I am puzzled by the apparent conflict between the use of oxygen in the
body and the claim that loose oxygen atoms will cause cellular damage
and contribute to aging.
Because of this purported cellular damage, the ingestion of
anti-oxidizing compounds have become popular.
Yet, if you look at major research efforts in the early and mid 1900s,
particularly by Koch, Nieper and others, they all insist that the body
actively uses oxygen to facilitate healing.
This could refer to the ingestion of molecular oxygen (2 oxygen atoms)
or ozone (3 or more oxygen atoms).
In the body, I was under the impression that the molecular oxygen or
ozone is broken apart and absorbed for various metabolic processes.
I guess my question is, why would you use Anti-Oxidants if oxygen is
good for the body. I have used ozone and hydrogen peroxide (h2o2) with
good results and not obvious signs of aging or damage.
The reports of oxygen enriched environments resulting in anti-aging
effects and a sublimation of general meanness <g> seem to dispute the
anti-oxidant contentions of aging....
WHAT GIVES? Is this some kind of smoke screen or am I not comprehending
what is being reported?
It can't be both ways, one (anti-oxidants to remove free radical oxygen)
claiming cellular damage and aging, the other (ozone and oxygen therapy)
claiming healing and rejuvenation.
-- Jerry W. Decker / jdecker@keelynet.com http://keelynet.com / "From an Art to a Science" Voice : (214) 324-8741 / FAX : (214) 324-3501 KeelyNet - PO BOX 870716 - Mesquite - Republic of Texas - 75187