this post was submitted on 23 Feb 2025
193 points (97.1% liked)
Asklemmy
46544 readers
1012 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You'd definitely survive longer than in something non-oxygenated. I feel like I read a paper that involved a full hour of immersion in animal trials, but I can't be sure now.
The wiki makes it sounds like in medical settings they only fill the lung partway, usually. That would allow CO2 to escape from the top part. The lung is both massively branched and somewhat delicate, so getting enough pumping going in a full lung sounds like it would be very difficult and invasive. CO2 is so rarefied in healthy blood it doesn't take long at all for diffusion to start working backward in any one alveolus.
There's also technology in trials to remove CO2 from the blood separately, which is only as invasive as a dialysis machine. I have no idea if anyone has tried combining them, although you have to assume it'd be an obvious next step.
Thanks, great insight!