0
$\begingroup$

What is required for advanced lungs to filter dangerous chemicals (so to speak, to carry out the detoxification process) and then use oxygen? (It is advisable to take into account the above record, since the concept of using a second pair of lungs already exists; you need a different solution).

The main question: what needs to be changed (added) in the lungs of a person so that he is not poisoned by toxic air. For example, mine air may contain gases such as nitrogen, methane, carbon monoxide (carbon monoxide is very toxic, easily combines with hemoglobin in the blood, preventing oxygen from entering the bloodstream and causing oxygen starvation of the body.), sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, methane, hydrogen, heavy hydrocarbons, radon, ammonia and other harmful gases, as well as water vapor and dust. This link shows the poisonous gases that need to be dealt with: https://vk.com/wall544212004_7.

(In my opinion, it would be possible to modify the lungs so that between the blood vessels and the alveoli there was some kind of structure that filters the air from chemically hazardous substances.)

To reiterate: What needs to be changed in the lungs (or somewhere else) of a person so that he can breathe poisonous air?

Filled with sulphurous gases (Oxide sulfur (IV)), for example, in principle, the better this person will carry the gases poisonous to us in the atmosphere, the better.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
14
  • $\begingroup$ What do you classify as "dangerous chemicals"? Does it include inert gasses or powders, for example? And for the benefit of those who can't read it, perhaps you should summarise the content of your link. $\endgroup$
    – Starfish Prime
    Commented Dec 30, 2019 at 21:15
  • $\begingroup$ in this video, the doses of human-dangerous poisons are shown in the most detail ( youtu.be/flv0ql218-A ) $\endgroup$
    – user71408
    Commented Dec 30, 2019 at 21:23
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ What have lungs to do with eating puffer fish? $\endgroup$
    – L.Dutch ♦
    Commented Dec 30, 2019 at 22:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I don't understand this question. Is this abut the inhalation of poison (via lungs) or the consumption of poison (via digestive system)? It seems to start with the former and than abruptly shifts to the latter. Vote to close. $\endgroup$
    – Halfthawed
    Commented Dec 31, 2019 at 0:08
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ CO2 is not a poisonous gas. Our bodies actually use pCO2 to control the respiratory rate. If you scrub out the CO2, you'll end up with a severe case of respiratory alkalosis. Bad joujou that. That said, welcome to WB.SE! Please take the tour and review the help center. They're designed as a guide to help you write good queries and responses. This particular question needs a lot of work. Especially the bits about the pufferfish and mushrooms. Those are respiratory non sequuntur. $\endgroup$
    – elemtilas
    Commented Dec 31, 2019 at 1:32

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

As your article notes, a number of the chemicals are toxic to the skin and eyes itself, so lungs wouldn't be enough.

A gas mask would be needed Some sort of tweak to the face and mouth to prevent toxic gases from reaching the lungs along with a filter to prevent toxic gases from getting inside.

You'd also need to tweak the blood to carry more oxygen. This would allow them to work in low or no oxygen conditions for longer.

I imagine someone with rubbery skin, resistant to chemicals, and a large and powerful nose to smell chemicals. When they enter a toxic place they can put a second eyelid over their eyes they can see through and seal off their mouth and nose, with a filter to slowly draw oxygen in. Energetic work would drain their oxygen faster than they could draw it in, but they could rest between exertions and use machines. Their blood and liver and such would be tweaked to handle small amount of poisons that leaked through, processing them faster, but the main barrier would be the sealed off face.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

Perhaps a sort of multi-stage lung could do the trick.

If one of the requirements is that it is one set of lungs (not multiple), we might consider a lung that has filtering layers for different chemicals.

For example, you mentioned Carbon Monoxide. Taking a queue from our cars, the lungs could contain a layer of ultra small diameter bones with a thin coating of platinum and palladium, which would convert it to Carbon Dioxide. Below that may be a layer of symbiotic algae which could convert that into Oxygen.

There's a few real-world problems with that approach, but it might be enough for fiction.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ tell us more! ( as much detail as possible), this option is very curious and potentially solves problems $\endgroup$
    – user71408
    Commented Jan 3, 2020 at 7:36
  • $\begingroup$ That is, you are proposing the creation of several microscopic layers of carbon fibers coated with a layer of platinum and paladium ( fermentation of these rare chemical elements will probably be taken from food), which through the interaction of the above chemical elements will change the carbon monoxide into carbon dioxide. But what about the following toxic gases: like nitrogen, methane, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, hydrogen sulfide, nitrogen oxides, methane, hydrogen, heavy hydrocarbons, radon, ammonia and other harmful gases, as well as water vapor and dust That need to be improved or $\endgroup$
    – user71408
    Commented Jan 3, 2020 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ added to the human lungs or circulatory system so that people can breathe normally (or simply not be poisoned by them)? as mentioned above Your idea of post-alveolus filtration will fail when faced with something like chlorine gas, which will damage the lungs enough to prevent gas exchange without having to enter the bloodstream at all. $\endgroup$
    – user71408
    Commented Jan 3, 2020 at 8:31
  • $\begingroup$ tell us more! ( as much detail as possible), this option is very curious and potentially solves problems! $\endgroup$
    – user71408
    Commented Jan 4, 2020 at 11:18
  • $\begingroup$ What you say is true, @FrenchThompson. That particular reaction will only work for Carbon Monoxide. For more broad spectrum, you would need more layers like certain gas masks. A layer of activated charcoal would grab quite a bit, but for something like chlorine you then need another layer of sodium thiosulfate. A 100% all purpose filter has yet to be invented, so but varied layers might work. $\endgroup$
    – CaptainSkyfish
    Commented Jan 6, 2020 at 16:38

You must log in to answer this question.