Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Scientists Keep Rabbits Alive With Oxygen Microparticle Injections

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the I've-been-using-my-lungs-like-a-sucker dept.

Medicine 274

ananyo writes "Rabbits with blocked windpipes have been kept alive for up to 15 minutes without a single breath, after researchers injected oxygen-filled microparticles into the animals' blood. Oxygenating the blood by bypassing the lungs in this way could save the lives of people with impaired breathing or obstructed airways (abstract). In the past, doctors have tried to treat low levels of oxygen in the blood, or hypoxaemia, and related conditions such as cyanosis, by injecting free oxygen gas directly into the bloodstream. But oxygen injected in this way can accumulate into larger bubbles and form potentially lethal blockages."

cancel ×

274 comments

One step closer (5, Funny)

alexbgreat (1422591) | about 2 years ago | (#40474569)

And with this...we're one step closer to the zombie apocalypse.

Re:One step closer (1)

toopok4k3 (809683) | about 2 years ago | (#40474573)

Time to play some DayZ to get practise then!

Re:One step closer (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475043)

Time to play some DayZ to get practise then!

the important thing is, niggers didn't come up with this. niggers take all they can get. niggers contribute nothing back. they're parasites. we should have left them in africa.

Re:One step closer (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#40475259)

Your ancestors came from Africa too. It's just a matter of when.

Re:One step closer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475643)

Time to play some DayZ to get practise then!

the important thing is, niggers didn't come up with this. niggers take all they can get. niggers contribute nothing back. they're parasites. we should have left them in africa.

Who are you to say no African scientist contributed to this? you don't know shit and are ignorant as shit, intelligent websites like slashdot shouldn't have unintelligent bigoted people like you commenting on articles let alone even browsing the site.

Re:One step closer (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474579)

SHUT.
THE FUCK.
UP!

Re:One step closer (1)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 2 years ago | (#40474659)

Or Night of the Lupus...

Joking aside, this sounds seriously legit! Will ambulances be carrying around machines to inject this into people like an IV?

Re:One step closer (1)

Deathmoo (2578761) | about 2 years ago | (#40475321)

I hope so! Why not have a machine that could do this for you indefinitely? Would beat the hell of these silly "lung" things we've been using.

Re:One step closer (5, Insightful)

Garridan (597129) | about 2 years ago | (#40474761)

Yeah... something tells me that "kept alive" means "killed" in this study.

Re:One step closer (0)

joebagodonuts (561066) | about 2 years ago | (#40474975)

That was my first thought as well

Re:One step closer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475691)

"Yeah... something tells me that "kept alive" means "killed" in this study."

It's a rabbit. If sacraficing a creature so stupid to not even be self aware can save hundreds or thousands of human lives, so be it. Science is cruel, but well worthwhile.

Re:One step closer (4, Insightful)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#40474767)

You mean we're one step closer to the futurama head jars. Or gills for people maybe?

On a more serious note, probably also a step closer to easier surgeries like lung transplants. Maybe a step toward treating cystic fibrosis.

But zombies, absolutely not. There's nothing contagious here, and I thought zombies breathe. I mean, if they weren't using their lungs and windpipes, how are they always moaning... always moaning... day and night, keeping me awake... realizing that it's inevitable...

Re:One step closer (4, Insightful)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#40475273)

They don't use their lungs for breathing though. Shots to the chest do little to stop a zombie, you need a head shot.

Re:One step closer (1)

C_amiga_fan (1960858) | about 2 years ago | (#40475169)

Just have to lock yourself in the bomb shelter with your MREs and wait for the zombies to rot. Then come-out and rebuild society.

*
*Anybody know where I can get cheap MREs?

The Matrix (1, Offtopic)

retroworks (652802) | about 2 years ago | (#40474585)

Ok, that's what they were pumping into Neo's backbone... Right?

COME ON COHAAGEN (3, Funny)

mozumder (178398) | about 2 years ago | (#40474973)

GIVE THESE RABBITS AIR

Re:The Matrix (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40475153)

You forgot about that huge contraption that he had to pull out of his face....

Choking Mice (1)

mutherhacker (638199) | about 2 years ago | (#40474609)

I wonder if the researchers chocked the mice with their bare hands.... Poor mice. R.I.P.

Obviously not... (3, Insightful)

Narrowband (2602733) | about 2 years ago | (#40474655)

...they were experimenting with Rabbits.

Re:Obviously not... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475113)

Poor poor playboy bunnies with erotic asphyxiation syndromes.

Obviously so... (5, Funny)

RawsonDR (1029682) | about 2 years ago | (#40475605)

Yes, the rabbits were the subject of the experiment. The mice were being choked to pass the time. It's just what these researchers do.

So instead of just pumping it in, (1)

pecosdave (536896) | about 2 years ago | (#40474619)

they had to use a carburetor.

That's a way to make use of "new" technology.

Re:So instead of just pumping it in, (1)

aaronb1138 (2035478) | about 2 years ago | (#40474807)

Makes sense. The automotive carburetor came long after fuel injection and at the time was revolutionary for power production and fuel economy.

Re:So instead of just pumping it in, (2)

davydagger (2566757) | about 2 years ago | (#40475197)

the internal combustion/electric engine "hybrid" was perfected in ww2 in submarines.

They then figured out it could also work for cars 60 years later, and called it a breakthrough in technology.

Re:So instead of just pumping it in, (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#40475297)

Its the opposite of a carburetor.
it's not like they were squirting blood in to oxygen...

Lots of applications (4, Interesting)

Grayhand (2610049) | about 2 years ago | (#40474625)

I can see this as a major help in organ transplants like lung and heart. Also there's a potential for cystic fibrosis since it bypasses the lungs.

Re:Lots of applications (2, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 years ago | (#40474663)

No, it's not useful for those. You already have an established airway for those. And in CF, the lungs aren't often the killer, these days.

Re:Lots of applications (1)

Narrowband (2602733) | about 2 years ago | (#40474717)

Or maybe super-deep dives, space station/vacuum suit emergencies...

Re:Lots of applications (3, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 years ago | (#40474803)

No. The volume requirements alone will rapidly render this useless. To supply an adult human, you would need 300-600 mL of infused volume per minute. Given that an adult has a blood volume of roughly 5 L, you can imagine that you're going to run into problems pretty quickly.

Re:Lots of applications (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | about 2 years ago | (#40475073)

But you might target the brain?

Re:Lots of applications (1)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#40475305)

You could create an arteriovenous fistula and use something like a dialysis machine that ensures a proper fluid load, a proper removal of depleted particles and a fresh supply of new ones.

Although you'll likely not use something the size of a dialysis machine as a diving aid. And for medical care there's already extracorporeal membrane oxygenation machines and techniques.

An artificial gland that releases its stored particles when blood is severely hypoxic would be a neat solution though.

Re:Lots of applications (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about 2 years ago | (#40475335)

Your lungs don't have a problem integrating that much oxygen in to just 5L of blood.

Re:Lots of applications (4, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#40475507)

To supply an adult human, you would need 300-600 mL of infused volume per minute. Given that an adult has a blood volume of roughly 5 L, you can imagine that you're going to run into problems pretty quickly.

I don't see why. They inject the microparticles directly into the blood, and this rapid infuser at least can move 1000 mls of fluid per minute. [belmontinstrument.com]

The mircoparticles themselves sound like they could be made fairly rapidly:

The microcapsules are easy and cheap to make, says Kheir. They effectively self-assemble when the lipid components are exposed to intense sound waves in an oxygen environment — a process known as sonication.

The article notes that this would probably not be something you would do for long term though, and that there are already techniques to oxygenate blood externally then pump it back in, used during surgery.

Beats current techniques (2)

niftydude (1745144) | about 2 years ago | (#40474635)

This sure is better than having someone perform an emergency tracheotomy with a steak knife on you.

Re:Beats current techniques (5, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 years ago | (#40474695)

The experimental solutions contained 50-90 mL of O2 per deciliter - to sustain an adult human, you need about 300 mL O2 per minute. At least 300 mL of IV fluid and as much as 600 mL per minute is going to have to go through one hell of an IV. I doubt you could achieve such infusion rates without specialized equipment (e.g., 8.5 French rapid infusion catheter + Level One pump) or multiple intraosseous needles.

Furthermore, this is temporizing just like any other O2 delivery method. Oxygen is essential for life, but eventually you have to clear the CO2, or it's pointless. As a bridge to a secure airway or crash on to cardiopulmonary bypass? Sure, it's not a bad idea, except that the only thing that matters in that kind of life-or-death situation is how long it takes to get it in the room. By the time you get this stuff out of the refrigerator in pharmacy and run it to the OR, ER, or ICU, you could have gotten a surgeon there to do the cricothyrotomy or even a proper tracheostomy.

Re:Beats current techniques (5, Insightful)

Auroch (1403671) | about 2 years ago | (#40474899)

The experimental solutions contained 50-90 mL of O2 per deciliter - to sustain an adult human, you need about 300 mL O2 per minute. At least 300 mL of IV fluid and as much as 600 mL per minute is going to have to go through one hell of an IV. I doubt you could achieve such infusion rates without specialized equipment (e.g., 8.5 French rapid infusion catheter + Level One pump) or multiple intraosseous needles. Furthermore, this is temporizing just like any other O2 delivery method. Oxygen is essential for life, but eventually you have to clear the CO2, or it's pointless. As a bridge to a secure airway or crash on to cardiopulmonary bypass? Sure, it's not a bad idea, except that the only thing that matters in that kind of life-or-death situation is how long it takes to get it in the room. By the time you get this stuff out of the refrigerator in pharmacy and run it to the OR, ER, or ICU, you could have gotten a surgeon there to do the cricothyrotomy or even a proper tracheostomy.

That's all technically true. I think the question you AREN'T asking is the most important one - what if you're not trying to sustain a human, but simply lengthen the amount of time before cell death? If I recall my first aid training (and I do), even an extra 10 minutes can be the difference between brain damage and 100% recovery.

Re:Beats current techniques (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 years ago | (#40475105)

Would this help at all in the transplant of organs?

Re:Beats current techniques (3, Interesting)

MrMista_B (891430) | about 2 years ago | (#40475137)

Hell, not to mention organ donation. If you have a severe enough head trauma such that the person is /undeniably/ dead, something like this could save a lot of organs, and by extension, a lot of other lives.

Re:Beats current techniques (2)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40475181)

If there is one thing that religious people have taught me in this life, it's that there is no such thing as "undeniably" dead.

They can deny, deny, deny, and then deny some more.

More likely this will lead to more vegetable gardens being carefully maintained. That's their decision really and I hope I am never faced with it.

Re:Beats current techniques (2)

ThePeices (635180) | about 2 years ago | (#40475231)

"..., but simply lengthen the amount of time before cell death? "

This would be awesome for meat. You could have the tissue alive right until you chuck it on the grill.

mmmm, tender meat.

Re:Beats current techniques (4, Insightful)

Idarubicin (579475) | about 2 years ago | (#40475323)

You could have the tissue alive right until you chuck it on the grill. mmmm, tender meat.

Well, no, actually.

The tenderest beef has been dead for days or even weeks. As the cells within a cut of beef die, they release enzymes that slowly digest connective tissue (mostly collagen). "Live" steaks would contain intact, live cells that wouldn't have a chance to release any digestive enzymes before being cooked.

Re:Beats current techniques (0)

csumpi (2258986) | about 2 years ago | (#40474915)

Except for the forming of larger oxygen bubbles, that can block small blood vessels (like give you a stroke and kill off half your brain).

Until they figure that minor detail out, no thanks. I go with the steak knife in the throat.

Re:Beats current techniques (1)

durrr (1316311) | about 2 years ago | (#40475299)

You won't do tracheotomies with steak knives, you'll do a cricotomy.

Re:Beats current techniques (1)

niftydude (1745144) | about 2 years ago | (#40475457)

I can't believe everyone is taking my comment so seriously.
Let me guess: You've never watched the Police Academy movies.

Re:Beats current techniques (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475373)

I carry a sharpened Bic pen casing, just in case.

So what? (5, Funny)

Digital Vomit (891734) | about 2 years ago | (#40474639)

Scientists Keep Rabbits Alive With Oxygen Microparticle Injections

So what? I have a pet rabbit that I can keep alive with regular oxygen particles.

And I don't even have to inject them or anything. They just go into the holes in his face.

That's remarkable. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474669)

Have you published anything about him?

Re:That's remarkable. (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#40475187)

I suspect that he has tried and it has only resulted in several restraining orders.

Science... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474647)

I'm all for science and testing, but damn. Imagine feeling like you are choking to death for 15 minutes... not a way I'd want to go...

Re:Science... (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 2 years ago | (#40474681)

Thats interesting, I wonder if they had to take precautions against shock.

Re:Science... (1, Interesting)

theshowmecanuck (703852) | about 2 years ago | (#40474813)

Fair comment. I wonder how many PETA vegans who develop fibrosis in the lungs will turn down any potential treatment to keep them alive developed from this. That is what the lung transplant girl from Ottawa recently in the news suffered from. I was acquainted with someone who passed away from this. And there were an inordinate amount of workers at a plant in Missouri that made flavouring for microwave popcorn that developed fibrosis in the lungs too. Essentially your lungs get hard like scar tissue and can't flex, and you basically suffocate because you can't draw in enough air. That has to be just as shitty.

On another note, there are a lot of scifi stories where people are immersed in liquid which is super oxygenated in order to combat G-force. I wonder if this new discovery could be used in conjunction with a potential solution to high G-load.

Re:Science... (5, Interesting)

Ironhandx (1762146) | about 2 years ago | (#40474941)

Thats something sci-fi pulled out of the US Air Force books actually. Also Canadian Air Force books. It was originally thought up as a concept in canada to combat the massive g-forces the avro arrow could generate. It turned out it wasn't needed. Its been tested extensively by the US since(and there was some testing done in canada as well) but never used for any regular procedures afaik. It has also seen some testing for under water purposes, deep diving(Similar problems to massive g-forces and ridiculous altitudes)

I've actually tried it myself at a marine research facility. Its extremely fucked and you can choke to death while being fully oxygenated(if you're a wuss, essentially). Also excess fluid left in the lungs can cause infections etc to set in.

Doing something dangerous enough to have a paramedic crew standing next to you when you start it is a bit of a head trip too.

Once you're in there tho... its not even slightly comfortable. It feels like your chest is being heavily pressed on and you have this constant drowning feeling that takes a bit to get over. Overall, I'd say thats probably the main reason it hasn't been used much. On paper the whole deal is fantastic. In reality, not so much.

Re:Science... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475547)

Yeah, thanks for the info, but we've all watched "The Abyss", which is exactly what you're describing, and nothing new.

Re:Science... (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40475539)

I wonder how many PETA vegans who develop fibrosis in the lungs will turn down any potential treatment to keep them alive developed from this.

If someone somehow found a cure for cancer by sacrificing a million human babies, and no more babies would need to be killed afterwards in order to treat people, would you refuse the treatment? That would be pointless. The ones who died are already dead, and refusing the treatment will not bring them back.

Re:Science... (1)

Ylleks (807103) | about 2 years ago | (#40475583)

Except that if everybody refused the treatment then they might not cure the next disease by killing a million more human babies.

Re:Science... (1, Flamebait)

NFN_NLN (633283) | about 2 years ago | (#40475059)

I'm all for science and testing, but damn. Imagine feeling like you are choking to death for 15 minutes...

Your mom never complained.

How many rabbits were sacrificed? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474667)

I wonder how many rabbits they sacrificed to doing this.
From the summary, it sounds like the rabbit died after 15 minutes.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474733)

Yes, I'm pretty conflicted about animal experimentation myself. I think if there really is an underworld, it won't be guarded by Cerberus, but by all the animals humans have subjected to experiments through the ages, and you'll have to fight your way past them to get out.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (3, Interesting)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40474871)

>Yes, I'm pretty conflicted about animal experimentation myself

When it comes to life saving medicine, I'm not conflicted one bit.

Thumper or...

Me.

I vote me.

--
BMO

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (1)

toQDuj (806112) | about 2 years ago | (#40474981)

I vote Thumper.

(I kid, I kid. but there are some people who say that when they would be faced with the choice of saving the life of a human or a dog, they would save the dog.)

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475031)

OK, but the rest of us prefer Thumper. Less smugness

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (5, Insightful)

kevmitch (2220314) | about 2 years ago | (#40475275)

This seems to be the consensus among slashdotters given the consistent downmodding of people who even remotely question, let alone challenge, the ethics of animal experimentation. However, no one seems to address the rational justification for elevating humans to a higher level of worth. I'm not saying that experimentation is outright wrong, but the ethical assessments like these should never be automatic.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475517)

When a rabbit can give a convincing argument for choosing it over the human then we'll talk.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 2 years ago | (#40475551)

I don't believe it's possible to give a convincing argument for choosing you over a member of something else's species. If other beings did this to us, I would hope humans wouldn't be so arrogant as to claim they're special snowflakes deserving of special treatment.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (3, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#40475653)

>I don't believe it's possible to give a convincing argument for choosing you over a member of something else's species.

You are drowning.
Thumper is drowning.

Who am I to save. Hmm.... let me think about it.

Oh wait, I shouldn't think about it because I should pick you over Thumper. Because only people with absolute lack of empathy would pick Thumper.

Sorry if this annoys you.

--
BMO

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (5, Insightful)

BrianH (13460) | about 2 years ago | (#40474821)

Probably less than 1/10000th the number of rabbits that were sacrificed for dinner plates last night alone.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474865)

Yeah, and they probably had to test on a statistically significant number of rabbits, not to mention all the failed attempts. It's staggering how many animals die in research labs, some for better reasons than others, IMO.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474905)

Oh, well you know for insulin and the pancreas they killed around 10,000 in London, Ontario alone just trying to figure out what was going on.

The more you know...but if your morals are getting in the way of saving the life of type 1 diabetics. I understand, try a starvation diet, it's much the same thing.

Re:How many rabbits were sacrificed? (1, Interesting)

catmistake (814204) | about 2 years ago | (#40475345)

Oh, well you know for insulin and the pancreas they killed around 10,000 in London, Ontario alone just trying to figure out what was going on.

The more you know...but if your morals are getting in the way of saving the life of type 1 diabetics. I understand, try a starvation diet, it's much the same thing.

The problem with a never ending and profitable drug treatment is that is kind of removes the incentive to develop a cure [canada.com] .

they forgot something (5, Interesting)

v1 (525388) | about 2 years ago | (#40474685)

CO2 must also be removed. that's probably what ultimately killed the rabbits.

Besides overloading the red blood cells with CO2 and preventing the removal from the cells, it also screws up the PH of the blood really quick. I assume that with this process it could get bad enough to lead to shock.

Now what would be really cool would be if they could come up with a sold-state exchanger for CO2 to O2. Something like a fuel cell in reverse - create a chemical exchange from an electrical power. Implant that into a body and it could run on batteries instead of breathing. But I don't think that technology in that form currently exists. They have "rebreathers" but those are huge space-suit-size affairs and operate on a far more involved process.

But I bet someone's working on it right now. Probably several someones.

Re:they forgot something (5, Informative)

demonlapin (527802) | about 2 years ago | (#40474785)

You can't turn CO2 + H2O into O2 + C(H2O) efficiently unless you're a plant, and you'd have to get the CO2 out of solution quickly (easy) and get more O2 back into solution quickly (hard).

Rebreathers just scrub CO2 from the atmosphere and lock it up as a carbonate. They need not be particularly large, though - the CO2 scrubber on the GE (Datex-Ohmeda) ADU Carestation is about the same size as a pint glass. The rest of the system is the bulky part, and in most situations could actually be done without.

Green women? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475201)

You can't turn CO2 + H2O into O2 + C(H2O) efficiently unless you're a plant, and you'd have to get the CO2 out of solution quickly (easy) and get more O2 back into solution quickly (hard).

I see. So if we were able to get chlorophyll in there too, and subsequently turn the person green we would have green women like on Star Trek?

I like it!

Rule 34.

Re:they forgot something (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | about 2 years ago | (#40474809)

I don't think they -forgot- that, I think they just focused on one step at a time.

Re:they forgot something (1, Funny)

Auroch (1403671) | about 2 years ago | (#40474913)

I don't think they -forgot- that, I think they just focused on one step at a time.

Gee Karl, did you forget to remove the CO2 from my kid's pet rabbit? It went all floppy after I gave it back to him.

Sorry Stan, It must have slipped my mind. Good for science, though!

You're right Karl, look at me still talking when there's science to be done.

Re:they forgot something (1)

jo_ham (604554) | about 2 years ago | (#40474989)

Breaking two C-O pi bonds and two C-O sigma bonds to form an O-O sigma and pi... That's going to be an energy expensive process.

CO2 > O2 +C

Energies in kJ/mol^-1
1x O=O: 498
2x C=O: 2*(803) = 1606

So you're putting in about 1600 kJ/mol and getting back 498 kJ/mol, plus some carbon, so you need to find about 1100 kJ/mol of energy from your battery.

I think there's a reason that plants don't bother cracking CO2 right down into O2! Plus, what do you do with the solid carbon? Would you have to keep changing a filter?

Cruel experiment (3, Insightful)

exploder (196936) | about 2 years ago | (#40475203)

Yeah, about the CO2 thing...you know that visceral panic you feel when you can't breathe? It's not triggered by lack of oxygen, but rather by excess CO2. I'm sure dying from asphyxiation is unpleasant enough, but having the experience dragged out to fifteen minutes (or more, once the methods are improved) must be horrific.

This will change the Tour de France forever (5, Funny)

Teresita (982888) | about 2 years ago | (#40474791)

But will Lance Armstrong submit to a blood test for oxygen microparticles?

Re:This will change the Tour de France forever (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | about 2 years ago | (#40474935)

He submitted to a blood test for everything else

Deep Sea Diving (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40474971)

A liquid breathing technology is important at depth because pressurized gasses are inefficient at transferring oxygen in to the blood. A liquid oxygen source allows for submarine escapes that don't involve screaming to prevent your lungs from bursting and more volumetric density. Suppressing the urge to breath might be as simple as breathing closed circuit helium or Perfluorocarbon. Possibly using cryogenic rebreather technology to condense out the liquid co2 from the blood and then separate it based on density.

Past attempts at liquid breathing have been frustrated by the mechanical difficulty of using lungs to circulate a fluid more viscous than air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

With an IV based infusion, this circulation becomes irrelevant.

Lame (3, Interesting)

lessthan (977374) | about 2 years ago | (#40475039)

Why, why, why are these stories always "save peoples lives" angled? How cool would it be to dive with this stuff running in your veins? I bet the liquid is incompressible too. I wonder what the ratio of volume of the liquid versus how much oxygen contained within it is.

Re:Lame (1)

ff1324 (783953) | about 2 years ago | (#40475161)

Didn't see The Abyss?

Re:Lame (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475173)

If it makes you feel better... they did at least choke out some bunnies.

Compressibility (1)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | about 2 years ago | (#40475423)

It's shells of lipid (fat) around gaseous oxygen, so it should be compressible.

Re:Lame (3, Informative)

Orgasmatron (8103) | about 2 years ago | (#40475641)

Well, liquids aren't compressible in general, so I suspect that is already covered.

The problem with diving isn't the blood, it is the lungs, and later (when you resurface) the difference in solubility of various gasses in your tissues under different pressures.

The amount of, for example, nitrogen that can dissolve into your blood (again, for example) depends on the pressure. As the pressure goes up, more can dissolve. As the pressure goes down, less can dissolve, which means that when you surface, nitrogen dissolved in your body can suddenly reappear as a gas bubble which requires many times the volume that it took while dissolved. In a joint, or long muscle or fat, this can be painful. In an important artery or in your heart or other important organ (most of them), this can be fatal.

Re:Lame (1)

Jeremi (14640) | about 2 years ago | (#40475713)

Why, why, why are these stories always "save peoples lives" angled? How cool would it be to dive with this stuff running in your veins?

Dunno if I'd want to have to inject myself with a hypodermic every 3 minutes while diving. On the other hand, if there was a pill I could swallow that would somehow release oxygen into my bloodstream via the intestines, that would be pretty cool. As a bonus it could double as a propulsion device.

Yawn. ECMO, anybody? (2)

SlowGenius (231663) | about 2 years ago | (#40475157)

Nothing new/useful to see here. Move along, move along. Feel free to Google "ECMO" as you're heading out the door....

Long term space flight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475171)

If you can be kept in suspended animation for a few millennium (and all this equipment works for thousands of years), how cool would it be to explore some distant solar system?

What do you do for a living? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475183)

I block the wind pipes of small animals for my own amusement.

Is anyone else skeptical of the idea that you can block a rabbit's windpipe without changing its heart rate? I am strongly against this kind of animal torture. There is no grey area here for me.

Scientists Keep Rabbits Alive (for up to 15 min) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475233)

Fifteen whole minutes without killing a rabbit. I doubt the results would be as good with rats, but it's an achievement nonetheless. With enough training maybe one day we will be able to release these scientists in the wild without every creature getting cancer and dying soon afterwards.

Less than indefinitely is as good as dead? (1)

Shavano (2541114) | about 2 years ago | (#40475289)

Why 15 minutes? Weren't they confident they could keep the bunnies alive indefinitely?

What happens after 15 minutes? How are the microparticles cleared from the body after the oxygen in them is used up? How fast can they be absorbed and does is it too slow for the rate at which the body uses oxygen. (I suspect that's the root of the time limit.

Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (0, Troll)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 2 years ago | (#40475331)

Suffocating rabbits to death for experimentation is cruel and inhumane no matter how you try to spin it. I can only imagine the sick creep of a lab tech who sits idly by after injecting these bunnies and watches them die one after the other day after day.
Was torturing neighborhood pets to death a hiring qualification?

Re:Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | about 2 years ago | (#40475409)

This is something that could save a lot of lives. I am perfectly fine with it. Now, if you are taking about cosmetics research (the one that has the most demand for rabbits), I agree. It is cruel.

Re:Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475421)

Well, sorry Mrs. Smith. There might have been a technique that couuld have saved your boy; but we couldn't kill the rabbit. Would you like to pet the rabbit? So there's Mrs. Smith at her son's funeral petting the rabbit, and that makes up for it.

Re:Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475471)

Better them than us.

Re:Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475549)

I probably would be against it if no anesthetic was used. However I believe the laws on this sort of research would require anesthetic to be used if possible, and I imagine that in this case anesthetic would help.

I find it hard to understand the people who claim that *any* amount of animal suffering is enough to justify saving a single human life. It seems that this is just slavish adherence to the current political ideology ("we are all human"). 100 years ago Europeans probably would have felt that while suffering of Black people was unfortunate, any amount of suffering by Black people was justified to save a European's life (after all, "we are all European Christians"). Since animals can suffer and feel pain (and can experience happiness like humans) why should we not trade off animal suffering against human life and suffering? That is place importance (though not equal importance) on both?

Re:Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475585)

I hope you, your parents, and your offspring all die a painfully, you peta piece of shit.

Re:Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475603)

I knew a guy who knew a guy who worked at a lab that was working on an automated colon resection machine. Basically, the idea is that if you had colon cancer or something, they'd shove this thing up your butt, it'd grab onto your colon in two separate places, cut, remove the diseased section, and join the two ends together, all in a continuous action.

They used canines to test it out. Supposedly once a week he'd see a big cart being pushed down the hallways for waste disposal. The cart was covered, but there'd be paws hanging out.

Of course, this could all be a horrible joke. But there you go.

Re:Am I the only one NOT OK with this? (1)

SurfaceMount (749329) | about 2 years ago | (#40475655)

Suffocating rabbits to death for experimentation is cruel and inhumane

If they are conscious then thats pretty cruel to them, but I cant see a reason they wouldn't be anaesthetised.
They dont feel anything or suffer if they are KO.

Something like 15 million chickens are killed daily worldwide for food, how is the deaths of a few rabbits any worse?

ST:TriOX. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40475403)

"Rabbits with blocked windpipes have been kept alive for up to 15 minutes without a single breath, after researchers injected oxygen-filled microparticles into the animals' blood.

Star Trek;s TriOX compound. Remember when Spock and Kirk fight during Spock's Pon'far on Vulcan in the original series?

Nobody tell the State Department (4, Interesting)

Majik Sheff (930627) | about 2 years ago | (#40475435)

You think waterboarding is torture? Wait until some goon figures out how to use this technique to allow them to keep their victim alive as they experience their own suffocation. Over. and. Over.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...