Talk:Blood/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

On bleodsian and blessing

I would definately remove the comment about the Catholic Church 'adoption' of the Anglo-Saxon 'bleodsian' into 'blessing'. First off, the Catholic liturgy was spoken originally in Latin, so they probably wouldn't use the word 'blessing' persay. Granted, the ENGLISH word 'blessing' seems to come from the Anglo-Saxon owing to common sense, but my point is that the section concerning the Catholics apparently borrowing yet another slice of paganism for their own practices smacks a little of poor scholastics. So, I'd just like to see that section cleared up. I suppose I could do it myself, but I wouldn't be so bold as to do something so drastic on the actual article, so I'll leave it to someone more experienced. Ryan 23:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

The etymology of "bless" indicates that it was used in the translation of the Bible to English. I am doubtful that the Catholic Chuch adopted the term. The early English translations of the Bible were Reformation-related activities I believe.

From EtymOnline entry for "bless": O.E. bletsian, bledsian, Northumbrian bloedsian "to consecrate, make holy," from P.Gmc. *blothisojan "mark with blood," from *blotham "blood" (see blood). Originally a blood sprinkling on pagan altars. This word was chosen in O.E. bibles to translate L. benedicere and Gk. eulogein, both of which have a ground sense of "to speak well of, to praise," but were used in Scripture to translate Heb. brk "to bend (the knee), worship, praise, invoke blessings." Meaning shifted in late O.E. toward "to confer happiness, well-being," by resemblance to unrelated bliss. No cognates in other languages. Blessing is O.E. bledsung.

Merge Oxygenated blood into Blood

(The merge was proposed by L33th4x0rguy.) There is very little content in the Oxygenated blood article, but I agree it seems much more appropriate in the Blood article. In fact, it seems as though parts already overlap with the information under the Physiology of Blood section. --Leapfrog314 02:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Support merge, though all but one sentence or so is redundant with this article. --Calair 01:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Merged Little content, merged. Navou ^talk 02:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Effect of increased blood salinity

Hey, can someone tell me the effects of increasing the level of blood salinity on blood? (Hpetwe 01:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Increased sodium and chlorine levels in the blood disrupt the electolyte balance between the cells and intracellular spaces, including blood. This can shift water out of the cells and into the intracellular spaces. Additionally, increased salinity can alter the nervous system's ability to communicate.

That's the simple answer. I would get a good pathophysiology book and reference electrolyte imbalances... 68.230.35.75 03:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction

Regarding what makes blood red:

• "red blood cells, which carry respiratory gases and give (blood) its red color because they contain hemoglobin"
• "(red blood cells) only appear red when examined under a microscope with pigment or still within the plasma solution, because the plasma in blood makes us think that the red blood cells are red. Red blood cells are in fact a straw, yellow colour despite the name."
• "The other 55% is blood plasma, a fluid that is the blood's liquid medium, appearing yellow in color." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nonpareility (talk • contribs) 07:49, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

Looks like two people vandalised the article in a row and the subsequent revert didn't go back far enough. Fixed now. --Calair 12:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vikings a germanic tribe?

Is there any source indicating vikings was a germanic tribe? (text:Germanic tribes (such as the Anglo-Saxons and the Vikings) Dan Koehl 12:11, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

They spoke a Germanic language if that counts.Cameron Nedland 22:53, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The Nordic people are certainly Germanic, but they would have made up a lot more than one tribe. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ndteegarden (talk • contribs) 09:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Boiling point

Does anybody happen to know the boiling point of blood? // Nick || Talk || 01:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Because blood isn't a pure substance, but instead a mixture of all sorts of things (cells, proteins, electrolytes, lipid globules, etc. etc.) it won't possess a specific boiling point. Heat will permanently denature many of the components of blood. The colligative properties of solutions predict that the water in the blood will boil at a temperature greater than 100 degrees C because of its solute load, but exactly what that temperature is, I don't know.Preacherdoc 09:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Art

Should include blood drawings but more information on these must be found. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:48, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To include cavemen? JFW | T@lk 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Freezing point

What is the freezing point of blood? OR at what temperature can we be assured to have solid blood? 04:26, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

According to http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2001-04/986778911.Bc.r.html, around -2 to -3 C. Blood is a mixture with a lot of different components so it doesn't have a neatly-defined freezing point like water does; the transition from liquid to solid is a bit more gradual. --Calair 06:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Hemophobia?

This redirects here understandably as hemophobic is a property of certain tissues that keep it contained, much as cell linine is hydrophobic I'd assume vein and artery lining is, at least until the branchouts. Anywho, I'm wondering if anyone knows of the psychiatric term for it, if different, or if there is an article for it. Surely many people fear blood, and hemophobia seems to be the right word for it, similar to how the chronic royal bleeders were hemophiles. Tyciol 05:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The redirect is stupid! Links to "hemophobia" should either go to Phobia or wiktionary hemophobia, as the article Blood does not mention hemophobia at all! I doubt that "hemophobic" is a common-usage word like hydrophobic is used to refer to lipids! I'm changing the article where I had linked "hemophobia" and will change that aricle's link to Phobia. Dikke poes 20:00, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If the redirect is "stupid," then fix it, like I just did. On the other hand, if the change that I just made is "stupid," then undo it.--Superluser 17:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Anatomy of mammalian blood

This page and White blood cells were slightly different in their presentation of percentages of blood components, leading to confusion over which was "right". Although I think the two pages are saying approximately the same thing, I have changed the "Anatomy of mammalian blood" section to state the percentages the same way that the white cell page does (i.e. 45% red, 1% white, <1% platelets and 55% plasma.) I also reorganized the section to group like information, added a reference, and some additional information. I think it reads more clearly now, and (more importantly) is consistent with the white blood cell article. Cheers--DO11.10 18:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good. I reordered things a bit because it was hopping back and forth between individual components and collective properties (volume, density, etc) more than it needed to; I think collective-cells-plasma-more collective is easier to follow than cells-collective-plasma-cells-plasma-collective. --Calair 03:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the hematology expert here, but didn't you mean <1% platelets? :) Korenwolf 08:42, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick spot of Googling suggests that average platelet volume is ~10fL (i.e. 1E^-14L), with 1E11 to 3E11 platelets per liter[1], which makes about 1E-3 to 3E-3 liters platelets per liter blood (i.e. 0.1-0.3% by volume). So I'm assuming that was a typo & fixed accordingly. --Calair 13:08, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo. Duh, and I did it twice!! Thanks for spotting that.--DO11.10 15:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

White Blood Cells only being leukocytes?

I can explain several more types of WBCs other than leukocytes. This is overly vague and should be corrected by an expert in the field. He or she might know more than I do about this.

The problem is one of historical nomenclature. If you put blood in a centrifuge, the red cells spin down leaving a thin layer of yellowish stuff on the top. This is called the "buffy coat", and contains a mixture of cells which we now call "white cells" (leukocytes). This was the Victorian conception of blood cells, which we are sort of stuck with, even though we now know several different types of white cell and their very different functions. (We have known about red cells in blood since Leeuwenhoek).

So all white cells are leukocytes. We divided them up based on (initially) their staining with haematoxylin and eosin (which gives us neutrophils, eosinophils and basophils), their morphology (which gives us mononuclear leukocytes ("monocytes") and polymorphonuclear leucocytes ("polymorphs")), and more recently, cell antigen typing.

Certain malignant conditions result in over-production of (usually non-functional) white cells. Put this blood in a centrifuge, and the buffy coat isn't a tiny coating, it's a huge great layer on top of the red cells. The name for this disease translates as "white blood": leukaemia.Preacherdoc 02:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

The white blood cells are called Leukocytes. The Leukocytes themselves can be divided further into the Granulocytes, the Lymphocytes and the Macrophages/Monocyte lineages. Granulocytes have granules when seen under light microscopy with H&E staining. They include Neutrophils (aka PMN's, "polys", or polymorphonuclear cells), Basophils and Eosinophils. The Lymphocyte family contains T-cells, B-cells and NK (natural killer) cells. The Reticuloendothelial cells are the Macrophages and Monocytes. 58.167.194.69 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Blood function as a provision of force

eg, an erection. While not the most prominent function of the blood i beleive it should be included for completeness and to show the versitile applications blood is used for in the body.

I changed the "provision of force" idea to a section on erectile tissue, mainly because it is my belief that the blood is being used for engorgement rather than to provide force. Asarelah has seen fit to change it back. I still don't understand what force is being provided and why it isn't better as a section on erectile tissues. 58.165.234.110 23:27, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It could be argued that the purpose of an erection is to transmit force from the base of the penis to the head, by making it rigid, but I agree that it's not very clear. I changed it to the more general "hydraulic functions" (as used in the intro), which covers things like jumping spiders as well, and moved it ahead of 'colour' to keep the things that are actual functions grouped together. --Calair 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's cool :) 58.165.234.110 01:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Disappointingly I see that our wonderful dissertation on the hydraulic functions of blood as been reduced to a throwaway "Hydraulic functions" with a link to the wiki page on hydraulics. No erectile tissue or jumping spiders here! :( 58.167.194.69 21:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh no - silly me - I found the section after all! Happy! 58.167.194.69 21:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

More facts

I don't know if these facts should be added, and if so, I don't know where and how to put them. However, I uncovered that " In one day, your blood travels nearly 12,000 miles. Your heart beats around 35 million times per year. Your heart pumps a million barrels of blood during the average lifetime -- enough to fill three supertankers." If put in, this need to be reworded. Prodigaldruid-Talk]] 17:06, 18 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Suggest adding this, too, if it can be confirmed: tot #red corpuscles in the body are recycled every 356 sec. Trekphiler 22:26, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Not true, they live for 120 days. JFW | T@lk 22:58, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

In the section Physiology of blood - Production and degradation, it would be more correct to describe the process of production of red blood cells as erythropoiesis (rather than hematopoiesis). There is even a wiki page on erythropoiesis that we could helpfully direct our readers to.58.167.194.69 21:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Drinking blood

I heard some tribes in Africa drink blood of cattle daily (because they lack water). The Masai article contains info about this. I believe it should be inserted into this article or atleast the taboo food and drink one. 87.69.230.104 11:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Sprotection

I have sprotected the article. This suffers from daily vandalism from multiple IPs, and I'm quite sick of the content continuously disrupted by profanity, nonsense or frank Antisemitism[2]. I suggest this is for long-term sprotection. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the on-going semi-protection is successful. Snowman (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Whitespace removal/addition

Hi there, can someone please rectify the poor image distribution for "most browsers", as I have tried and User:Jfdwolff put it back there-please rectify rather than revert next time.--Read-write-services (talk) 22:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on browser and screen resolution, so need to know both. Snowman (talk) 00:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox & talbes

Probably would be helpful to have a table for hematology normal values and another one of biochemistry normal values. An infobox with the blood film iname and some normal values might help, but I am not sure what template to use. Snowman (talk) 10:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Amount of blood

Does anyone know how much blood a human can loose before they die? Proportionately (i.e. 3/4 or 1/2)?

lost of 1.5l of blood will probably kill you... it is about 1/4

Let's say Mike over here has about 5 liters of blood in his body. He is shot and he bleeds to death. How much blood would Mike have lost before he dies?

This article doesn't even list the difference in blood volume between males and females. Men have 1.500 gallons of blood, compared to 0.875 gallons for women. Also, the combined surface area of all the erythrocytes in the human anatomy is roughly 2,000 times as great as the body's exterior surface. Jordan Yang 18:14 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Instead of complaining I would edit the article accordingly. JFW | T@lk 14:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

As you wish Jordan Yang 22:20 21 Oct 2005 (UTC)

Could you please provide a source for this data? The '1.5 gallon' figure for men is reasonable (although we should probably stick to metric), but 0.875 gallons for women is substantially lower than any figure I've ever encountered. This paper, for instance, gives an average blood volume for normal female subjects as ~60 mL/kg; combined with an average weight of ~ 65 kg (eyeballed from here, probably a bit low) that gives an average blood volume of ~ 3.9 liters, which is just over 1 US gallon. (You could get a figure of around .875 gallons if using Imperial rather than US gallons, but the male figure of 1.5 gallons is *not* in Imperial gallons... a good example of why it's safer to stick to metric.) And shun false precision, unless you really mean that those numbers are accurate to within 0.001 gallons. --Calair 02:45, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Blood volume is readily extrapolated to blood mass. Applied/computational volumetric data of blood mass is readily matched to [echocardiography].--24.211.109.44 (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Freezing Point

Does anyone know at what temperature blood freezes at?KChuck27 (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

–0.5631 degrees Celcius (that number is for lactating cows). Some arctic fishes even have blood with a freezing point of -2.0 C allowing them to live in water of -1.9 C (study). --WS (talk) 19:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Top fix suggestions

Blood moves wastes to intestines?

Blood also remove poisons and waste products to the liver, the kidneys, and the intestines to allow them to be rejected from the body in urine and feces.

Is it correct that blood moves wastes to the intestines to be turned into feces? AxelBoldt 03:55 31 May 2003 (UTC)

There may be creatures in which it does, but it seems very unlikely. And poisons is not a good term when products of metabolism are under discussion. Kosebamse 07:14 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Blood circulates poisons and waste products to the liver to be metabolised into a water soluable form. These metabolites are then circulated to the kidney for elimination in the urine. I am not aware of any substances brought to the intestine for elimination. 58.167.194.69 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC):The endotelium of the mesenteric arteries it's permeable to some particles, so, some pharmaceutical products, ions and small particles may go through the the arteries to the epithelial cells, and then to the lumen of the intestine. Frostbite Q. Kelvin 02:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Frostbite. There are some drugs which are dissolved in bile and enter the Enterohepatic circulation. These can be eliminated in the feces gradually (or enhanced elimination with activated carbon). Orinoco-w (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Erythrocrytic 'cell status' dispute

Red blood cells or erythrocytes (96%). In mammals, these corpuscles lack a nucleus and organelles, so are not cells strictly speaking.

I don't see how the can make sense. There are plenty of other types of cells (e.g. prokaryotic cells, such as bacteria) which lack nuclei and most organelles, yet nobody disputes their right to be called cells. Opinions? Davidmpye 22:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, and cell acknowledges prokaryotic cells. I'll modify this. --[User:Calair|Calair]] 23:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

As eurthocytes break down (~100days of life) the heme groups are sent to the penis and broken down, some of that is sent to the large intestine as waste. It is this blood waste that turns our poo brown. Dunno if someone wants to clean up that very untechnical definition and add it or not 66.243.209.222 (talk · contribs)

Blood is more than just erythrocytes. It is plasma, buffy coat and haematocrit. Before we mention the metabolism of haemoglobin we need to decide how we will discuss the metabolism of albumin, globulins, platelets, leukocytes... JFW | T@lk 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Erythrocytes do have a nucleus while they are in the marrow;it breaks down as the final stage before release into the blood stream, and these nucleated cells can be measured to follow some anemias, such as iron deficency. Also many mammals have nucleated red cells.--Bwthemoose/Talk 17:31, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Human blood?

I think we will eventually have to make an article on human blood and move most of this article's material there. Insects for instance also have blood, but this article does not apply to their blood at all. AxelBoldt 03:55 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Which raises the question whether most anatomy, physiology &c. articles should not be split into a general (zoo- or bio-) and a specific (anthropo-) part. Sometimes the distiction is made, e.g. with anatomy and human anatomy. Kosebamse 07:41 31 May 2003 (UTC)

My name is Ashley Atkinson and I would like to know why blood is a tissue instead of a liquid?

The reason blood is categorized as a tissue and not as a liquid should be pretty clear. The blood cells originate from the bone marrow prior to circulation in the body. --Animeronin 05:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think that has to happen eventually for most articles. AxelBoldt 18:55 31 May 2003 (UTC)

How much salt is in the blood... are there other things like salt in blood? This is missing... 24.159.43.217 23:55, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a reasonable point. The article states that "Other important components include: Various electrolytes (mainly sodium and chloride)" under the Plasma heading and while there is a box outlining normal ranges for O2, CO2, pH and the like there is no similar box giving normal reference range values for Na, K, Cl ... (Glucose, Urea, Creatinine ... Ca, HPO3, LFT's, Cardiac Enzymes). So (1) Where to draw the line? (Maybe reasonable to just include electrolytes) and (2) How do you make one of those box table things? Orinoco-w (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to address every component of blood in tabular form unless it is biologically significant. Potassium and bicarbonate qualify. Carbonate is part of the buffering system. Other common lab values really qualify as waste products (BUN, creatinine, many circulating enzymes that leaked from cells). Assembling tables based on laboratory testing does not reflect the composition of blood, but rather the systems whose function is evaluated in a blood test. Novangelis (talk) 17:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay - well I see there are two pages addressing this already:

• Reference ranges for blood tests
• List of human blood components

I guess if I put links to this in the Plasma section, that would be better than reproducing the whole (extensive) table.Orinoco-w (talk) 03:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase 'higher animals'

"higher animals" needs rephrasing IMO -Hemanshu 09:18, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Blood and fire

This article states that

In the medieval theory of the four bodily humours, blood was associated with fire and with a merry and gluttonous (sanguine) personality.

however the bodily humours article states they associated it with air JeffBobFrank 04:03, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Blood also plays a key role in the distribution of heat. Also water, but perhaps that is implied in the phrase "constitutional elements". YakkobYakkob 18:04, 6 June 2006 (UTC) :I'm Phyllis, a junior high stud, I wanted to know whether blood is flammable

since it is associated with fire? and of course to other major elements... I have an investigatory for this, but to start with, I want to know facts about blood... Since blood contains oxygen, carbon, phorphorus and some amount of flammable materials, is it flammable too??? If not, what makes it not? or when it decomposses, is it considered flammable? and how can we make blood burst into flame? ooh... Thanks!=Phyllis

Each of the four humours of Greek medicine was associated with TWO of the four elements. The sanguine humour was hot and wet.

The "burning" of humours, as in "melancholia adusta", was the rendering of a natural temperament into something pathological, by an inappropriate use of the seven non-naturals.

It is not quite correct to suggest that the sanguine humour was particularly associated with the blood. An excess of ANY of the humours might be relieved by bloodletting in the appropriate place. Although the physical correlates of the four humours were expressions of the humours, they were not identical with them. A person might be phlegmatic by temperament, perhaps through living in a cold and wet climate, without any pathological discharge of phlegm.

~ David Harley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.55.186 (talk) 04:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Religion

207.34.120.71 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC)K. Sims207.34.120.71 21:39, 21 May 2007 (UTC) The folling reference in the artice is false and should be removed, as it constitutes libel against a religion without any reference. "Mormons believe that before Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, blood was not present in their bodies. It is said to have formed after the Fall when they became mortal." There is no teaching within the LDS, Morman church that suggests this.

I agree with K. Sims, there is no reference to where this came from. Please find the reference where this is supported. As a member of the LDS church, I have never heard this belief stated as doctrine--which makes me question the validity, especially without citation. Tach47 05:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that in this section that the Aztec faiths should be included, since blood was a very important part of their faith/culture. The Aztecs have been known to offer blood to their gods to since it was the most valuable resource, and that the king must offer his penis blood for the survival of the empire. Many films, documentaries and books have been written about this, including the wikipedia page Human sacrifice in Aztec culture. Dguenther - DGun (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Does fresh blood smell?

I'm trying to research the topic for a book, and would like to know if fresh blood smells? Not just a cut, either. A liter or more?

71.232.84.157 (talk) 14:13, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Susan Novise 2/27/08

Well, open incisions on tissue donors have never particularly impressed my nose, and I'd imagine it has some sort of smell (i.e. a dog would notice it), but it's not a very strong one. In most medical settings with open wounds, there are other strong smells, so not 100% sure.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:32, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Never noticed anything distinctive, though the situations in which I've encounted 1+ liter of blood hav been in the ER and operating room, where as Somedumbyankee notes, other smells are often prominent. It's typically described as metallic, given the high iron content. Check this out: "Rubbing blood over skin results in a similar metallic smell based on the same scent molecules. Blood also contains iron atoms. Says Glindemann, 'That humans can 'smell' iron can be interpreted as a sense for the smell of blood. Early humans were thus probably able to track down wounded prey or tribe members.'" Hope that helps. And give us props in the book when it's done. :) MastCell ^Talk 23:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Price

What is the marketprice for human blood targeted at consumers? 159.81.88.60 10:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there is a reliable source for this information. Health organisations presumably have fixed prices for units of packed cells, but these are not available for consumers.

I expect that blood only available when it is needed in a hospital. I would anticipate that private hospitals have a price tag on it to put on the account, but I do not know what the price is. There are costs in drawing the blood, storing blood, testing and cross matching blood and costs of giving a transfusion in a hospital. I would depend on how the bill is itemized. Snowman (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Generally, through a bit of sleight-of-hand accounting, blood is technically free to patients in most industrialized countries. Patients typically get charged for all of the associated services (collection costs, testing costs, shipping costs, infusion costs, etc.) instead.[3]

Winslow's book outlines some of the issues with providing a simple answer on this question.[4] I'd maybe start on page 29: "The cost of a unit of red blood cells has been notoriously difficult to calculate." The table on that page says charges in the U.S. may run about $300, and that may represent a 50% profit margin in some cases (assuming that all processed units were sold). This doesn't sound unreasonable to me: Blood Services is known to be a highly profitable branch of the American Red Cross.

A 1996 study found actual costs were in the vicinity of US$100.[5] I'd guess that those costs have increased at least 20% in the last ten years because of testing improvements and inflation.

A unit of whole blood seems to run about $300 at some non-hospital suppliers,[6][7] which feels about right to me, based on some lab expenses from a few years ago. Better prices are almost certainly available for higher volumes.

Does anyone have any additional information, or want to sort through these links to write something useful for the article? This is a perennial question in this field, so I think we should include some information about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it for the "blood transfusion" page? Snowman (talk) 19:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

From my perspective, blood transfusion sounds like a reasonable home for this information. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a lot of money changing hands, but not sure if they're "profitable" per se. $200-$250 is typical from what I've heard for a unit of leukoreduced packed red cells (the most commonly used component in the US) but it's all in contracts. I looked around for a table that actually shows what Medicare reimburses for a transfusion (P9021 is the reimbursement code), and mostly just got notes that it only covers about 80% of the actual cost (one reason of many why hospitals are implementing strict policies on avoiding unnecessary transfusions).Somedumbyankee (talk) 01:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

religion - eastern orthodox transubstatiation

• 76.70.112.199 - I undid your revision because it is unnecessarily verbose. It goes into too much detail for the blood article. The basic statement that generalizes the three categories of Christianity that believe in some sort of transubstantiation is more or less correct. This is further clarified in the Eucharist page under the section for Eastern Orthodox beliefs, and I feel this is appropriate. This article is long enough as it is. There needs to be a concerted effort to make the article text more concise. Chaldor (talk) 00:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Plasma Percentages

When it says 45% red blood cells, 1% white, <1% platelets, and 55% plasma... is that by volume or by weight? It doesn't make this overly clear, but my guess would by volume... right?

Also, I hope you know those percentages add up to something slightly more than 101%, right? Is the white blood cell percentage supposed to be <1% as well? Are the red blood cells really 44%? If proper rounding was used to get those percentages, then I don't see how it comes out to those numbers. 71.120.201.39 18:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Percentages are by volume. Like many measurements they are Gaussian in distribution. Some people might have 50% red cell volume, but the higher the red blood cell volume over this raises the risks of thrombosis. Snowman (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The numbers provided in constituents of blood are too exact. Not only are there wide ranges, but also there are differences in different populations. I'm going to change the values to ranges.vineetcoolguy (talk) 08:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you look at a set of hematology lab results, hematocrit is the percent (by volume) of the blood that is red cells. "Normal" for an adult is usually 35% to 50% or so, and 45% RBCs is a slightly high but reasonable estimate. It varies widely.Somedumbyankee (talk) 00:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's a related question that I hope someone can answer: Physiology textbooks often state that plasma is about 92% water, 8% protein, and trace amounts of other particles, including gases like O2 and CO2. However, they also often state that a liter of blood (which would be about 550 mL of plasma) can carry about 31 mL of CO2 in the dissolved form (that is, as CO2, not as bicarbonate). If that dissolved CO2 is in the plasma, it would be 5% of the plasma by volume (31mL / 550 mL = .05). So, is the answer to this discrepancy that when they say 92% water and 8% protein, they mean by weight, not by volume? Or perhaps is most of that CO2 inside red blood cells, leaving only trace amounts of CO2 in the plasma itself? Or am I missing something else?? --Stagetree (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentence

The lead sentence currently reads: "Blood, is a specialized bodily fluid (technically a tissue), composed of blood plasma (also called plasma), a liquid, and blood cells suspended within the plasma." It's not clear whether the author intended to say:

Blood, is a specialized bodily fluid (technically a tissue), composed of:

1. blood plasma (also called plasma),
2. a liquid, and
3. blood cells suspended within the plasma.

or if it should be interpreted like this:

Blood, is a specialized bodily fluid (technically a tissue), composed of:

1. blood plasma (also called plasma), [which is] a liquid, and
2. blood cells suspended within the plasma.

Can anyone come up with a clever way to solve this problem? 04:37, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

DONE, I took your advice-I think it is better than my edited version. Thanks for the heads-up!--Read-write-services (talk) 04:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Cheers. WP:LEAD is the relevant guideline. JFW | T@lk 23:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The current version of the opening sentence does not meet the requirements of WP:LEAD. I am not an expert on the subject, so I assume that it has this wording because of difficulties in coming up with a more comprehensive opening sentence to such a complex subject. Nonetheless, difficulty does not preclude trying to improve it, and I shall endeavour to do so. Unschool (talk) 02:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's my weak attempt at improvement. I leave it for the knowledgeable to improve it. Unschool (talk) 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

What are blood crystals? (1918 forensics news article)

I do not know what to make of this December 1918 Popular Science article. I have never heard of blood crystals and so it is unclear to me if this is due to some sort of mistake or if this is a proper science that is now called something else.

• Blood Will Tell: Is man descended from the monkey? Are you well or ill? Your blood crystals will tell, Popular Science monthly, December 1918, page 72-73, Scanned by Google Books: http://books.google.com/books?id=EikDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA72

This might be useful as a historical citation for this blood article but I don't have the background to judge it. Alternatively it might be useful in a discussion of former pseudosciences. Would an expert please take a look at this article? DMahalko (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

i have a test on blood n do not.....

i have a test on blood n do not understand any help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.82.31.243 (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

People cant stand blood

Why? Why do somebody faint when they see blood? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.108.193.157 (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Vampire section

In the vampire section it states that bats were a part of vampire mythology before vampire bats were discovered, but the vampire article says they didn't become part of the lore until afterward. Since the latter is sourced, I'm going to change it to reflect that.192.88.124.201 (talk) 21:17, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

specific gravity of blood

what is the specific gravity of blood? For example how much is one litre of blood in kilograms?

Whole blood is about 1.05 g/ml, if I remember right. Blood may be thicker than water, but not by much. A source if you really want the juicy details. SDY (talk) 14:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Want info

i readed in a book full with facts o(het grote lexicon over grote misverstanden, netherlands) that blood turns red after it leaves the body. its actually purple/blue, but cause to much oxygen when u get wounded the blood turns red! This is a good book full with correct information.

A lot of people believe that story, but it's not true. When you donate blood, the blood comes directly from a vein, and can be seen in the tubing that leads to the bag - it's a dark red all the way, even without any contact with oxygen. Some of the other information in your book might be correct, but not this part. See Blood#Color for more information on this. --Calair 08:39, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Lol i didnt read it right.. it said that its wrong that blood turns red after leaving the body :PTwtje 11:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Blood changes colour from vivid red when oxygenised to dark dull red when deoxygenised.

Here's a good article about the colour of blood. I totally agree with him. - Cy21 (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

can you lose blood internally?? hanabi-sama 02:29, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes. People can bleed internally from serious injuries. Asarelah 03:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Any other ways, if i may ask...??

A serious health problem such as an ulcer might cause internal bleeding. Also, please sign your posts using four tildes. Instructions on how to do so are on the top of the talk page when you edit it. Thank you. Asarelah 20:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

oops, i am so sorry about that, and thank you very much for the information, im a noob.... cyrille 04:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

In Art

Under Blood > In Art, there are links to artist wiki pages, but no links to their portfolios, much less examples of their art done with blood as a medium.

I hate to come to the belief Wikipedia is becoming "proper" in the Western sense, as Wiki article creation says nothing about articles of information dealing with "taboo" directly or otherwise. And Wikipedia is supposed to be a global "commons", yes?

The same concern relates to the term "war fighter" Vs. "soldier" OR "warrior". In the attempt of trying to distance our selves from "icky" subjects, we have erroronusly reverted to childish paradigms in how we interact with the world. 2010-03-05T16:22Z-8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.226.194 (talk) 00:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Possible sections to be added.

A small section of antifreeze protein in the blood that leads to the main article, Antifreeze protein. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 18:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

About the History

In the section History, I have changed "blut" to "(das) Blut". In modern German all names, also names for objects, have to begin with the capital letter. 25/08/2010 18.49 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.19.167.25 (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

In Our Time

The BBC programme In Our Time presented by Melvyn Bragg has an episode which may be about this subject (if not moving this note to the appropriate talk page earns cookies). You can add it to "External links" by pasting * {{In Our Time|Blood|p00548ym}}. Rich Farmbrough, 03:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC).

Pic of blood

Not a microscopic image or anything, but maybe some blood in a pouch from the Red Cross or something. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CPRdave (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2006 November 23 PST.

A photo of blood in a medical context would be a nice addition. A photo of blood on a carpet would not be welcome.

PS: Please add your signature/datestamp to your posts on talk pages, using ~~~~.  Erielhonan  05:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

this page needs editing

Some images have been added, but still looking for more good images. Snowman (talk) 19:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another opportunity is to find an image which gives a better feel for the density of rbc packing in blood. Smears and animations leave many with an impression of isolated rbcs floating in plasma. Sort of a hematocrit less than 1%. Instead, blood is really a wall to wall pile of red blood cells. Like this. I don't immediately see a CC image, but with several universities doing blood simulations, it should be straightforward to obtain one. The concept of blood carrying oxygen using red blood cells makes much more sense when you realize blood is basically a lubricated slurry of rbcs. Currently, the images on blood cell and red blood cell have the same issue, while white blood cell is slightly better. 98.216.110.149 (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Is this correct?

Chinese and Japanese culture

In Chinese culture, it is often said that if a man's nose produces a small flow of blood, this signifies that he is ::experiencing sexual desire. This often appears in Chinese-language and Hong Kong films.

This is also evident in Japanese culture and is parodied in anime and manga. Male characters will often ::be shown with a nosebleed if they have just seen a female nude or in little clothing, or if they ::have had an erotic thought or fantasy.

I'm Chinese and I haven't heard of this before, I think this is only Japanese culture (as the paragraph says, it appears in a lot of media) and besides, this whole thing isn't cited.

69.158.61.188 15:49, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, the grammar of that bit is terrible. It really ought to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.7.35 (talk) 18:51, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

picture of bleeding finger

There's a picture of a bleeding finger in the article. Would it be a good idea (and possible) to only show that picture when you move over it with the mouse (or something like that)? Because many people - like the one writing this - are not able to look at blood, you know what I mean? --193.175.206.234 (talk) 13:16, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

That's probably not a good idea. Wikipedia is not censored. If anybody is not comfortable with the sight of blood, they should probably avoid reading the Blood article. Dental plan / lisa needs braces! 13:17, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

At Help:Options to hide an image you can look up some browser-side suggestions of filtering the content you're viewing online. De728631 (talk) 13:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I see your point, but I wasn't talking about a deletion of said picture. I could imagine something like a blank frame with a sentence in it like "This picture shows a bleeding finger, click on it to make the picture visible", you know? That wouldn't be censorship, would it? And I don't think it's fair to exclude people from reading an artcicle here on wikipedia. Well, don't get me wrong, it's not that important to me... --193.175.206.234 (talk) 12:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

If you can't look at blood, don't go on the article about blood for the same reason people with arachnophobia don't go around looking at articles on Wikipedia about spiders. 88.104.245.69 (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

math problem

Sorry, I know this the wrong place. Feel free to redirect, if you wish.

The average human body has roughly 4500 mL (4.5 liters) of blood.

12 ounces is roughly 350 mL. So, a 12 oz. beer at 5% alcohol contains 17.5 mL of alcohol.

The concentration of alcohol in the blood after 1 12 oz. beer would therefore be 0.38% (17.5 mL / 4500 mL). But that's plainly wrong. The legal limit is 0.08%. What am I doing wrong? Strangesad (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

To answer my own question, I think it must be that a great deal of metabolizing occurs before the alcohol even hits the bloodstream. Strangesad (talk) 13:57, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

wrong pronunciacion

in the wiki artikel is standing about blood "from the Greek word αἷμα (haima)" that is wrong in greek alphabet we dont have the word h we have η that stands for i and when you pronounce αἷμα you have to say like Émma accent on E and not haima thats totaly wrong. The word Haimoglobin is also wrong we greek people pronounce it αιμοσφαιρίνη in your language to pronounce Emmosferíni accent on the first i. There are millions of wrong pronounces in the wiki with the greek language.

For example in your language hemisphere (from Ancient Greek ἡμισφαίριον hēmisphairion <--- this is totaly wrong if you will pronounce it wright you must say ímisferion accent on the first i like the english world impossible, did they think that η is an h? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.226.255.200 (talk) 05:17, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

It might be incorrect Greek pronunciation, but it is the standard way of transliterating into the Latin alphabet. see wikt:hemato-. SpinningSpark 15:03, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Change Wording in Hemovanadin

Sorry if this isn't the right format for this request, but sea cucumbers are not related to sea squirts in anyway, and also do not have vanadium-based fluids. This article has been used by less reputable pages, indicating that sea cucumbers *do* have vanadium-based blood. If someone could delete the phrase "and sea cucumbers" from the section, that would fix the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.31.159.81 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 18 November 2013‎ (UTC)

Done. Thanks. (The format of the request was excellent, but don't forget to sign your talk page posts by typing ~~~~). --Stfg (talk) 16:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

No usage of mentioning religion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should religious beliefs concerning blood be moved to a separate article?

This is a science related article. Science rejects creationism. So no usage of mentioning religion. There are lots of religions and various other foolish believes. Mentioning about them in a scientific article is very ironical. These blood-related believes should be collectively created as a seperate article and only a link to that article should be included in this article. Some scintists and students may get angry if they see religions and need of citations to them in this scientific article. So please tell your views about creating a seperate article- Blood related religious believes and only providing a link in this main article-blood.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I support moving the material out of this article. It is completely out of place; at best it should be a see also. I have added an RFC template at the top of the section to attract wider participation in this as it is likely to stir up some controversy. SpinningSpark 09:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose without further refinement of the nature of the move. Frankly, the reasons suggested for the necessity of a split do not hold water in terms of Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia does not have a scientific article/non-scientific article dichotomy; rather we provide encyclopedic articles and any aspect of the subject matter of an article which a significantly large enough number of readers are likely to find useful qualifies for inclusion in the main article, regardless of how empirical or cultural the nature of the rest of the content there. The only valid policy reason for spinning out a second article here is size concerns, which, looking at the overall size of the article and of the cultural sections, a decent argument can be made for. But if this approach were taken and a "Blood in religion and mysticism" article were to be created, the standard Wikipedia approach to such divisions should be followed and a small summary section retained in this article with a "see main article" tag at its head. This is the well-established, nearly universal process for splitting articles and we certainly will not be completely excising all mention of the cultural aspects of blood simply because they may "anger" some theoretical reader who would prefer a purely biological article. That's not what we are here to provide and we definitely do not guarantee it in our articles, especially those on subjects that straddle both scientific and cultural domains. Snow (talk) 05:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Please consider the following facts.If it is the Wikipedia's policy, then this article should also include information about many other religions and believes such as Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other Asian and Indian religions. Then the article will get too long mentioning all about these religions. I only asked to split the article. I did not ask to delete the contents. If the article is split into two, then readers can read comfortably, and the articles will be complete in their respects. There will be also a link between the articles. So no need to worry. It will be only a good improvement in reading the article. Policies are not always firm; Policies are flexible. There are many such good articles in Wikipedia. The articles will not be ironical.--G.Kiruthikan (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have taken the facts very much into account in my comments; perhaps you can be more specific if you feel I missed something of central relevance. We don't remove content on one aspect of a subject just because someone has yet to add content on another. Wikipedia article creation is an iterative process and people add what they know and can source, so the fact that there is more information on the role of blood in some religions as compared to others is not surprising, nor is it an argument for what content should be included, or where it should be located. If the article grew so large as to be unwieldy, that is a reason for a split, but if you re-read my initial comments, you will see that I already stipulated as much. I think my wording should have made it clear that I am not opposed to a split outright, but only to a split made solely on the grounds that were forwarded. And my comments were mainly intended to highlight that we have an established process for this sort of (extremely common) situation and that a complete split with the retention of solely a "see also" link alone is not policy-consistent, no matter how much this article is perceived by some as one that should treat only the biology of blood; a summary section is standard accepted approach when a sub-article is spun out from the main article, for a number of reasons. Blood is a very broad topic and we can reasonably expect a good number of readers will come here for something other than a description of platelets, and those non-cultural subjects should be treated here, however briefly, with a clear summary of the present section, even if the clinical description of blood takes precedence. And for the record, I do feel it's reasonable that such physiological information should take precedence at this namespace, but it should not do so to the absolute exclusion of all other aspects of the subject. Snow (talk) 06:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I accept your facts. So what should we do? Close this argument or any other move? (please describe briefly. I am not vey fluent in English). — Preceding unsigned comment added by G.Kiruthikan (talk • contribs) 11:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, typically when an RfC (Request for Comment) is made for a discussion, we must wait for an administrator to close the discussion with a summary of the general consensus of the viewpoints and maybe further comments on how they fit with policy. We should wait for that to happen, but I think it is likely at this point that few more comments are forthcoming and that most editors would agree that the default splitting process I described above is the best way to handle the issue. The admin will close the discussion soon and then we just need an editor to sandbox the new page, write the summary, and move the appropriate content around. Snow (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

RfCs are not automatically closed by administrator's. Most of them sort themselves out. If you desire a formal close you need to make a request at WP:AN/RFC. SpinningSpark 01:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with Snow's suggestion of summary style except that I don't think blood libel should be included in this article. That is not really a belief about blood, it is a belief about Jews and is consequently off topic here. SpinningSpark 01:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I agree with Snow's points. Cultural beliefs should be at least summarized here, since blood has clear and strong cultural meaning as well as scientific significance. I also agree that should the section become too lengthy, we should split it off and leave a small summary. However, I don't think we are at that point yet. The section on cultural beliefs makes for an interesting digest, and the amount of material under each culture seems appropriate.

As I mentioned in an earlier conversation above, it is standard practice to include cultural (or even fictional literary) references with short summaries at the end of articles. Although such summaries are typically a sentence or two for each reference, the complex beliefs about blood cannot reasonably be summarized so quickly. The topic also merits more material because the actual belief in these ideas is non-fictional and quite influential on the cultures and languages of the world. Therefore, a couple paragraphs or so can be expected per culture. Much more than that, and I would agree to split off that section.

I think that the splitting should happen on a per-culture basis. If we were to split off an entire article about blood beliefs for all cultures, I'm afraid that the article would be further split by culture anyway. I think we should keep a digest of all the cultures here, just like how each social or literary reference is enumerated after other articles.

Regarding the blood libel, I was initially inclined to agree with SpinningSpark, but I was surprised to see that other religions were indeed accused of blood libel. Interested in this, I did some research and found a reference for it, which I added. Hence, although typically about Jews, the topic is not exclusive to them. Combined with the fact that this was historically such a common problem in Europe and even now is common in the Arab world, I think it it merits inclusion as a general social issue.Musashiaharon (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - an encyclopaedic article on the topic 'Blood' should certainly not be limited to the biological aspects - and I think the cultural aspects should be mentioned in the Lead. I think the cultural section could be at least as long as the biological sections without unbalancing the article - and if the religious aspects did get too long I would support the summary and link procedure as discussed above. But I don't think the section is there yet at all. Actually I think it needs more detail and better quality in general, and not to be limited to religious beliefs. Depthdiver (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The cultural section already reasonably adheres to WP:Summary style and does not look out of balance within the whole article. 00:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

blood donors generally give whole blood. in many cases though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.19.207 (talk) 19:48, 26 March 2014 (UTC)