3 ms·

> jigging with the bacteria's Na+K+-ATPase pump I was kind of hoping you'd have come back to contest, because the inhalation of sodium is a topical application

> jigging with the bacteria's Na+K+-ATPase pump I was kind of hoping you'd have come back to contest, because the inhalation of sodium is a topical application to recruit T Helper 17 cells to a site, even though that topical application happens to be the lungs. Ironically those people inhaling salt would probably be better off inhaling sodium bicarbonate because the bicarbonate will invariably through some localised chemical changes increase co2, and when co2 levels get to 1000-5000ppm in the lungs, the recruitment of immune cells increase.

robbiep 4y ago
I’m sorry, but I’m having a lot of trouble following your tangential and, from my position, erratic, line of thought. You started off with the minute quantity of formaldehyde being the reason the combustion product of tobacco, which contains dozens to hundreds of known carcinogens, causes lung cancer. It is barely even associated with fucking cancer in alcoholics, who exist with significantly higher levels. And since it’s distributed in body water instantaneously, you can’t claim local effect. Then you’ve gone onto NAC and sodium and creatinine. What is the point you’re trying to put across? Because it’s scatterbrained, point and shoot, seems to have little in the way of actual scientific literacy beyond that picked up through the deep search of narrow knowledge and the subsequent cross linking, I believe somewhat erroneously at times, from the spars you have thrown between where we started to NAC, sodium and somehow co2 reaching 5000ppm. Let’s just focus on that last part for a second. Clearly you have not studied respiratory physiology in any way, shape or form. In a functioning human who is not in respiratory arrest, it is NOT POSSIBLE to have alveolar (or frankly anywhere else in the lungs) concentrations of CO2 of 500-1000. It would mean a significant respiratory acidosis and death, because the efficiency of gas exchange is such that the alveolar concentration MUST reflect the venous gas level. On reflection, you really haven’t given anything to provide anything to discuss against besides a wildly moving target of quasi linked subjects that seem to be the subject of your fascination, an impression that this is a hobby interest rather than a lifelong learning. If I have misjudged, I hope you will provide a more coherent explanation of why I have and how the disparate subject areas you have discussed are linked

robbiep 4y ago

I’m sorry, but I’m having a lot of trouble following your tangential and, from my position, erratic, line of thought. You started off with the minute quantity of formaldehyde being the reason the combustion product of tobacco, which contains dozens to hundreds of known carcinogens, causes lung cancer. It is barely even associated with fucking cancer in alcoholics, who exist with significantly higher levels. And since it’s distributed in body water instantaneously, you can’t claim local effect. Then you’ve gone onto NAC and sodium and creatinine. What is the point you’re trying to put across? Because it’s scatterbrained, point and shoot, seems to have little in the way of actual scientific literacy beyond that picked up through the deep search of narrow knowledge and the subsequent cross linking, I believe somewhat erroneously at times, from the spars you have thrown between where we started to NAC, sodium and somehow co2 reaching 5000ppm. Let’s just focus on that last part for a second. Clearly you have not studied respiratory physiology in any way, shape or form. In a functioning human who is not in respiratory arrest, it is NOT POSSIBLE to have alveolar (or frankly anywhere else in the lungs) concentrations of CO2 of 500-1000. It would mean a significant respiratory acidosis and death, because the efficiency of gas exchange is such that the alveolar concentration MUST reflect the venous gas level. On reflection, you really haven’t given anything to provide anything to discuss against besides a wildly moving target of quasi linked subjects that seem to be the subject of your fascination, an impression that this is a hobby interest rather than a lifelong learning. If I have misjudged, I hope you will provide a more coherent explanation of why I have and how the disparate subject areas you have discussed are linked