Special qualities of Ganges River

I wish we had Keith and Terry RC and a couple of other oldtimers from the Gazette forum to discuss this.

I heard a little bit about this on wv Public Radio, which I dont get to hear much anymore.

But I figure some of you have heard the old tales about the special healing qualities of the Ganges River, etc.

And how the British sailors used to stock up on water from there because it would last more or less forever.

But it turns out much of the legend is true.

People bathe in it the entire length, dump garbage and raw sewage, dispose of bodies, etc.

But it is amazingly resilient. Some say supernaturally so.

The Oxygen level is 25 times the norm.

There are apparently some sort of anti-bacterial bugs that prevent the spread of disease, and the bottled water does seem to pretty much keep indefinitely.

The river springs from a Himalayan glacier and runs about 1600 miles across northern India.

I had known that it was considered a special or sacred river by the Hindus, but did not know there was scientific evidence to back it up.

So does anybody have a theory why this is?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17134270

I guess maybe this would fit better in International News.

But after snooping around on the Internet since posting this it turns out the glazier that the Ganges springs from is starting to melt at a faster rate the last 40 years and is receding pretty rapidly.

So the anti-global warming bunch and the flat earthers might want to check this out too.

Anybody have any other theory why this river has 25 times the normal oxygen level or why germs dont survive in it?

I did come across one interesting theory related to evolution and that is because it has had so much dumped into it in ancient times that Mother Nature developed natural antibodies to fight the germs and soon as a germ hits the water it is immediately pounced on by these little pyrhanna-like antibodies.

Sherm,

Last night on the History Channel my daughter watched this program called "How the Earth Was Made". I saw the end of it. Anyway they said no matter what we do, global warming be damned, there will be another cold period where glaciers cover most of the USA and crush major cities like New York in about 15,000 years.

I know the water from glaciers is referred to as "glacial milk" and is typically rich in colloidal minerals. I hope I spelled that correctly. lol That glacial milk is thought by some to be the source of longevity for some of the world's peoples.

I miss RC & Keith too.

Well Just like the issue of global warming I suspect there might be others more qualified than myself to speculate.

But I saw one account where they dumped some bacteria in and within a short distance (50 feet I think) all the bacteria was completely gone.

Stephanie wrote:

shermangeneral wrote:Anybody have any other theory why this river has 25 times the normal oxygen level or why germs dont survive in it?

Sherm,

Last night on the History Channel my daughter watched this program called "How the Earth Was Made". I saw the end of it. Anyway they said no matter what we do, global warming be damned, there will be another cold period where glaciers cover most of the USA and crush major cities like New York in about 15,000 years.

I know the water from glaciers is referred to as "glacial milk" and is typically rich in colloidal minerals. I hope I spelled that correctly. lol That glacial milk is thought by some to be the source of longevity for some of the world's peoples.

I miss RC & Keith too.

YEAH, ..... me too.

Steph, it is called "glacial milk" because it looks "white" like "milk" looks.

And Sherm, the answers to your questions ........ can be found in your initial post, to wit:

shermangeneral wrote:The Oxygen level is 25 times the norm.

There are apparently some sort of anti-bacterial bugs that prevent the spread of disease, and the bottled water does seem to pretty much keep indefinitely.

The river springs from a Himalayan glacier and runs about 1600 miles across northern India.

The Oxygen level is 25 times the norm because the water is 99.9% snow melt.

And germs don't survive in it because .... the Oxygen level is 25 times the norm, .... that is why.

Sherm, go right now ...... to your Medicine Cabinet, ...... grab your bottle of Hydrogen Peroxide, ........ and read the "contents label" ....... or just "click" on the name there and read all about its "magical properties".

cheers

Well Sam yes you are right about the O2 level being a factor.

But it is not the whole story.

There is also the x-factor.

I am sure you know what that is but I did not.

Also as I snoop around I see more and more concern about global warming and it's potential catastrophic effects on river basins like the Ganges.

Do you know what a GLOF is and the damage it can do?

Taking out dams, power plants, everything in its path?

Heck I may get sucked into this global warming debate in spite of myself....

."..During the "Regional Workshop on Climate Change Impact on Glaciers and Change in Freshwater Regime" at Kathmandu from March 10-12, 2004, WWF Nepal with participation from WWF India and WWF China along with various scientific experts, it was agreed that climate change impact is visible through glacial retreat in the Eastern Himalayan region in Nepal and India.

The glacier ecosystem is the evidence of getting highly affected by the higher temperature and posing severe threat to the freshwater availability of the region. The local people directly experience the impact of climate change and glacier melting through various hazards like landslides and floods. In Nepal, landslides and floods cause about 400 deaths annually (Khanal 1996 and destruction of important infrastructure worth USD 2.5 millions).

Several glacial lakes have been formed as a result of glacier retreat which could lead to catastrophic events like glacial lake outburst floods (GLOF) in valley’s downstream, resulting in destruction of valuable resources such as forests, farms, costly mountain infrastructures and even human life. In August 1985 a GLOF from the Dig Tsho (Langmoche) glacial lake destroyed 14 bridges and caused about USD 1.5 million damage to the nearby-completed Namche small hydropower plant. GLOF events bring significant changes in discharges in the perennial rivers originating from Himalayan glaciers and has severe implications on downstream freshwater regime.

The entire system of hydropower generation situated on these river systems will also be jeopardised. To avoid a major conflict over water in these regions, there is a need for proper management of water resources as well as proper understanding of the variability of water resources, particularly due to impacts of climate change and ..."

Look Sam, you'll surely tire picking on the likes of me and Sherm in no time. You need Keith and RC!

Huuuuuummmmmm, ...... interesting.

So Septic and TRC are both Teachers ............ and Sam is just a "picker n' critizer" in this Net Classroom.

SamCogar wrote:Huuuuuummmmmm, ...... interesting.

So Septic and TRC are both Teachers ............ and Sam is just a "picker n' critizer" in this Net Classroom.

That's not what I said and you know it.

Keith confuses the heck out of me. Half the time I don't know wtf he's talking about to even think of having a discussion with him.

RC and I agree so seldom when we do it's an event.

You, my friend, I understand and frequently agree with. Plus, I have learned a great deal from you. I'm sure the others have learned a thing or two from ole Sammy, I'm just not so sure they'll admit it as freely as I have.

You just are blessed with rapier wit that should be dispersed far and wide.

Well the reason I mentioned Keith and Terry RC is that they base their decisions and cconclusions on documented fact and can back up what they say.

Stephanie wrote:
That's not what I said and you know it.

Why of course I know that.

But you should also know that ole saying,


.

shermangeneral wrote:Well the reason I mentioned Keith and Terry RC is that they base their decisions and cconclusions on documented fact and can back up what they say.

Right Shermmy, ....... right.

And that is the reason you remain loyal to and believe everything generated by the DNC and all of their partisan pundits and "talking heads".

And ps, ..... are you sure you didn't mean to key in "can back up what they quote or paraphase"?

.

Well Sam you have repeated that old mantra just like Hermann Goebbels ever since I have been on any of the Gazette forums and that has been over 5 years.

But any interested objective observor can check the record on each and every version of the Gazette forums and now this new Stephanie forum and see for themselves that I criticize Democrats, the DNC, and especially the DLC a lot.

A hail of a lot more than you have ever criticized the Republicans.

(Which is practically non-existent).

And as to Terry RC and Keith, maybe the reason you are adverse to their kind of reasoning is precisely because they base their arguments on facts as opposed to opinion and anecdotal evidence or hearsay.

They are trained scientists, and as such are not prone to making claims they cannot substantiate.

But I repeat again, for the umpteenth time, that although I am admittedly partisan I do criticize Dems on a regular basis.

A Lot more than you have ever criticized republicans.

(Just for the record, can you list three or four times you have ever criticized the republicans in the past three or four years?)

I rest my case...

Hmmm...

High oxygen contents are often correlated with organic pollution. It allows for high algal and plant populations.

Even so, 25 times normal oxygen content would not give me the confidence to drink it. By the time the river gets to Benares, it is toxic with pathogenic microorganisms and chemicals.

I suppose, if you survive drinking it the first few times, you might immunize yourself, but that doesn't mean it is good for you.

So what if water has 25x the O2? You drink it--you don't breathe it. Do you? (The extra O2 become flatus.) I think Ganges is milky because Hindus don't drink milk from holy cows--they throw it in the river so they can sell the holy Ganges water to British sailors.

So what if water has 25x the O2? You drink it--you don't breathe it. Do you?

Because raw oxygen is disruptive to cell walls, particularly to microorganisms.

Ever use hydrogen peroxide as an antiseptic?

Well Terry would the fact the water comes from a glacier make the O2 level 25 times higher?

If not can you offer a different theory?

Also what about the x-factor?

Well Terry would the fact the water comes from a glacier make the O2 level 25 times higher?

If not can you offer a different theory?

Also what about the x-factor?

Not by the time it travels a few dozen miles and other tributaries come into it. That is assuming that glacial ice has a higher O2 content than any other natural water source.

The x-factor, in my opinion, is the same factor that faith healers act on - if you believe in it enough... placebo effect.

If not can you offer a different theory?

I almost believe I did - organic pollution feeding algae and plants which, in turn, release O2 into the water.

I still wouldn't drink it.

Did you read what Ramachandran had to say?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17134270

Do you think it is just legend and myth that the Ganges has these special properties?

Sherman, you are something else. I suggest you go back to your 1st post …… and re-read the entire string, ……. only this time, read it with the intent on “learning”.

Here below, I will point out a few thing you should “study real hard”, OK.

Now Sherm, when you made this statement:

shermangeneral wrote:There are apparently some sort of anti-bacterial bugs that prevent the spread of disease, and the bottled water does seem to pretty much keep indefinitely.

I replied with this:

SamCogar wrote: Sherm, go right now ...... to your Medicine Cabinet, ...... grab your bottle of Hydrogen Peroxide, ........ and read the "contents label" ....... or just "click" on the name there and read all about its "magical properties".

Sherm, about the only “anti-bacterial bugs” you would find in that river water would be “natural” penicillin, ….. but hardly enough to prevent the spread of any diseases.

And Sherm, most of the disease causing “bad bugs” are Anaerobic bacteria which can not easily survive in a “high Oxygen” environment. aka …. hydrogen peroxide, …. as I pointed out to you.

Then Shermmy baby, after a “tit fer tat’ with Stephanie …… you make this intentional devious and demeaning post, to wit:

shermangeneral wrote:Well the reason I mentioned Keith and Terry RC is that they base their decisions and cconclusions on documented fact and can back up what they say.

And as to Terry RC and Keith, maybe the reason you are adverse to their kind of reasoning is precisely because they base their arguments on facts as opposed to opinion and anecdotal evidence or hearsay.

They are trained scientists, and as such are not prone to making claims they cannot substantiate.

And “WOWEEE”, Shermmy, ……. you were right. Good thing you didn’t believe my “opinion and anecdotal evidence or hearsay” because Terry RC showed up and “told ya the facts” because he is a “trained scientist”, to wit:

TerryRC wrote:Because raw oxygen is disruptive to cell walls, particularly to microorganisms.

Ever use hydrogen peroxide as an antiseptic?

Sherm, I guess I’ll hafta admit that TRC sure knows more than I do, ….. right?

And now Sherman, we get down to your last post, to wit:

shermangeneral wrote:Well Terry would the fact the water comes from a glacier make the O2 level 25 times higher?

If not can you offer a different theory?

Also what about the x-factor?

Sherman, all three (3) of your questions were previously answered by your favorite “trained scientist”, …….. TRC himself. To wit:

TerryRC wrote:
High oxygen contents are often correlated with organic pollution. It allows for high algal and plant populations.

I suppose, if you survive drinking it the first few times, you might immunize yourself, but that doesn't mean it is good for you.

Sherman, TRC’s reply was most probably confusing to ya ……. so I’ll try to “translate” it so you will know what he wasa trying to tell ya.

What us “untrained scientists” like me calls “organic pollution” is in actuality a good “food source” for algae and plants. And if those algae and plants have a good “food source”, …. along with enough CO2 and Sunlight, …….. they grow n’ reproduce like crazy. And in doing so, they “poop out” tons of O2, ….. oxygen, …. into the river water..

And Sherm, TRC addressed your “x-factor” when he stated “might immunize yourself”. Ya see Sherman, those people “grow up” a eatin n a drinking those pollutants …… and iffen they survive childhood …… they have immunized themselves against any ill effects. But Shermmy, don’t you be drinking any of that water ….. or you will “be wishing” you were ONLY as sick as “a sick dog”.

ShermanG, that is why tourist planning on visiting certain countries are always warned ….. “Don’t drink the water.”

And to address one of your previous comments, to wit:

shermangeneral wrote:Heck I may get sucked into this global warming debate in spite of myself....

YUP, I don’t doubt that, ……. and I don’t doubt which “side” you will align yourself with.

cheers

OOPS, I see TRC posted while I wasa writing mine.

And I see I guessed wrong on what he thought the "x-factor" was.


.

Well Sam the fact I had not responded directly to your post did not mean I had not read it. (Them).

The reason I asked Terry if the fact the water was from glaciers would cause the high O2 content was because I understood you to say that was the case and I wanted to know if he would concur.

I could not see any reason the glacial source would cause the high O2 levels very far downstream.

I agree that anecdotal and so-called common sense arguments like you tend to rely on are not useless nor should they be disregarded.

I just think the more methodical scientific reasoning procedures employed by Keith and Terry are less likely to be proven wrong later.

Not always, just playing the odds.

shermangeneral wrote:Well Sam the fact I had not responded directly to your post did not mean I had not read it. (Them).

The reason I asked Terry if the fact the water was from glaciers would cause the high O2 content was because I understood you to say that was the case and I wanted to know if he would concur.

I could not see any reason the glacial source would cause the high O2 levels very far downstream.

I agree that anecdotal and so-called common sense arguments like you tend to rely on are not useless nor should they be disregarded.

I just think the more methodical scientific reasoning procedures employed by Keith and Terry are less likely to be proven wrong later.

Not always, just playing the odds.

Well Sherm, it wasn’t so much that the water was originating from the snow pack and glacier as it was it’s cascading off/down the Himalayan Mountains from 20,000 +- feet. Now talk about ”Whitewater Rafting” ……. or “oxygenating” a fish tank or sewage pond.

But anyway, I found these, for what they are worth. To wit:

Precipitation in the East River valley, near the Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory, is strongly bimodal in nature. Although the vast majority falls as snow in winter, ecologically important contributions come from summer rainfall. The …… etc.

For example, a significant shift to more summer precipitation or to more spring snowfall would be accompanied by enrichment of 2H and 18O content in streams, soil water, and ponds.

http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~cstill/research/colorado.html

The oxygen content of snow-ice-melt: hydroglacial implications
Professor Trevor Davies with Dr M Tranter, Dr G H Brown and Dr M J Sharp (University of Bristol)

Funded by the Natural Environment Research Council

There are indications that pyrite oxidation is a major source of solute in subglacial waters. The oxygen content of glacial meltwaters should therefore be below saturation with respect for the atmosphere and, on occasions, become sub-oxic. The relatively low initial oxygen content of snow- and ice-melt is unlikely to be the result of biological activity. Rather, it is more likely to be the low initial oxygen content of snow and ice crystals, the relative melt rate and the transport time into and through the glacial drainage system, which determines the rate of diffusion of atmospheric oxygen into solution, and hence the oxygen content of meltwaters.

A series of laboratory experiments were conducted to examine the effects of rate of melting and snow metamorphism. The experiments on laboratory ice, natural snow, natural firn and natural glacier ice indicated that the mode of melting was an important control on meltwater oxygen content. Only "body melting" produced low oxygen concentrations, similar to those observed in the field. In glaciers, this mechanism may result in a lower rate of diffusion of oxygen into low oxygen saturation water.

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/annrep94/fundres.htm

Well then Sam you have refuted your own argument that the high O2 content is due to the glacial origin.

So back to the original question, why is the O2 level 25 times the average level?