Questions about "oxygen"?
923005
pretty much all elements are created in stars, the actual process is very confusing thankfully wikipedia is a better expaliner than i ----> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion\nO2 is important because it helps us create lots of energy from glucose
39623
Actually when pure oxygen was first produced among tests of flammability somebody decided to put an animal in an enclosure with pure oxygen.  I think it was a mouse.  They observed that the mouse lived significantly longer in pure 02 than in normal air.
336167
oxygen and carbon dioxide
285837
High temperatures, limit or exclude oxygen.
1076434
Aerobic respiration.\n\nThe key is the "presense of oxygen" part.  Burning sugars in the absense of oxygen is anaerobic respiration.\n\nPhotosynthesis is definately wrong.  That's the capture of photons to boost low-energy electrons for the purpose of making energy, and sugar.
175533
Yes, it is possible and there have been experiments done with animals.  Not aware of any human trials.  I believe that there are some long-term effects that need to be worked out before it would be declared a safe activity.\n\nIt's not liquid O2, but rather a liquid in which oxygen can be dissolved in  (like water), but is compatible with the avioli in the lungs and the lungs can extract the oxygen and return CO2 to the liquid.  \n\nNormal water (fresh or saltwater) damages cells in the lungs, so there's a little more to it.
975484
The total amounts of oxygen atoms equal to six.\n\nHowever, 3 O2 means there are three molecules of diatomic oxygen atoms, and 2 O3 means that there are two molecules of triatomic oxygen atoms.\n\n3 O2 ( "-" shows bonds)\n\nO-O  O-O  O-O = 6 total\n\nO-O-O  O-O-O = 6 total
1112275
It comes into contact with oxygen.
860447
There's no separation of molecular oxygen to atomic oxygen as previously written:\nsimply \nOx: Sr -> Sr2+ + 2e \nRed: O2 + 4e -> 2 O2-
617040
First, the oxygen in a hospital is mixed with normal air, so you end up not breathing 100% oxygen all the time. Yes, the supply lines to the patient's rooms contain 100% oxygen, but by adjusting the flow rate to the mask or nasal cannula the patient breathes less than 100% O2.\n\nSecond, 100% oxygen really isn't that toxic. If you breath it for a week you may have problems, but for short periods it's not an issue at all. \n\nFurther, at reduced pressure you can safely breath 100% O2 for long periods. The atmosphere inside a space suit is 100% oxygen at about 1/4 of an atmosphere. This minimzes the pressure differential across the space suit yet still provides enough O2 for the astronuat without any significant side effects.
170483
Plants dont take away oxygen, they make it.\nPlants taking in what animals and humans breath out and proscesses it through their systems and make it oxygen.\nTry the link-
863625
Oxygen, Carbon Dioxide, and Water
160712
Oxygen was first discovered by Michał Sędziwój, Polish alchemist and philosopher in late 16th century. Sędziwój assumed the existence of oxygen by warming nitre (saltpeter). He thought of the gas given off as "the elixir of life".\n\nOxygen was again discovered by the Swedish pharmacist Carl Wilhelm Scheele sometime before 1773, but the discovery was not published until after the independent discovery by Joseph Priestley on August 1, 1774, who called the gas dephlogisticated air (see phlogiston theory). Priestley published his discoveries in 1775 and Scheele in 1777; consequently Priestley is usually given the credit. It was named by Antoine Laurent Lavoisier after Priestley's publication in 1775.
131253
Cause cells need oxygen.
372603
Its got nothing to do with oxygen, that theories been scientifically disproven. But i dont have another answer, sorry
52401
y are u asking homework questions?  Well one similarity is the they are diatomic so in other words they are always H2 or O2 when alone. ohh and the guy below me oxygen is explosive what we breath is mainly nitrogen.  so there i told u
160073
Joseph Priestley is best known as the discoverer of oxygen.\nHe isolated 'depholgisticated 'air, or 'good air' in 1774. Our understanding today of the chemical reaction of oxygen comes from Antoine Lavoisier's systematic theory of combustion.\n\nToo bad contributors like the above 'opinion' can't use this forum as a means of increasing knowledge, rather than \ngiving silly answers in order to get points. Some never grow up i suppose.\nSource:www.woodrow.org./teachers/chemistry/institutes/priestley.