The fingerprint of life

Springboarding off yesterday's post, which suggested that -- from a biochemical standpoint, at least -- extraterrestrial life might be way more common than we'd thought, today we look at how we might find out where it lives.

This is a thornier problem than it might seem at first.  Despite hopeful movies like Contact, picking up an alien radio signal makes looking for a needle in a haystack seem like child's play.  Consider the difficulties; you have to have your radio telescope pointed at exactly the right place in the sky, at exactly the right time, and tuned to exactly the right frequency, to pick it up as it sweeps by the Earth at the speed of light.  Even if you posit an extremely simple message, which repeats indefinitely (like Ellie Arroway's string of prime number blips), there's the problem that any kind of electromagnetic signaling follows the inverse-square law, meaning if you double the distance between the sender and the receiver, the intensity of the received signal goes down by a factor of four.  Triple it, and it goes down by a factor of nine, and so forth.

And the fact is, the distances we're talking about here are...

... astronomical.  (*rimshot*)

So the possibility of detecting some sort of radio signal (whether or not deliberately sent to attract our attention) is not zero, but pretty damn small.  And the other downside is that if that's all we're looking for, we're going to miss a huge slice of the living creatures that could be out there -- we'd only see the ones that have a technological civilization that uses radio waves to communicate.  From that approach, Earth itself would have appeared to be barren and lifeless until the use of radio became widespread, back in the 1930s.

Is there another way?

An alternate approach -- one that avoids at least some of these pitfalls -- is to look for biosignatures, chemical traces that might indicate the presence of life on a planet even if it hasn't reached the point of being technological.  The studies done on Mars that attempted to find Martian microbes took this approach; take a sample of soil, add some likely nutrients, and look for a sign of metabolism.  But this, too, has its inherent difficulties.  How do you tell the difference between Martian microbes chowing down on the food you gave them, and some exotic but abiotic chemical reaction?

A team of astronomers and biologists from the University of Birmingham and MIT have come up with a possible answer.  According to a paper in Nature Astronomy last week, there is a pair of dead giveaways; an atmosphere depleted in carbon dioxide but enriched in ozone.

Carbon dioxide is a highly stable compound, and on lifeless, dry planets like Venus and Mars, it makes up a significant percentage of the atmosphere.  (96.5% on Venus, 95.3% on Mars.)  The fact that despite the amount of carbon on the Earth, the quantity in the air is only 0.04%, is due mostly to the fact that the water in the oceans acts as a huge carbon sink, first dissolving the carbon dioxide, then reacting it with dissolved metal ions like calcium and magnesium to form minerals like the calcite and magnesite in limestone.  Without the oceans, all of that carbon would stay in the atmosphere -- and we'd be a lot more like the inferno that is Venus than the temperate world where we reside.

As far as ozone, the real tipoff for the presence of life would be gaseous oxygen, which is a highly reactive substance that, in the absence of something producing it pretty much continuously, would all be bound up chemically.  Ozone -- a chemical relative of oxygen, O3 instead of O2 -- is expected to be present in small amounts in any atmosphere with free oxygen, but is the astronomers' choice because its spectral signature is much easier to detect than oxygen's.

Likewise, carbon dioxide's spectral fingerprint is obvious because of its strong absorption in the infrared (a property that is directly related to the greenhouse effect and carbon dioxide's warming effect on atmospheres).

So it should be possible to analyze the light reflected from the surface of exoplanets that seem to be in the right temperature range, and look for two things -- low carbon dioxide (indicating liquid water on the surface) and high ozone (indicating something, possibly life, keeping molecular oxygen in the atmosphere).  See both of those things, the team said, and you're very likely looking at a planet that is inhabited.

Like I said yesterday, of course, "inhabited" doesn't mean "inhabited by bipedal humanoids with spaceships and laser guns."  But even so, the technique is intriguing in its simplicity.  The team suggested starting with relatively nearby planetary systems like TRAPPIST-1, which has seven known exoplanets and is only a little over forty light years away from Earth.

TRAPPIST-1 and its lineup of seven planets [Image is in the Public Domain courtesy of NASA/JPL]

So this is all tremendously exciting -- that astronomers are now taking the possibility of extraterrestrial life seriously enough to start proposing methods for searching for it other than just scanning the skies and hoping for the best.  After all, to go back to the movie Contact -- "if we're all alone in the universe, it seems like an awful waste of space."

****************************************

Out in the ozone

If you were going to try to pick out the all-time stupidest practice from the alt-med crowd, you'd have a lot of contenders for the top prize.  You have your homeopathic water.  You have your "quantum downloadable medicines."  You have your health benefits of breathing air that bees have flown around in.  You  have your recommendations to take all your clothes off and expose your butthole to direct sunlight.

None of which, for the record, did I make up.

But I think I've found the odds-on favorite, thanks to a loyal reader of Skeptophilia who alerted me to the practice.  Today we look at:

Treating COVID-19 infections using "rectal insufflation of ozone."

If you're sitting there thinking, as I was, "Okay, that can't possibly mean what it sounds like," then yes -- it means exactly what it sounds like.  (Actually, what I said was, "You have got to be fucking kidding me.")  Doctors (I'm using the term loosely here) are trying to treat COVID and other illnesses by sticking a plastic tube up your ass and pumping your rectum full of ozone.

I read this entire article with an expression like this on my face:

Okay, brief pause to (1) give you time to stop laughing and/or retching, and (2) review a little bit of high school chemistry.

Ozone is O3 (ordinary oxygen is O2).  Elemental oxygen is, unsurprisingly, a strong oxidizer, meaning it is really good at pulling electrons away from other molecules.  In the case of organic molecules, this usually makes them fall apart.  Fire, after all, is just the energy released by rapid oxidation.

Put simply, oxygen is toxic.  We depend on it to "burn" the glucose molecules from which we get our energy, but there's good evidence that the evolution of aerobic respiration started as a detoxification pathway.  When the first photosynthetic organisms evolved (probably cyanobacteria), the oxygen they gave off as a waste product resulted in the oxidation (i.e. death) of most of the living things on Earth, at that point all single-celled microorganisms.  The ones that survived did so because they either were able to (1) avoid the oxygen altogether (these evolved into today's anaerobic bacteria), or (2) detoxify the oxygen by handing it the electrons it wanted, in most circumstances inducing it to bind to hydrogen ions and stabilize as water molecules.  This latter pathway releases a lot of energy, and the ancestors of aerobes -- in other words, most life forms on Earth -- survived because they evolved a way to hook this energy release to powering their own metabolic processes.

So oxygen is dangerous stuff, and we've just learned to live with it.  But where all this is leading is: ozone is a stronger oxidizer than elemental oxygen.  In fact, five times stronger.  It's twice as strong an oxidizer as chlorine gas, which is dissolved into pool water because it's so good at killing pathogenic microorganisms.

This is the stuff they're recommending blowing up your ass.

The "research" that the article linked above cites has the following to say, apropos of using this technique to treat COVID:

The coronavirus envelope is rich in cysteine, and viral activity depends on the conservation of these residues.  Cysteine contains a thiol or sulfhydryl group (–SH); many viruses, including coronaviruses, require these reduced sulfhydryl groups for cell entry and fusion.  Sulfhydryl groups are susceptible to oxidation, and therefore to the oxidizing effect of ozone. Peroxides created by ozone administration oxidize cysteines and show long-term antiviral effects that can further reduce viral load.  Once their capsid is removed, virions cannot survive or replicate, and the creation of dysfunctional viruses due to the action of ozone offers unique therapeutic possibilities.

Well, you could oxidize the virus's capsid by setting it on fire, too, but doing that to the viruses in someone's lungs could present a bit of an issue.

Of course, this was the thing about Donald Trump's much-quoted comments about using ultraviolet light exposure or intravenous bleach to kill coronavirus.  Sure, bleach and ultraviolet light can both destroy the virus, but something that kills the pathogens and simultaneously kills you is a little counterproductive, don't you think?

It's always the problem with showing that anything -- be it an antiviral or any other medication -- that works just fine in vitro will have the same effect, and no deleterious side effects, in vivo.  You not only have to demonstrate that the drug accomplishes what you want it to do, but (1) can efficiently get to the part of the body where it's needed, and (2) doesn't destroy healthy tissue along the way.

Rectal insufflation of ozone kind of fails on both counts, doesn't it?  Okay, it probably kills coronavirus, but they're mostly in your lungs, not your rectum, and it's highly damaging to the rest of you.

Having oxidation damage to the delicate lining of your lower gastrointestinal tract would not be fun.  Having that on top of a COVID-19 infection would be a level of misery I can only imagine.

So there we are.  What is probably the stupidest alt-med therapy I've ever heard of.  Of course, I hesitate even to say that, because the alt-med folks seem to look upon this as some sort of challenge.  Every time I think, "Okay, this is it, it can't get any more idiotic than this," they up and exceed their previous record.

As the quote attributed to Einstein so aptly put it: "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."

***************************************

This week's Skeptophilia book recommendation is brand new, and is as elegiac as it is inspiring -- David Attenborough's A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future.

Attenborough is a familiar name, face, and (especially) voice to those of us who love nature documentaries.  Through series such as Our Planet, Life on Earth, and Planet Earth, he has brought into our homes the beauty of nature -- and its desperate fragility.

At 93, Attenborough's A Life on Our Planet is a fitting coda to his lifelong quest to spark wonder in our minds at the beauty that surrounds us, but at the same time wake us up to the perils of what we're doing to it.  His message isn't all doom and gloom; despite it all, he remains hopeful, and firm in his conviction that we can reverse our course and save what's left of the biodiversity of the Earth.  It's a poignant and evocative work -- something everyone who has been inspired by Attenborough for decades should put on their reading list.

[Note: if you purchase this book using the image/link below, part of the proceeds goes to support Skeptophilia!]

Life in the ozone layer

Some woo-woo ideas are at least understandable.  You can see how people might, through a combination of wishful thinking, dart-thrower's bias, confirmation bias, and the like, decide that the stars guide your future, that good luck charms (or evil curses) work, that Bigfoot and the Loch Ness Monster and El Chupacabra exist, that aliens regularly visit the Earth.

Other claims, however, leave me wondering how the ones making them have not been taken out by natural selection decades ago.

Consider, for example, the idea that has recently been making the rounds of social media -- that the road to good health comes through breathing ozone.

I've started seeing this pop up all over the place.  I even know someone who bought an "ozone generator" for his house.  Here's the claim:

The therapeutic properties of ozone can be astounding. Organized Medicine, the FDA, and above all the Pharmaceutical giants have been actively suppressing information about ozone therapy for the better part of this century. Officially, the FDA list ozone as a toxic gas, an utter and contemptible falsehood. Many healers, including licensed MD's and chiropractors have been jailed and viciously harassed for treating (and healing) patients with ozone. Why? It works and the pharmaceutical houses, along with their puppets in the FDA and local medical boards don't want you to know that it works! That's why.

So right from the get-go we have the pro-ozoners claiming that reputable scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals (such as Mohamed Mostafa of UCLA, author of "The Biochemical Basis of Ozone Toxicity," and William A. Pryor et al. of LSU, authors of "The Cascade Mechanism to Explain Ozone Toxicity") are shills who are lying to you.

But it gets better.  Wait till you hear how they want you to get the ozone inside you, because it turns out that just breathing the stuff isn't good enough.  And let me say, at the outset, that I'm not making any of these up, and if you don't believe me, you can check the link I posted above.  So, here goes, in order of increasing weirdness.

1. You can drink water that has been infused with ozone.
2. You can smear ozonated olive oil on your skin.
3. You can have the doctor take out a pint of your blood, bubble ozone through it, and put the blood back in.
4. You can have the doctor blow ozone into your ear.
5. You can have the doctor blow ozone up your ass.
6. You can take off all your clothes, get into a plastic bag that ties at the neck, and have the doctor (or a friend) inflate the bag with ozone.
7. You can have the doctor inject ozone gas directly into a vein.

This last one seems to me to be a good way of inducing a gas embolism and dying, but the pro-ozoners say this never happens.  Why?  Because ozone GOOD, that's why.  Stop asking questions.  (In fact, the site says about the potential for gas embolism, "Do not allow this bogus fear tactic to keep you from investigating this highly effective and safe therapy!")

What, exactly, are they claiming that ozone does for you?  Well, it's not entirely clear, but here are the basics:

Ozone is an unstable, but highly beneficial molecule. It's the tri-atomic form of oxygen: Instead of the normal arrangement of 2 atoms of oxygen (O2), ozone is comprised of 3 atoms of oxygen (O3). Ozone, however, doesn't want to stay in that tri-atomic state very long and unless held in check or bound by other molecular couplings, ozone will usually break down from O3 to O2 + O1 within 20 minutes of so (at atmospheric pressure at least). O1 is called a singlet oxygen atom and it's HIGHLY REACTIVE. with just about any substance that should NOT be in the human body including all pathogens (virus, bacteria, etc.) and synthetic compounds or their metabolites such as drugs and their  metabolite residues.

So I see this as basically characterizing ozone as some kind of chemical superhero that seeks out and destroys bad guys in your body, but doesn't damage your own honest, law-abiding cells.  It flies in, wearing a cape festooned with "O3," kills pathogens and "synthetic compounds" (because we know that natural = good and synthetic = bad), and then flies away in triumph, leaving all of your organs happy, safe, and secure.

The truth, of course, is that ozone is toxic, and that using an ozone generator (or getting the stuff into your body via some more unorthodox route) is potentially dangerous.  An EPA report on the use of ozone generators to "clean household air" has this to say:

The same chemical properties that allow high concentrations of ozone to react with organic material outside the body give it the ability to react with similar organic material that makes up the body, and potentially cause harmful health consequences.  When inhaled, ozone can damage the lungs... Relatively low amounts can cause chest pain, coughing, shortness of breath, and, throat irritation.  Ozone may also worsen chronic respiratory diseases such as asthma and compromise the ability of the body to fight respiratory infections.  People vary widely in their susceptibility to ozone. Healthy people, as well as those with respiratory difficulty, can experience breathing problems when exposed to ozone.  Exercise during exposure to ozone causes a greater amount of ozone to be inhaled, and increases the risk of harmful respiratory effects.  Recovery from the harmful effects can occur following short-term exposure to low levels of ozone, but health effects may become more damaging and recovery less certain at higher levels or from longer exposure.

Ah, yes, the EPA.  Yet another bunch of shills for Big Pharma, right?

Of course right.

What I find mysterious about all of this is how anyone ever came up with this idea.  Ozone has long been known to be a constituent of photochemical smog, and most people have learned the general rule that "smog is bad" well enough that you'd think no one would suddenly think, "Hey, I know what would work!  Let's concentrate the stuff in smog and then breathe it!  That'll improve our health!"

But apparently that's exactly what has happened here.

So I'm kind of at a loss about this one.  There doesn't seem to be any reasonable explanation for how this started, nor why anyone believes it.

All I know is that based on what I've read, no one is getting near any of my orifices with an ozone tube.