Talk:Breathing/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Thank you for clearing this up

Before now I had no idea how to breathe. Now my life is complete. --Squirminator2k 17:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Breathing is obviously for l00sers. --x1987x 21:48, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

unclear

"The buildup of carbon dioxide making the blood acidic is what makes one desperate for a breath rather than lack of oxygen. Hyperventilating causes an influx of oxygen that lowers blood acidity to trick the brain into thinking it has more oxygen."

This is unclear, and the cited source is long so I don't know what part it's referencing. The second sentince reads something like "Hyperventilating gives you oxygen, which tricks the brain into thinking it has more oxygen." Wha? --Szabo 22:36, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've just changed it. As per the 'hyperventilation' article, it is a *drop in CO2* that causes blood acidity to lower, therefore tricking the brain - not an increase in 02. 139.184.30.19 18:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Exhaled air merged into Breathing

I personally think that merging the page would be better for both articles because more people would visit breathing, than exhaled air. The same information could be included in the breathing article, making it easier to obtain knowledge for everyone. BlackBear 13:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

A disambiguation page is desperately needed for both "breath" and "exhale". I don't know how to though. So someone else should. YSHOULDUKNOW123 01:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Took a while, but they are there now, Breath (disambiguation), and Exhale (disambiguation). There's also Breathing, and Breathe. Tbone762 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Cultural significance

I think the cultural signifcance section is severely lacking. Dessydes 14:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Breathing is evil

Breathing is evil! Hitler breathed! JIP | Talk 13:02, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

That's right breathing causeing CO2 so to stop Global Warming .tm we should stop breathing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.253.64.213 (talk) 00:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Date?

When was it discovered that air was used to breathe? Surely it wasn't always known that oxygen was needed to sustain human life, such as in Biblical times and whatnot. Should this be in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.36.17.122 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

breathing

i was wondering why your breathing alters with exercice but here i doesnt tell you and also why people who smoke are more out of breath than people who dont it is no were to be found !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.105.3.233 (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Move?

I propose moving this page to Breathing and the dab page that's currently there to Breathing (disambiguation). Any objections? If not, I'll go ahead in a few days. delldot on a public computer talk 02:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no objections, so I think I'll go ahead. Let me know if there are any problems. delldot talk 18:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

move

i win i dont brathe at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.34.6.179 (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgetting to breathe

I think we should mention in the "Control of breathing" section under "Unconscious control" when one's unconscious breathing control fails and they temporarily forget to breathe.

I don't know about other people, but I often forget to breathe when I'm walking, and then I suddenly notice that I'm out of breath and so I start breathing again.

92.1.189.245 (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Exhaled Breath Temperature

There is new research on this subject and I have drafted a starting point for a possible section that should be for this area. I would like comments on this to help me publish it and would also like someone to look at including a portion of this inside breathing and any other existing topics where it would be appropriate to introduce this.

Please have a look at my talk page if you can help.

Many thanks.

Jonathan (Singapore) --Jgeach (talk) 10:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

ghBold text —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.240.243 (talk) 18:25, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Relationship to death

Changed brain/mind can continue to function for many minutes - not true - anaerobic respiration in the brain only lasts a few minutes due to the high glucose need and the inability to store large amounts of glucose. If aerobic respiration does not occur within roughly 3 minutes, the brain cell will start to die. Thus 'many minutes' is misleading.

- 134.148.5.104 (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)shagudiga 10.01 17 June 2009

Untitled

I would like to take out the word "waste" from the second paragraph of the article, I feel it gives the impression that cabon dioxide is generally a waste gas and should be removed from the body because it could be harmful, this can not be futher from the truth (Ref. The work of Dr. Buteyko and the Bohr effect both on wikipedia). Article paragraph: "Breathing is only part of the processes of delivering oxygen to where it is needed in the body and removing carbon dioxide waste. The process of gas exchange occurs in the alveoli by passive diffusion of gases between the alveolar gas and the blood passing by in the lung capillaries. Once in the blood the heart powers the flow of dissolved gases around the body in the circulation." Alexspence (talk) 14:20, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Also I would like to place the following quote here: "‘…Normalisation of breathing immediately triggers a healing process..." the quote is from the following Google knol: Excerpt from the Buteyko Triolgy Volume 1 Chapter 17: The First Handbook Alexspence (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

i think this article should discuss various ways it is possible to breathe such as through the nose, mouth, with the chest or stomach and the differences between them. for example my gym teacher recommended breathing through the nose and exhaling through the mouth during exercise. these types of things need to be covered by someone knowledgeable.

FIXED YAY!bo sh ka laka

I took out "Breathing is in most cases executed by one nostril at a time...." because, without further discussing nasal congestion and linking to the nasal congestion article, it really looks like vandalism, so I think it's better left out unless elaborated. It probably *was* vandalism.

Why did this get moved withOUT disambiguation? -- Zoe

What's to disambiguate? Nothing at all links here apart from Samuel Beckett. I put the page at Breath (play) originally because I assumed there was already an article here. Thinking about it now, I don't know how an article about a breath could be anything more than a definition and a pointer to another article. If you think it needs a note in case somebody doesn't know what a breath is, give it one. --Camembert

LOL. I would think that at some point, somebody would write an article about breath. :-) -- Zoe

I don't think it is possible to write an encyclopedia article about breath. Bad breath may be possible though. The play is fine to have here. --mav

an article about breath as a subject would be breathing or something like that. It would be wise to put a quick mention at the top of this one: "for yada yada yada see breathing. -- Tarquin

OK, I give. :-) -- Zoe yaya yue better

Don't cave so easily, Zoe--I'm with you. "Breath" should probably link to an article on Respiration; I don't know if that one exists either, but if I were writing an article on something else, say first aid, I might put brackets around "breath" in something like "absence of breath indicates...", and I would be very surprized if it linked to an article about a play. It's not necessary to disambiguate everything, especially where there's no existing article. But I think in a case like this where the one meaning there's an article about is clearly not the most central, obvious meaning, it makes sense to be more pre-emptive. --LDC

But then whatever "breath" redirects to needs a link to "breath (play)" in case people are looking for the play. We need a quick cross-link either way. Having a crosslink on "breath" to "respiration" saves us a page with a () name. -- Tarquin

I'd say clarity for users (and future editors) should trump ease of interlinking on the part of editors. What's the big deal about typing Breath (play)? I'd even favor Breath (Samuel Beckett play). --Larry Sanger

I didn't say breath should be just a redirect; I said it should point (i.e., contain a link) to respiration; it should also contain a link to Breath (play). The important thing is to make ad-hoc links do something sensible, and linking to a page with pointers to multiple senses is eminently more sensible than linking to a page with one sense that's clearly wrong. The way you have it now (with the pointer and the text describing the play) is probably fine too. --LDC

Blimey, not only is the article longer than the play, so is the talk page! I'm pretty ambivalent about what points to what, for the record, although I guess LDC's suggestion seems sensible even if there are no non-Beckett links here at the moment. Incidentally, I made the move mainly because it seemed odd and wrong to have an article at Breath (play) but none at Breath. --Camembert

A disambiguation block will work just fine here. There is no need to have the play at a parenthetical title just because there is a dictionary word "breath". We needn't make linking to this article more difficult than necessary. --mav

But we do things here for the convenience and ease of understanding on the part of users, not editors. --Larry Sanger

I thought the whole point was that there was no distinction between users and editors. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the whole project, was I supposed to start drawing a paycheck when I started contributing? Perhaps you'd care to tell why the page in its current state is not sufficiently clear to users? As for the idea that "Breath (Samuel Beckett play)" is the best title - maybe we should put the entire bloody article in the page title. --Camembert

All users can edit, and I hope all editors also use the Wikipedia from time to time. But given a choice, we should be seeking ease of use, not ease of editing. Does that make more sense?Vicki Rosenzweig

Yes, I see the point. To be honest, I was in a foul mood last night, and probably overdid it a bit up there, for which my apologies. As I said before, I don't much mind where this article ends up, though I see nothing wrong with where it is now. Though I should probably say - I'm going to write pieces on Beckett's other plays-with-real-word-titles Embers, Rockaby, Quad and Catastrophe - if anybody thinks they need parentheses, they should probably say something now to avoid all this discussion again ;) --Camembert

Moved from User talk:Larry Sanger:

Hey Larry, would it at all be possible to have an encyclopedia article on Conjecture (philosophy)? The reason I ask is becuase Conjecture was just move to Conjecture (mathematics) but Conjecture still redirects to it. --mav

I don't know--I'm not aware of any special sense in philosophy. It's just that the sense of "conjecture" in question is unique to mathematics, and (this is my opinion, feel free to disagree) given that, the article should live at conjecture (mathematics), since otherwise people will start giving us the dictionary definition of "conjecture," as if there were a significant topic titled "conjecture" outside of math. (I don't know, maybe there is.) --Larry Sanger

If there isn't any other encyclopedic topic named "conjecture" then the article on the math term should be simply at conjecture. Thanks for the info. --mav

I respect that view (and don't really care much one way or the other), but for the record, I disagree with it. For one thing, I don't think it follows from the premise that there's only one encyclopedia-worthy topic titled "conjecture" that that topic should live at conjecture without any clarifying parentheses. This is because "conjecture" has an ordinary English meaning that is far more commonly known than the mathematics meaning. Consequently, having the article at conjecture is apt to make editors want to add an ordinary dictionary definition, which is exactly what did happen, and to make users wonder why we're only talking about the mathematics usage if the article is titled "conjecture" ("What about the more usual sense?"). For purposes of clarity, nothing else, I'd file it under conjecture (mathematics). Now go and do whatever you want, and I won't stop you. --Larry Sanger

I made pretty much that same argument on Breath, which was an article about the Smuel Beckett play. Because there is an obvious central meaning to the word, I do think that some pre-emptive clarification is needed, even if there's currently no article with that central meaning (or even if there won't ever be). --LDC

Larry, I think you have said once that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. So just because there is a dictionary definition doesn't mean that we must pre-emptively disambiguate from that term. Now that is just silly. If the article on conjecture is at a parenthetical title then all conjecture would ever be is a redirect. That doesn't make sense. Another thing is that redirects are not obvious and having the article at a parenthetical title will mean that new contributors will be typing the unnecessary [[conjecture (mathematics)|conjecture]]. Furthermore, when people follow conjecture and end up at conjecture (mathematics) many will feel that conjecture should be a disambiguation page. However when there is nothing other than dictionary definitions besides the mathematics term, then what would be created would be an unnecessary and invalid disambiguation page. Isn't one of the founding principles of our naming conventions the preservation of free-linking where ambiguities do not exist (such as here)? --mav

<sarcasm>Hm. The term "Jesus Christ" has an alternate dictionary definition in slang usage that differs from the meaning in our article Jesus Christ. I propose we move the article on the person to Jesus Christ (person). That way nobody will be encouraged to place dictionary defintions in the first line of this article.</sarcasm> Again, I hate this type of pre-emptive disambiguation. This is an encyclopedia and in that content we only need concern ourselves with disambiguating encyclopedic terms.--mav

"That is just silly" and "That doesn't make sense" indicate that perhaps you didn't understand the merits of Lee and my argument in the first place; you didn't address its merits in any case. Not that you're obligated to, but it would be nice. As to "Furthermore, when people follow conjecture and end up at conjecture (mathematics) many will feel that conjecture should be a disambiguation page": why would they feel that way? And if you think that's a problem, why not simply delete conjecture completely and ask editors to type the extra keystrokes? Another point that you missed is that we are writing here for the convenience and clarity of users, not editors. Users who, by the way, perhaps don't know or care, as we do, that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a dictionary. (That was the main point, by the way.) As to your <sarcasm>, the slang usage is a lot less common and accorded much less importance by most people than the central meaning.

Could we take this off my user page (perhaps move it to yours)? --Larry Sanger

In a completely volunteer project which aims to write an entire encyclopedia it is not-reasonable to force contributors to hand-hold readers to such an extent by mandating that contributors have to type extra keystrokes for a term just to "disambiguate" from a dictionary definition. If we are to be slaves to readers then why don't we also use a hell of a lot of HTML, cgi and Flash in articles to make them look and work better for the readers too? That is a great way to loose contributors. Call me selfish, but I for one edit Wikipedia for the personal enjoyment I feel in creating something truly unique and very useful to both readers and contributors. A balance must be made between these two groups of people. But since Wikipedia is at best betaware and may be forever considered to be so by many, we should focus on erring on the side of contributors (a Nupedia distribution of Wikipedia could do the hand holding in the same way as many Linux distributions do). Also the arguement that newbies will insert purely dictionary definitions into article is rendered moot by the power of Recent Changes and revision histories (this has not been a problem but when I do see somebody insert such things I fix it accordingly -- others have done so as well). One great way to simplify matters for contributors is to have disambiguation only work to disambiguate encyclopedia terms.

Furthermore the number one naming convention around here is that contributors above all else copy the methods they see. If we start doing as you suggest and disambiguate terms from their purely dictionary meanings then we will have things like Jesus Christ (person). To you the slang dictionary definition is not nearly as used as the encyclopedic term but that is just your POV and some contributors won't see the "widest"-use distinction (in some circles the dictionary term is used daily whereas the encyclopedia term is only used on Sundays, if at all). We can continue this on my talk page, but I would rather drop the debate and simply agree that we disagree and then get back to work on creating the best encyclopedia for users and contributors on the planet. --mav 20:26 Sep 22, 2002 (UTC)

Just a point of information: the page Breath for the play has an early link to Respiration, which, while a stub, shows promising sings on development. -- Tarquin

We can agree to disagree about the importance of keystrokes vs. clarity for readers, then, Mav.

The only new argument I see here is that Lee's and my way of thinking would give us such silliness as Jesus Christ (person). But I don't see that at all: the primary meaning of "Jesus Christ" is the subject of the article, Jesus Christ, which is as it should be. Not so "breath" or a number of other common English words.

Understood properly, there are only a small number of articles where this rule would apply.

Yes, let's agree to disagree. And make sure that we do keep using some useful disambiguating words... --Larry Sanger

I'd just like to clarify that my concern here is indeed mostly for contributors, and in particular those who make ad-hoc links while writing other pages. It should be blindingly obvious that there is one, and only one, central, primary, and obvious meaning for "Jesus Christ", "Breath", and "Conjecture"; whether or not that central meaning has an article--or even should have an article--is secondary. Contributors to other articles ought to be able to simply put brackets around a word like that, comfortably assuming that the link will go somewhere sensible--that's my major concern here. If I put brackets around Breath, my first expectation would be that it went to an article on respiration; but I might be wrong (and in this case I would). My second choice would be that it went to an article that pointed to an article on respiration, and maybe had some other content. That's a reasonable second choice. The third, and to my mind clearly the worst, possibility, is that I get sent to an article about something totally unexpected without even a pointer to the normal usage. I'm not even too concerned about the "not a dictionary" mantra. To my mind, the most important thing is just this: ad-hoc links should go somewhere reasonable. That's all. --LDC

I just want to say that since all the above happened (months ago), I've softened, and wouldn't object to this being moved to Breath (play) (though I still don't think there's any particular reason to do so). --Camembert

How about; "Breath is the principle ingredient used in the breatharian diet (apart from chicken pies)" ;-) quercus robur 12:39 16 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Interwiqui ca:Respiració

In catalan is the same than spanish: repiració (in spanish repiración) for breathing and for Respiration (physiology).--Peer (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

finally!

found the % CO2 in exhaled air, after going through:

Carbon dioxide

Arterial blood gas

Pulmonology

Spirometry

Pulmonary function testing

Respiration (physiology)

Hypercapnia

Respiratory system

Exhalation

Cellular respiration

Cellular waste product

Cellular respiration

Respirometry

Basal metabolic rate

Harris-Benedict equation

Basal metabolic rate

Respiratory quotient

Respiratory exchange ratio

VO2 max

Respirometry

Carbon dioxide

Respiratory acidosis

Gas exchange

Capnograph

Capnography

Respiratory monitoring

Acute respiratory distress syndrome

and then I did a search for co2 in exhaled air....and landed here. I figured it could be found without google or searching, guess I was wrong... 84.197.184.6 (talk) 23:21, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Spacecraft atmosphere composition

I am almost certain that contemporary spacecraft (eg ISS, shuttle) do NOT have a 100% oxygen atmosphere as indicated in the article body. EMUs used during EVAs do, however. This is why astronauts must spend approx 2hrs depressurizing and prepping for EVAs to remove dissolved nitrogen from the craft's atmosphere.

I've corrected the statement.

Ref: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/eva/outside.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.214.141.25 (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it difficult to believe that astronauts breathe pure oxygen at any time. As a scuba diver, I'm aware of the effects of partial pressures of atmospheric gases. Granted, an astronaut works at far lower pressure than any scuba diver - still, that partial pressure of 100% is going to cause problems with is health. There may indeed be reasons to remove the nitrogen from a space walker's environment, but I'm certain that he's still not breathing 100% pure oxygen.

The person who made that claim should have citations available . . . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.57.121.212 (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Composition of breath

I once heard in a high school chemistry class that human breath usually composes of some percentage of water vapor and some percentage of carbon dioxide. If we can verify that, it would improve this article. We should also have citations for the "30,000 breaths per day" statement and other statistics currently found in the article. Maybe also have a section or mention of "bad breath"? --Mr. Billion 18:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Halitosis added to "See Also" section.--IanUK 08:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

This sounds like a good location for a discussion of what happens when a person starts inhaling a deleterious substance like tobacco smoke. I notice it's complete absence from the subject matter discussion.WFPM (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Who the hell gave those two 'rough' sets of numbers for the compositions of inhalation/exhalation? At least make them actually line up with each other. As it is now it seems as if the human body breathed out >4% more Argon than it takes in and also creates a miniscule amount of various gases that previously weren't in the air at all.

- 79.103.237.169 (talk) 21:28, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Bowbreaker

The effect of altitude on breathing

In the section entitled "Air pressure" the second paragraph reads:

When the atmospheric pressure is lower, the air pressure within the breathing system must be correspondingly lower in order for inhalation to occur i.e. lower than the atmospheric pressure. This means that in order to achieve inhalation, the air pressure within the breathing system must be lower at high altitudes than at low altitudes; this typically involves a relatively greater lowering of the thoracic diaphragm.

The implied physics of this statement is incorrect. The alveolar air is open (via the airways) to the atmosphere, with the result that alveolar air pressure is exactly the same as the ambient air pressure at sea level, at altitude, or in any artificial atmosphere (e.g. a diving bell) in which the individual is breathing freely. With expansion of the lungs, by lowering of the diaphragm, the alveolar air now occupies a larger volume, and the alveolar air pressure drops proportionately, causing air to flow in from the surroundings, through the airways, till the pressure in the alveoli is once again at the ambient air pressure. The reverse obviously happens during exhalation. This process is totally independent of the actual ambient air pressure, and is therefore the same at sea level, on top of Everest, or in a diving bell. There is therefore no "need" to lower the thoracic diaphragm to a greater extent at high altitude than at sea level, to achieve inhalation.

The confusion probably arises from the fact that at high altitudes the molar concentration of oxygen in the air is less than it is at sea level. Therefore, in order to breathe in the same amount of oxygen per minute, the person has to breathe in a proportionately greater volume of air per minute than at sea level. This is achieved by breathing deeper and faster (i.e. hyperventilation) than at sea level. The exact degree of hyperventilation is determined by the blood gas homeostat, which regulates the partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the arterial blood.

I will try to think of a way of editing the quote above so that it is makes physical sense. Though maybe it should simply be deleted. It cannot be left as it is. Cruithne9 (talk) 15:10, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Most of what I say about inhalation and exhalation above, is explained in the Mechanics section of the article. But somehow the corollary that the process of inhalation and exhalation is therefore unaffected by the ambient air pressure does not seem to be clear. What I therefore propose to do is replace the offending paragraph with a cut and paste copy of what I have said here (with some appropriate edits). Cruithne9 (talk) 15:23, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated my explanation. It is concise and makes sense. I appreciate your additions, Cruithne9, although I find them at times contradictory. You state that the air pressure in the alveoli matches the ambient air pressure and then say it is entirely independent of it. Perhaps this could be clarified?RickyBennison (talk) 23:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyBennison (talk • contribs) 22:56, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi RickyBennison. Thank you for your comments. I have carefully re-read my contribution and cannot find the contradiction that you refer to. The alveolar air pressure is the same as the ambient air pressure in exactly the same way as that the pressure inside an uncapped bottle is the same as the air pressure outside that bottle, regardless of altitude. There is open communication between the two. The same applies to the alveoli. I then say that the process of breathing (inhaling and exhaling) is exactly the same at any altitude - i.e. the process is independent of the ambient air pressure. But maybe I should re-word that since your comments suggest that that sentence can be misinterpreted.

The sentence you have added ("the air pressure within the breathing system must be correspondingly lower in order for inhalation to occur.....") is unfortunately incorrect. It is lower at high altitude entirely automatically, in the same way that the air pressure in an open bottle or any other unsealed container (e.g. a sauce pan, or kettle) automatically takes on the ambient air pressure when a climber ascends from sea level to the top of Mt Everest. There is no need to continually actively remove air from an open bottle or sauce pan while climbing to high altitude to compensate for the lowering of the ambient air pressure (provided that the opening is not sealed). Changing the analogy to a syringe (half-full of air) - while the nozzle remains open, the air pressure inside the syringe is the same as the ambient air pressure in the same way as the air in a sauce pan remains the same as the ambient air pressure while climbing mountains. If one wants to "suck" air into the syringe, the plunger is pulled out to increasing the volume inside the syringe, thus lowering its pressure. This will cause air to flow into the syringe through the nozzle. It will be no more difficult (or different) to do this at the top of Mt Everest compared with the same maneuver at sea level.

I have changed the sentence in the first paragraph that caused you confusion, but will, for the time being, leave your edit unchanged, as I do not want to embark on an editing war. I hope that I will have convinced you sufficiently that you will remove the incorrect sentence yourself. Cruithne9 (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A suggestion: if you were to change this sentence:

"When the atmospheric pressure is lower, the air pressure within the breathing system must be correspondingly lower in order for inhalation to occur i.e. lower than the atmospheric pressure. This means that in order to achieve inhalation, the air pressure within the breathing system must be lower at high altitudes than at low altitudes; this typically involves a relatively greater lowering of the thoracic diaphragm."

into:

"Low atmospheric pressures at altitude have another slightly less obvious effect, which affects breathing. We know that a doubling of the volume of the lungs halves the air pressure inside the lungs. This happens regardless of altitude. Thus, halving of the sea level air pressure (100 kPa) results in an intrapulmonary air pressure of 50 kPa. Doing the same at 5000 m, where the atmospheric pressure is only 50 kPa, halving it results in an intrapulmonary air pressure of 25 kPa. Therefore the same change in lung volume at sea level results in a 50 kPa difference in pressure between the ambient air and the intrapulmonary air, whereas it result in a difference of only 25 kPa at 5000 m. The driving pressure forcing air into the lungs during inhalation is therefore halved at this altitude. The rate of inflow of air into the lungs during inhalation at sea level is therefore twice that which occurs at 5000 m. Clearly this difference in the rate of flow in and out of the lungs during breathing will require a greater degree of hyperventilation at altitude than is required simply to compensate for the lower molar concentration of oxygen in the air at high altitude. "

You might be able to state this more succinctly. But it says what I think you mean it to say. If you do use this sentence to edit your original sentence, then it needs to be moved up into the position of third paragraph of the section. Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 09:32, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope I have not jumped the gun too soon, but having had no response to my suggestions and comments above, in 24 hours, and trying to make one sensible whole of this section, I have decided to rewrite (to a large extent) this section to make one thought follow logically on another. I hope it has worked. Cruithne9 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I have reinstated the explanation. It is core knowledge and needs to be present in an accessible way. Please do not censure it. I have expanded it in case it was considered too brief. I put these fundamentals (atmospheric pressure, pressure gradient etc.) as the first paragraph so a reader can progress from them to your more complex arguments if they like Cruithne9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RickyBennison (talk • contribs) 12:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ricky. Your comments about the application of Boyle's Law are spot on, and your subsequent arguments would apply 100% if you instantaneously took a person from sea level up to 1000 m (or any other arbitrary height above sea level). The pressure in the person's lungs would then indeed be higher than the ambient air pressure, and, if the person then wanted to inhale, they would quite rightly have to enlarge the chest cavity considerably more than usual to cause air to flow into the lungs. But once the person has exhaled, and relaxed, the pressure inside the alveoli is then exactly the same as it is outside the body. Any small increase in the size of the chest cavity will, at that stage, cause the intrapulmonary pressure to fall below the ambient air pressure and result in air flowing into the lungs - due to Boyle's Law, exactly the same as it did at sea level. The portion in italics is the physics that is missing from your argument.

I will leave your paragraph in place, as requested. But I am sure that any physicist who reads it in the future will delete it. Cruithne9 (talk) 13:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Breathing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151202054353/http://www.swimmingscience.net:80/2011/10/all-you-need-to-know-about-inspiratory-muscles-part-ii.html to http://www.swimmingscience.net/2011/10/all-you-need-to-know-about-inspiratory-muscles-part-ii.html checked|failed}}
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070705140127/http://www.dianahacker.com/pdfs/Hacker-Mart-CBE.pdf to http://www.dianahacker.com/pdfs/Hacker-Mart-CBE.pdf |checked|inappropriate

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Responded. Cruithne9 (talk) 07:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Breathing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120927045553/http://www.swimmingscience.net/2011/10/all-you-need-to-know-about-inspiratory.html to http://www.swimmingscience.net/2011/10/all-you-need-to-know-about-inspiratory.html
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.altitude.org/calculators/air_pressure.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Major physiological and anatomical problems

Hi Iztwoz. I am aware that you have received numerous awards for your contributions to the medical, physiological and anatomical article in Wikipedia. Congratulation on such an outstanding record. It therefore puzzles me that your recent editing of the Breathing and, to a lesser extent, the Respiratory system articles contain numerous inconsistencies, contradictions, and inaccuracies.

For instance you use four different (undefined) notations for “partial pressure of oxygen” in different parts of the two articles: PO2, $P O 2$ , PaO2, and ppO₂. The correct notation is $P O 2$ as indicated in <Scientific Tables (Seventh Edition), Edited by K. Diem and C Lentner. pp. 544-545. Published by Ciba-Geigy Ltd, Basle, Switzerland>. This is the notation used in the article on the Henderson-Hasselbalch equation and the article on Partial pressure, and probably elsewhere in Wikipedia where the authors have written chemistry and physics articles, making sure they use the internationally correct notation. If any of the other notation is used instead then the “2” should at least be a subscript “2”, But then PO₂ could easily be confused with a chemical formula of an oxide of phosphorus. PaO₂ is the most confusing of all the alternatives, even if it is explained that this refers to the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (or is it the partial pressure of oxygen in the alveoli?). That basically leaves a choice between $P O 2$ and ppO₂, although elsewhere in the article you define “pp” as “parts per …..” (as in parts per million). $P O 2$ is no more “complex” or confusing than any of the other notations, and has the advantage of being unambiguous. So I would use that throughout.

I will deal with other problems sentence by sentence more or less in the order of importance. The sentences in italics are quotes from the articles

The sentence that reads: Exercise also increases the breathing rate due to the extra demands for oxygen, makes no mention of how this is determined, thus reducing this to a teleological statement, with no scientific value. Everyone knows that your breathing rate increases during exercise; the physiological question is HOW does this come about?

The same mistake is made elsewhere in the article: The rate and depth of breathing is controlled by the respiratory centers, according to the changing needs of the body. How do the respiratory centers work out what the changing needs of the body are?

The sentence about the effect of exercise on the breathing rate is immediately followed, in the same line by: Information received from stretch receptors in the lungs limits the depth of inhalation and exhalation as if this is the physiological answer to the increased rate of breathing during exercise.

You state that Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst "abdominal breathing" shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. Firstly which are the “main muscles of respiration” apart from the diaphragm? But more seriously, the abdominal muscles CANNOT “increase the thoracic capacity”. During inhalation they ALWAYS relax, whether breathing at rest or during exercise. The sentence that follows on from there reads: However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. This is as confusing as it is incorrect. The correct sentence should read Diaphragmatic breathing is often termed “abdominal breathing” because the movement seen (on the outside) when the diaphragm contracts is a bulging of the abdomen; whereas when the diaphragm relaxes the stretched abdominal muscle squeeze the abdomen back to its resting position. This makes it appear as if the breathing is carried out by the abdomen.

Clavicular breathing is not a separate form of breathing as is implied by the first diagram and some comments further down the page. When the accessory muscles of inhalation contract many of them act via muscles attached to the clavicle which, when they contract, pull it upward, while others attached to it below transfer the tension to the chest, pulling the sternum upwards as described as the "pump handle movement" shown in Fig. 1. "Clavicular breathing" is therefore the equivalent of "abdominal breathing" but at the upper end of the rib cage. It is simply the the outward appearance of a much more general phenomenon that occurs internally and is in reality responsible for forceful inhalation.

The sentence Breathing is one of the few autonomic bodily functions that within limits, can also be controlled consciously. is incorrect as the autonomic nervous system is not involved in breathing. The word you are looking for is “automatic” or “reflex”. The motor nerves serving the muscles of inhalation and exhalation go to skeletal muscles (otherwise known as “voluntary muscles”!) The autonomic nervous system has a very specific anatomical and physiological meaning, serving smooth muscles, various parts of the heart, and various types of glands. The autonomic nervous system does not innervate skeletal muscles, and therefore none of the muscles of ventilation.

The sentence: At sea level, where the ambient pressure is about 100 kPa, oxygen contributes 21% of the atmosphere and the partial pressure of oxygen PO2 is 19.7 kPa. is self-contradictory. If the ambient pressure is 100 kPa and 21% of that air is oxygen then the partial pressure of oxygen in the ambient air is 21 kPa (i.e. 21% of 100 kPa).

Further down in the article you state that the PO2 at sea level is 21.0 kPa. which is correct, but contradicts your earlier claim that it is 19.7 kPa.

When describing the diving reflex, it is stated that The metabolic rate slows right down and has the effect of transferring oxygen from other parts of the body. Slowing the metabolic rate doers not TRANSFER oxygen from one part of the body to another. The redistribution of the circulation is effected by intense vasoconstriction to the limbs (skin and muscle), and the abdominal visceral organs, while dilating the arterioles to the heart and brain. The slowing of the metabolic rate is a CONSEQUENCE or RESULT of this redistribution of blood to only a small part of the body. It is NOT A CAUSE of the redirection of the available oxygen to “other parts of the body”.

…rise in the pH of the arterial plasma leading to respiratory alkalosis. Cause and effect have once again been switched in this sentence. The accumulation of CO₂ in the blood causes a “respiratory alkalosis” which in turn (if it is not compensated by the renal excretion of H⁺ ions in the urine) leads to a rise in the pH of the arterial plasma. Not the other way around.

With each breath only about 350 ml, less than 15% of the residual air is expelled. The term “residual air” has a very specific meaning in respiratory physiology. The word you are looking for is Functional residual capacity.

The partial pressures of the gases in the blood flowing through the alveolar capillaries equilibrate with the partial pressures of the gases in the FRC, ensuring that the partial pressures of carbon dioxide, and oxygen of the arterial blood, and therefore its pH, remain constant. How does the equilibration of the gases pulmonary capillary blood with those in the alveoli ENSURE that the partial pressures of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the arterial blood remain CONSTANT? The equilibration only ensures that the partial pressures of these gases are the same in the alveoli and arterial blood. Keeping them constant (unchanged) under a wide variety of circumstances requires fairly complex control mechanisms, which measure the gas pressures and institute corrective measure if they deviate from their “set points”.

increased pressure (of CO₂) is sensed by the peripheral chemoreceptors which stimulate the respiratory centers. They respond by stimulating motor neurons at the muscles of respiration increasing the rate and depth of the breathing rate, and thereby increasing the supply of oxygen. This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. Firstly the partial pressure of CO₂ is measured primarily by the CENTRAL blood gas chemoreceptors on the surface of the brain stem. The peripheral blood gas chemoreceptors are more sensitive to the partial pressure of oxygen than they are to that of carbon dioxide. But more seriously, what does the sentence This keeps the partial pressures of carbon dioxide and oxygen in equilibrium. mean? and how is this achieved?

Some minor points:

Muscles of forceful inspiration are the: scalenes, the sternocleidomastoid, the serratus anterior and posterior, pectoralis major and minor, the levatores costarum, and the quadratus lumborum. The serratus anterior and serratus posterior are not accessory muscles of inhalation as their fibres run along the ribs (i.e parallel to them), and therefore do not help to lift them.

Similarly, the latissimi dorsi are not accessory muscles of exhalation, as stated in the sentence: Muscles of forceful expiration are the transverse thoracic muscles, the rectus abdominis, the abdominal external oblique, and the internal oblique muscles, the latissimi dorsi, and the serratus posterior inferior muscles.

In the sentence that reads anatomical features of the respiratory system include the trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, lungs, and diaphragm, the word features should be replaced with organs. Organs have “features” such as lobes, indentations, ligament attachments etc. But “features” do not have organs. The words are not synonyms. Furthermore the list of organs is strangely incomplete. Should “alveoli” not be included? and if the diaphragm is listed, then mention should also be made of the other muscles of ventilation.

In the Respiratory system article, the statement that The right side of Fig. 2 shows that during exhalation, at rest is incorrect. In fact it shows FORCED EXHALATION.

The statement in the Respiratory system article, that the so-called pump handle and bucket handle movements of the ribs as shown in Fig. 2. is also incorrect. I think you mean Fig. 1; and that figure only shows the operation of the “pump handle movement”.

There are still a number of items in both articles that need correction or re-wording, but they are of relatively minor importance, and can easily be dealt with when the other problems are sorted out.

Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 13:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cruithne9 A quick response to your last comment before I have time to respond to the rest - you say there are still a number of items that need work....the Whole page still needs a lot of work in order to make it readable. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. as does the respiratory system page and the lung page.......You seem to ignore the norm that sections have hat notes that refer an interested reader to look further if wanted. All you have done is duplicate whole sections on to a lot of pages. And a lot of these do contain OR and uncited material. The edits i have made are individual and can easily be changed by another editor if errors have been made or a case can be made for their reversal. best--Iztwoz (talk) 18:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

The info i gave on the muscles of respiration is cited - I can only use what is cited so if it's wrong - change it and provide other refs - the swimming ref used before seemed to have a different slant on those muscles used in certain styles of swimming. The use of symbols for the page is unnecessary imo - there is a page entry for PCO2 in which case i see no need not to refer to that usage. i am just a general reader - and pages should be readable by a general reader. I am not going to go through and respond to all the points you have raised - if you want to make a change do so. Best--Iztwoz (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Have just restored content that you removed saying you were addressing anomalies raised here - your main aim was to add yet more of your own work. If you want to remove material do so honestly. --Iztwoz (talk) 22:16, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz. I do not understand why you regard my edit "dishonest". The list of mistakes listed above is very extensive, and, as mentioned, is only a partial list.

Hi Cruithne9 - the summary was dishonest in which you said you removed anomalies - in fact you removed a lot of material that if not actually referenced was clearly easily citable. And you just instead inserted yet more of your material. --Iztwoz (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

For instance, the introductory figure in the top right hand corner of the article supposedly illustrates Clavicular breathing a type of breathing in humans involving the raising of the clavicles. Firstly the clavicles are not even shown in the diagram, nor is there any explanation anywhere what "clavicular breathing is, or how it comes about, or when it used. And it is certainly not the main type of breathing in humans and therefore does not deserve such a prominent place in the article. In my revision I tried to include "clavicular breathing", with an explanation of its place in breathing. So the figure needs to be removed, and if it is to be retained it needs to be redrawn (at the very least) and placed at the very bottom of the section on the Mechanics of breathing. I defy anyone ("general reader" or "respiratory physiologist" or other scientist) to see any meaning or contribution the figure makes to the subject of "Breathing".

Figure 1 is a physiological and anatomical impossibility. No one ever breathes or can possibly breath like that! The movement illustrated only occurs when someone is "pulling their belly in, and pushing their chest out" for a more flattering pose for a few seconds while a photograph is being taken. The person has to hold their breath for those few moments. So the picture is complete nonsense, in every sense. It too needs to be deleted from the article.

Figure 4 does not illustrate "abdominal breathing". It is a drawing of a person in pain, with a severe stomach ache or cramp. And if that is the case, they would be reducing "abdominal breathing" to the very minimum. Therefore the last thing the illustration shows is a form of breathing, abdominal or other wise.

The text opposite Fig. 4 (see preceding note), which mentions what abdominal breathing, reads: Diaphragmatic breathing involves the use of the main muscles of respiration whilst abdominal breathing shown in Fig.3 involves the use of the abdominal muscles to increase the thoracic capacity. However, both of theses terms are often used interchangeably as diaphragmatic breathing also involves the abdominal muscles, and abdominal breathing also involves the diaphragm. I have explained before that this is complete nonsense. It is both anatomically and physiologically incorrect.

Your most recent "simplification" of the caption to Figure 4 (Some water vapour is lost from the surface of the alveoli and this can be seen condensing when breathed out on a cold day.) also borders on vandalism. The water vapor that condenses as mist when breathing out through the mouth on a cold day comes from the nose and pharynx while the air is breathed in. The alveoli do not add any water vapor to the air that enters them. That air is already saturated with water vapor from the upper airways and cannot have water added to it. So the caption I wrote for that figure needs to be restored for the illustration to tell the truth.

The list of the accessory muscles of respiration, although you back it up with a reference that actually exists, is confusing and of no use to the "general reader". It does not help this "general reader" to understand "breathing" at all. These names are meaningless even to a practicing medical professional, even though they might vaguely remember having heard of them during the early years of their studies. There is also no attempt to arrange them in any sort of order of importance. It is a useless pair of paragraphs if the major purpose of Wikipedia is to help the "general reader". No sensible reader is going to use the hyperlinks to these muscles - there is no inducement to do so, nor will looking them up in the appropriate articles contribute to the understanding of why and how these muscles are involved in breathing.

What does the opening sentence in the "Mechanics" section The primary and accessory muscles of respiration are classified differently across species mean? It is out of place, and is not followed up in any sort of way, or contribute to the understanding of "Breathing". This is a typical example of a "copy and paste" exercise from an arbitrary text without asking the question why it should be included it in the Breathing article, without any further elaboration.

Almost none of your edits are referenced. And the one or two that are there, refer to pointless and inappropriate comments (see preceding 2 notes). The references that occur in the article are left-overs from edits made by previous editors. According to your own edicts you therefore have no right to meddle with these articles.

This is a formidable list of problems you have created. To rescue all these mistakes this cannot be done by changing a word here and there. Together these myriads of mistakes make the entire article a travesty of the physiological and scientific truth about breathing as it is generally understood. Your edits make it clear that you have very little or no understanding of physiology.

To make the article physiologically credible, with sentences and ideas following logically one after the other, with helpful diagrams where necessary, large section need to be completely re-written. Doing so is a "physiological necessity" and "scientific honesty". If you would like to be an honest editor, you should reverse you latest edits, and restore what I wrote yesterday.

Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz. I reproduce your response to my comments here, so that my answer below will make sense:

Hi Cruithne9 - the summary was dishonest in which you said you removed anomalies - in fact you removed a lot of material that if not actually referenced was clearly easily citable. And you just instead inserted yet more of your material. --Iztwoz (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

So you don't accept my edits because you do not agree with the "summary" on the history page, rather than a disagreement about the correctness about the factual content of my edits. In fact I went to some effort to retain as many of the topics you had introduced into the section of "Mechanics" (e.g. "clavicular breathing", "abdominal breathing" and the role of "abdominal muscles" etc.). However in order to convert them into a form that made sense and were correct, the section had to be drastically rearranged. Only the remarks and figures that were patently false (see list above) were removed, as they were irredeemable.

This article is not your personal fiefdom, and anyone can introduce improvements. Hence I make no apologies for introducing the diagrams which I think make some of the concepts easier to understand. You have no right to delete those edits unless they are demonstrably vandalism. I have referenced everything I wrote. Your comment that you are exempt from providing references because your statements are "easily citable", leaves me flabbergasted! This is inexcusably arrogance, especially since none of the items listed above as being erroneous can be backed up by any reputable reliable sources.

I am sure a lot of High Schools and First Year University courses would like to add to their collection of "School-boy howlers" by quoting the list of your mistakes itemized above.

Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 15:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz. Since you persist in vandalizing this article I am reversing your reversal of my edits, and will reverse any others of yours unless they reflect standard physiology that is backed up by references to reputable reliable sources. Cruithne9 (talk) 00:04, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Cruithne9 your persistence in pushing your own views and material is noted. I have restored the edits you removed en masse. These were not discussed on this page as I just stated that I was not going to respond to your individual points - I did to some (validly) and I moved the file down that was one of your objections - simply because a more appropriate one had been added. You seem to be acting as though you own the page. Your listed grievances were uncalled for some of these edits referred to had nothing to do with me. Also this kind of procedure is akin to that of a Good article discussion. Any editor can come along and rm wrong information, make good information etc. and remove OR, that does not warrant the mass removal of edits made, or the kind of lengthy discussion tried to be initiated; These edits were edits in good faith - not vandalism as you assert. Were you not capable of righting any edits yourself? The page is about breathing which needs to be the focus not overlain by the mechanics of breathing. Also your diagrams that you keep pushing are to me simplistic in the extreme and add nothing helpful to the page. By the way I haven't even read the rest of your diatribe above. ( I would just say that in ref to uncited material - if anything is obvious a cn tag is normally added and if links to other pages are included this should indicate their validity). I really would prefer you not to refer to my edits as vandalism - I repeat they are made in good faith. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Iztwoz. Your comment that I keep pushing my own views can equally well be said of you. You have no concept of how erroneous your Figure 3 is. In fact you should try to breath like that yourself (pull your belly in, while expanding your chest - you can only do that by holding your breath in). If you call my diagrams "simplistic", then what would you call yours? They contain no useful information about breathing or how it occurs. Only fig. 1 is vaguely useful as it shows the action of the diaphragm, but contains no information about what happens to the squashed organs below the diaphragm. Figure 2 which supposed shows "abdominal breathing" is, if that is the case, the CONSEQUENCE of what is illustrated in Fig 1, and NOT a separate form of breathing. If you read the text that accompanies the diagrams I replace your Figs 1-4 with you'll see that there is no new information - just reworded information, with the removal of the unphysiological and unscientific material.

I will have to keep calling your edits (although you claim that not all of the items mentioned above were your work) vandalism, though possibly "in good faith". I will correct as many of them as I can, whether they are yours or not. The list is very long. Cruithne9 (talk) 09:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Gas exchange

Hi Ex nihli. Thank you for your rationalization of the "Gas exchange" section of this article, which I think was very helpful. However, since you were working from an edited summary of an edited summary, an unfortunate misunderstanding was introduced into the section. Each breath-intake of air (of about 500 ml, of which 150 ml remains in the airways) only brings only about 350 ml fresh air into the alveoli (which already contain 3000 ml of FRC air). This fresh air is very thoroughly mixed with the FRC. The constancy of the composition of gases in the FRC is therefore not dependent on the inhaled air not reaching the alveoli, as your edit suggests. I have tried to rectify the misunderstanding, which is fully explained in the Gas exchange article, without adding too many extra words to your excellent edit. Have a look at it. If you think it still contains too many repetitions, please suggest alternatives. Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Cruithne9. That's fine. Leave as is. As it was originally I could make no sense of the section at all and could only assume that other readers would have the same experience. The page on respiration did mention that a major gas exchange was across the gas-to-gas interface at the alveoli because the air in there gets trapped. Now I believe that what the section is trying to say is that PPs are buffered by the small percentage change of air turned over per breath. This may be the case at rest but when exercising heavily the air turnover in the lungs is very large, the PP gradients at the alveoli are steep and the trapping of air in the alveoli protects the lung tissue and also buffers the PPs. I am no expert on breathing although I help run a hyperbaric chamber and do tech diving. My primary interest here was to try to simplify, clarify and economize on words. I may look at this another day but will leave it to settle for a while. E x nihil ^(talk) 23:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Irregular use of symbols

The use of symbols in the prose is unnecessary and not the norm as demonstrated by other pages, Oxygen saturation (medicine), Vapour pressure, Oxygen toxicity, Blood gas tension, Oxygen therapy, Arterial blood gas, Pulmonary gas pressures, PCO2, Pressure, Alveolar gas exchange, Pressure, Oxygen#Partial pressure, Effects of high altitude on humans. This change was introduced to the page last year when further unnecessary complication was introduced. This was recently changed and then re-introduced by the same editor. There really is no justification for this deviation from the norm. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Continued vandalism

Hi Iztwoz I am going along with your suggestions that instead of using symbols, concepts such as "partial pressure of..." should be spelt out in full. I don't think that makes physiological articles any easier to read, especially in paragraphs or sections that contains multiple references to the concept. But writing "partial pressure of....", although excessively wordy, is not incorrect so I will not argue further about its use.

But you continue to edit physiological and anatomical articles when you clearly have no grounding at all in either subject. I even doubt whether you have had any scientific eductaion at all. You prove that over and over again. For instance you wrote that the "nostrils" warm the inhaled air, and saturate it with water vapor. That is a physical impossibility. I have changed that to what real happens when air is breathed in through the nose, and I hope you can see and understand your mistake. (Previously you claimed that all warming and moistening of the air occurred in the alveoli!) I did not flag either of those remarks as "vandalism" although I should have. These edit were complete nonsense, as was most of what followed.

And now you have just reversed my edit under the Heading "Control", and re-inserted the sentence "This monitoring sends nerve impulses to the diaphragm and intercostal muscles". It follows the sentence explaining what the blood gas chemoreceptors do. The sentence therefore suggests that nerve impulses go straight from the blood gas sensors to the diaphragm and intercostal muscles. This is incorrect on several levels. If your send nerve impulses to a muscle it contracts and stays contracted. So the sentence, as it stands, means that everyone would be in a permanently frozen state of deep terminal inhalation. In fact the motor nerves going to the muscles of breathing conduct nerve impulses intermittently, and the frequency of the impulses, when they are there, varies enormously. Furthermore the anatomical origin of the nerves going to the respiratory muscles are situated in the spinal cord. The physiological connection between the blood gas sensors and these nerves is therefore highly complex. The blood gas receptors communicate, in the first place, with the respiratory centers (of which there are several). That is where their afferent nerves end. Precisely what happens in the respiratory centers is unknown, except that the final output from the respiratory centers is conducted down the spinal cord to the origins of the motor nerves that go to the respiratory muscles which are stimulated to contract and relax in a rhythmic fashion (in response to the pattern of the impulses arriving at their neuro-muscular junctions). The rhythm is created in the respiratory center, as is the frequency of the rhythm, and how far the muscles must contract before they start to relax again, and for how long. Finally the sentence is unnecessary and out of place. What follows more than adequately describes and explains how the homeostat works.

I hope you now realize that the sentence "This monitoring sends nerve impulses to the diaphragm and intercostal muscles", creates a completely wrong impression, (in fact it makes no sense at all) and makes the article sound very puerile and amateurish, not even worthy of inclusion in a manual on first aid. I am therefore reversing your latest edit on the grounds of "vandalism".

Please desist from expressing opinions on subjects no have no knowledge about. Cruithne9 (talk) 11:46, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps i will when the pages read more like wikipedia articles and not like some sixth former on a trip (of some kind). --Iztwoz (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC) And if i'm getting things wrong it would be due to things being unreadable, and so any other reader would be getting these things wrong. I note that you give no credit for all the very many other edits made. All the best--Iztwoz (talk) 12:31, 7 July 2017 (UTC)