Is 70% lung capacity dangerous?
108341
what do u mean??? isn't more lung capacity supposed 2 be greatt?????.. what the dangerous part? i mean.. u can breath more.. u can hold ur breath more...
807461
?? \n\nWhy would there be any disadvantages associated with adequate ventilation since breathing is occuring at a normal rate and the oxygen is being delivered to the cells?
740870
That says that you had a good workout.  You may expand your lung capacity by taking long deep breaths and hold as you perform light exercises....
20805
The mechanism that drives a human to breath is dependent upon CO2 receptors in the body--both peripheral chemo receptors and central chemo receptors. As with all receptors in the body (excluding pain receptors) they will adapt when exposed to a stimulus over a long period of time. A person known to retain CO2 has long since been exposed to elvated CO2 levels and the CO2 receptors have adapted.  For this type of patient--their drive to breathe is no longer driven by elevated CO2 levels. They rely primarily on oxygen sensitive chemo receptors. (When the oxygen level in the arterial blood--PAO2 falls below 60mmhg-it will tell the respiratory control centers in the brain to initiate respiration.) Administering high levels of oxygen to an individual such as this can be harmful and dangerous. High levels of supplemental oxygen raise the PAO2 levels--therefore the oxygen chemo recptor never sends the signal to the respiratory center to breathe. This will knock out the patients only remaining chemical signal to initiate respirations. \nIf your goal is administer a medication via a nebulizer (ie the standard one on the market) the use of moderate flow (5 LPM) of oxygen should not significantly elevate the PAO2 levels. The nebulizer is not a closed system and therefore is mixed with room air the only has an oxygen concentration of 21%. Ideally, the use of compressed air is utilized for such treatments.
1070726
If it is well controlled, yes.  If not, you are at serious risk for a lung injury.\n\nHere is why.  Asthma is an inflammation of the breathing passages.  This reults in anrrowing and can result in air being trapped (at leats for a short period of time).  At constant pressures, no problem.  But when diving the ambient pressure changes.  \n\nIf you filled a ballon half way full at 30 feet depth, when you surfaced the ballon would be fully inflated.  (The reverse is true as well).  The problem is what if the air inside a trapped space doubles in volume - it has to go somewhere.  Barotrauma is the result.  The ability to equalize these pressure is essential to SCUBA diving -- be it the lungs, inner ear or sinus.\n\nOne other wrinkle: SCUBA can trigger asthma.  Some asthma seems to be initiated by breathing in a bit of salt water (unlikely, but it could happen) or by exercise (like kciking against a current).  \n\nMy advice:  Consult with a doctor familiar with diving physiology. and your clinical history.
277831
that sounds dangerous.  someone could suffocate.
705363
There are problems that can crop up.  The biggest would be food or drink going down the wrong way.  Usually pain full and distressing but only rarely serious as the bodies natural defences tend to stop it quickly.\n\nThe biggest risk is probably from inhaling saliva especially if it is contaminated with gastric juice.   This can cause inhalation pneumonia but it is highly unlikely and if it did happen is likely to be mild.  Recommend that you avoid alcohol, or spicy food in the evening. \n\nTwo important things.  Firsts is common sense - if in any doubt about contamination of the bronchial tubes or lungs seek advice.\n\nSecondly - keep swallowing.  Repeated use of the muscles will strengthen them and may well act to restore more feeling and mobility.\n\nGood luck.
626161
DUE TO CONSTICTION OF BRONCHIOLES,LESS OXYGEN IS SUPPLIED TO BODY\nBUT IT NEEDS MORE SUPPLY SO IT MIGHT LEAD TO BRONCHSPASM
291573
I am a licensed CT Technologist.  You wouldn't want to have a CT scan just for the hell of it.  If there is a reason to get the scan, then the benefits FAR outweigh the risks.  CT scans do not use the high amount of radiation that they once did.  The risk to lungs has nothing to do with age, but with lifetime exposure.  The more you get in your life time, the more the risk, not the earlier in life you are exposed, the more the risk.
852960
my aunt had it done 10 years ago.  unfortunately she relies on an oxygen tank and can barely walk up stairs.  She is 60.  Sad, but she has emphysema.. diagnosed at 40.
990580
The main concern with too much oxygen in COPDers is a condition called CO2 narcosis.  Essentially, you stop breathing.  I don't use oxygen but I can tell you that I have seen patients die from it.  Turning up the oxygen in general is okay but the point is \n\nwhy did your oxygen requirements go up.\n\nIn other words, its not about "getting permission" but rather its about talking to your doctor and letting him evaluate you.  Is your COPD flaring up and you need more aggressive treatment or are you developing a pneumonia and you need antibiotics.
279462
Fluid in he lungs can be a late complication of severe breast cancer. It is prevented by taking the best care of yourself that you can. Not smoking and going by what your Doctor recommends. It is not a condition that I would worry about unless your Doctor tells you that you are at risk of it. If he tells you so he will advise you of what the best action is to take.
473204
People with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) should not be given large doses of Oxygen because they rely on the build-up of CO2 to give them the drive to breathe. Giving them too much O2 can knock out their drive to breathe.
493317
Well, at 50 pack*years most people get either tobacco related cancer or pulmonary disease (COPD) or heart attacks. With 1.5 pack per day, this gives you ~33 years. Even for tough people, I don't think it's physically possible to do more than 70-80 pack*years without getting a tobacco-related disease (especially cancer). This gives you at most 50 more years of smoking.\n\nThat being said, you may prove to be the exception and live until age 90. Medicine is not like mathematics. However, for the vast majority of people, smoking AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE is the best and safest strategy. \n\nBy the way, even if you manage to reach age 90 despite smoking, you (a) would have lived to age 120 if you didn't smoke and (b) suffered from a lower quality of life throughout.\n\nTrust me on this one: Just don't smoke. This is probably the most certain medical advice I can imagine. (OK, along with wearing a seat belt, a condom and avoiding drugs)
89686
What the hell kinda question is that??? What would you want to do that for??? Well your answer is no, if you asperate it into your lungs, most likely your lungs will fill with fluid and you will die.
299409
Yes. Marathon runners do have a greater vital lung capacity. Increased lung capacity is an indicator of fitness. This means that a conditioned athlete would have to take fewer number of breaths after exercise than say the average joe. Hence their recovery time is considerably less.\n\nWhen running one of the marathon runner's breaths would be deeper/larger than a non-athletic person, this allowing their body to be more well oxygenated. Therefore the lactic acid built up in the muscles (by the anaerobic respiration) would be more readily removed.\n\nI hope this helps.
664984
your lungs would burn out.