Hacker News Reader

Comment by mbrundle | Hacker News Reader

This reminds me of the scene in The Abyss where the rat is forced to breathe in oxygen-rich perfluorocarbons[1]. I think this idea of introducing oxygen through perfluorocarbons has been explored but not sure it’s made much headway in humans to date [2]. This paper seems like a clever idea to introduce the liquid anally where oxygen can diffuse through the linings, and to also use same liquid (because of its viscosity) to scrub the intestines of mucus, to facilitate the oxygen diffusion process.

[1] https://filmschoolrejects.com/the-abyss-breathing-fluid/?amp

[2] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_breathing

View on HN

Research on perfluorocarbons in humans progressed into several inventions. Being immersed is not one, but increasing air transfer within the lungs using a spray, reducing the impact of the bends through an injection, or reducing incidence of traumatic brain injuries due to swelling is a third.

There's quite a large group of doctors out there researching them.

The fact that it was an actual rat actually submerged in actual perfluorocarbons and actually breathing the stuff still blows my mind.

Cameron seems to make a big deal of "the rat really survived" (5 rats, in fact), glossing over the fact that the shocking animal cruelty was also real. It's rather hypocritical to pride yourself on the realism of the scene, while cutting all the parts where the rats defecate from panic.

I'd genuinely like to see some objective information about the scene and how it qualifies as animal abuse. The AHA pretty closely monitors scenes with animals and has since the 1940s [1] albeit the rules and regs it follows have continually been improved upon. I understand that there are extenuating circumstances, like the tiger nearly drowning in the "Life of Pi," but from what I can tell, they mostly get it right. After looking for a good amount of time, I'm yet to find a substantiated account of how the rat in "Abyss" was subject to abuse. I understand how the scene might feel but feelings don't equate to actual events.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Humane#Work_in_the_fi...

How hard did you look?

From https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0096754/trivia/ (which is incidentally the third Google result[0] for "the abyss american humane"):

"The American Humane Association rated this film "unacceptable" because of the rat that was submerged in oxygenated liquid in one scene."

From the same page:

"James Cameron later admitted that four rats had indeed gone through the procedure without problems; the fifth, however, suffered a cardiac arrest. Fortunately, Cameron was able to revive it through careful chest compressions, and later kept it as a pet."

From the article linked in the original comment:

"Supposedly, the only purpose for the cuts in the sequence was to avoid showing the rats defecating from panic."

And you need only watch the scene to see a rat in enormous distress. I'm not sure what more you want.

[0] The first Google result is an explanation from American Humane themselves that they "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."

You better not know what else scientists do to rats. And please, don't even start on the argument that they do it for science and not for entertainment. Entertainment in the form of science fiction is crucial for inspiring new generations of scientists.

> You better not know what else scientists do to rats.

Most people know what scientists do to animals—there have been enough awareness campaigns over the years. Animal experiments are tolerated, and usually strictly regulated [1], because they can potentially improve the lives of people.

> Entertainment in the form of science fiction is crucial for inspiring new generations of scientists.

I don't see why that (if it is true at all) is a reason to abuse animals for movies. If you wanted, you could make 'inspiring' science fiction showing harm to animals by using special effects.

[1]: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...

Would this technically count as science, given that it was a real test of perfluorocarbon breathing and that it was documented?

It sounds like the next generation of scientists could benefit from inspirational films showing less animal cruelty.

If you insist on knives without any blood, you'll be looking for a very long time.

Scientists don't abuse or cause distress or panic in animals, just FYI. There are very strict rules around it.

Simply not true. There are some rules to limit the amount of abuse or distress for some types on animal, but that doesn't prevent anywhere near all of it.

Ive done animal experiments. All the rats were unconscious.

I've assisted with animal experiments as well, they were not unconscious.

Then you’re aware of the standards? Any discomfort has to be justified by the value of the data?

And generally if you can relieve discomfort then it’s a requirement?

The fact you said “limit the abuse” makes me think you aren’t that familiar. No “abuse” is allowed.

Just be because abuse has been justified doesn't make it not abuse.

Why do I have to think of the Apes, Dogs, and cats with a plug in their skull, for neuroscience? What about the countless bunnies and dogs, used for 'dermatologically tested' label for cosmetics, wet wipes, whatever, by rubbing that stuff in their eyes?

One strict ruler up yours!

I remember seeing a picture of a rat in a tube lab breathing this type of liquid circa 1981. Mind was also blown.

"He's diggin' it"

I don't have the source but the navy tried something similar for allowing scuba divers to fill there lungs with oxygen rich liquid I don't think it was perfluorocarbons but the ended canceling the project because while they could oxygenated someone they were unable to exchange out carbon and ultimately the person they experimented on (yes human experiment) died from CO2 toxicity. Id be interested to see how long they can ventilate an animal like this

If I recall correctly, similar experiment have been tried lately, where the subject survive. (maybe because they were shorter than the navy's one)

However, the subjects stated afterward that they felt adequately oxygenated, but also were on the verge of panic due to the constant feeling of drowning induce by having your lungs filled with liquid.

None of them felt like they would be able to do any kind of productive task in this state.

Whenever I have a tiny bit of water “go down the wrong pipe” I think about how truly awful it must feel to drown. Just inhaling a teeny tiny amount of water is so uncomfortable and sometimes even scary even though you can still breath and you know everything will be perfectly fine. I can’t even imagine how awful that sensation must have been for the people involved in this experiment.

Indeed this response is what makes simulated drowning (waterboarding) a torture.

Peter Watts' Rifters series is premised on the development of this sort of technology for human use and goes into uncomfortable detail about the (false) feeling of drowning

Any chance of a source on this?

People dying during research like this is definitely on the extreme end of things.

Almost everything we know about all the ways diving can kill you comes from the US Navy's experimental diving unit. A lot of people died after they intentionally gave people the bends.

Why can't this be repurposed as a lung cleanse? I imagine that heavy smokers' lungs (or coal miners') could benefit from a wash and rinse, perhaps with some vibration assistance. With a medical team standing by to resuscitate.

God knows I've breathed in enough silica dust that I could go for something like this.

Might cause more damage on the way out.

I had the exact same though - this could make the suits a reality - providing that the traveller does not need to take large doses of morphine to deal with the pain or are dosed with amyl nitrite.

I bet you would be "gassy" for weeks on end - with a dangerous combination of both pure oxygen and methane - sounds like a party to me.

Liquid breathing hurts?

Your anti-drowning reflex kicks in, which is fairly unpleasant, and I don’t imagine the lungs are used to a fluid with that much viscosity or mass

I'm guessing, with the reference to amyl nitrate, they are assuming that whatever is stuck up your ass to facilitate this breathing process, is going to hurt.

Having gas pumped into you intestines is quite unpleasant. (Woke up mid-colonoscopy, not fun.)

The article is not referring to using your lungs to breath...

I can only imagine they way they are indicating the administration of the oxygen would be painful.

I wonder what effects emerge from chronically removing intestinal mucosa

I've done it. Inflammation, sensitivity to bacterium, gut pain. The mucus regenerates but takes some time. I found that in my case diet cranberry juice and mastic gum helped until the mucus regenerated.

Some people with severe IBS get to experience this often. I am thankful to not be one of them.

That sounds horrible

What could possibly go wrong ?

The last I heard, this form of liquid breathing may have use for premature babies. The concept is that their lungs may better handle liquid than air, so long as they don't start breathing air. It would require a respirator that pumps liquid, a tricky practical problem.

That mucus usually supports digestion of food, AFAIK?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_microbiota

Are you suggesting an IV-drip with likkidfood instead?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com