Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

sciencemag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 125 posts

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#111

Post by ghastmaster »

Brentward wrote: post #90
ghastmaster wrote: post #77

I'm curious which PFC they are using. A cursory search indicates that PFCs are hazardous to our health. Benzene in particular.

Benzene is not a PFC as it only contains carbon and hydrogen, not the fluorine that puts the F in PFC. According to Wikipedia [1], "fluoroalkanes are generally inert and non-toxic" and "do not bioaccumulate." That was surprising to me too, but apparently they have many established medical uses, including liquid breathing, which makes this application seem more reasonable. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluorocarbo…

Thanks! I misread the chart in the wiki, not realizing benzene was there as a comparison to hexaflourobenzene.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#112

Post by swiley »

ravenstine wrote: post #26

So if you're performing CPR, could it increase the chance of survival if someone else performed mouth-to-anus on the person? Maybe in the future first aid kits won't just come with CPR masks but also anal dilators and a brush.

There are so many futurama jokes that this article would make possible.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#113

Post by big_curses »

newsbinator wrote: post #24
keiferski wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is estimated that the annual use of vertebrate animals—from zebrafish to non-human primates—ranges from tens to more than 100 million.[2] In the European Union, vertebrate species represent 93% of animals used in research, and 11.5 million animals were used there in 2011. By one estimate the number of mice and rats used in the United States alone in 2001 was 80 million.[3] Mice, rats, fish, amphibians and reptil…

After all this time, I still have no idea how I feel about tortuous animal testing for medical breakthroughs. It's a trolley problem with an unknown number of people on Track A and an unknown number of animals on Track B. I don't even know how I feel about replacing animals in these experiments with human violent offenders. Can we justify experimenting on a known serial killer if the experiment will save a million ch…

I would say in the event of experimenting on non-voluntary humans, specifically prisoners, the issue is mostly about the fallibility of the law and setting a dangerous precedent. It's the same reason why the death penalty either needs to be highly restricted or not used altogether. It's too dangerous a power to give to the government lightly due to it's ability to be easily misused or used preemptively.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#114

Post by pvaldes »

keiferski wrote: post #72
david-gpu wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also all for protecting animals... until grandma is sick and could be cured only if we experiment a little more on rats. When that happens the life of a rat or a million looks disposable.

The thing is, the overwhelming majority of animal testing is not for saving grandma. It's for testing a new brand of makeup.

> Animal testing is bad and must be stopped

>> Here is some animal testing that is good. Could save lives.

> This is not true animal testing. Most animal testing is for lipsticks. I read it in a pamphlet.

If this sounds familiar to you is because is a classic Not true scotsman's fallacy.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#115

Post by thereisnospork »

I wonder if a surgeon could bypass and isolate from the digestive tract a sufficiently large section of the upper intestine to allow for a person to 'breathe' synthetically for a period of time. Ideally without overly disrupting the digestive process. Could be useful for people waiting for lung transplants or who otherwise can't breath conventionally for an extended period.

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#116

Post by pvaldes »

newsbinator wrote: post #105
rmah wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather a thousand cute bunnies go blind (or worse) than one woman's eyesight be harmed by dangerous makeup.

On that I can easily disagree. I'd rather we all say: "this makeup cannot be guaranteed to be safe- either outlaw it, skip it, or take your chances" and keep the bunnies alive and unharmed. It's the medical breakthroughs where I get uncertain. Cosmetics be damned.

> keep the bunnies alive

Sounds nice, but in the real life those lab bunnies wouldn't even have been breed so they aren't alive in fact

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#117

Post by pvaldes »

huitzitziltzin wrote: post #66
Ralfp wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

„It was found that John Doe took liquid-oxygen enema before run, unfairly improving his performance.”

Given that liquid oxygen boils at about -300 F, if John Doe can finish a race after a liquid oxygen enema he deserves first prize for something!

With an exploratory spirit and a bit of ambition, all records are beatable if you have LOx and a matchbox

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#118

Post by lallysingh »

geocrasher wrote: post #23

I might get downvoted for this, but here it goes: Lets say that your life depends on intestinal ventilation, and you've got a steady flow of oxygenated fluids going into the uh... places... and you need to go number 2? Is it a race to see how quick you can "go" before you get hypoxic and die? Does the constant flow of oxygenated material flush out any waste? It's like wondering "how does Cat Dog go #2" I suppose. But…

I suspect you're fed intravenously while sitting on your air

Re: Mammals can absorb oxygen through their intestines

#119

Post by meristohm »

rmah wrote: post #85
keiferski wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, the overwhelming majority of animal testing is not for saving grandma. It's for testing a new brand of makeup.

I'd rather a thousand cute bunnies go blind (or worse) than one woman's eyesight be harmed by dangerous makeup.

Is it okay to not get everything we want? We have limited resources, especially if your care about humanity (or life in general) continuing on for awhile. I for one enjoy thinking about life thousands, millions of years hence, understanding and accepting that this book will probably close.
Post reply on HN