Country Living
Country Living, Country Skills
Country People

KountryLife.com - A Country Living Resource and Community
Community
Message Board
Country Topics
Trading Post
Memory Lane
Country Skills
Country Cooking

Channels
Gardening
Livestock
The Kitchen
Machinery
Tools

Photographs
Photo Gallery
Vintage Photos
Special Collections

Fun
Country Humor
Country Sounds
Coloring Book
Interactive Story

Farm Tractors
Pictures
Tractor Parts
Tractor Manuals

Miscellaneous
Classic Trucks
Antique Tractors
Modern Tractors
Site Map
Links Page
Contact Us

  
Country Discussion Topics
To add your comments to this topic, click on one of the 'Reply' links below.

Why can't they flush out lungs?
[Return to Topics]

Spence    Posted 07-17-2003 at 12:55:57       [Reply]  [No Email]
Seriously.

For heavy smockers suffering from emphazema
this could be a fix.

The heart can be stopped right? So from the 20 or 30 or so minutes when everything comes to a screeching halt, why can't they fill the guy's lungs with an organic solvent, let it soak for
5 minutes. Turn the guy upside down, drain the stuff out and refill with good clean medicinal water, flush again (sounds like a recipe!).

The lungs can take it evidence rescusination of drowning victims. The tar in the lungs is solible, sort of like a creosote. There would be a risk in having too much pressure on the emphazeme cells because they are delicate, so experimentation would have to determine the right dosage of solvent and time span.

The flush would clean out the lungs plus kill off any tubercul bacteria or pneumonia viruses in the meantime.

I'm no expert, but am I off base with this?



Ludwig    Posted 07-18-2003 at 05:59:21       [Reply]  [No Email]
The only problem I have with the idea is that its sort of a get out of jail free card. Meaning that you can have years of doing whatever you want and then when you get sick just go to the doctor and they fix it for you. Sort of like one of the arguments about abortion...

I think people need to realize that smoking is a killer. If you smoke you will die and it'll be a horrible coughing spitting nasty kind of death.

Oh as a side note. Have you ever been around someone who's given up smoking when the tar starts coming up? Most of the times its just little black specs but my mother brought up some amazing hunks of nasty. She quit 10 years ago and MY health improved. I wish Dad could quit...


Spence    Posted 07-18-2003 at 08:05:44       [Reply]  [No Email]
My mom died of emphazema. She quit 20 years before and she died at 71. So the fifties seem to be accurate to quit as another poster says.



Ron/PA    Posted 07-18-2003 at 06:49:54       [Reply]  [No Email]
Geeze Ludwig, I'm sure I'm reading this wrong, but it sounds like you are saying that if you are a smoker and quit, that it just isn't fair, that a smoker absolutely is required to die a horrible death, and then you say " that when you get sick you go to a doctor and they fix it for you"
Isn't that what Doctors are supposed to do?
Please don't ever become a doctor
Later
Ron


MikeC    Posted 07-18-2003 at 04:44:04       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Sure the heart can be stopped and blood can still be pumped. However, ALL oxygen transfer takes place via the lungs. Even assisted breathing forces a tube into the lungs. I don't think that there is a medical way to transfer the oxygen to the blood without using the lungs that is safe. So...fill the lungs with solvent and kill the patient.

The best way to prevent lung disease is to not smoke in the first place. A LOT cheaper too!


Spence    Posted 07-18-2003 at 08:19:32       [Reply]  [No Email]
If the heart is stopped by cooling are you telling me the lungs are still working?

How does oxygen transfer occur when there is no circulation? Cells in proximity to the lungs would pick up the oxygen, but couldn't go anywhere since the heart is not pumping. Seems like an opportune time to work on lung damage.
Sorta like working on the carb when the engine
is dismantled! (ha)

I know zilch about medical stuff, just wondering.


Robert in W. Mi    Posted 07-17-2003 at 19:14:54       [Reply]  [No Email]
Actually they can,

The problem is, the dead lung cells come up with everything else!!! They kinda vacuume it out.

BTW, oxy will NOT explode like some think! You have to add something to it for it to burn, and if that happens then the oxy makes the fire hotter. (like acetelene) sp?

Robert


OOOOH! .....HEY! Sign me    Posted 07-17-2003 at 17:40:11       [Reply]  [Send Email]
NOT!

cowgirlj


Jimbob    Posted 07-17-2003 at 15:14:25       [Reply]  [No Email]
I viewed rats breathing a liquid solution that provided oxygen. They were living on it- too wierd.
Someday it may be possible to rinse the lungs, however the damage is already done (can't flush that). The healthy, somewhat younger body can heal old tabbaco trashed lungs within 5-6 years to the point it is impossible to tell if that person ever smoked. The key here is to quit smoking before the body loses the ability to heal those damaged lungs. About the average is to quit by 50 to 55 years of age. After that, for the most part, the damage is irreversible.


Paula    Posted 07-17-2003 at 13:16:08       [Reply]  [Send Email]
Off the top of my head:

1. Organic solvents dissolve organic material - like
lungs.

2. I think the alveoli undergo phsyiological changes on
a cellular basis as a result of exposure to those
carcinogens so its not simply a matter of removing the
soot.

3. Organic solvents themselves are carcinogens.



Spence    Posted 07-18-2003 at 08:11:57       [Reply]  [No Email]
"I think the alveoli undergo phsyiological changes on a cellular basis as a result of exposure to those carcinogens so its not simply a matter of removing the soot."

Yeah, I see your point but wouldn't it give the
lungs a better chance anyway not having all that junk in there. Coughing would lessen because the body wouldn't be expending energy in trying to expel what it can't get rid of, and viruses/bact would see a cleaner environment.?

I don't have any medical background, but was just wondering.


Paula    Posted 07-18-2003 at 10:29:54       [Reply]  [Send Email]
I'm sure physically less crap in the lungs would make
air exchange better but it won't undo the cancer. So
you'd have to find a substance that eats up soot and tar
but doesnt eat up lung tissue - deliver it to the lungs
and them be able to remove it without damaging the
tiny, fragile alveoli.

Like another poster said, its easier just to not smoke.
Barring that it would be easier just to get a lung
transplant.


Jim(MO)    Posted 07-17-2003 at 13:04:41       [Reply]  [No Email]
Dunno if you're offbase or not but that would be great. Been watching my MIL go down hill for about 5 years now. Went from bein a very active person to total dependence on that oxygen machine. Can't even bathe or dress herself now. She's 76 and still smokes about a carton a week. Very sad state of affairs, both the emphazema and the fact she was never able to quit smoking, never tried. Just says she can't. Gonna blow herself up someday.


[Return to Topics]



[Home] [Search]

Copyright © 1999-2013 KountryLife.com
All Rights Reserved
A Country Living Resource and Community