Talk:Apnea

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
Start	This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain.

There is a potentially fatal "apneist" technique, believed by some of its practioners to amount to a safe hyperoxygenation of the blood. In fact what allows them to hold their breaths longer is that they have reduced their blood CO2 to abnormally low levels, delaying the time when the buildup of CO2 forces breathing, by a time roughly equal to the time in which produces the amount of the initial CO2 deficit. The danger, as i understand it, is that a sufficient CO2 deficit can hold off the impulse to breathe so long that loss of consciousness occurs first, producing a high likelihood of drowning when the technique is for underwater activities.

IMO, the discussion of ==Apneic oxygenation== is sufficiently hard for lay readers that it might be seen as an endorsement of the technique i am refering to.

And in any case, should the danger of the CO2 deficit technique i refer to perhaps be part of this article? --Jerzy 02:17, 2004 Feb 21 (UTC)

--- Earlier in the article it was mentioned that some people have learned to increase their period of voluntary apnea up to 7 minutes, and it notes that trained free divers hold their breath for a long time. This seems to have introduced the subject of prolonged apnea while diving. However, there is no discussion of how these effects are achieved. Since the article holds out the hope that an increase can be achieved, it seems relevant to point out an obvious (but wrong) path that should not be followed. I have observed a diving instructor warning students on this. If the warning is not clear enough, perhaps it can be improved.

Do we really need to do wiki links for things like 'gas'? Someone reading this article is scarcely likely to wonder what 'gas' means, nor to care. If you follow it to the conclusion half the words in the article would be links, and it would be a mess.

Someone removed most of the ~~legitimate~~ links which are necessary. Have reverted to bring them back. If you think the greater number of them are not necessary, you shouod explain why, not just remove them almost all.Dieter Simon 23:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not at all a medical professional, but I do have a question someone might be able to answer: is there any risk to breathing primarily through your mouth as opposed to your nose? I've heard it said that so-called "mouth breathers" have a harder time being energetic than the people who breathe through their noses. Jaerune 19:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the keyword to apnoea

Please do not change "apnea" to "apnoea". This article was obviously created with the American spelling, or at some time changed to the American spelling. All occasions show the American spelling, it is not on to suddenly change some words to the British spelling. We must respect this. Have changed the article to wwhat it was before. Dieter Simon 21:30, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree at present but if the so called "Americans" start defining it differently, then there should be a page with the present meaning one way or the other.