Don 39;t Breathe Full Movie Free Youtube

[Denisha Padley]

If I had a dollar for every time someone told me, "I need my skin to be able to breathe" or "Don't wear so much product; your skin needs to breathe," I'd have invested in Bitcoin and been a billionaire by now. In fact, this is one of the most prevalent and ridiculous arguments I've heard against a multi-step Korean skincare regimen: "Too many products won't allow your skin to breathe!" "All those layers are going to suffocate your skin!" "That's so unhealthy!"

Our skin doesn't need exposure to air to breathe! At least not the way that you think it does. Our skin needs oxygen, yes, but it's not getting its oxygen from the atmospheric oxygen we breathe. Only the very top layer of our skin is exposed to atmospheric oxygen. The outermost layer of your skin (the stratum corneum) is dead. You can't suffocate what's already dead, so a fat lot of good that exposure would do.

So how does our skin get nourished by oxygen then? That's provided by blood flow. The deeper level of skin, known as the dermis, is full of vasculature that carries blood throughout cells delivering oxygen like your mailman delivers your Beautytap packages. From there the oxygen is diffused throughout your skin. Basically the deeper living layers of skin (the epidermis and dermis) are provided their oxygen from the blood, not the air. The negligible amount of atmospheric oxygen we take in with our skin does nothing.

What you would need to worry about is overheating and mucking up the skin's ability to carry out its heat regulation duty, which is extremely important. That's literally the only danger in covering all of the skin on your body. And even then that's such an extreme example, you can't exactly compare the layering of 10 products on your face to being dipped head to toe in latex.

Letting your stratum corneum "breathe" contributes not one iota to its health. What does contribute to its health is taking care of it, keeping it moisturized, and protected from the sun. So pile on the products, wear as much makeup as you want, slather on the sunscreen, get crazy with the heavy lotions. As long as you're removing them every night for the purpose of keeping your skin clean, you're going to be just fine!

LinkedIn and 3rd parties use essential and non-essential cookies to provide, secure, analyze and improve our Services, and to show you relevant ads (including professional and job ads) on and off LinkedIn. Learn more in our Cookie Policy.

SPOILER ALERT: So, first let me say that I don't normally watch horror movies. I'm a sucker for comedies, rom coms and animated movies but I do like a good thriller. The interesting this is, I actually WANTED to see this movie because of the logline listed below (and the fact that it received an 8.0 rating on IMDB):

Here's the logline as listed on IMDB:

Don't Breathe: A group of friends break into the house of a wealthy blind man, thinking they'll get away with the perfect heist. They're very wrong.

So this is a VERY interesting premise. I thought it was going to be a "karmic" movie about a poor blind guy getting revenge on the thugs that came to rob him. That's the movie I went to see! Also I knew there would be a scene in it where the blind guy turns off the lights, leaving the "thugs" at a disadvantage--and of course, he did! So the premise HOOKED me. I could see the movie in my head!

But the movie, for me, did NOT deliver on its intriguing premise. Someone once said a PREMISE is a PROMISE and I believe that to be true. I didn't get what I was promised.

From the premise/logline above, you would expect the group of friends to NOT get away from the perfect heist but--spoiler alert--one of them does! Of course there were bumps, bruises and blood along the way but the goal was accomplished--to get the money and run!

You'd also think, from the premise above, that you'd actually be ROOTING for the "poor blind man" but this is far from the truth because the blind man is completely whacked. He's a freaking psycho.

So then I'm left questioning why it got such a high rating on IMDB?

In all fairness, the movie did have a couple of plot twists that I DIDN'T see coming, which is an accomplishment for any horror/thriller movie--so I give it a thumbs up for that. And--another spoiler alert--the DOG doesn't die (which I was worried about the whole time). So another thumbs up for that. I know all of my animal friends can now breathe a sigh of relief :) Though they didn't really resolve what happened to it.

As for the ending, it was completely unsatisfying in the sense that there was NO RESOLUTION. It left things open ended, which I guess sets it up for a sequel.

All in all, the movie, for me, didn't deliver on the premise and I was actually excited to see it because of that premise. I'd say it's worth seeing because of the plot turns (but be prepared for some gruesome scenes...I had to close my eyes a few times) AND to study what worked and what didn't work, but ultimately you might just want to wait until it comes out on Red box.

Both carbon and nitrogen can be made to react with oxygen, but otherwise they are pretty inert. So of all the gasses in the air present at over a fraction of a percent, oxygen is the only one we can use for energy.

If we had ammonia gas (NH3) in our air it would be a great redox source of energy... taking energy from the ammonia could produce N2. N2 takes a lot of work put into it to get the nitrogen out for other uses.

Hydrogen (and sulfer) are both possible substitutes for oxygen in the role of redox energy source, but are normally pretty small components of our environment. On another planet they might well be the basis of biometabolism.

The energetics of using CO2 is endothermic - it requires energy input. They have to use sunlight to get the energy to utilize this energy and its very costly energetically. Animals can afford to move and grow because they use oxygen while they eat plants.

We take up oxygen preferentially because we have hemoglobin to bind O$_2$. When hemoglobin binds the oxygen, it upsets the balance and pulls more oxygen across the alveolar membrane. This is aided by pulmonary circulation which carries the blood away. Here's a demo of the diffusion process.

Nitrogen is much less reactive than oxygen. Indeed, if I haven't totally forgotten my long-ago chemistry courses, most chemical reactions involving N2 are energy-consuming. Thus you get nitrogen compounds produced by lightning, in auto engines, and other places where there's a lot of energy to spare.

PS: Indeed, many nitrogen compounds take so much energy to create that they are explosives. Ammonium nitrate, nitroglycerin, trinitrotolulene (TNT), even the potassium nitrate (saltpeter) used to make gunpowder.

The other answers seem to be missing the role of oxygen in oxidative phosphorylation, as an organism with aerobic metabolism we use oxygen for its electronegativity. Basically, as we break down glucose energy is released in the form of free electrons, these are "transported" for use in the oxidative phosphorylation to create new ATP which is our main form of energy storage. Oxygen eagerly accepts these free electrons at the last step of the oxidative phosphorylation and binds with H+ to form H2O. See here.

Explanations:
1) We use oxygen because our metabolism uses it for energy. Our metabolism derives chemical energy from the breakdown of complex carbon molecules; this doesn't happen on its own and you need very reactive molecules to interact with those complex carbon molecules and break them down. All organisms do this step-by-step, using successive "electron acceptors" to basically strip electrons off of simpler-and-simpler molecules and thus break them down. Molecular oxygen is the most reactive molecule and greedy electron acceptor out there, and allows organisms that use it to get the most energy possible out of a given carbohydrate. That's why aerobic respiration is so useful, and that's what we use oxygen for. Molecular nitrogen has completely different chemical properties; it isn't that electronegative (i.e. greedy for electrons) at all. There are other molecules that can be used as electron acceptors, and are used in various forms of anaerobic respiration: nitrate, sulfate, carbon dioxide... but molecular nitrogen isn't one of them.

2) There IS a purpose for which one could use molecular nitrogen, which is to use it to build nitrogen-based molecules that our body depends on - like DNA, RNA and proteins, which basically do everything in a living organism. No organism uses molecular nitrogen as a source for these; it's much easier to use organic nitrogen compounds like nitrates and ammonia. It can seem silly that such compounds are so limiting, when nitrogen makes up most of the atmosphere! This is less of an issue for carnivores since we get all of our nitrogen needs from eating nitrogen-filled animals, but it's a huge issue for plants. The need for such compounds (and, to a lesser extent, phosphates) is why agriculture needs fertilizer. So why can very very few organisms break down molecular nitrogen ? Because it is a very stable molecule; if you've done chemistry you might know that the two nitrogen atoms in the nitrogen molecule are connected by a triple bond, which is very strong and hard to break. This may be a big reason why the metabolism to break that bond evolved only in bacteria, and all Eukaryotes get by using the bacteria themselves (nitrogen-fixing plants), absorbing nitrogen-filled organisms (carnivores, carnivorous plants - it's the reason they're carnivorous!) or getting by on the organic nitrogen that naturally occurs in the ground thanks to nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

As an aside, the fertilizer humans make uses the Haber process, which converts molecular nitrogen in the atmosphere to ammonia. If you look at the Wikipedia page by the way you'll get an idea of how hard it is to break that triple bond, between the catalysts and the high temperatures and pressures... But through that process you could argue that humanity as a species does "breathe" nitrogen.

c80f0f1006