Lung Washing (lavage)

[Enola_Straight]

Could the breathable liquid in the movie The Abyss be used to wash out the lungs of smokers, coal miners with Black Lung, and other sufferers with foreign matter in their airways?

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

Maybe, but I doubt it.

Most inhalant particles that do not get coughed out of the lungs quickly embed themselves within the lining of the lbronchioles, tied down by thick mucous and coated with fibroblasts and other cells which form in reaction to inflammation.

Simple washing is not going to remove these particles in that situation.

Perhaps a person in a high risk environment would be willing to subject himself to once or twice a day washings to attempt to prevent the permanent deposition. But I’m unaware of studies which have looked at this.

[Moirai]

And, of course, that was a movie and can’t happen in real life.

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@EJsGirl

And, of course, that was a movie and can’t happen in real life.

Actually, such a fluid does exist, and has been used on humans.

[Testy]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Actually, such a fluid does exist, and has been used on humans.

QtM
Good grief! I’ve seen the pics of the mouse in the beaker breathing oxygenated fluorocarbons but had no idea anyone had tried this with humans. How did they shift the guy onto and off of this? Did they sedate the guy? The switch seems an awful lot like drowning. And how did they get the fluid back out of his lungs, hang him upside down?

Regards

Testy

[Moirai]

@Qadgop the Mercotan

Actually, such a fluid does exist, and has been used on humans.

How? Our lungs are designed to process oxygyn out of air, not liquid. That tired line in the movie about how “You breathed water for nine months, your body will remember” is BS, isn’t it? Babies don’t breath placental fluids, do they?

[Sage_Rat]

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfishbreath.html

Liquid breathing

[Qadgop_the_Mercotan]

@Sage Rat

Liquid breathing - Wikipedia

From the above link:

Medical treatment
The first medical use of liquid breathing was treatment of premature babies and adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in the 1990s. Liquid breathing was used in clinical trials after the development by Alliance Pharmaceuticals of the fluorochemical perfluorooctyl bromide, or perflubron for short. Useful as an emulsified blood substitute and for liquid ventilation, perflubron is poured directly into the lungs of patients with acute respiratory failure (caused by infection, severe burns, inhalation of toxic substances, and premature birth), whose air sacs have collapsed. Once inside the lungs, perflubron enables collapsed alveoli (air sacs) to open and permits a more efficient transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide.

Clinical trials with premature infants, children and adults were conducted. Since the safety of the procedure and the effectiveness were apparent from an early stage, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) gave the product “fast track” status (meaning an accelerated review of the product, designed to get it to the public as quickly as is safely possible) due to its life-saving potential. Clinical trials showed that using perflubron with ordinary ventilators improved outcomes as much as using high frequency oscillating ventilation (HFOV). But because perflubron was not better than HFOV, the FDA did not approve perflubron, and Alliance is no longer pursuing the partial liquid ventilation application. Whether perflubron would improve outcomes when used with HFOV remains an open question.

[Moirai]

Well holy cow. Ignorance fought.

[Mangetout]

Apparently, the scene with the submerged rodent in the movie was for real - the scenes with the actor weren’t though.

[Blake]

@EJsGirl

How? Our lungs are designed to process oxygyn out of air, not liquid.

Our lungs are designed to process oxygen out of fluid. Whether that fluid is liquid or gas isn’t important, what is important is how viscous it is and how much oxygen it carries. Too viscous and the lungs can’t move the stuff. Too little oxygen and you use more energy moving the stuff than you can get back. The perfluorcarbons are relatively htin liquiuds with an exceptionally large oxygen capacity so they manage to work on both levels.

Babies don’t breath placental fluids, do they?

No they don’t, though they do inhale it.

@Mangetout

Apparently, the scene with the submerged rodent in the movie was for real - the scenes with the actor weren’t though.

IIRC the mouse scenes weren’t real either. They tried, but they couldn’t stop the mouse shitting in the beaker and it was visibly distressed so they had to fake it for aesthetic reasons and to get animal ethics clearance.

[Mangetout]

@Blake

IIRC the mouse scenes weren’t real either. They tried, but they couldn’t stop the mouse shitting in the beaker and it was visibly distressed so they had to fake it for aesthetic reasons and to get animal ethics clearance.

According to James Cameron in this interview, they were real.

What you see is a rat breathing a liquid. There are no tricks, no special effects of any kind. The only thing we did to fudge it was to put a little pink dye in the stuff so it wouldn’t just look like water.

[chorpler]

@Blake

IIRC the mouse scenes weren’t real either. They tried, but they couldn’t stop the mouse shitting in the beaker and it was visibly distressed so they had to fake it for aesthetic reasons and to get animal ethics clearance.

Last time it was brought up on the boards, somebody said they just waited until it didn’t have any more poop left in it and got the shot then.

[KGS]

@Blake

IIRC the mouse scenes weren’t real either. They tried, but they couldn’t stop the mouse shitting in the beaker and it was visibly distressed so they had to fake it for aesthetic reasons and to get animal ethics clearance.

The rodent was real, and as a result, the movie received an “Unacceptable” rating from the American Humane Society:

@AHS

Although the rat survived and is kept as a pet by the director, we do not feel it was necessary to subject the rat to this experiment for the purpose of filming the scene.

Before The Abyss began filming, American Humane sent two letters to the producers asking if they would be using animals. When there was no response to either letter, we phoned the producer’s office and were told there were no animals in the film. Therefore, AHA was not aware of the scene involving the rat and was not on the set.