Starship Asterisk*

Don't over look the static charges of wind blown particles in your assessments of the arid Martian plains.

[url]http://www.physorg.com/news73579999.html[/url]

[quote="aichip"]I a mont dismissing the possibilty of a water/peroxide chemistry for an organism at all. I am rejecting the idea that any significant amount of peroxide exists in the soil based on the clear evidence of the chemistry and the soil analysis.[/quote]

Then you are posting in the wrong discussion. The topic is a paper suggesting that Martian lifeforms could incorporate H[size=67]2[/size]O[size=67]2[/size] chemistry, and that such organisms could explain the Viking experiment results. Your posts appeared to suggest that this is a foolish claim, which it is not (although it is very speculative, and probably unlikely).

In addition, you made other claims which are almost certainly incorrect. Peroxides [i]can[/i] exist in Martian soil, and probably do. They have been detected spectroscopically in the atmosphere. Chemically, the situation is far more complex than you suggest. Peroxides can be bound up in ways that increase their stability or separate them from reactive components. In addition, just because the half-life of free H[size=67]2[/size]O[size=67]2[/size] in what we consider typical Martian soil is short, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If there is a mechanism for creating H[size=67]2[/size]O[size=67]2[/size] (which seems likely, both from UV chemistry and lightning chemistry), then the situation is one of determining what concentration can be maintained in a balanced system. It may be very low, or variable with conditions, and it may not be enough to explain the Viking results. But to say peroxides can't exist is wrong.

I a mont dismissing the possibilty of a water/peroxide chemistry for an organism at all. I am rejecting the idea that any significant amount of peroxide exists in the soil based on the clear evidence of the chemistry and the soil analysis.

NASA and many scientists reject the labeled release experiment results, claiming that peroxides in the soil created false evidence of metabolic activity. That is what I call silly. Since the chemistry of the soil would destroy preoxides, their explanation does not hold.

You see, once NASA spread the concept of peroxides in the soil, then it was a small step to "perhaps some organisms can live on peroxides or even contain peroxides". Since there is no peroxide in the soil in the first place, this is a red herring. Sure, organisms might exist that contain or even require peroxides, but since there are none in the soil in the first place, the whole line of reasoning sprang from a fallacy that NASA not only failed to debunk, but wholeheartedly promoted.

aichip,
You 'poopoo' the suggestion that water/peroxide metabolism may exist, because a compound that would vigourously react with a peroxide is ubiquitous on Mars. Is that a valid argument?
Earthly organisms use potassium and sodium compounds, when those elements react violently with water. Our bones are made of calcium compounds, and the calcium is turned over frequently. Human (and mammalian?) biochemistry uses carbon monoxide and nitric oxide as transmitter and hormonal signals, when they are poisonous in breathed atmosphere. One locks onto haemoglobin to prevent oxygen transport, the other dissolves to nitric acid.

Cellular metabolism is very good at sequestering dangerous compounds and using them only where they are needed. I imagine that a Martian would be able to keep iron compounds and peroxide seperate.

John

PS Before soemone complains to the moderator, "poopoo" is a good English verb, meaning to denigrate as worthless, to consider something inconsequential. No scatalogical meaning.

Chris has hit the nail on the head. If peroxides are being generated at some finite rate, and they decompose at some other finite rate, there is an equilibrium state that results in a finite concentration of peroxides. Just as oxygen is inimical to the presence of steel (as opposed to ferrous and ferric oxides and nickel oxides) the presence of oxygen in our atmosphere does not mean steel cannot exist on the surface of the Earth. It will exist in some finite quantity as long as there is some process to create more of it at a rate comparable to its rate of destruction, in this case, humans running coke ovens!

Well Put Chris,

Looking scientifically at the complete Martian atmospheric system there is undeniable evidence of a H2O2 cycle supported by high energy radiation passing through the thin Martian atmosphere. The system would be more intregueing if there wasn't any H2O2.

[quote="aichip"]The bottom line is that with these incompatible chemicals in the soil, it is physically impossible for any significant amount of hydrogen peroxide to exist on Mars. Doesn't somebody at NASA know a little basic chemistry? By perpetuating this peroxide myth, they really, really look like fools.[/quote]

The theory may be pretty speculative at this time, but it isn't foolish or silly, and it certainly isn't impossible.

What has soil incompatibility got to do with anything? The proposition is that the H[size=67]2[/size]O[size=67]2[/size] is inside cells. It isn't exposed to soil. The contents of our own cells are incompatible for the most part with their external environment... that's a major reason cells exist!

H[size=67]2[/size]O[size=67]2[/size] does exist on Mars in the natural environment- it is constantly being produced and broken down again. Under some conditions, the production rate may exceed the breakdown rate. Enough free H[size=67]2[/size]O[size=67]2[/size] may be available in the environment for organisms to scavenge (assuming they don't make it internally).

I still find it very interesting that NASA scientists support the peroxide myth, to the point of claiming that Gil Levin's experiment on Viking was flawed because of the presence of peroxide. NASA most definitely knows that peroxides cannot exist on Mars, yet they remain silent when other scientists strike up the perixode thing all over again.

It would take no more than a simple statement from them to end this silly peroxide claim once and for all, but consider that if they do so, they then are forced to accept that bacterial life in the soil is a very reasonable explanation for the results.

Once this happens, they then have to pull the plug on hundreds of papers and research projects that make the same sorts of silly assumptions that any first year chemistry student would laugh at. For NASA, the peroxide myth is a control issue and a money maker.

After all, they seriously have a bias against admitting the presence of alien life forms. They even claim now that they do not know what life is! References available on request.

But at least all the Martians that lived would be blondes. Bleached blondes, anyway.

aichip, I'm not sure these two scientists actually work for NASA and they certainly don't speak for NASA as a whole. I know their conclusions are hotly contested, and I've heard the issue you raised brought up before.

But hydrogen peroxide (AKA rocket fuel) disassociates spontanously into water and oxygen. In the rocket ship business we had an on-going operation to remove the water.

AI
Just a thought, I know the MSDS sheets and the tests involved do render the results posted but this reaction is tested at MSL pressure and temps. The pressure and temps are dramatically lower on Mars. Would this affect the reaction?

This still irks me- NASA has released the soil analysis and the soil is loaded with iron oxides and iron sulfate salts. Anybody who knows what "incompatible chemicals" are can tell you with no more than a look at the MSDS sheet that hydrogen peroxide is not compatible with iron sulfate and most iron oxides (such as those present in hematite).

Let's look at the MSDS for iron sulfate, one of the most prevalent salts in the Martian soil.
[url]http://www.jtbaker.com/msds/englishhtml/f1802.htm[/url]
Look under section 10, "Stability and Reactivity". It clearly states that this material is incompatible with oxidizers. Hydrogen peroxide is a strong oxidizer.

Now let's look at the MSDS for FeO which is one of the oxides present in the soil and also in hematite, the mineral that NASA claims the spherules are made of.
[url]http://www.espimetals.com/msds's/ironoxidefeo.pdf[/url]
Well, under section VI, "Stability and Reactivity" we see that it clearly lists hydrogen peroxide as an incompatible chemical.

"Incompatible" is a nice way of saying that the materials will explode or decompose on contact. The Martian soil is about 20% iron sulfate and contains from 2% to 10% iron oxides (which is why it is the "red planet" in the first place) and is therefore [i]not compatible[/i] with hydrogen peroxide. The stuff [i]cannot exist[/i] on Mars because it will break down or explode on contact with the soil.

The bottom line is that with these incompatible chemicals in the soil, it is physically impossible for any significant amount of hydrogen peroxide to exist on Mars. Doesn't somebody at NASA know a little basic chemistry? By perpetuating this peroxide myth, they really, really look like fools.

Well, it'd need more than just those two substances, but given those and something that could be metabolized for energy using the peroxide, I certainly don't find it unbelievable.

So, could a " mixture of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and water (H2O)" support a lifeform?...huummmm

[url=http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap070828.html]2007 August 28[/url]