tuvalu has been asking for international aid from the 70s and it is now 2022 do the math it should be underwater but it isnt.I have 3 years worth of this stuff so ask away.If it is warmer so what why is it bad?The best defence we have against the deadly climate change is a window.Look out the window,What you see is what you got.CO2 is not going to increase any more.We do not have enough stuff to burn V the new growth.I have a soda stream and if the water is above 6 degrees it does not take a charge and is flat.The oceans can only absorb CO2 where it is super cold then as the water passes Argentina the tiny amount of C02 absorbed at the surface is released again.


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

Millions sickened by arsenic poisoning. The hazards of good intentions.

In the 1970s to 1980s, well intentioned public health programs sought to improve the lives of millions of the world's most impoverished people living in densely populated delta regions.

River water used for human consumption was infested with parasites and pathogens.

Many thousands of shallow tube wells were installed to provide safe drinking water. In the Ganges delta, the Mekong delta, the Red River delta, etc.

The water was somewhat salty and worthless for irrigation. But it didn't have parasites or pathogens.

What the shallow delta groundwater from the wells did have was arsenic.

It took years before the problem was identified.

By then, literally millions of people had been sickened with "blackfoot disease" and arsenic-related cancers.

The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health.

What was missing?

There was not a recognition among policy makers that expertise in biogeochemistry was needed. Why would there be arsenic in groundwater?

They didn't even know how to ask the right questions.

They didn't think the questions needed to be asked.
RE: recap02-06-2023 02:04
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health.

What was missing?.

They didn't check for arsenic.


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

They did not.

They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did.


Thought it was standard to have water thoroughly tested for contaminants, before a new well was certified. I was still a kid in the 70s, but remember a friends family had a well drilled, and had to wait.

Seems odd they would go to the expense of drilling wells, when surface water was available. Wouldn't boiling the water kill the parasites? Chlorine is also a common water treatment,

We are exposed to, or consume a whole lot of hazardous materials, pretty much every day. The concentration, and frequency is what causes the problems.


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

Today, in wealthy nations such as the United States, there are indeed environmental regulations that require such testing to certify a well.

In the delta backwaters of South Asia and Southeast Asia in the 1970s, regulation wasn't so strict.

They didn't even have the infrastructure to do any such testing or any kind of certification process.

And who could have predicted the seasonal variability in groundwater arsenic biogeochemistry?

Samples from the initial wells, airlifted for testing abroad, showed no problem.

That would remain true for the few samples from new wells they could afford to test.

Only a small minority of wells would eventually prove to have high arsenic all year round.

Many other wells that were actually tested were caught at the wrong time of year to reveal any problem.

Relatively few wells could be tested. It just wasn't an option. And many of those that they did test, revealing low arsenic, would turn out to have much higher arsenic during the season when new well boring and testing was too difficult due to heavy rain.

Acute arsenic poisoning is a rapid process. People show symptoms very quickly.

When "agent blue" was sprayed over rice paddies of Viet Nam to kill the crops as part of the "food denial" program, people died immediately of acute arsenic poisoning.

The chemical form of arsenic in herbicides and pesticides is very different than the arsenic found in groundwater.

It took years of drinking the water day after day before people accumulated enough arsenic to make them sick.
RE: recap02-06-2023 02:05
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
sealover wrote:The intentions were good. It was a reasonable goal to improve public health. What was missing?.
They didn't check for arsenic.

They did not. They would have only been able to find it in a minority of the wells if they did.

Correct. They would have found arsenic in only some wells ... and they would have discovered arsenic.


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

Viet Nam - Anthropogenic AND Natural Arsenic Poisoning

Some poor peasants in the Mekong delta got arsenic poisoning twice during their lifetime.

They survived subacute arsenic poisoning when "agent blue" rained down into their water supply.

Years later they got sick from arsenic again, after drinking too much of it from shallow well water.

The first arsenic poisoning, arguably a war crime, was acute toxicity from highly reactive chemical forms of arsenic in anthropogenic herbicide.

That herbicide didn't remain poisonous in the rice paddies for very long.

The arsenic was rapidly transformed and attenuated as arsenate strongly bound to the soil. It would never hurt anybody again.

The second arsenic poisoning, a tragic mistake and not an act of war, was from drinking water that historically people knew better than to use.

There was no preexisting data set from shallow delta wells used for drinking water in the past. Such wells never existed before.

There was very little preexisting data for delta groundwater, period.

Arsenic has no taste, although the water was saltier than one might like.

You don't know you are sick until years too late to imagine it was the water.
02-06-2023 03:28
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts. Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

What is the difference between naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and anthropogenic hexavalent chromium?

Suppose that we needed to separate a pile of thoroughly mixed hexavalent chromium into two piles, one of the naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and one of the anthropogenic hexavalent chromium. How would we go about accomplishing this?


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

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is synthesized by humans oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI).

Isotopic fractionation occurs during oxidation.

I'll have to look it up again, and I don't remember the specific stable isotopes of chromium, but the anthropogenic hex chrome is slightly enriched in one of them.

My last advice to the scientists was to do bulk isotopic analysis of chromium in a whole soil sample. Then do isotopic analysis of just the chromium that can be extracted with a citrate buffer. That's where all the hex chrome will be.

If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Stable isotope analysis has come a long way.


What microorganism creates hexavalent chromium?


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

The microorganism that inadvertently creates hexavalent chromium are multiple species of manganese oxidizing bacteria.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria are EVERYWHERE, but only in rare environments do they bring about oxidation of trivalent chromium Cr(III) to hexavalent chromium Cr(VI).

In the case study described, the source of organic carbon entering the soil was shut off when they stopped using the septic tank.

The humic material coating surfaces along the subsurface flow path decomposed, without being replaced by new humic material from new organic carbon. The chemically reduced manganese Mn(II) that was sealed in the humic material becomes exposed to the solution. As does the trivalent chromium Cr(III) that previously sealed in humic material.

When manganese oxidizing bacteria exploit the Mn(II) in solution, the Cr(III) is there in solution at the same time.


You failed to name the bacteria that creates hexavalent chromium, or the biological process where manganese is turned into chromium. Just because an organism can uptake a heavy metal does not mean that it can create that heavy metal.

You may now resume officers brainwashing training


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
RE: some of the different phyla02-06-2023 11:25
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts. Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

What is the difference between naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and anthropogenic hexavalent chromium?

Suppose that we needed to separate a pile of thoroughly mixed hexavalent chromium into two piles, one of the naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and one of the anthropogenic hexavalent chromium. How would we go about accomplishing this?


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

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is synthesized by humans oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI).

Isotopic fractionation occurs during oxidation.

I'll have to look it up again, and I don't remember the specific stable isotopes of chromium, but the anthropogenic hex chrome is slightly enriched in one of them.

My last advice to the scientists was to do bulk isotopic analysis of chromium in a whole soil sample. Then do isotopic analysis of just the chromium that can be extracted with a citrate buffer. That's where all the hex chrome will be.

If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Stable isotope analysis has come a long way.


What microorganism creates hexavalent chromium?


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

The microorganism that inadvertently creates hexavalent chromium are multiple species of manganese oxidizing bacteria.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria are EVERYWHERE, but only in rare environments do they bring about oxidation of trivalent chromium Cr(III) to hexavalent chromium Cr(VI).

In the case study described, the source of organic carbon entering the soil was shut off when they stopped using the septic tank.

The humic material coating surfaces along the subsurface flow path decomposed, without being replaced by new humic material from new organic carbon. The chemically reduced manganese Mn(II) that was sealed in the humic material becomes exposed to the solution. As does the trivalent chromium Cr(III) that previously sealed in humic material.

When manganese oxidizing bacteria exploit the Mn(II) in solution, the Cr(III) is there in solution at the same time.


You failed to name the bacteria that creates hexavalent chromium, or the biological process where manganese is turned into chromium. Just because an organism can uptake a heavy metal does not mean that it can create that heavy metal.

You may now resume officers brainwashing training


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

The list is pretty long, so I said "multiple species of manganese oxidizing bacteria."

At least four entirely different PHYLA of bacteria, and hundreds of individual species.

Phyla of manganese oxidizing bacteria: Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Bacteriaoidelos, and Proteobacteria.

Manganese cannot be turned into chromium, of course.

When the bacteria oxidize Mn(II) to Mn(IV), a very tiny fraction gets oxidized all the way to Mn(VII).

The bacteria never touch the chromium. Their Mn(VII) waste product finds some trivalent chromium in solution and oxidizes it to hexavalent chromium.

Nobody ever suggested that these bacteria take up any heavy metals, nor somehow create them.



Second follow up:

During laboratory/factory synthesis of hexavalent chromium, the slight difference in mass between the stable isotopes 53-Cr and 54-Cr causes fractionation among products versus reactants.

The 53-Cr/54-Cr ratio of anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is different than the average chromium atoms of the world.
02-06-2023 15:13
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Swan wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is limited to the margins of deserts. Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium can have a complex life cycle.

What is the difference between naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and anthropogenic hexavalent chromium?

Suppose that we needed to separate a pile of thoroughly mixed hexavalent chromium into two piles, one of the naturally occurring hexavalent chromium and one of the anthropogenic hexavalent chromium. How would we go about accomplishing this?


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

Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is synthesized by humans oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI).

Isotopic fractionation occurs during oxidation.

I'll have to look it up again, and I don't remember the specific stable isotopes of chromium, but the anthropogenic hex chrome is slightly enriched in one of them.

My last advice to the scientists was to do bulk isotopic analysis of chromium in a whole soil sample. Then do isotopic analysis of just the chromium that can be extracted with a citrate buffer. That's where all the hex chrome will be.

If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Stable isotope analysis has come a long way.


What microorganism creates hexavalent chromium?


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

The microorganism that inadvertently creates hexavalent chromium are multiple species of manganese oxidizing bacteria.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria are EVERYWHERE, but only in rare environments do they bring about oxidation of trivalent chromium Cr(III) to hexavalent chromium Cr(VI).

In the case study described, the source of organic carbon entering the soil was shut off when they stopped using the septic tank.

The humic material coating surfaces along the subsurface flow path decomposed, without being replaced by new humic material from new organic carbon. The chemically reduced manganese Mn(II) that was sealed in the humic material becomes exposed to the solution. As does the trivalent chromium Cr(III) that previously sealed in humic material.

When manganese oxidizing bacteria exploit the Mn(II) in solution, the Cr(III) is there in solution at the same time.


You failed to name the bacteria that creates hexavalent chromium, or the biological process where manganese is turned into chromium. Just because an organism can uptake a heavy metal does not mean that it can create that heavy metal.

You may now resume officers brainwashing training


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

The list is pretty long, so I said "multiple species of manganese oxidizing bacteria."

At least four entirely different PHYLA of bacteria, and hundreds of individual species.

Phyla of manganese oxidizing bacteria: Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, Bacteriaoidelos, and Proteobacteria.

Manganese cannot be turned into chromium, of course.

When the bacteria oxidize Mn(II) to Mn(IV), a very tiny fraction gets oxidized all the way to Mn(VII).

The bacteria never touch the chromium. Their Mn(VII) waste product finds some trivalent chromium in solution and oxidizes it to hexavalent chromium.

Nobody ever suggested that these bacteria take up any heavy metals, nor somehow create them.



Second follow up:

During laboratory/factory synthesis of hexavalent chromium, the slight difference in mass between the stable isotopes 53-Cr and 54-Cr causes fractionation among products versus reactants.

The 53-Cr/54-Cr ratio of anthropogenic hexavalent chromium is different than the average chromium atoms of the world.


Actually no bacteria can produce Chromium, what they can do is uptake Chromium VI (hexavalent Chromium) from the environment and change its form to Chromium III, making these bacteria of use in superfund type situations. So as usual you purposely distorted the truth to justify your peelers salary.

Two chromium-resistant bacteria (IFR-2 and IFR-3) capable of reducing/transforming Cr(VI) to Cr(III) were isolated from tannery effluents. Isolates IFR-2 and IFR-3 were identified as Staphylococcus aureus and Pediococcus pentosaceus respectively by 16S rRNA gene sequence analyses. Both isolates can grow well on 2,000 mg/l Cr(VI) (as K2Cr2O7) in Luria-Bertani (L
medium. Reduction of Cr(VI) was found to be growth-associated in both isolates and IFR-2 and IFR-3 reduced 20 mg/l Cr(VI) completely in 6 and 24 h respectively. The Cr(VI) reduction due to chromate reductase activity was detected in the culture supernatant and cell lysate but not at all in the cell extract supernatant of both isolates. Whole cells of IFR-2 and IFR-3 converted 24 and 30% of the initial Cr(VI) concentration (1 mg/l) in 45 min respectively at 37°C. NiCl2 stimulated the growth of IFR-2 whereas HgCl2 and CdCl2 significantly inhibited the growth of both isolates. Optimum temperature and pH for growth of and Cr(VI) reduction by both isolates were found to be between 35 and 40°C and pH 7.0 to 8.0. The two bacterial isolates can be good candidates for detoxification of Cr(VI) in industrial effluents.

You may now resume fingerpainting classes on your government computer


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
02-06-2023 15:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14379)
Im a BM wrote:If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Aren't you discounting the many possibilities of naturally occurring hexavalent chromium entering the system/region from some other system/region through natural means?

It seems to me is that it has become a rather common practice to simply declare that numerous (human) activities produce hexavalent chromium based solely on the presumption that it isn't occurring naturally. If I were to ask you why you assume that human activities are creating certain occurrences of hexavalent chromium, you would immediately point to the presumption that it didn't occur naturally. If I were to ask you about the presumption that it didn't occur naturally, you would point to the assumption that it is being produced by human activities.

Is there some public recording of hexavalent chromium production that businesses/factories/facilities must report that gets checked/audited?
02-06-2023 18:48
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Aren't you discounting the many possibilities of naturally occurring hexavalent chromium entering the system/region from some other system/region through natural means?

It seems to me is that it has become a rather common practice to simply declare that numerous (human) activities produce hexavalent chromium based solely on the presumption that it isn't occurring naturally. If I were to ask you why you assume that human activities are creating certain occurrences of hexavalent chromium, you would immediately point to the presumption that it didn't occur naturally. If I were to ask you about the presumption that it didn't occur naturally, you would point to the assumption that it is being produced by human activities.

Is there some public recording of hexavalent chromium production that businesses/factories/facilities must report that gets checked/audited?


You are the voice of autism


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
02-06-2023 19:02
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Aren't you discounting the many possibilities of naturally occurring hexavalent chromium entering the system/region from some other system/region through natural means?

It seems to me is that it has become a rather common practice to simply declare that numerous (human) activities produce hexavalent chromium based solely on the presumption that it isn't occurring naturally. If I were to ask you why you assume that human activities are creating certain occurrences of hexavalent chromium, you would immediately point to the presumption that it didn't occur naturally. If I were to ask you about the presumption that it didn't occur naturally, you would point to the assumption that it is being produced by human activities.

Is there some public recording of hexavalent chromium production that businesses/factories/facilities must report that gets checked/audited?


LOL, why do you not explain for us the natural processes that produce Chromium 6?

You may phone your mommy


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
03-06-2023 00:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
There has been...deleted spam...

Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 00:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
This is basically...deleted spam...

Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
I totally respect ...deleted spam...

Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
Millions sickened...deleted spam...
Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 00:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
Today, in wealthy nations...deleted spam...

Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 00:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Im a BM wrote:
Viet Nam ...deleted spam...
Spamming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 00:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Aren't you discounting the many possibilities of naturally occurring hexavalent chromium entering the system/region from some other system/region through natural means?

It seems to me is that it has become a rather common practice to simply declare that numerous (human) activities produce hexavalent chromium based solely on the presumption that it isn't occurring naturally. If I were to ask you why you assume that human activities are creating certain occurrences of hexavalent chromium, you would immediately point to the presumption that it didn't occur naturally. If I were to ask you about the presumption that it didn't occur naturally, you would point to the assumption that it is being produced by human activities.

Is there some public recording of hexavalent chromium production that businesses/factories/facilities must report that gets checked/audited?


You are...
Mantra 1d.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 01:24
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote:If there is little or no difference between the two samples isotopic signatures, the hex chrome probably came from local Cr(III) getting oxidized by bacterial generated Mn(VII).

If there is a big difference, the hex chrome certainly came from a different source than the local Cr(III), having experienced significant isotopic fractionation during the anthropogenic synthesis process.

Aren't you discounting the many possibilities of naturally occurring hexavalent chromium entering the system/region from some other system/region through natural means?

It seems to me is that it has become a rather common practice to simply declare that numerous (human) activities produce hexavalent chromium based solely on the presumption that it isn't occurring naturally. If I were to ask you why you assume that human activities are creating certain occurrences of hexavalent chromium, you would immediately point to the presumption that it didn't occur naturally. If I were to ask you about the presumption that it didn't occur naturally, you would point to the assumption that it is being produced by human activities.

Is there some public recording of hexavalent chromium production that businesses/factories/facilities must report that gets checked/audited?


You are...
Mantra 1d.


The FBI could use a talentless spammer like you.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
03-06-2023 02:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21559)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
You are...
Mantra 1d.

The FBI ...
Mantra 40a.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
03-06-2023 02:57
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
You are...
Mantra 1d.

The FBI ...
Mantra 40a.


The FBI could use a talentless spammer like you, but they would require you to take your meds every day.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
03-06-2023 04:46
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5195)
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
You are...
Mantra 1d.

The FBI ...
Mantra 40a.


The FBI could use a talentless spammer like you, but they would require you to take your meds every day.


How come the FBI doesn't make you take your meds?
03-06-2023 13:12
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
You are...
Mantra 1d.

The FBI ...
Mantra 40a.


The FBI could use a talentless spammer like you, but they would require you to take your meds every day.


How come the FBI doesn't make you take your meds?


Because the FBI spends all their time protecting Mexican drug mules bringing 5 tons of Fentanyl into the USA every day which supports Hunter Biden's habit.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
03-06-2023 16:40
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5195)
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
You are...
Mantra 1d.

The FBI ...
Mantra 40a.


The FBI could use a talentless spammer like you, but they would require you to take your meds every day.


How come the FBI doesn't make you take your meds?


Because the FBI spends all their time protecting Mexican drug mules bringing 5 tons of Fentanyl into the USA every day which supports Hunter Biden's habit.


But you're an FBI recruiter, you have to take your meds...
03-06-2023 18:40
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Swan wrote:
You are...
Mantra 1d.

The FBI ...
Mantra 40a.


The FBI could use a talentless spammer like you, but they would require you to take your meds every day.


How come the FBI doesn't make you take your meds?


Because the FBI spends all their time protecting Mexican drug mules bringing 5 tons of Fentanyl into the USA every day which supports Hunter Biden's habit.


But you're an FBI recruiter, you have to take your meds...

If you say so pee wee


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
04-06-2023 08:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14379)
Swan asked:LOL, why do you not explain for us the natural processes that produce Chromium 6?

IBDaMann cites Im a BM who had already written:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Swan asked:What microorganism creates hexavalent chromium?

ChatGPT responds:
The natural production of hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium(VI), is primarily associated with the oxidation of trivalent chromium (Cr(III)) by certain microorganisms. These microorganisms are capable of transforming Cr(III) into Cr(VI) as part of their metabolic processes. While several microorganisms have been found to be involved in this process, the most extensively studied ones are certain bacteria and fungi. Here are a few examples:

Bacteria: Various species of bacteria have been found to be capable of oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI). For instance, some species of Pseudomonas, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas putida, have been shown to oxidize Cr(III) under certain conditions. Other bacteria, including Bacillus sp., Arthrobacter sp., and Shewanella sp., have also been implicated in Cr(III) oxidation.

Fungi: Certain fungi are known to play a role in the natural production of Cr(VI). For example, species of the fungal genus Aspergillus, such as Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus, have been shown to have the ability to oxidize Cr(III) to Cr(VI). Additionally, some other filamentous fungi like Penicillium sp. and Fusarium sp. have also been found to participate in this process.

It's important to note that the natural production of hexavalent chromium is typically a result of specific environmental conditions and interactions between microorganisms and their surroundings.

Then addressing the potential natural causes of hexavalent chromium outside of microorganisms that might erroneously/inadvertently be mislabeled as "anthropogenic" we have:

Genesis of hexavalent chromium from natural sources in soil and groundwater
Christopher Oze, Dennis K. Bird, and Scott Fendorf fendorf@stanford.eduAuthors Info & Affiliations
April 17, 2007

Abstract
Naturally occurring Cr(VI) has recently been reported in ground and surface waters. Rock strata rich in Cr(III)-bearing minerals, in particular chromite, are universally found in these areas that occur near convergent plate margins. Here we report experiments demonstrating accelerated dissolution of chromite and subsequent oxidation of Cr(III) to aqueous Cr(VI) in the presence of birnessite, a common manganese mineral, explaining the generation of Cr(VI) by a Cr(III)-bearing mineral considered geochemically inert. Our results demonstrate that Cr(III) within ultramafic- and serpentinite-derived soils/sediments can be oxidized and dissolved through natural processes, leading to hazardous levels of aqueous Cr(VI) in surface and groundwater.

Natural chromium sources threaten California groundwater
by Danielle Torrent Tucker
July 23, 2018

In a study that appeared online June 27 in Environmental Science & Technology, Stanford scientists used a statewide groundwater database and a new means of tracing sources to identify wells containing hexavalent chromium from industry versus those that became contaminated from naturally occurring sources – some of which may also have resulted from human activity.

The research found that naturally occurring chromium affects a larger area, more wells and a larger population throughout California than industrial sources, offering a new perspective on how California's groundwater resources should be managed.

"While the highest concentrations of chromium in any single well are clearly from industrial leaks, the greatest number of wells and the largest geographic distribution are all from this naturally occurring chromium," said co-author Scott Fendorf, the Huffington Family Professor in Earth system science at the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). "As we continue to push the need to use and manage groundwater, understanding how these naturally occurring contaminants can jeopardize water becomes really, really important."

Natural and Anthropogenic Hexavalent Chromium, Cr(VI), in
Groundwater near a Mapped Plume, Hinkley, California

By John A. Izbicki, Krishangi D. Groover, Whitney A. Seymour, David M. Miller, John G. Warden, and Laurence G. Miller

Consequently, natural Cr(VI) in water from wells within
Hinkley and Water Valleys is related to factors other than chromium
abundance, including (1) mineralogy and weathering rates of chromiumcontaining minerals; (2) accumulation of chromium weathered from
chromium-containing minerals within iron- and manganese-oxide surface
coatings on mineral grains and subsequent oxidation of accumulated
trivalent chromium, Cr(III), to Cr(VI) in the presence of manganese oxides;
(3) texture of aquifer deposits, with finer-textured deposits having greater
surface area and more abundant iron- and manganese oxide coatings; and
(4) pH-dependent desorption of Cr(VI) from iron- and manganese oxide
surface coatings on mineral grains into groundwater under appropriate
aqueous geochemical conditions. Once oxidized to Cr(VI), desorption of
Cr(VI) from sorption sites on the surfaces of mineral grains increases with
increasing pH. During timespans of several thousand years, pH increases
with groundwater age (time since recharge) as silicate minerals that
compose aquifers weather, and natural Cr(VI) concentrations may increase
in older groundwater within Hinkley and Water Valleys as long as that
older water remains oxic (contains dissolved oxygen).
04-06-2023 20:21
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5696)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan asked:LOL, why do you not explain for us the natural processes that produce Chromium 6?

IBDaMann cites Im a BM who had already written:Naturally occurring hexavalent chromium is generated through the action of microorganisms.

Manganese oxidizing bacteria generate a small amount of by product manganese in highly oxidized form, such as Mn(VII). The main product is Mn(IV), derived from oxidizing Mn(II).

Mn(VII) is a much more powerful oxidant than oxygen. It turns Cr(III) into Cr(VI), or hexavalent chromium.

Swan asked:What microorganism creates hexavalent chromium?

ChatGPT responds:
The natural production of hexavalent chromium, also known as chromium(VI), is primarily associated with the oxidation of trivalent chromium (Cr(III)) by certain microorganisms. These microorganisms are capable of transforming Cr(III) into Cr(VI) as part of their metabolic processes. While several microorganisms have been found to be involved in this process, the most extensively studied ones are certain bacteria and fungi. Here are a few examples:

Bacteria: Various species of bacteria have been found to be capable of oxidizing Cr(III) to Cr(VI). For instance, some species of Pseudomonas, such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas putida, have been shown to oxidize Cr(III) under certain conditions. Other bacteria, including Bacillus sp., Arthrobacter sp., and Shewanella sp., have also been implicated in Cr(III) oxidation.

Fungi: Certain fungi are known to play a role in the natural production of Cr(VI). For example, species of the fungal genus Aspergillus, such as Aspergillus niger and Aspergillus flavus, have been shown to have the ability to oxidize Cr(III) to Cr(VI). Additionally, some other filamentous fungi like Penicillium sp. and Fusarium sp. have also been found to participate in this process.

It's important to note that the natural production of hexavalent chromium is typically a result of specific environmental conditions and interactions between microorganisms and their surroundings.

Then addressing the potential natural causes of hexavalent chromium outside of microorganisms that might erroneously/inadvertently be mislabeled as "anthropogenic" we have:

Genesis of hexavalent chromium from natural sources in soil and groundwater
Christopher Oze, Dennis K. Bird, and Scott Fendorf fendorf@stanford.eduAuthors Info & Affiliations
April 17, 2007

Abstract
Naturally occurring Cr(VI) has recently been reported in ground and surface waters. Rock strata rich in Cr(III)-bearing minerals, in particular chromite, are universally found in these areas that occur near convergent plate margins. Here we report experiments demonstrating accelerated dissolution of chromite and subsequent oxidation of Cr(III) to aqueous Cr(VI) in the presence of birnessite, a common manganese mineral, explaining the generation of Cr(VI) by a Cr(III)-bearing mineral considered geochemically inert. Our results demonstrate that Cr(III) within ultramafic- and serpentinite-derived soils/sediments can be oxidized and dissolved through natural processes, leading to hazardous levels of aqueous Cr(VI) in surface and groundwater.

Natural chromium sources threaten California groundwater
by Danielle Torrent Tucker
July 23, 2018

In a study that appeared online June 27 in Environmental Science & Technology, Stanford scientists used a statewide groundwater database and a new means of tracing sources to identify wells containing hexavalent chromium from industry versus those that became contaminated from naturally occurring sources – some of which may also have resulted from human activity.

The research found that naturally occurring chromium affects a larger area, more wells and a larger population throughout California than industrial sources, offering a new perspective on how California's groundwater resources should be managed.

"While the highest concentrations of chromium in any single well are clearly from industrial leaks, the greatest number of wells and the largest geographic distribution are all from this naturally occurring chromium," said co-author Scott Fendorf, the Huffington Family Professor in Earth system science at the School of Earth, Energy & Environmental Sciences (Stanford Earth). "As we continue to push the need to use and manage groundwater, understanding how these naturally occurring contaminants can jeopardize water becomes really, really important."

Natural and Anthropogenic Hexavalent Chromium, Cr(VI), in
Groundwater near a Mapped Plume, Hinkley, California

By John A. Izbicki, Krishangi D. Groover, Whitney A. Seymour, David M. Miller, John G. Warden, and Laurence G. Miller

Consequently, natural Cr(VI) in water from wells within
Hinkley and Water Valleys is related to factors other than chromium
abundance, including (1) mineralogy and weathering rates of chromiumcontaining minerals; (2) accumulation of chromium weathered from
chromium-containing minerals within iron- and manganese-oxide surface
coatings on mineral grains and subsequent oxidation of accumulated
trivalent chromium, Cr(III), to Cr(VI) in the presence of manganese oxides;
(3) texture of aquifer deposits, with finer-textured deposits having greater
surface area and more abundant iron- and manganese oxide coatings; and
(4) pH-dependent desorption of Cr(VI) from iron- and manganese oxide
surface coatings on mineral grains into groundwater under appropriate
aqueous geochemical conditions. Once oxidized to Cr(VI), desorption of
Cr(VI) from sorption sites on the surfaces of mineral grains increases with
increasing pH. During timespans of several thousand years, pH increases
with groundwater age (time since recharge) as silicate minerals that
compose aquifers weather, and natural Cr(VI) concentrations may increase
in older groundwater within Hinkley and Water Valleys as long as that
older water remains oxic (contains dissolved oxygen).


Please take your meds first next time


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Page 6 of 9<<<45678>>>





Join the debate Geoengineering to Neutralize Ocean Acidification:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Restoring Alkalinity to the Ocean40520-12-2023 09:14
Florida in hot water as ocean temperatures rise along with the humidity213-07-2023 15:50
Californicators attempt ocean climate solution121-04-2023 18:18
Climate Change and Ocean Acidification Science - how to find "sealover" posts1318-08-2022 06:25
CO2 ocean uptake30622-02-2021 04:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact