Yes, because they are used to inhaling more oxygen with each breath; however, the ratio of oxygen in the air is not any different.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
$16 Recreational Oxygen Bottles in Pharmacies?
- Thread starter iMacZealot
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's because the density is lower. They're not getting enough O2, quantity-wise, for their conditioned level in the same volumes they're used to with each breath. At 14,000 feet (or even 5,300), the air pressure is reduced--there's fewer molecules for a given each volume than at sea level.
The ratios are the same. On spacecraft, they're breathing (or at least used to up through Apollo) 100% O2 @ 3psi. That's the same as 21% at sea level. (14.7 psi * .21 = 3.087. Apollo 1 was 100% @ 14.7 psi. Bad juju).
If you could "transport" yourself instantaneously from Denver to the top of one of the taller peaks, you'd notice it pretty quickly. The rate of ascent is a large factor in how you adapt. Personal physiology affects how soon you adapt compared to others, but we all need some time.
You might be used the altitude, and you might also be in pretty good health. But it *is* affecting you, even if you don't notice it. The percentage of oxygen is the same up there, but the partial pressure to your lungs is a lot lower.
Fight Club. Just watched that for the first time, great movie...Brad Pitt is amazing..ha
No. Any medical professional will tell you it IS a drug. I've worked on medical education products that explicitly and repeatedly state that Oxygen is a drug and should be used only when required. Selling it in shops is potentially dangerous for 'recreational' purposes is frankly, irresponsible.
FWIW - quite a lot of confusion regarding altitude and O2
The %'s composition of the atmosphere at 12,000 ft is the same as at 0ft - but the air pressure is about 1/3rd less. Thus - every single breath you take contains only 2/3rds as much Oxygen as one at sea level. (It also contains only 2/3rds as much nitrogen etc. )
Infact, 12kft is the limit for gliding in the UK where you have to carry oxygen to fly above.
What does this mean? Ever heard of high altitude training? People from sea level will have a red bloodcell count that matches the requirements of the conditions they're in. If they go up to altitude, they don't have enough red blood cells to get the job done and their body will go into over-drive to make more. After a while the light headedness, dizzyness, other symptoms classified as 'altitude sickness' subside as the body sorts itself out.
People who live at altitude however, are pre-adapted - so they see people come up to altitude out of breath, feeling unwell and could well think "What the hell's wrong with you - I'm fine!!"
As for spacecraft - yup - you could actually live in about 250mbar of 100% oxygen - as per breath, you would be getting as much as you would at sea level. Infact, space-suits are pure O2 at low pressure to help keep them flexible. ISS and STS are approx sea level and 70/20 N2 O2 mix.
Doug
gee, old news. oxygen cans for consumer use have been sold for years for about that price. i wonder how this guy all of a sudden gets the media hype. anyway, he's a good business man and deserve to get filthy rich.
btw: i'll try it. i just have to get drunk first but that shouldn't be a problem.
btw: i'll try it. i just have to get drunk first but that shouldn't be a problem.
Just climbed Mt. Fuji the other week, and going from sea level to 12,000ft in the space of a few hours gave me altitude sickness. Took canned oxygen similar to the stuff in the ad and it helped a lot. They sell many cans of it at about us$10 a pop.
I imagine it would help relieve a hangover too as the symptoms are pretty similar.
I imagine it would help relieve a hangover too as the symptoms are pretty similar.
You climbed Mt Fuji in 2 hours, AND started the climb from sea level? I've known a few people that have done it and they say it takes about 4-6 hours and they started at over 2000m or so (station 5).
"a few" does not specifically mean two. It means around two, depending on the person talking.
Actually, how many of something "few" represents wholly depends on the context.
Case in point: The sentence "I only drank a few beers" mean something entirely different to the person who had never drunk more than five in a row, than it does to the alcoholic who drinks a case every day.
Or this:
"Only few people are [insert favourite skill/character whatever]". Now, that may be true, but "we're many that are few" comes to mind.
Anyway, I won't give any more examples, but refer to what the dictionary says:
Yeah, I get that. But, considering most normal people hike Mt Fji from around a 7,000ft starting point in the 5-7 hour range, I think it is a stretch to suggest that few meant 8 or more (if the OP actually started hiking from sea level, or perhaps the OP meant that he/she just took a bus ride from sea level to station 5 then started to hike).
Either way, notice the ? in my post? It was a question - not an accusation or statement of doubt. I imagine it is totally possible to do it in 2 hours. I know that the 14ers I do here in CO can be done in amazingly short period of times for the fit and motivated. I finish ahead of most, but there is always a few that literally run up the top of 14ers.
You can carry on correcting people that really don't need it...
You both seem to think and argue that "a few" means around 2 hours. Yet you write this:
So, does that mean there's always "around two" doing that?
Again, I think someone should use the dictionary. If they did, there would be no reason to ask the question "Do you claim to have done it in two hours?".
Actually, yes I do mean around 2. In most cases, I see anywhere from 1-3 trail runners doing the entire climb in a slow, but still running gate. Now, if I really saw 8 or more people doing it - I would not have used few. Even still, if I saw 5 people doing it I probably still would not have used the word few.
Again, it was a question to see if he/she did it some impressive short period of time. You ask the question you want to ask and I'll ask mine. No need to adopt a sense of superiority here. As you suggested, few in the context of potato chips has a different meaning than it does with hours. If I told you a movie was a few hours long while in reality it was 6 hours long, I think most would think my statement was a bit misleading. Not suggesting at all that the OP's statement was misleading. I was merely asking for confirmation - at which point I would have congratulated him/her for his/her accomplishment.
As I mentioned, it depends on the context. ( can be few as well, if it's from a big enough group. It all depends on context.
When you go "The XXX business has a few bad apples", that doesn't mean one, two, or three (necessarily), it could be hundreds, or even thousands, depending of context.
Sigh I'm not adopting a sense of anything. I am opposing your assumptions that a "few" must necessarily mean "around two".
I cannot believe you're even trying to argue anything of the sort, even after I showed you what the dictionary says.
Yes, but I said xx only worked at Y place for few hours each week, 16 would be a few.
In fact, to me, spending less than half a day to climb 14.000 feet would still be "a few hours". Hell, you can go down again and still have some of the afternoon left.
Good. However, I doubt he meant two. If for nothing else, then the fact that there is no reason to use the word "few", when "two" would suffice.
Sure. Nothing I have said suggests otherwise. Since it does not take hundreds of hours to accomplish the climb, we can all agree that when the OP said few- he/she did not mean hundreds but something much less than that - though the exact time is not clear (hence my question).
Nothing I said suggests that it "must necessarily" mean anything. If I assumed it must mean that, I would not have bothered to ask the question as I would have already known. The asking of a question usually means that the "asker" is not sure of the answer.
You are absolutely correct. Of course, the key here is your use of "to me". So, I guess a few can be relative to your experience but not to others'? So, "to me", a few hours in the context of a normally 4-6 hour climb can in fact mean 2 or perhaps not (again, hence the question).
Bad reasoning. Obviously he knew how long the trip took him/her. So, no matter how long it was, using your reasoning, he/she would have no reason to use the word few when 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8, etc. would suffice. Few was perfectly acceptable to use regardless of the actual amount of time he/she meant. It is this ambiguity that caused me to ask the question.
I suppose I could have ask the question differently and the grammer nazi in you would have remained sleeping. So, to end this pedantic exercise in nothingness. I will amend my question as follows: "How long did it take you to reach the top of Mt. Fuji from sea level?" Can you please move along now? I am sure you can discuss the true meaning of "many" with someone else - so many are waiting to be enlightened by you and your dictionary.
Thank you. Yes I mean 'a few' to mean not many, in my case about four.
I also started about half way up (station 5), having gone by bus.
As opposed to those that live at altitude, you do feel the difference by going from sea level to 12,000 feet too quickly.
I'm a recreational user, but I promise you that I never inhale.
Ignore him. He's just trying to live up to his name.
hmmfe said:
Ignore him. He's just trying to live up to his name.
Yawn.
First off, I'm no grammar nazi. If you knew the first thing about grammar, you could tell I don't have a clue about anything of the sort.
Secondly, yes, I did use the dictionary, but I did it for a reason: Two blokes decides to interpret "a few" as meaning "two" or "around two" in general and holding the guy responsible for saying "two", not "a few". At worst, that is an intentional strawman argumentation, at best utter ignorance.
So, yes, I did use the dictionary, because in my "infinite wisdom" (being a "grammar nazi" and all) I somehow figured that it was easier to convince you guys that your assumptions were wrong, if I actually backed up my point with some facts.
But NOO, we can't have that, can we. Better resort to name calling, directly or inferred.
Instead of realising that the word "few" doesn't necessarily means "two" or "around two", you decide to completely ignore the facts and instead pretend you meant something completely different. But no matter how much you revision your arguments, they're still here in black on white.
Hmm, I wonder how you got to post on this forum if your third-grade tactics is any indication of your age.
hyperventilate for thirty seconds then breath normally. you'll feel worse after getting off a tank of O2
It makes absolutly no difference. The blood can only absorb so much. In fact when we exhale there is about 16% O2 in the air we breath out. The lungs can't use all the O2 in the air. Any "feeling" you get is purely a placebo effect The user thinks something should happen, so it does.
There is also a problem. O2 is toxic. In high amounts the lungs will become inflamed, but that would take hours of breathing 100% O2. Not likely with such a small bottle but why subject yourself to it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_toxicity.
You've heard about medical fires? Almost anything burns in a 100% O2 environment. Any ignition source will set it off. When I say anything I mean even the oil on you skin.
All that said. Almost certainly users of these bottle are not breathing 100% O2 even if that is what the bottle is filled with. For that they'd need a demand pressure mask that is designed like the type pilots use. These actually use positive pressure. Or they could breath from a scuba type mouthpiece. while blocking their nose. Interestingly pilots are trained that lipstick may self-ignite if a pressure mask is used. Bottom line is that O2 is nasty dangerous stuff.
Well, I found this...
One recurring casino myth is that casinos pipe pure oxygen onto the casino floor, ostensibly to give gamblers an "oxygen high" that lowers their inhibitions. There is no evidence that this has ever taken place, and if it did, the casino owners would face criminal charges.
From How Stuff Works: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/casino4.htm
But, hey, this is America and we live in a corpocracy - why not sell oxygen? Gods know oxygen bars have been doing it for years. And, you know, it does beat huffing gold metallic paint out of a paper bag to get high.
One recurring casino myth is that casinos pipe pure oxygen onto the casino floor, ostensibly to give gamblers an "oxygen high" that lowers their inhibitions. There is no evidence that this has ever taken place, and if it did, the casino owners would face criminal charges.
From How Stuff Works: http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/casino4.htm
But, hey, this is America and we live in a corpocracy - why not sell oxygen? Gods know oxygen bars have been doing it for years. And, you know, it does beat huffing gold metallic paint out of a paper bag to get high.