In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
rhall at uvi.edu (Richard Hall) wrote:
::We have an instance of the blind leading the blind. This string has been a
Oops... I am called blind...
:continuum of misinformation. For example:
I do agree on the misinfo part.
:Patrick says "CO2 does not bind more tightly to hemoglobin than oxygen."
::Jerorem replies "I don't remember binding parameters [sic] for CO2 versus
:O2. But one hemoglobin can bind 4 oxygen and only 1 CO2.
::Binding affinities and binding stochiometry are different parameters.
:Apples and oranges.
Totally true.. Thanks for correcting me if I was unclear.
To the point, it was said atmospheric CO2 influences brain mass or whatever.
Patrick uses CO2 vs O2 binding to argue that atmospheric Pco2 influences blood
Pco2. I am not so sure this is true. I'd rather say variations in atm Pco2 have
little influence on blood pco2. Two reasons: "influx" co2 to blood consists of
co2 produced in body, not of atmospheric co2. Two, pco2 in blood is in dynamic
balance with carbonate. Blood is "carbonate-buffered", so to induce change in bl
pco2 you need a large influx of co2.
Maybe I am not clear enough. So I do agree with Richard when he refers to any
textbook on physiology.
Meanwhile I haven't heard any argumentation in favor of an influence of CO2 on
:Comparative Animal Physiologist
:Division of Sciences and Mathematics
:University of the Virgin Islands
:St. Thomas, USVI 00802
:rhall at uvi.edu::
A man conducting a gee-whizz science show with fifty thousand dollars' worth of
Frankenstein equipment is not doing anything scientific if he knows beforehand
what the results of his efforts are going to be. A motorcycle mechanic, on the
other hand, who honks the horn to see if the battery works is informally
conducting a true scientific experiment.
Robert M. Pirsig
== J Schaap =======================================================
Faculty of Medicine, Leiden University
e-mail: SCHAAP at rullf2.MedFac.LeidenUniv.nl