View previous topic | View next topic

Haemoglobin (slightly graphic in places)

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

Gyndawyr
585686.  Fri Jul 17, 2009 4:32 pm Reply with quote

Wise words from the mighty Gyndawyr;
"If your toilet paper's red, youve prolly just pushed too hard."
:)

If you want to be creative, try eating some crayons.
But dont try swallowing marbles. I mean seriously, the dobbers hurt :'(

Women's haemoglobin taste remarkably sweet ;)
yum yum.

EDIT: Ahh the link reminds me. "Do something amazing, give blood."
They make out as if its a personal thing to do, as if youre going to get credit for saving lives donating. They dont care who you are, they just want your blood so they can use it on accident victims, or play with it, or feed their lab monkeys. Not buying the ad campaign -_-


Last edited by Gyndawyr on Fri Jul 17, 2009 8:03 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
Posital
585735.  Fri Jul 17, 2009 7:57 pm Reply with quote

Gyndawyr wrote:
Wise words from the mighty Gyndawyr;
"If your toilet paper's red, youve prolly just pushed too hard."

If you didn't - go see a doctor... unless you used it to mop up tomato juice.

 
Susannah Dingley
585812.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:15 am Reply with quote

If your toilet paper is red, you must be using this product.

On another note, I have a question.

Carbon monoxide is lethal because it forms a stable compound with haemoglobin, thereby reducing the amount availabke in the blood for oxygen transportation. Now Iím wondering: would a patient with an excess of haemoglobin (polycythaemia) be less prone to carbon-monoxide poisoning than a normal person?

My conjecture is this. Letís say there is a certain amount of CO present in the body, just enough to kill an ordinary healthy person by forming carboxyhaemoglobin with all the haemoglobin in their blood. In a polycythaemic patient, the excess haemoglobin might just mop up the same amount of CO, leaving still some haemoglobin in the blood for oxygen. This might mean that a polycythaemic patient can be exposed to a higher-than-average level of CO without being killed.

Would this be true? I canít find anything on this on Google, Iím afraid.

 
tetsabb
585860.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:08 am Reply with quote

Gyndawyr wrote:
They dont care who you are, they just want your blood so they can use it on accident victims, or play with it, or feed their lab monkeys. Not buying the ad campaign -_-


Point of information -- they do care quite a lot who you are; prior to donation there is quite a list of questions potential donors have to go through to ensure they are suitable to have their blood taken. A few of them involve;
travel -- could they have been exposed to malaria and other nasties?
sexual habits -- could they have picked up something nasty in bed?
geheral health -- could they be carrying a bug that could be passed on to any recipients?

The blood is used to help people with all sorts of conditions, and some is used for research.
I am quite sure that Gyndawyr would be very grateful for such donors if he/she were involved in an incident in which he/she had lost a lot, and this was going to save his/her life.

As for Susannah's query about polycthaemia, my bio-chemistry is not up to an answer, but I will try and find out!

 
tetsabb
585872.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 8:39 am Reply with quote

Aha, some info on polycythaemia
http://www.mydr.com.au/heart-stroke/polycythaemia
It would certainly appear that if you have this condition smoking is even worse an idea than for most!

 
Gyndawyr
585882.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 9:46 am Reply with quote

I just find it hard to explain without ranting on about what I expect in return from society (to be trodden on and forgotten.) -_-

I suppose I could be grateful for the people who've had easier lives than myself, who enjoy making themselves feel good in helping what they believe is a good cause, but if I "give blood" as they suggest, I dont expect to be appreciated for it. Any charitable impersonal act is mockery to me.

And of course they care if you have malaria or STDs, because if they mess up the tests and infect somebody, they get sued. How considerate of them :)

Youd be more accurate in saying "I am quite sure that Gyndawyr is a very bitter person." But I wont complain if they give me their BMW, as long as it makes them feel good about themselves.

Away from my flaming -_- I believe it is illegal in sporting events to inject yourself with previously stored blood in order to take in more oxygen.

Im going to speculate that, injecting yourself with blood raises the blood pressure, meaning that the ammount of blood passing through the lungs increases, meaning while you take in more oxygen from the air, if there is carbon monoxide present, you will simply take in more of that also.

If im right, its because im a genious, if im wrong, it is because I guessed :)

EDIT: If the ammount of haemoglobin present in the body is relative to the ammount passing through the lungs at any one time, then you will take in more oxygen, but you will also take in more carbon monoxide.

If the ammount of haemoglobin allowed contact with the contaminated air is not relative (but fixed by the volume of the lungs, for example) then Im guessing it would take more breaths to do equivalent ammount of damage as if you had less haemoglobin.

If you understand what I was trying to say, do something other than a vague smile and a nod please... :)

 
Susannah Dingley
585890.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:12 am Reply with quote

Gyndawyr wrote:
I believe it is illegal in sporting events to inject yourself with previously stored blood in order to take in more oxygen.

Im going to speculate that, injecting yourself with blood raises the blood pressure, meaning that the ammount of blood passing through the lungs increases, meaning while you take in more oxygen from the air, if there is carbon monoxide present, you will simply take in more of that also.

I would agree with you there (though Iím no expert on this myself). Red blood cells are bulky cells, so having more of them in your blood would tend to slow down blood flow, leading to higher blood pressure. This could be dangerous if you are indulging in strenuous sporting activity, when oxygen turnover is high and your blood needs to flow faster to keep up with the bodyís increased oxygen demand.

If injecting yourself with red blood cells is illegal in sports, then I would imagine it is so not so much in order to prevent cheating as in order to save the life of any sportsperson daft enough to do it.

The only time when injecting yourself with red blood cells is useful is if you are in an atmosphere with a high carbon-monoxide content; then the extra haemoglobin might help in soaking up some of the carbon monoxide in your system. Even so, this is just a speculative theory of mine, and I could be wrong.

BTW, thanks tetsabb for the link on polycythaemia.

 
IronMonkey
585894.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:29 am Reply with quote

Sadurian Mike wrote:
tetsabb wrote:

(I thought I started this thread a few days ago, but the computer went kerplooey just as I pressed 'submit' and it did not go through)

I do hope you said "bloody computer".


Damn you and your puns

 
Gyndawyr
585895.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 10:37 am Reply with quote

my theory contradicts yours sussanah;
It is illegal to inject yourself with it for the purposes of taking in more oxygen for sport. However it is not illegal to practice in really high altitudes, which also raises haemoglobin levels, and some athletes have been known to do this.
Im suggesting that because they take in more air per lungfill (as more haemoglobin is present in the same volume of blood in the lungs) they take in more oxygen as a result. More oxygen supplied to muscles = you win more races.
If however the air you were breathing in was contaminated with carbon monoxide, I believe that your blood would intake a relative quantity of CO as oxygen. So while you have more of them, more of them present in the lungs = more CO is absorbed.

 
Susannah Dingley
585899.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 11:10 am Reply with quote

The amount of oxygen transported to the muscles depends on the rate of blood flow and the amount of oxygen transferred per flow. More haemoglobin means more oxygen can be transferred per flow*. But haemoglobin is carried in red blood cells, and more red blood cells means that these bulky cells get in each otherís way and so the rate of blood flow would be lower. In short: more haemoglobin = low blood flow but more oxygen transferred per flow, less haemoglobin = higher blood flow but less oxgyen transferred per flow.

*By ďflowĒ, I mean the trip taken by a single red blood cell circulating from one point in the body through the circulatory system back to the same point (assuming it completes the trip).

Hence there must be a balance between the amount of haemoglobin and the rate of blood flow. Iím sure there must be precise mathematical equations describing the circulation of blood and oxygen transfer rate in the body. If you give me these equations, I can perhaps solve them and tell you the optimum amount of haemoglobin that needs to be present in the blood to maintain this balance.

Gyndawyr wrote:
Im suggesting that because they take in more air per lungfill (as more haemoglobin is present in the same volume of blood in the lungs) they take in more oxygen as a result.

Why would an increase in the amount of haemoglobin affect the quantity of air inhaled into the lungs? Sorry, I donít get this bit.

Also, in case you misunderstandi, the carbon-monoxide scenario I raised in my previous post has nothing to do with sports Ė this is a completely different scenario from the sports one.

 
Gyndawyr
585936.  Sat Jul 18, 2009 1:14 pm Reply with quote

Im sorry I was a little unclear:
Im suggesting that because they take in more air (into the haemoglobin) per lungfill...
its misleading and inaccurate 0_0
well spotted :)
I have not tried changing this topic into something sports related, I am using atheletic sport as evidence for people using stored blood to raise their oxygen levels during competitions. I believe this can be compaired with higher levels of haemoglobin making people less succeptible to carbon monoxide poisoning.
Except an athlete is in a regular environment.
Not contaminated with CO.
This means that with more haemoglobin their is a possibility that while absorbing more oxygen, they could also absorb more CO into the blood than a normal person.
This depends on the ammount of haemoglobin being the limiting factor though.
If lung capacity is the limiting factor, then no matter how many you have, only (x) ammount of haemoglobin will pass through the lungs anyway, and will be unaffected.
As evidence for haemoglobin being the limiting factor; I use my evidence, the athletes... why would they inject themselves with haemoglobin otherwise??

If anybody can clarify what I was saying (because I ramble >.<) feel free to have a try :S

 
tetsabb
597577.  Sun Aug 09, 2009 6:33 am Reply with quote

As for getting this onto QI, I suppose it could start with Stephen Fry asking, "What would you have too much of if you suffered from polycythaemia?"
The following disussion could also bring in haemophilia....

Coo-ee elves!!!

 
Starfish13
598228.  Tue Aug 11, 2009 7:43 am Reply with quote

Gyndawyr wrote:
Im suggesting that because they take in more air per lungfill (as more haemoglobin is present in the same volume of blood in the lungs) they take in more oxygen as a result. More oxygen supplied to muscles = you win more races.


Your lungs have a fixed volume of approx 6 litres in an adult human. Of this approx 0.2litres is tidal volume (what you breathe in and out normally), and about 1.2litres is residual volume (which never empties out). To get more air into the lungs, the breathing rate increases rather than the size of the breath, as you find when you exert yourself.

Each haemoglobin complex can only pick up 4 molecules of O2 (IRRC) at a time, and more haemoglobin in the blood means more O2 can be carried to the cells for cell respiration. Which means that for sprint athletes, they are working areobically for longer before they become anaerobic.

In addition, cell respiration is not efficient. Inspired air is approximately 20%O, and expired air is 16%O (which is why CPR is effective*). This is the same for every breath, your body cannot use more that 4% of the O2 inhaled.

*CPR may be effective because we exhale enough O2 to sustain life, but that is not why it works. Lack of O2 is not the trigger to inhale, the build up of CO2 (hypercapnia) is. We exhale 4% CO2, and this triggers the unconscious casualty to take a breath.

 
eggshaped
602680.  Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:28 am Reply with quote

Quote:
As for getting this onto QI, I suppose it could start with Stephen Fry asking, "What would you have too much of if you suffered from polycythaemia?"


I should think "why is poo brown?" is likely to get the comedians going quicker than you can say "dumbing-down."

 
samivel
602683.  Sun Aug 23, 2009 8:33 am Reply with quote

Quote:
"why is poo brown?"


I blame Billy Rubin, the naughty scamp.

 

Page 1 of 2
Goto page 1, 2  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group