Best parts of this video 1) 6:36 your mentor's quote: "in science, we find what we are looking for", but that doesn't tell the whole picture and 2) 6:57 your partner's quote: "I annoy you?" - comedic timing and her tone is on-point.
I thought why haven’t I ever heard of this chemical, then I realised I had The old fashioned term for isoprene, similar molecules and derivatives are Terpenes
This is why it’s so important to make sure to have a wide scope when asking questions. Data collection is great, but what’s the bigger picture? Science is so cool
My guess is that even if isoprene were produced in harmful concentrations by trees, cutting down trees would be counterproductive, due to heating up the surroundings and making the remaining trees produce more
The video turned out interesting! The only thing I didn't understand was why it wasn't emphasized that isoprene protects us from free radicals, which are much worse than ozone...
...and that isoprene reacts with ozone- really fast! Ozone isn't "really" a free radical, but it is a free radical precursor. And ozone adds, rapidly, across C=C double bonds to make aldehydes and acids.
"You are more likely to get hit by lightning and eaten by a shark than by exposed to this much isoprene from trees at one time" NileRed, I think that's your cue for an extraction.
This is really at the same time one of the most entertaining and best researched science channel out there. Also super cool edits that make it really easy to stay focused. Wonder why nit more people watch this channel. Keep up the good work. Love from austria
Thanks for an interesting video, just to be pedantic, we do need to modify our power generation before electrifying everything. 5:28 "Some of the worst emitters of NO and NO2 are auxiliary power plants" 10:14 "The answer is to reduce Nitrogen Oxide emissions(...) or electrifying everything", see the above
@@sage5296 Are any chargers for EVs even capable of pushing energy back to the grid, i.e.acting as network power storage? I used to think that this might be a great way to help balance the power grid, but I've become less convinced that : a) Power companies want to bother with it. b) EV owners want to be cycling their batteries this way. c) That it would even help much. EV's are still a net draw on the grid. And they can only work as grid storage for a small percentage of their capacity because no one wants to jump in their EV and find that it's only 50% charged because it just dumped half its capacity into the grid.
I was expecting a move into photochemical smog, but your presentation stayed more directly on addressing the original questions. Very good. Thank you for sharing.
7:35 a con you missed was that an acorn could fall onto the roof of a car and a cop could, somehow, mistake that for a gunshot and start mag dumping at you. (This is a real thing that happened, because here in America cops only need as much training as a house cat)
Let me see if I am understanding this right lots of trees 16ppb one person 100ppb. Someone thinks we should get rid of trees. Going to make a leap here people = pollution!
As a chemist myself (environmental field), this is a great video. As a viewer, I find there are way too many transitions between views. But really great video. 😍
There were a couple times when it stood out but I think the transitions are fun. They also let you correct mistakes or omissions later. The audio levels used to jump all over the place when they did that, but it's orders of magnitude better now. GG!
Also on the ground-level ozone question: Trees absorb ozone (and nitrogen oxides). Is the amount of ozone created by the isoprene that they release greater or less than the amount the absorb?
Great video, and extremely important for why 'trusting the science' is often actually about exteapolating discoveries logically and mathematically into systemic domain knowledge. It is also why you shouldn't implicitly trust any scientific conclusions you encounter. Always look at the data, because everything else is just conjecture.
At 3:21, isn't that just the chance of being struck by lightning sometime in your lifetime and also eaten by a shark sometime in your lifetime. Not the chance of both "at the same time" as stated in the vid, which I imagine would be orders of magnitude less likely.
It's more complicated than that, as the numbers given as odds for either events likely are calculated at best very roughly, and each one presupposes a lifespan. However, being eaten by a shark or being hit by lightning alters one's lifespan.
1:35 The cladogram put up is a bit odd as the monocots get just one line, it's in italics (and has three asterisks after it), while the dicots and non-flowering plants make up the rest of the list. Just to mention that, as the count of orders (about one-third) stated in the video, as those with black lines, is an undercount, as the monocots have a great many species and in some environments make up much of the plant material around you.
Toxicity depends on the amount. This is the most important factor to check when scaremongering headlines are shared. There can't be a better example than this video 👏
I will never stop commenting on these videos on how amazingly well edited, scripted, presented, and informative these are. 🫡 The jump cuts mid word are endlessly enjoyable, because they are always done with a point. 😊
I think catalytic converter theft is down a bit from peak levels a few years ago, but we've got a video about that, too: ruclips.net/video/I1YLPfSuNXY/видео.html
Damn that was interesting, I knew the trees who contribute to ground level ozone in farming areas that grow a lot of citrus cuz the smell of citrus is from VOCs but I knew it about this.
That shark/lightning thing assumes that they are independent and totally random events, which isn't true. I suspect you are much less likely to be attacked by a shark in a thunderstorm at the surface and you are absolutely less likely to be struck by lightning while diving.
I found the video interesting because I'd never heard of isoprene, which is kind of crazy considering how it seems to be a major building block in living things. But I can't help but think you guys glossed over a couple things here. 1. Why do we breath it out at 100ppb concentration, far higher than we would find natural concentrations in the woods to be? Seems like humans might emit more isoprene than trees. 2. Your "main concern", limiting ground level ozone is kind of a non-issue. If the highest that natural concentrations of isoprene we can expect to find are at 16ppb, then their contribution to ground level ozone concentrations would be negligible. As normal ground level ozone concentrations are 20-30 ppb, around 100 ppb in polluted air, and it's a highly reactive molecule that doesn't last long before it oxidizes something, concerns about a small fraction of that isoprene breaking down NOx into ozone is sort of silly.
Great video! Why did you express the amount of isoprene emitted in grams instead of metric tons? I think everyone would have a better feel for what that means, regardless of whether they use SI units or not.
Acorns are deadly, remember that Florida cop that shot at an unarmed handcuffed man and then the cop said, "I'm hit. I'm hit" and dove to the ground? Good times.
I’m curious about how the isoprene reacts to make so much ozone when it’s at such small quantities. I would image if it’s at a 16 ppb concentration it would make 16 ppb of ozone at most.
I'm disappointed you didn't do an experiment/calculation to determine the actual concentration of ozone one could expect at ground level given conservative estimates for isoprene, NOx and heat. How do we know it isn't either completely negligible or an extreme health threat?
Youre also exposed to way more VOCs through basically everything else. VOCs from nail polish, your wall paints off gassing, gasoline vapors, literally most cleaners.
The methyl group is implied there. At the end or node of each line you have a carbon atom, and any bonds not explicitly shown in that notation are implied hydrogen atoms. So a dead end at the end of a single line is always CH3.
Wasn't there a study (that was picked up by some media outlets) on the life cycle of trees where for a portion of time they don't act as carbon sinks and emit a fair bit of CO2? Unfortunately the life cycle bit gets omitted so you end up with fantastical headlines of trees polluting. Less about the coworker being wrong than the coworker should be upset at how they are being manipulated (and this goes for a ton of media).
Trees are a carbon sinks as long as they are actively growing. As soon as they die they start to decay and release that carbon back into the atmosphere as fungi consume the tree. In the short term deciduous trees also release a lot of carbon in fall when they drop all their leaves.
Just watched a NASA video about really cool solar panels that got a couple of hundred views in 24 hours, that and this video should be getting far more attention. The internet is dead.
I feel like I need to say this ALLL THE TIIIMMMEEEEE…..trees absorb carbon from the air… but they are NOT the main contributor to oxygen and clean air in our atmosphere. That would be organisms in the ocean.
Best parts of this video
1) 6:36 your mentor's quote: "in science, we find what we are looking for", but that doesn't tell the whole picture and
2) 6:57 your partner's quote: "I annoy you?" - comedic timing and her tone is on-point.
You can see the dog perk up when she enters off screen.
10:58 is my favorite part of this self aggrandising clap trap
I thought why haven’t I ever heard of this chemical, then I realised I had
The old fashioned term for isoprene, similar molecules and derivatives are Terpenes
WHAT!?!? 🤯🤯🤯
Well that makes two of us that are very familiar. 😂😂
I've been smoking straight isoprene for a decade. It's better than air in my opinion
Thank you!!!!
~
This is why it’s so important to make sure to have a wide scope when asking questions. Data collection is great, but what’s the bigger picture?
Science is so cool
My guess is that even if isoprene were produced in harmful concentrations by trees, cutting down trees would be counterproductive, due to heating up the surroundings and making the remaining trees produce more
I’m just commenting for the algorithm because there’s no way this video should only be getting 300 views per hour
Right?!?
I agree.
Here here
agreed
Agreed
The thumbnail worked. I thought it was going to be brain-rot, ended up learning something instead.
The video turned out interesting! The only thing I didn't understand was why it wasn't emphasized that isoprene protects us from free radicals, which are much worse than ozone...
...and that isoprene reacts with ozone- really fast! Ozone isn't "really" a free radical, but it is a free radical precursor. And ozone adds, rapidly, across C=C double bonds to make aldehydes and acids.
I must say, such an unbiased and well researched content on youtube is balsam to my brain.
Careful, balsam may contain isoprene.
"You are more likely to get hit by lightning and eaten by a shark than by exposed to this much isoprene from trees at one time"
NileRed, I think that's your cue for an extraction.
This is really at the same time one of the most entertaining and best researched science channel out there. Also super cool edits that make it really easy to stay focused. Wonder why nit more people watch this channel. Keep up the good work. Love from austria
Thanks for an interesting video, just to be pedantic, we do need to modify our power generation before electrifying everything.
5:28 "Some of the worst emitters of NO and NO2 are auxiliary power plants"
10:14 "The answer is to reduce Nitrogen Oxide emissions(...) or electrifying everything", see the above
True, altho when you add hundreds of thousands of battery banks on wheels, that potentially can eliminate the need for auxiliary power plants
@@sage5296 Are any chargers for EVs even capable of pushing energy back to the grid, i.e.acting as network power storage? I used to think that this might be a great way to help balance the power grid, but I've become less convinced that :
a) Power companies want to bother with it.
b) EV owners want to be cycling their batteries this way.
c) That it would even help much. EV's are still a net draw on the grid. And they can only work as grid storage for a small percentage of their capacity because no one wants to jump in their EV and find that it's only 50% charged because it just dumped half its capacity into the grid.
I was expecting a move into photochemical smog, but your presentation stayed more directly on addressing the original questions. Very good. Thank you for sharing.
Ethanol is a probable carcinogen, but that doesn’t stop anybody from consuming it.
Does Budweiser have that California P65 warning on it 😅?
Unexpectedly high production and great writing. Hope you'll get more views. Keep up the good work!
While isoprene may react with car exhaust to produce ozone, I think the issue is the car exhaust not the isoprene
0:09 You might find your electric chainsaw works better if you plug it in.
No idea what you're talking about, sounded like it was working just fine.
Algorithm.... Super good video here, maybe show this one to some people. 😂
These jump cuts are wild
The host was great and the transitions were great. 2000 views is criminally low
Huh, that *is* weird - they have half a million subs but only 8k views at time of writing
Basically we produce more isoprene than a handful of trees LOL thats funny, i love that
7:35 a con you missed was that an acorn could fall onto the roof of a car and a cop could, somehow, mistake that for a gunshot and start mag dumping at you.
(This is a real thing that happened, because here in America cops only need as much training as a house cat)
Huge joke missed opportunity
LOL as much training as a housecat
Let me see if I am understanding this right lots of trees 16ppb one person 100ppb. Someone thinks we should get rid of trees. Going to make a leap here people = pollution!
Enjoying the shorts look. The jump cuts are pretty fun too.
Yet another example of, "the dose makes the poison"
This video is absolutely brilliant and I'll be sharing it immediately!
This channel is a gem
Great work as always. Good to know I'm more carcinogenic than a tree.
Cool to see the numbers for this stuff and some of the mechanisms involved
As a chemist myself (environmental field), this is a great video. As a viewer, I find there are way too many transitions between views. But really great video. 😍
There were a couple times when it stood out but I think the transitions are fun. They also let you correct mistakes or omissions later. The audio levels used to jump all over the place when they did that, but it's orders of magnitude better now. GG!
At 10:14 i thought you were going to say that we should add catalytic converters to trees.
Love to see ACS producing great content
PBS? you got my sub!
Great video as always 😊
Dude!!! You just earned a sub!
More chem and biochem content please and thanks :)
Also on the ground-level ozone question: Trees absorb ozone (and nitrogen oxides). Is the amount of ozone created by the isoprene that they release greater or less than the amount the absorb?
Great video, and extremely important for why 'trusting the science' is often actually about exteapolating discoveries logically and mathematically into systemic domain knowledge. It is also why you shouldn't implicitly trust any scientific conclusions you encounter. Always look at the data, because everything else is just conjecture.
Commenting for engagement. Ngl. This was clickbaity but for the better.
Waiting for the day this channel blows up
Fascinating video!
I recall Ronald Reagan declaring "trees cause air pollution" in the 1980's.
That must have been a good day for him, he was somewhat less wrong than usual
Love it. Thanks!
At 3:21, isn't that just the chance of being struck by lightning sometime in your lifetime and also eaten by a shark sometime in your lifetime. Not the chance of both "at the same time" as stated in the vid, which I imagine would be orders of magnitude less likely.
It's more complicated than that, as the numbers given as odds for either events likely are calculated at best very roughly, and each one presupposes a lifespan. However, being eaten by a shark or being hit by lightning alters one's lifespan.
Also commenting for the algorithm, yall are great and deserve more viewers
1:35 The cladogram put up is a bit odd as the monocots get just one line, it's in italics (and has three asterisks after it), while the dicots and non-flowering plants make up the rest of the list. Just to mention that, as the count of orders (about one-third) stated in the video, as those with black lines, is an undercount, as the monocots have a great many species and in some environments make up much of the plant material around you.
Thank you for your work. It is increasingly important in the world that is slowly turning its back on science.
I was almost to rant.. but you got me thru… it was gr8
Toxicity depends on the amount. This is the most important factor to check when scaremongering headlines are shared.
There can't be a better example than this video 👏
well done on this video
I will never stop commenting on these videos on how amazingly well edited, scripted, presented, and informative these are. 🫡
The jump cuts mid word are endlessly enjoyable, because they are always done with a point. 😊
I love the jump cuts on this channel so much 😆
great video as always
Well this is a hell of a response for Andrew lol.
Unfortunately we can only temporarily add catalytic converters to stuff because they always seem to disappear randomly within a few days lately.
I think catalytic converter theft is down a bit from peak levels a few years ago, but we've got a video about that, too:
ruclips.net/video/I1YLPfSuNXY/видео.html
Thanks, your content and presentation style is really engaging.
Good clickbait, this deserves more views.
Damn that was interesting, I knew the trees who contribute to ground level ozone in farming areas that grow a lot of citrus cuz the smell of citrus is from VOCs but I knew it about this.
Nice explanation as always😊
give this silly man a raise
That shark/lightning thing assumes that they are independent and totally random events, which isn't true. I suspect you are much less likely to be attacked by a shark in a thunderstorm at the surface and you are absolutely less likely to be struck by lightning while diving.
I love the editing
Top notch thanks
the segment at 9:01 is not clear to me, ppb over what time, or is that the equalibrium of how kuch builds up if we stay there?
Take this, Andrew's coworker! It's called science! 😂
*I scream, you scream*
*We all scream for isoprene*
🙂
I like the dog's reactions
I found the video interesting because I'd never heard of isoprene, which is kind of crazy considering how it seems to be a major building block in living things. But I can't help but think you guys glossed over a couple things here.
1. Why do we breath it out at 100ppb concentration, far higher than we would find natural concentrations in the woods to be? Seems like humans might emit more isoprene than trees.
2. Your "main concern", limiting ground level ozone is kind of a non-issue. If the highest that natural concentrations of isoprene we can expect to find are at 16ppb, then their contribution to ground level ozone concentrations would be negligible. As normal ground level ozone concentrations are 20-30 ppb, around 100 ppb in polluted air, and it's a highly reactive molecule that doesn't last long before it oxidizes something, concerns about a small fraction of that isoprene breaking down NOx into ozone is sort of silly.
Great video! Why did you express the amount of isoprene emitted in grams instead of metric tons?
I think everyone would have a better feel for what that means, regardless of whether they use SI units or not.
Because the number looks so much more impressive with an extra 6 zeros.
Acorns are deadly, remember that Florida cop that shot at an unarmed handcuffed man and then the cop said, "I'm hit. I'm hit" and dove to the ground? Good times.
Also commenting for the algorithm.
(More words, more words, more words.)
I was here before the algorithm. 🤞
Your dog yawning at the perfect moment lol
Superb video. Too bad I can only like it once.
I’m curious about how the isoprene reacts to make so much ozone when it’s at such small quantities. I would image if it’s at a 16 ppb concentration it would make 16 ppb of ozone at most.
Not even as only a portion of that isoprene will take that specific pathway.
I'm disappointed you didn't do an experiment/calculation to determine the actual concentration of ozone one could expect at ground level given conservative estimates for isoprene, NOx and heat. How do we know it isn't either completely negligible or an extreme health threat?
Man, you tricked me. I thought you were going to be a nutjob. Nice job not being a nutjob. I appreciate you.
I don't know if this is your thing but can you make a video explaining lipogenesis, specifically on turning carbs to fats or fats to carbs in humans
Youre also exposed to way more VOCs through basically everything else. VOCs from nail polish, your wall paints off gassing, gasoline vapors, literally most cleaners.
You could say his co-worker couldn't see the forest for the trees.
Why cant you see the methyl group on the different notation?
The methyl group is implied there. At the end or node of each line you have a carbon atom, and any bonds not explicitly shown in that notation are implied hydrogen atoms. So a dead end at the end of a single line is always CH3.
Lesson learned ,watch out for giant acorns
Murphy strikes again.
reminds me a bit of Technology Connections' video on LED traffic lights
Why didn't you give ozone the same lD fifty treatment?
I've been saying this for years: Pave the Earth
Wasn't there a study (that was picked up by some media outlets) on the life cycle of trees where for a portion of time they don't act as carbon sinks and emit a fair bit of CO2?
Unfortunately the life cycle bit gets omitted so you end up with fantastical headlines of trees polluting.
Less about the coworker being wrong than the coworker should be upset at how they are being manipulated (and this goes for a ton of media).
Trees are a carbon sinks as long as they are actively growing. As soon as they die they start to decay and release that carbon back into the atmosphere as fungi consume the tree. In the short term deciduous trees also release a lot of carbon in fall when they drop all their leaves.
Sounds like a coworker that prefers 'natural' remedies
4:18 "Carbon dioxide [...] is the most oxidised that a carbon atom can possibly be"
Urge... to... nitpick.... overwhelming!
"which I am"
Wait.... So the real problem is humans exhaling isoprene?! Are _we_ the danger?!
Is the smell of a forest on a hot day, ozone?
Just watched a NASA video about really cool solar panels that got a couple of hundred views in 24 hours, that and this video should be getting far more attention.
The internet is dead.
Andrew should thank his lucky heavens there weren't any police around
This video has everything
* knowledge
* intriguing plot
* research & background
* George being anal-retentive (which we love)
So what you’re telling me is that trees sweat and it kinda stinks
What if I was in an oak in an oak forest? Then HOW could I breathe tree?
I think maybe we should be getting rid of the cars not the trees ,
❤❤❤
🏝
Jesus Christ Califonia is going to require those Cancer Warnings on every tree and plant now 😂
I feel like I need to say this ALLL THE TIIIMMMEEEEE…..trees absorb carbon from the air… but they are NOT the main contributor to oxygen and clean air in our atmosphere. That would be organisms in the ocean.
When will this man know that I have a huge crush on him?
Soon
Go algorythm