User talk:SandyGeorgia and Oxygen toxicity: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
→‎I'm interested in your impression...: It doesn't get more arbitrary
 
→‎Causes: consistancy on the "cause", time vs. exposure
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Disease
<big>'''If you want me to look at an article or a FAC, <big>{{color|red|please provide the link.}}</big></big> <br /><br /> I usually respond on my talk page, so watch the page for my reply.<br /> To leave me a message, click [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SandyGeorgia&action=edit&section=new here.]'''<br />
| Name = Oxygen toxicity
'''The current time is {{CURRENTDAYNAME}}, {{CURRENTTIME}} UTC.'''
| Image = Electron shell 008 Oxygen.svg
<br />
| Caption = Electron shell diagram of oxygen
| DiseasesDB =
| ICD10 = {{ICD10|T|59|8|t|51}}
| ICD9 = {{ICD9|987.8 }}
| ICDO =
| OMIM =
| MedlinePlus =
| eMedicineSubj =
| eMedicineTopic =
| MeshID = D018496
}}
{{toxicology}}
'''Oxygen toxicity''' or '''oxygen toxicity syndrome''' (also known as the "[[Paul Bert]] effect" or the "Lorrain Smith effect") describes harmful effects caused by breathing [[oxygen]] at elevated [[partial pressure]]s.<ref name=Brubakk>{{cite book |title=Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving, 5th Rev ed |last=Brubakk |first=Alf O. |coauthors=Neuman, Tom S. |year=2003 |publisher=Saunders, 800 pages |location=Edinburgh; New York |isbn=0702025712 |oclc=51607923}}</ref><ref name=usn>{{cite book |title=US Navy Diving Manual, 6th revision |year=2006 |publisher=US Naval Sea Systems Command |location=United States |url=http://www.supsalv.org/00c3_publications.asp?destPage=00c3&pageID=3.9 |accessdate=2008-04-24 }}</ref><ref name=Acott>{{cite journal |last=Acott |first=C. |title=Oxygen toxicity: A brief history of oxygen in diving |journal=South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society journal |volume=29 |issue=3 |year=1999 |issn=0813-1988 |oclc=16986801 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6014 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
The condition of an excess of oxygen in body tissues is known as [[:wikt:hyperoxia|hyperoxia]]. Such above-normal [[concentration]]s of oxygen within the body can cause [[cell (biology)|cell]] damage and death.<ref name=Brubakk/>
Oxidative damage is most often reported in the [[central nervous system]] (CNS), [[lung]]s (pulmonary) and eye ([[Retinopathy|retinopathic conditions]]).<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=Bitterman/><ref name=Nichols>{{cite journal |author=Nichols, C.W.; Lambertsen Christian |title=Effects of high oxygen pressures on the eye |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |volume=281 |issue=1 |pages=25–30 |year=1969 |month=July |pmid=4891642 }}</ref><ref name=Butler>{{cite journal |author=Butler, Frank K.; White, E.; Twa, M. |title=Hyperoxic myopia in a closed-circuit mixed-gas scuba diver |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=26 |issue=1 |pages=41–5 |year=1999 |pmid=10353183 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2312 |accessdate=2008-04-29}}</ref><ref name="pmid14232720">{{cite journal |author=Beehler, C.C. |title=Oxygen and the eye |journal=Survey of ophthalmology |volume=45 |pages=549–60 |year=1964 |month=December |pmid=14232720 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref>
It may also be implicated in red blood cell destruction ([[Hemolysis|erythrocyte hemolysis]]), liver ([[Liver|hepatic]]) effects, heart ([[Myocardium|myocardial]]) damage, [[Endocrine system|endocrine]] effects ([[Adrenal gland|adrenal]], [[gonad]]s, and [[thyroid]]), kidney ([[Kidney|renal]]) damage, and general damage to [[cell (biology)|cells]].<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name="pmid4613232">{{cite journal |author=Clark, J.M. |title=The toxicity of oxygen |journal=The American review of respiratory disease |volume=110 |issue=6 Pt 2 |pages=40–50 |year=1974 |month=December |pmid=4613232 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref><ref name="pmid5782651">{{cite journal |author=Goldstein, J.R.; Mengel, C.E. |title=Hemolysis in mice exposed to varying levels of hyperoxia |journal=Aerospace medicine |volume=40 |issue=1 |pages=12–3 |year=1969 |month=January |pmid=5782651 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref><ref name="pmid4403030">{{cite journal |author=Larkin, E.C.; Adams. J.D.; Williams, W.T.; Duncan, D.M. |title=Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia |journal=The American journal of physiology |volume=223 |issue=2 |pages=431–7 |year=1972 |month=August |pmid=4403030 |url=http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=4403030 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref><ref name="pmid5885427">{{cite journal |author=Schaffner, Fenton; Felig, Philip |title=Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen |journal=The Journal of cell biology |volume=27 |issue=3 |pages=505–17 |year=1965 |month=December |pmid=5885427 |pmc=2106769 |url=http://www.jcb.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=5885427 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref><ref name="pmid5046798">{{cite journal |author=Caulfield, J.B.; Shelton, R.W.; Burke, J.F. |title=Cytotoxic effects of oxygen on striated muscle |journal=Archives of pathology |volume=94 |issue=2 |pages=127–32 |year=1972 |month=August |pmid=5046798 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref><ref name="pmid13228600">{{cite journal |author=Bean, J.W.; Johnson, P.C. |title=Adrenocortical response to single and repeated exposure to oxygen at high pressure |journal=The American journal of physiology |volume=179 |issue=3 |pages=410–4 |year=1954 |month=December |pmid=13228600 |url=http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=13228600 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref><ref name="pmid13889254">{{cite journal |author=Edstrom, J.E.; Rockert, H. |title=The effect of oxygen at high pressure on the histology of the central nervous system and sympathetic and endocrine cells |journal=Acta physiologica Scandinavica |volume=55 |pages=255–63 |year=1962 |pmid=13889254 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref><ref name=Gersh>{{cite journal |author=Gersh, I.; Wagner, C.E. |title=Metabolic factors in oxygen posoning |journal=The American journal of physiology |year=1945 |volume=144 |pages=270-277 |url=http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/144/2/270 |accessdate=2008-10-08}}</ref><ref name="pmid5155150">{{cite journal |author=Hess, R.T.; Menzel, D.B. |title=Effect of dietary antioxidant level and oxygen exposure on the fine structure of the proximal convoluted tubules |journal=Aerospace medicine |volume=42 |issue=6 |pages=646–9 |year=1971 |month=June |pmid=5155150 |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref>


The damage is caused by long exposure (days) to lower concentrations of oxygen or by shorter exposure (minutes or hours) to high concentrations. Short exposures to partial pressure of oxygen above {{convert|1.6|bar|abbr=on}} are usually associated with CNS oxygen toxicity and are most likely to occur among patients undergoing [[hyperbaric oxygen therapy]] and [[Scuba diving|divers]].<ref name=Donald1>{{cite journal |author=Donald, Kenneth W. |title=Oxygen and the diver: Part I |journal=British medical journal |volume=1(4506) |pages=667–672 |date=1947 |pmc=2053251 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref><ref name=Donald2>{{cite journal |author=Donald, Kenneth W. |title=Oxygen and the diver: Part II |journal=British medical journal |volume=1(4506) |pages=712–717 |date=1947 |pmc=2053400 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref><ref name=smerz/>
{{FixBunching|beg}}
Long exposures to partial pressures of oxygen above {{convert|0.5|bar|abbr=on|lk=on}} can result in pulmonary oxygen toxicity and are a concern for patients breathing pure oxygen for extended periods.<ref name=Bancalari/><ref name=Tin/><ref name=Thiel/>
{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}}
{{FixBunching|mid}}
{{User:Tony1/FAR urgents}}
{{FixBunching|mid}}
{{User:SandyGeorgia/Archives}}
{{FixBunching|mid}}
{{Template:FCDW/T}}
{{FixBunching|end}}


The serious effect of CNS oxygen toxicity is a [[seizure]], consisting of a brief period of rigidity followed by convulsions and unconsciousness, which is of concern to divers who breathe gases at much greater than atmospheric pressure. Pulmonary oxygen toxicity results in damage to the lungs causing pain and difficulty in breathing, while oxidative damage to the eye may lead to [[myopia]] or partial detachment of the [[retina]]. These occur when supplemental oxygen is administered as part of a treatment, particularly to newborn infants.
==[[Homer Simpson]]==
I know how annoying it is when users complain about their FxCs being closed. However, in this case, I feel the opposition had been addressed, but the opposers just hadn't returned yet. Anyway, I really don't think there is much else I can do to improve the article for another FAC, so when can I resubmit it? -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]]<sup>[[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]]</sup> 11:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:I appreciate the work you've put into it, but I think the reviewers' comments provide scope for improvements in the next few weeks. Looking at the top of the article, I agree with comments about the prose. Here are random examples:
:*"titular" --> "eponymous". "voice"—there's a more appropriate word, isn't there, but I can't think of it right now.
:*"Although Groening has stated in several interviews that his father is the namesake of Homer, he has previously stated in several 1990 interviews that"—unfortunate repetition, "previously" is redundant, and the tense "has" is wrong.


Prevention of oxygen toxicity is an important precaution whenever oxygen is breathed at greater than normal partial pressures and has led to use of [[Medical guideline|protocols]] for avoidance of hyperoxia in such fields as diving, hyperbaric therapy, [[neonatal care]] and [[human spaceflight]]. This has lead to oxygen toxicity seizures becoming increasingly rare, with pulmonary and [[Eye|ocular]] damage being mainly confined to the problems of managing [[premature]] infants.
Look, they're just two examples: it's basically well-written, but when you resubmit it, polished, I'll be hoping to support it—I'd expect that it will be a relatively painless process. There should be no issue in resubmitting; it's normal. Congrats on your existing work. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


==Classification==
FYI, this has been [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Homer Simpson|resubmitted]]. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 22:32, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


In humans, a convenient classification is by organ affected. There are three principal types of oxygen toxicity:<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=Acott/>
: Note Tony1's response above: "I appreciate the work you've put into it, but I think the reviewers' comments provide scope for improvements '''in the next few weeks'''." I apologize to Scorpion0422 for not responding myself, but 1) I thought Tony had covered it (several weeks between nominations is the norm, unless there are extenuating circumstances and Raul or I have made an exception), and 2) I'm trying my best to wean FAC off of the notion that I must do and respond to everything, particularly when other FAC reviewers know the ropes and can field the queries. We need to allow time and space for other articles to get reviewer attention; FAC should not be a revolving door. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::Tony1 also said "there should be no issue in resubmitting" which I took as meaning that I could resubmit it whenever I felt it was ready, the "next few weeks" thing completely slipped by me. It has been copyedited extensively since the FAC and one of the opposers now approves, so I felt that it had been improved enough to resubmit it. I will withdraw it if you want me to. -- [[User:Scorpion0422|Scorpion]]<sup>[[user talk:Scorpion0422|0422]]</sup> 23:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::: In the interest of consistency and fairness to everyone else, I'd rather you wait a week. Reviewers are clearly expressing that they can't get to everything, and asking that I throttle back on the re-noms. To withdraw, just remove the transcluded file, revert it to the GimmeBot version, and remove the template from the talk page. Again, Scorpion0422, my sincere apologies for not responding directly to you: I'm trying to get my "talk page stalkers" to take a more active role in dealing with routine FAC queries, and I thought Tony's message was clear. I see now that it wasn't and I see how you misunderstood. I'm off for the night, and hope others will help you with this. All the best, [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


*Central nervous system (CNS), characterised by [[Seizure|convulsions]] followed by unconsciousness, occurring under hyperbaric conditions
== Paul Gondjout ==


*Pulmonary, characterised by difficulty in breathing and pain within the chest, occurring when breathing elevated pressures of oxygen for extended periods
Why did you close this FAC 4 days after it was opened? '''the [[User:Editorofthewiki|editorofthewiki]] ([[User talk:Editorofthewiki|talk]]/[[Special:Contributions/Editorofthewiki|contribs]]/[[Wikipedia:Editor review/Editorofthewiki|editor review]])''' 20:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
: I'm sorry for the delay; I see you've gotten an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Editorofthewiki&curid=15052101&diff=242712448&oldid=242634068 excellent answer from Steve.] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 16:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


*Ocular, characterised by alterations to the eye, occurring when breathing elevated pressures of oxygen for extended periods
== Manu Sharma ==


Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the effects on the most susceptible organs will be the primary concern. In unusual circumstances, effects on other tissues may be observed: it is suspected that during spaceflight, high oxygen concentrations may contribute to bone damage. Hyperoxia can also indirectly cause [[carbon dioxide]] [[narcosis]] in patients with [[chronic obstructive pulmonary disease]] (COPD).<ref name="Patel">{{cite journal |author=Patel, Dharmeshkumar N; Goel, Ashish; Agarwal, S.B.; Garg, Praveenkumar; Lakhani, Krishna K. |date=July 2003 |title=Oxygen toxicity |journal=Journal, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine |volume=4 |issue=3| pages=234&ndash;7| url=http://medind.nic.in/jac/t03/i3/jact03i3p234.pdf |accessdate=2008-09-28}}</ref>
Hi Sandy, could you please close the FAC? I don't have time to address the nominations, and some pretty good alternatives have sprung up on WT:FAC. I'm about to log offm and will be away till Monday. [[user:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">=Nichalp</font>]] [[User Talk:Nichalp|<font color="#0082B8">«Talk»=</font>]] 20:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Oxygen toxicity is not associated with [[hyperventilation]], because it never results from breathing air at atmospheric pressure.
:If you don't mind, I'll do it to take some tasks off of Sandy. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 20:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
::Sandy, Karanacs, or Maralia should check to see that I did it right. I'm not sure I did. I should stop trying to be so freakin' helpful. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 21:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:::You got it right - in the case of a nominator withdrawal with opposes, just remove the listing, add it to archive, make sure the withdrawal is noted on the FAC itself, and make sure the {{tl|fac}} template remains on the article talk page till Gimme gets to it (I see he just did). [[User:Maralia|Maralia]] ([[User talk:Maralia|talk]]) 21:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


==Signs and symptoms==
== Back to Back ==


CNS oxygen toxicity manifests as symptoms such as [[Tunnel vision|visual changes]], [[Tinnitus|ringing in the ears]], [[nausea]], twitching (especially on the face), irritability (personality changes, anxiety, confusion, etc.), and [[Vertigo (medical)|dizziness]]. This may be followed by a [[tonic-clonic seizure]] where intense muscle contraction occurs for several seconds followed by rapid spasms of alternate muscle relaxation and contraction producing convulsive jerking, which is followed by a period of unconsciousness (the [[postictal state]]).<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=usn/> The onset depends upon [[partial pressure]] of oxygen (ppO<sub>2</sub>) in the [[breathing gas]] and exposure duration but experiments have shown that there is a wide variation in exposure time before onset amongst individuals and in the same individual from day to day.<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=usn/><ref name=Bitterman/> In addition, many external factors, such as underwater [[:wikt:immersion|immersion]], exposure to cold, and exercise will decrease the time to onset of CNS symptoms.<ref name=Donald1/><ref name=Donald2/> Decrease of tolerance has been shown to be closely linked to retention of [[carbon dioxide]].<ref name=dan /><ref name=rebreather2.0 /><ref name=padi /> Other factors, such as [[Lighting|darkness]] and [[caffeine]] increase tolerance in test animals, but these effects have not been proven in humans.<ref name="pmid3705247" /><ref name="pmid8574677" />
Sorry, I was messing with Julian and after I saw he had placed an {{tl|fac}} tag on the talk page beat him to the punch in creating the nomination as a joke... I put his name under nominator (I didn't think he would transclude it first) :) <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
: All right, but considering how exhausted reviewers have expressed that they are, I suggest that limiting the horseplay on FAC might be helpful right now. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:09, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::Sorry... you can blame IRC for hijinks like these :P <font color="#cc6600">[[User:David Fuchs|Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs]]</font><sup> <nowiki>(</nowiki><small><font color="#993300">[[User talk:David Fuchs|talk]]</font></small><nowiki>)</nowiki></sup> 18:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
==[[Roman Catholic Church]]==
Sandy, I would like your opinion on an idea we have for reducing overall kB on this page to help with page load time. Ottava Riva asked me if I would be open to creating a separate page specifically set up to handle all the quotes in the references on this RCC page. We could then provide a link in the reference that would take Reader to the actual quote on a separate page. We could eliminate 20kB by doing this bringing the overall kB below 145,000. It is currently 160,000. What is your opinion of this idea? Has this ever been done before on a FAC and if so, can you point us to that page so we can maybe follow the example? If it has not been done before, are you in favor of making these changes to the refs? [[User:NancyHeise|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#E75480">Nancy</font><font color="#960018">Heise</font></font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:NancyHeise#top|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#F6ADC6">talk</font></font>]]</sup> 18:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
: I'm happy to see Ottava is helping move the article forward! But I'm almost certain (although I can't put my hands on a guideline right now) that that idea would be unwise and should be/would be rejected at FAC. Remember that Wiki is mirrored on many other sites, and that would disconnect the quotes in the sources from the actual article on mirrored sites, as well as messing with printable versions. Disconnecting the sourcing from the article isn't a good idea from an editing standpoint, either; remember, the article is dynamic and editors need to have everything in one place for future changes. When I looked this morning, I saw that progress has been made on the size. I seem to recall a lot of images; have you considered looking at how much the load time is affected by images with a [http://www.websiteoptimization.com/services/analyze/ program like this one?] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Pulm O2 tox histology.jpg|thumb|190px|Image is of pulmonary oxygen toxicity in a rat lung following long hyperbaric oxygen exposure. [[Histology]] shows alveolar edema, hyaline membranes, inflammatory cell infiltration, and septal thickening.]]
Sorry, Sandy, to have to put this here, but I wanted it so everyone could see my suggestion.
Early symptoms of pulmonary oxygen toxicity are breathing difficulty and pain or discomfort within the chest ([[Sternum|substernal]] pain). The lungs show [[inflammation]] and swelling ([[pulmonary edema]]).<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=usn/>. Tests in animals have indicated a similar variation in tolerance as found in CNS toxicity as well as significant variations between species. When the exposure to oxygen above {{convert|0.5|bar|abbr=on}} is intermittent, it permits the lungs to recover and delays the onset of toxicity.<ref name=Smith/>
Current:
^ Noble, p. 446, quote "The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars' –highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan." p. 456, quote "The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white–clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."


==Causes==
My proposal
===CNS toxicity===
^ Noble, pp. <nowiki>[[Roman Catholic Church/Sources#Noble 446|446]]</nowiki>, <nowiki>[[Roman Catholic Church/Sources#Noble 456|456]]</nowiki>
As CNS toxicity is caused by breathing oxygen at elevated [[:wikt:ambient|ambient]] pressures, patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy are at risk of suffering hyperoxic seizures following short exposures to the high pressure oxygen.<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=smerz>{{cite journal |author=Smerz, R.W. |title=Incidence of oxygen toxicity during the treatment of dysbarism |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=199–202 |year=2004 |pmid=15485081 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4010 |accessdate=2008-04-30}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Hampson, Neal B.; Simonson, Steven G.; Kramer, C.C.; Piantadosi, Claude A. |title=Central nervous system oxygen toxicity during hyperbaric treatment of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=23 |issue=4 |pages=215–9 |year=1996 |month=December |pmid=8989851 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2232 |accessdate=2008-04-29}}</ref>
For the same reason, divers breathing air at depths greater than {{convert|60|m|ft}} face a risk of an oxygen toxicity "hit" (seizure) as do divers breathing a gas mixture enriched with oxygen ([[Enriched Air Nitrox]]).<ref name=dan />


===Pulmonary toxicity===
With subpage reading:
{{main|Bronchopulmonary dysplasia}}
<nowiki>===Noble 446===</nowiki>
The lungs have a very large area in contact with the breathing gas and contain thin membranes with limited [[antioxidant]] defenses, making them particularly susceptible to damage by oxygen. Pulmonary toxicity occurs with prolonged exposure to elevated concentrations of oxygen. Pulmonary manifestations of oxygen toxicity are not the same for [[:wikt:normobaric|normobaric]] conditions as they are for [[Hyperbaric medicine|hyperbaric]] conditions.<ref name="pmid17416738">{{cite journal |author=Demchenko, Ivan T.; Welty-Wolf, Karen E.; Allen, Barry W.; Piantadosi, Claude A. |title=Similar but not the same: normobaric and hyperbaric pulmonary oxygen toxicity, the role of nitric oxide |journal=The American journal of physiology Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. |volume=293 |issue=1 |pages=L229–38 |year=2007 |month=July |pmid=17416738 |doi=10.1152/ajplung.00450.2006 |url=http://ajplung.physiology.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17416738 |accessdate=2008-09-18}}</ref>
"The most chilling tribute, however, was in humans for sacrifice. When the wars of expansion that had provided prisoners came to an end, the Aztecs and their neighbors fought 'flower wars' –highly ritualized battles to provide prisoners to be sacrificed. Five thousand victims were sacrificed at the coronation of Moctezuma II (r. 1502–1520) in 1502. Even more, reportedly twenty thousand were sacrificed at the dedication of the great temple of Huitzilopochtli in Tenochtitlan."


The risk of [[bronchopulmonary dysplasia]] ("BPD") in infants, or [[adult respiratory distress syndrome]] (ARDS) in adults, begins to increase with exposure for over 16 hours to oxygen partial pressures of {{convert|0.5|bar|abbr=on}} or more.<ref name=Bancalari>{{cite journal |author=Bancalari, Eduardo; Claure, Nelson; Sosenko, Ilene R.S. |title=Bronchopulmonary dysplasia: changes in pathogenesis, epidemiology and definition |journal=Seminars in Neonatology |publisher=Elsevier Science |location=London |volume=8 |issue=1 |pages=63–71 |year=2003 |month=February |pmid=12667831 |issn=1084-2756 |url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S1084275602001926 |accessdate=2008-04-30 |doi=10.1016/S1084-2756(02)00192-6}}</ref><ref name=Tin>{{cite journal |author=Tin, W.; Gupta, S. |title=Optimum oxygen therapy in preterm babies |journal=Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition |volume=92 |issue=2 |pages=F143–7 |year=2007 |month=March |pmid=17337663 |doi=10.1136/adc.2005.092726 |url=http://fn.bmj.com/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=17337663 |accessdate=2008-04-30}}</ref><ref name=Thiel>{{cite journal |author=Thiel, Manfred; Chouker, Alexander; Ohta, Akio; ''et al'' |title=Oxygenation inhibits the physiological tissue-protecting mechanism and thereby exacerbates acute inflammatory lung injury |journal=PLoS biology |volume=3 |issue=6 |pages=e174 |year=2005 |month=June |pmid=15857155 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030174 |url=http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0030174 |accessdate=2008-04-30}}</ref>
<nowiki>===Noble 456===</nowiki>
At sea-level, {{convert|0.5|bar|abbr=on}} is exceeded by gas mixtures having oxygen fractions greater than 50%, while the rate of damage rises non-linearly between the 50% threshold of toxicity and the rate at 100% oxygen. Partial pressures between {{convert|0.2|bar|abbr=on}} (normal at sea level) and {{convert|0.5|bar|abbr=on}} are considered non-toxic but [[intensive care]] patients breathing more than 60% oxygen, and especially patients at fractions near 100% oxygen, are considered to be at particularly high risk. If the treatment continues for a lengthy period, it may begin to cause lung damage which exacerbates the original problem requiring the high-oxygen mixture. Oxygen toxicity is also a potential complication of [[mechanical ventilation]] with pure oxygen, where it is called [[Acute respiratory distress syndrome|respiratory lung syndrome]].
"The peoples living in the Valley of Mexico believed that their conquest was fated by the gods and that their new masters would bring in new gods. The Spaniards' beliefs were strikingly similar, based on the revelation of divine will and the omnipotence of the Christian God. Cortes, by whitewashing former Aztec temples and converting native priests into white–clad Christian priests, was in a way fulfilling the Aztecs' expectations about their conquerer."


Breathing 100% oxygen eventually leads to collapse of the [[alveoli]] ([[atelectasis]]), while&nbsp;&mdash; at same partial pressure of oxygen&nbsp;&mdash; the presence of significant partial pressures of inert gases will prevent this effect.<ref>{{cite conference |last=Wittner |first=M. |coauthors=Rosenbaum, R.M. |title=Pathophysiology of pulmonary oxygen toxicity |booktitle=Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Hyperbaric Medicine |publisher=NAS/NRC, 1404, Washington DC |pages=179-188 |year=1966}} - and others as discussed by Clark, John M. and Lambertsen, Christian J. (1970) [http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3863 Pulmonary oxygen tolerance in man and derivation of pulmonary oxygen tolerance curves] pages 256-260.</ref>
The reason why I suggested this is that I have a similar formatting for online holdings [[Prometheus Unbound (Shelley)#Notes|here]]. The encyclopedia page doesn't need the actual quotes, there are there only for convenience of verification for the most part. This would allow an online edition of the excerpts (assuming the amount is allowable by fair use, which is a concern if they are part of the page or on a subpage regardless) that someone could easily check. If its on another Wiki system, it wont matter, because the references are still there to manually check. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In the treatment of [[decompression sickness]], divers are exposed to long periods of oxygen breathing under hyperbaric conditions. This exposure, coupled with that from the dive preceding the symptoms, can be a significant cumulative oxygen exposure and pulmonary toxicity may occur.<ref name=smerz/>


===Ocular toxicity===
: No, I don't think that's wise for the same reasons I give above; you can't disconnect information in citations from the article page. And if it's true that the current article doesn't required the quotes in the citations, then why are they there? They're either needed or not. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
{{main|Retinopathy of prematurity}}
::Sandy, what would the difference be between the above and not having the quotes anywhere online? These are convenience only quotes. Nancy wants them available for people to check. No quotes in references are ever truly needed. Its all for convenience of someone wanting to check the source material. Would you have a problem with what I did with the Prometheus Unbound page? I don't see a difference between this and linking any primary source so someone could easily click on the fuller version. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 19:58, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Prolonged exposure to high inspired fractions of oxygen causes damage to the [[retina]].<ref name=Nichols/><ref name=NEDU47/><ref name="pmid754368">{{cite journal |author=Anderson, B.; Farmer, Joseph C. |title=Hyperoxic myopia |journal=Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc |volume=76 |pages=116–24 |year=1978 |pmid=754368 |pmc=1311617 }}</ref><ref name="pmid1701697">{{cite journal |author=Ricci, B.; Lepore, D.; Iossa, M.; Santo, A.; D'Urso, M.; Maggiano, N. |title=Effect of light on oxygen-induced retinopathy in the rat model. Light and OIR in the rat |journal=Documenta ophthalmologica |volume=74 |issue=4 |pages=287–301 |year=1990 |pmid=1701697 }}</ref>
::: I've given you the best answer I can; if you disagree, consult others. But if you're telling me the article has 20KB of ''unnecessary'' quotes in footnotes, then I'm really confused. Copy this whole thing over to RCC talk, because this isn't my decision. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Damage to the developing eye of infants exposed to high oxygen fraction at normal pressure has a different mechanism and effect from the eye damage experienced by adult divers under hyperbaric conditions.<ref name="pmid9603802">{{cite journal |author=Drack, A.V. |title=Preventing blindness in premature infants |journal=New England Journal of Medicine |volume=338 |issue=22 |pages=1620–1 |year=1998 |month=May |pmid=9603802 |url=http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/338/22/1619 |accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref><ref name=Butler/>
:::: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Footnoted_quotes#Use_of_quotes_in_footnotes Here's what ArbCom said;] you're welcome to dig back through the evidence and see what that case was about, but I'm not in a "troll through ArbCom" kind of mood these days. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:06, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Hyperoxia may be a contributing factor for the disorder called retrolental fibroplasia or [[retinopathy of prematurity]] (ROP) in infants.<ref name=Nichols/><ref name="pmid9603802"/>
:::::So, it appears that ArbCom states "we don't deal with content, get a consensus first". I took it over to the talk page, so you can feel free to remove the above or whatever. Sorry for oranging up your day. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 20:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In preterm infants, the retina is often not fully vascularised. ROP occurs when the development of the retinal vasculature is arrested and then proceeds abnormally. Associated with the growth of these new vessels is [[Granulation tissue|fibrous tissue]] (scar tissue) that may contract to cause retinal detachment. Supplemental oxygen exposure, while a [[risk factor]], is '''not''' the main risk factor for development of this disease. Restricting supplemental oxygen use does not necessarily reduce the rate of ROP, and may raise the risk of other [[Hypoxia (medical)|hypoxia]]-related systemic complications.<ref name="pmid9603802"/>


Hyperoxic [[myopia]] has occurred in closed circuit oxygen rebreather divers with prolonged exposures.<ref name=Butler/><ref name=NEDU47/><ref name=shykoff3492>{{cite journal |author=Shykoff, Barbara E. |title=Repeated Six-Hour Dives 1.35 ATM Oxygen Partial Pressure |year=2005 |journal=US Naval Experimental Diving Unit Technical Report |volume=NEDU-TR-05-20 |location=Panama City, FL, USA |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3492 |accessdate=2008-09-19 }}</ref><ref name="pmid18500077">{{cite journal |author=Shykoff, Barbara E. |title=Pulmonary effects of submerged oxygen breathing in resting divers: repeated exposures to 140 kPa |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=35 |issue=2 |pages=131–43 |year=2008 |pmid=18500077 |accessdate=2008-09-19}}</ref>
== Double doo-doo ==
This must be due to an increase in the refractive power of the [[Lens (anatomy)|lens]], since axial length and [[Keratometer|keratometry]] readings do not reveal a [[cornea]]l or length basis for a myopic shift.<ref name=Butler/><ref name=myopialength>{{cite journal |author=Anderson, B.; Shelton, D.L. |title=Axial length in hyperoxic myopia |journal=In: Bove, Alfred A.; Bachrach, Arthur J.; Greenbaum, Leon (eds.) Underwater and hyperbaric physiology IX. |volume= Ninth international symposium of the [[Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society]] |year=1987 |pages=607-611 }}</ref>


==Mechanism==
You ok with my nominating [[Harvey Milk]] while [[Stonewall riots]] is still on the list? Dank55 and I are tag-teaming on Stonewall. I think I'm flying solo on Milk. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 18:52, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
: I haven't caught up on FAC; if it has no major unresolved issues, and has garnered at least some support, it's fine. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 19:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Once I fell asleep in Spanish class in high school, putting my head in the crease of my textbook. Where my pencil also was. When I woke up the pencil was stuck to my forehead. I didn't learn a lot of Spanish in high school. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 20:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Image:Lipid peroxidation.svg|thumb|190px|right|Lipid peroxidation mechanism]]
== RS question ==
A high concentration of oxygen damages cells.<ref name=Bitterman>{{cite journal |author=Bitterman, N. |title=CNS oxygen toxicity |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=63–72 |year=2004 |pmid=15233161 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3991 |accessdate=2008-04-29}}</ref>
Not all mechanisms of damage caused by [[reactive oxygen species]] (ROS) are known, but the process of [[lipid peroxidation]] causes damage to [[cell membranes]].<ref>{{cite web |author=Bowen, R. |url=http://www.vivo.colostate.edu/hbooks/pathphys/misc_topics/radicals.html |title=Free Radicals and Reactive Oxygen |publisher=Colorado State University |accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref>
ROS form as a natural byproduct of the normal [[metabolism]] of oxygen and have important roles in [[cell signaling]]. However, during times of environmental stress ROS levels can increase dramatically, which can result in significant damage to cell structures. This cumulates into a situation known as [[oxidative stress]].<ref name=Bitterman/><ref name="pmid18549826">{{cite journal |author=Piantadosi, Claude A. |title=Carbon monoxide, reactive oxygen signaling, and oxidative stress |journal=Free radical biology and medicine |volume=45 |issue=5 |pages=562–9 |year=2008 |month=September |pmid=18549826 |doi=10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.05.013 |url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0891-5849(08)00305-5 |accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref>
One example is that oxygen has a propensity to react with certain metals to form the ROS [[superoxide]], which attacks [[Covalent bonds#Bond_order|double bonds]] in many organic molecules, including the [[Fatty acid#Unsaturated_fatty_acids|unsaturated fatty acid]] residues in cells.<ref name="pmid1316738">{{cite journal |author=Thom, Steven R. |title=Inert gas enhancement of superoxide radical production |journal=Archives of biochemistry and biophysics |volume=295 |issue=2 |pages=391–6 |year=1992 |month=June |pmid=1316738 }}</ref><ref name="pmid12791678">{{cite journal |author=Ghio, Andrew J.; Nozik-Grayck, Eva; Turi, Jennifer; Jaspers, Ilona; Mercatante, Danielle R.; Kole, Ryszard; Piantadosi, Claude A. |title=Superoxide-dependent iron uptake: a new role for anion exchange protein 2 |journal=American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology |volume=29 |issue=6 |pages=653–60 |year=2003 |month=December |pmid=12791678 |doi=10.1165/rcmb.2003-0070OC |url=http://ajrcmb.atsjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=12791678 |accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref>
High concentrations of oxygen are also known to increase the formation of [[free radical]]s which harm [[DNA]] and other structures (see [[nitric oxide]], [[peroxynitrite]], and [[trioxidane]]).<ref name=Bitterman/><ref name="pmid1329105">{{cite journal |author=Oury, T.D.; Ho, Y.S.; Piantadosi, Claude A.; Crapo, J.D.; |title=Extracellular superoxide dismutase, nitric oxide, and central nervous system O2 toxicity |journal=Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America |volume=89 |issue=20 |pages=9715–9 |year=1992 |month=October |pmid=1329105 |pmc=50203 |url=http://www.pnas.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=1329105 |accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref>
Normally the body has many defense systems against such injury, such as [[glutathione]], [[catalase]], and [[superoxide dismutase]], but at higher concentrations of free oxygen, these systems are eventually overwhelmed, and the rate of damage to cell membranes exceeds the capacity of the systems which control or repair it.<ref name="pmid2825395">{{cite journal |author=Thom, Steven R.; Marquis, R.E. |title=Free radical reactions and the inhibitory and lethal actions of high-pressure gases |journal=Undersea Biomedical Research |volume=14 |issue=6 |pages=485–501 |year=1987 |month=November |pmid=2825395 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2459 |accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref><ref name="pmid10372426">{{cite journal |author=Djurhuus, R.; Svardal, A.M.; Thorsen, E. |title=Glutathione in the cellular defense of human lung cells exposed to hyperoxia and high pressure |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=26 |issue=2 |pages=75–85 |year=1999 |pmid=10372426 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2315 |accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref><ref name="pmid15485085">{{cite journal |author=Freiberger, John J.; Coulombe, Kathy; Suliman, Hagir; Carraway, Martha-sue; Piantadosi, Claude A. |title=Superoxide dismutase responds to hyperoxia in rat hippocampus |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=227–32 |year=2004 |pmid=15485085 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4014 |accessdate=2008-09-26}}</ref> Cell damage and cell death then result.


==Diagnosis==
SandyG, if you have any thoughts and had the time to have a look at [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Question_about_unpublished_sources_and_interviews_for_Carmen_Rodriguez|this query about sources]] for [[Carmen Rodriguez]], I'd be most grateful. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 22:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Diagnosis of CNS oxygen toxicity in divers prior to seizure is difficult as the symptoms of visual disturbance, ear problems, dizziness, confusion and nausea can be due to many factors common to the underwater environment such as narcosis, congestion and coldness. However, these symptoms may be helpful in diagnosing the first stages of oxygen toxicity in patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy. In either case, a seizure occurring while breathing oxygen at partial pressures of {{convert|1.4|bar|abbr=on}} or greater will be diagnosed as oxygen toxicity.
: That's spelled out somewhere as a clear no-no ... I think it's at [[WP:NOR]] ?? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::[[WP:SOURCES|"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources"]] :) A goldmine? Indeed. Totally against policy? Yep. [[User:Fvasconcellos|Fvasconcellos]]<small>&nbsp;([[User talk:Fvasconcellos|t]]·[[Special:Contributions/Fvasconcellos|c]])</small> 22:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
::: But it's dealt with specifically at [[WP:PSTS]]: Unsourced material obtained from a Wikipedian's personal experience, such as an unpublished eyewitness account, should not be added to articles. It would violate both this policy and [[Wikipedia:Verifiability|Verifiability]], and would cause Wikipedia to become a primary source for that material. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Think of the nightmare! "But [[Mary Shelley]] told me in a waking dream that ''[[Frankenstein]]'' is ''really'' about..." :) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 22:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Ha! Did she tell you to pronounce it FrankenSHTEEN like Mel Brooks? --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 22:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


Diagnosis of BPD in new-born infants with breathing difficulties is difficult in the first few weeks. However, if the infant's breathing does not improve during this time, [[blood tests]] and [[x-rays]] may be used to confirm BPD. In addition, an [[echocardiogram]] can help to eliminate other possible causes such as [[congenital heart defects]] or [[pulmonary arterial hypertension]].<ref>{{cite web |title=How is bronchopulmonary dysplasia diagnosed? |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |url=http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Bpd/Bpd_Diagnosis.html |accessdate=2008-09-28 }}</ref>
(outdent:) Yes, I feared as much. In fact, mind you, I think the taboo that's being broken here is less [[WP:V]] than [[WP:OR]]. After all, research (particularly historical and scientific research) for instance, relies precisely on primary sources: letters, interviews, diaries, as well as experiments, lab notes, and so on. It's not that the students are drawing on personal experience--per the example of an eyewitness report of an accident--let alone a waking dream. In fact, they are being suitably scholarly in searching out primary and unpublished sources. It's just that when scholars do this, their reputation and training is what provides verifiability. Here on Wikipedia, because these are sources that nobody else can access, they are regarded on unreliable.


The diagnosis of ROP in infants is typically suggested by the clinical setting. Prematurity, low birth weight and a history of oxygen exposure are the principal indicators, while no hereditary factors have been shown to yield a pattern.<ref name=Regillo>{{cite book |last=Regillo |first=Carl D. |coauthors=Brown, Gary C.; Flynn, Harry W. |title=Vitreoretinal Disease: The Essentials |location=New York |publisher=Thieme, 693 pages |year=1998 |url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QUTuvcB68DEC |isbn=0865777616 |oclc=39170393}}</ref>
NB the use of primary sources would not make Wikipedia a primary source; it would make it a secondary source, along the lines of the sources that Wikipedia itself uses. But Wikipedia's goal is to be a ''tertiary'' source, that relies on (usually scholarly or journalistic) secondary sources.


==Prevention==
I do wonder, however, how much leeway is provided by the final paragraph at [[WP:PSTS]]: "Appropriate sourcing can be a complicated issue, and these are general rules. Deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are more suitable on any given occasion is a matter of common sense and good editorial judgment, and should be discussed on article talk pages." --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 01:21, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Cylinder mod.jpg|thumb|190px|The diving cylinder contains oxygen-rich gas (36%) and is marked with maximum operating depth of 28&nbsp;metres.]]
A seizure caused by CNS oxygen toxicity is a deadly but entirely avoidable event while [[Underwater diving|diving]].<ref name=dan/> The diver may experience no warning symptoms. The effects are sudden convulsions and unconsciousness, during which victims can lose their [[Diving regulator|regulator]] and drown.<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=usn/> There is an increased risk of CNS oxygen toxicity on deep dives, long dives and dives where oxygen-rich breathing gases are used.<ref name=dan/> Divers are taught to calculate a [[maximum operating depth]] for oxygen-rich [[breathing gas]]es.<ref name=dan/><ref name=padi/> Cylinders containing such mixtures must be clearly marked with that depth.<ref name=dan/><ref name=padi/>


In some [[diver training]] courses for these types of diving, divers are taught to plan and monitor what is called the "oxygen clock" of their dives.<ref name=dan/> This is a notional alarm clock, which "ticks" more quickly at increased ppO<sub>2</sub> and is set to activate at the maximum single exposure limit recommended in the [[National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration]] (NOAA) Diving Manual.<ref name=dan/><ref name=padi/> For the following partial pressures of oxygen the limit is: 45 minutes at {{convert|1.6|bar|abbr=on}}, 120 minutes at {{convert|1.5|bar|abbr=on}}, 150 minutes at {{convert|1.4|bar|abbr=on}}, 180 minutes at {{convert|1.3|bar|abbr=on}} and 210 minutes at {{convert|1.2|bar|abbr=on}}, but is impossible to predict with any reliability whether or when CNS symptoms will occur.<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=usn/><ref>{{cite journal |author=Butler, Frank K.; Thalmann, Edward D. |title=Central nervous system oxygen toxicity in closed circuit scuba divers II |journal=Undersea Biomedical Research |volume=13 |issue=2 |pages=193–223 |year=1986 |month=June |pmid=3727183 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3045 |accessdate=2008-04-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Butler, Frank K. |title=Closed-circuit oxygen diving in the U.S. Navy |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=3–20 |year=2004 |pmid=15233156 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3986 |accessdate=2008-04-29}}</ref>
:*I don't want to be responsible for redefining editors as scholars, though! One important reason to severely limit the use of primary materials is precisely because the vast majority of Wikipedia editors have no training and are not able to properly assess primary materials - that is the job of experts. Finally, I think there is a world of difference between quoting a few lines from published novel and quoting from an unpublished interview with the author of that novel, for example. I tend to use "primary source" quotations when scholars have used them, for instance, to restrict any quotation bias, and the novel is available for anyone to read. However, an unpublished source is not available for perusal and will undoubtedly be used as evidence in an argument constructed by the editors - the kind of original research that belongs in academia, but not on Wikipedia. If we allowed everyone to post their ''own'' views with their ''own'' "unpublished" evidence, this place would be totally anarchic. Take a gander at the [[Joan of Arc]] archives, for example. You will find an example of an editor who wanted to add the results of his own personal, family tree to the article. It was unpublished, but reliable, because it was "family tradition", you see. :) It makes for a good read. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 09:45, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Many Nitrox-capable [[dive computer]]s calculate an "oxygen loading" and can track it across multiple dives. The aim is to avoid activating the alarm by reducing the ppO<sub>2</sub> of the breathing gas or the length of time breathing gas of higher ppO<sub>2</sub>. As the ppO<sub>2</sub> depends on the fraction of oxygen in the breathing gas and the depth of the dive, the diver obtains more time on the oxygen clock by diving at a shallower depth, by breathing a less oxygen-rich gas or by shortening the duration of exposure to oxygen-rich gases.


BPD is reversible in the early stages by use of "break periods" on lower oxygen pressures, but it may eventually result in irreversible lung injury if allowed to progress to severe damage. Usually several days of exposure without "oxygen breaks" are needed to cause such damage.
:::*Yes, thanks for your thoughts. I am going to encourage them to write up their interview for some kind of publication... and of course not primarily so that they can then quote the material on Wikipedia, but because that's a good thing to do in itself. They're quite thrilled with the Wikipedia thing (getting sufficiently into the assignment to contact Rodriguez and so on), but I think they'll be equally excited with the possibility of some other kind of publication. (Meanwhile, note to Malleus: I disagree quite vehemently, but admire your own faith!) --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 02:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


Pulmonary oxygen toxicity is an entirely avoidable event while diving. The limited duration and naturally intermittent nature of most diving makes this a relatively rare (and even then, reversible) complication for divers. Guidelines have been established that allow divers to calculate when they are at risk of pulmonary toxicity.<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=usn/><ref name=clark/><ref name=repex1/><ref name=repex2/><ref name=spums/>
::::*Sounds like an interesting discussion for another time. As David Hume said, "Truth springs from argument amongst friends." --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 02:59, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::*I'd cringe to know what hell spawn springs from one of our arguments. :P [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 03:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::* My lips are sealed. Imagine two scientists who spawned artsy children; I get enough of this in real life. "Why can't they just be physicists?" [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 03:18, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


In low-pressure environments oxygen toxicity may be avoided since the toxicity is caused by high oxygen partial pressure, not merely by high oxygen fraction. This is illustrated by oxygen use in spacesuits (historically, for example, the [[Project Gemini|Gemini]] and [[Apollo spacecraft]]).<ref name="pmid2730484">{{cite journal |author=Webb, James T.; Olson, R.M.; Krutz, R.W.; Dixon, G.; Barnicott, P.T. |title=Human tolerance to 100% oxygen at 9.5 psia during five daily simulated 8-hour EVA exposures |journal=Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine |volume=60 |issue=5 |pages=415–21 |year=1989 |month=May |pmid=2730484 |accessdate= }}</ref>
:::::::*There's an inherent imbalance in these discussions, in that Jbmurray and Awadewit, for instance, have chosen to make their academic credentials public. That others of us have chosen not to be so open should not be taken to mean that that our opinions are of lesser value. I will make one confession though; my first degree was in psychology, but I think that gives me a view into both the arts and science camps. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 03:31, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In such applications high-fraction oxygen is non-toxic, even at breathing mixture fractions approaching 100%, because the oxygen partial pressure is not allowed to [[Chronic toxicity|chronically]] exceed {{convert|0.35|bar|abbr=on}}.
::::::::* It's a problem in all of Wikipedia, honestly. Look at all the "But it's an interview, it must be reliable" arguments. It isn't helped by the fact that primary/secondary changes meaning across disciplines. What *I* know, as a historian, as a primary source isn't quite what say a biology professor would understand as one. (Also isn't helped by the fact that in ancient history, a "primary source" can often be written a couple centuries away from the events it's recording i.e. [[Livy]]) Sourcing in general at WP is ... scary. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::*I'm afraid my hackles rise when I see comments like "the vast majority of Wikipedia editors have no training and are not able to properly assess primary materials". It may well be the case that the vast majority of the 7.9 million or so registered users do not, but I would suspect that of the 153,000 active editors many have academic training, and are quite able to make judgements about primary materials, even in fields not directly related to their specific academic qualifications. From a scientific perspective I'd have to say that the evidence and arguments presented in literary articles often seems to be little more than the opinions of earlier generations, sometimes even risible. But I digress. There are different standards in the literary and scientific fields. Is Shelley's ''Frankenstein'' a good read is not a question that can be compared with "Can mass be converted into energy?" One can be tested, the other is a matter of faith. Discuss. :lol: --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 00:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::*Just look at any ''Simpsons'' article, for example. There is such a mishmash of primary and secondary sources as to make the skin crawl. There is no real understanding at that project, apparently, of what a primary and secondary source ''is''. :) If you want me to defend my field, I'm ready to do so - not all of it, mind you, but some of it. I would like to point out that no literary scholar worth their salt would ask "is ''Frankenstein'' a good read?" That is not the kind of question we ask. If you would care to learn about the field, I would be happy to teach you. Currently, I can only assume that you have erected a strawman argument in order to throw out an insulting comparison. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::*I'm sorry if you found the comparison insulting, that was not my intention. Neither do I agree that the argument is a strawman, as it it clearly rooted in the philosophy of the scientific method. But I will say no more, for fear of upsetting you further. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 17:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*I'm just tired of seeing my field maligned unfairly - there is plenty that is wrong with literary studies that I will freely admit to, but what you are describing is not it. You described a type of question that no one asks - since no one does what you claim, the comparison is false and your argument falls apart. If you want to have a real discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of literary studies, I would be happy to do so, but caricaturing the field is not the way to do so. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::*The problem of editors not understanding the difference between and correct usage of primary vs. secondary sources is also big in bio/med/science articles; in fact, it's the biggest issue at WP Medicine right now. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:13, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::* Malleus ... !! I took a day off this week. After the Johnson debacle, I was thinking just that, and that I can't wait to get that thing behind us and get back to some science and medical articles. Good gosh, there's no such thing as a hypothesis that can be tested in those literary articles, and a fact is never a fact. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:47, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


[[Vitamin E]] and [[selenium]] were proposed and later rejected as a potential method of protection against pulmonary oxygen toxicity.<ref name=Schatte>{{cite journal |author=Schatte, C.L. |title=Dietary selenium and vitamin E as a possible prophylactic to pulmonary oxygen poisoning |journal=Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Hyperbaric Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland |year=1977 |isbn=0-08-024918-3 |pages=84-91 }}</ref><ref name="pmid1852722">{{cite journal |author=Boadi, W.Y.; Thaire, L.; Kerem, D.; Yannai, S. |title=Effects of dietary supplementation with vitamin E, riboflavin and selenium on central nervous system oxygen toxicity |journal=Pharmacology & toxicology |volume=68 |issue=2 |pages=77–82 |year=1991 |month=February |pmid=1852722 |issn=0901-9928}}</ref><ref name=GUEdvd>{{cite video |people=Piantadosi, Claude A. |title=In: The Mysterious Malady: Toward an understanding of decompression injuries |medium=DVD |publisher=Global Underwater Explorers |year2=2006 |url=http://www.gue.com/?q=en/node/193 |accessdate=2008-09-19 }}</ref>
::::*I think those of us who've had scientific training think about the world differently. We're open to ideas, but we know that to have any value those ideas have to be testable, else they're just faith. I'll save you from my monologue on [[Karl Popper]], another dreadful article that I wish I hadn't just looked at. For instance, do ghosts exist? Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. But to get the right answer you have to ask the right question. What do you believe a ghost to be? How would you identify a ghost? I'm starting to ramble now, even I can see that ... :lol: --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 01:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
There is however some experimental evidence in rats that vitamin E and selenium aid in preventing [[in vivo]] [[lipid peroxidation]] and free radical damage, and therefore prevent retinal changes following repetitive hyperbaric oxygen exposures.<ref name="pmid2744583">{{cite journal |author=Stone, W.L.; Henderson, R.A.; Howard, G.H.; Hollis, A.L.; Payne, P.H.; Scott, R.L. |title=The role of antioxidant nutrients in preventing hyperbaric oxygen damage to the retina |journal=Free radical biology & medicine |volume=6 |issue=5 |pages=505–12 |year=1989 |pmid=2744583 }}</ref>
::::*PS. I'll be interested to see how [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JimmyButler#A_little_healthy_competition this] pans out. My guess is that the scientists will whup the arty types. :-) --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 02:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::**sigh* Couldn't we agree to learn from each other? For example, why do you think scientists have failed to convince the majority of Americans that evolution exists? It has nothing to do with evidence and everything to do with philosophy. We have failed to convince people that rationality is important. Moreover, I'm surprised to see someone on the science side of question referring to the "right" answer. It is my understanding that all answers in science are provisional - you are mistating the case for scientific rationality. It doesn't help your cause to make an undefendable argument! :) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 14:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::*That evolution exists is not in any doubt; there are many examples which demonstrate that perfectly satisfactorily for those with eyes to see. That so many Americans (in particular) seem to cling to a belief in creationism is a sociological and religious issue, nothing to do with philosophy. I find the presence of so much religious TV in the US just as puzzling as the apparently widespread belief in creationism. In closed systems of belief no proof is possible, therefore none is required for belief; faith substitutes for proof. BTW, that an answer is provisional is not the equivalent of saying that it's not the right answer, simply that it may not ''always'' be the right answer. The more important point, which you have studiously avoided, is selecting the right ''questions'', ones that empirically testable hypotheses can be drawn from. Everything else is just blind faith. Oh, and before I forget: *sigh* to you too. :lol: --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 14:22, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::*I think the question about faith has ''everything'' to do with philosophy. When I teach argumentative writing to my students, we have to spend days discussion why reason and logic are important: they do not understand why it is important to be logical. They often argue that faith is more important/better than reason - it is a fundamentally different philosophy. Moving on, though, let's resist the idea that the only questions worth answering are those that can be empirically tested. For you, apparently, philosophy is worthless. Ethics is of no concern. Etc. I am a rationalist and I turn to empiricism ''when appropriate'', but I do recognize that it cannot answer all of the questions I have. How do you decide questions of morality? How have you developed your code of personal ethics? Also, you want to divide knowledge-gathering into neat little camps of "empirical" and "non-empirical" and then say that everything that isn't empirical is faith-based. That is a simplistic view that doesn't hold up and will get you into serious trouble if you really follow out the logic. For example, mathematics is not based on empirical evidence - it is only based on axioms, proofs, etc. Nothing in the "real world" proves that the "truths" of mathematics exist. What does that mean for the sciences that rely on that mathematics? Sciences like physics rely on data collection and correct prediction to justify their assertion that they are describing the real world, however much of that data collection and prediction rests on difficult mathematical constructs that are themselves unprovable. You are trying to make such mixtures seem much simpler than they really are. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 17:58, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::*It is not at all the case that I believe philosophy to be worthless, quite the reverse. Simply that I am more drawn to empiricism than I am to other epistemological frameworks. I welcome disagreement and argument though, because without it there can be no "truth". --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 14:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::* And I find it puzzling that great numbers of people seem to think that ALL Americans are creationists or that we ALL watch religious TV. (tickles Malleus) [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 14:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::*Perhaps what many Europeans find puzzling is that ''any'' Americans are creationists, or that there are ''any'' American religious TV programmes? Anyway, I'll stop there. Don't want to upset you as well as Awadewit today. --[[User:Malleus Fatuorum|Malleus Fatuorum]] ([[User talk:Malleus Fatuorum|talk]]) 17:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::* Heh. Nah, won't upset me, as long as you don't assume that I, as an American, am necessarily creationist or a viewer of religious TV. Just because I write about bishops doesn't mean I'm necessarily religious. Just like I won't assume that just because you're from England, you're a soccer-mad fanatic! (grins) [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 17:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::*I love debating! A good thrust and parry always brightens my day. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::* I enjoy lurking, apparently, as I don't feel strongly enough to join in anything. As a very skeptical artist married to a scientist who had a very strong fundamentalist Christian background and reads evolutionary theory along with [[Tim LaHaye]] novels, I recognize that neither science nor philosophy exists in a vacuum without people to believe in either, or require either branch of study to be explained. The question of "do ghosts exist?" (they can exist for individuals) is not the same as describing the properties of fire, or wondering why some typos are more prevalent than others: is it a question of what the fingers are used to typing or is it insight into the secret desires of the typist? Does Awadewit want a new apartment? Does Moni secretly hate the Everglades so much that she wants the spelling "Evergaldes" to throw off Google hits? Such questions - will they ever be answered? --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 18:21, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


==Management==
(outdent:) For what it's worth... My university endlessly wants to bring the Sciences and the Arts together. I'm deeply sceptical, for many reasons. Not least because I think interdisciplinarity is much more difficult than their happy-clappy vision of everyone sitting in a lecture hall singing kumbayah. And some of the above gives the merest inkling of why such dialogue across the disciplines requires such work. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 18:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Image:Scleral_Buckle.svg|thumb|right|190px|Scleral Buckle: a silicone band is placed around the eye to move the wall of the eye close to a detached retina allowing the retina to re-attach.]]
: Can't be any more work than packing up a house. A house owned by bibliophiles. (whimpers) Last count we were about 6-7 thousand books, something like that... [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Treatment of seizures during oxygen therapy consists of removing the patient from oxygen, thereby dropping the partial pressure of oxygen delivered.<ref name=usn/> A seizure underwater requires that the diver is brought to the surface as soon as practicable. The buddy will ensure that the victim's air supply is established and maintained, then carry out a [[controlled buoyant lift]]. The buddy will need to ensure their own safety is not compromised during the convulsive phase, but lifting an unconscious body is taught by most [[diver training]] agencies. Upon reaching the surface, emergency services should be contacted as there is a possibility of further complications requiring medical attention.
::(edit conflict) I live with a physicist. We do the interdisciplinary thing every single day. It is wonderfully exciting. Hard, frustrating, but we both ''learn'' so much. We go to lectures in each others' field and we have huge, long debates afterwards. [[Stanley Fish]] and [[Roger Penrose]] come to mind. Who doesn't want to have great discussions like that? Disciplines are too cut off from each other, in my opinion. I have always wanted to teach a writing class for scientists! :) [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Ha! I live with a physicist, too; why haven't you reviewed [[Quark]]? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Because I don't want to be the person who starts the long discussion about whether we can use popular science books that omit huge chunks of information as sources for science articles. I would rather that a scientist do that. I'm sort of surprised no one has. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I may take off the delegate hat there and review it myself, but I don't want to risk another long FAC. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I spent 15 years with a Mathematician (which I probably just mispelled). I'd go "such and such really resembles (historical event here)" and he'd go "Huh? What was that?". He'd babble something about planes and integers and stuff, and I'd go "But why can't you balance a checkbook?" (grins) Fun, but... while I miss him every day since he died, I can't say that having to repair the mess he'd make of a checkbook is something I miss. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 18:42, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::I live with a biochemist, who wishes to explain her enthusiasm with labwork with me, and good partner that I am, I wish to share that enthusiasm. More often than not, I fail miserably at understanding anything unless I frame it in my own way. While she tried to explain [[Interference#Constructive_and_destructive_interference|Constructive and destructive interference]] to me, I could only get it when I equated it with human social behavior. Now I think someone should develop a branch of math and sociology to predict why people do dumb things over and over. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 18:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::Quantum inference? - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 18:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::Let's you and me write the books about it, Dan. We'd be rich. ''That'' is the framework by which all science and philosophy is judged. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 18:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Tacking on to the bottom: A, I hope you know that the context of my earlier reply to Malleus is the sheer exhaustion, frustration, disruption to my normal Wiki editing, and dismay at spending six weeks of my time on the Johnson FAC and seeing it (the article) deteriorate in the last few days. I have a hard time imagining that discussion about a bio/med article could proceed as this one did because of the scientific method, but I could be biased. And I could just be plain worn out and tired. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::I've read the archives of [[homeopathy]], [[evolution]], and several other articles which should have been straightforward but which turned into battlegrounds because of fringe ideologies. Scientific reasoning did nothing there to save the articles. [[User:Awadewit|Awadewit]] ([[User talk:Awadewit|talk]]) 18:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Ah, but that's a whole 'nother story, more related to Wiki's refusal to get a handle on disruptive editing and incorrect use of primary sources. I think (?) with Johnson we're generally (limited exceptions) talking about good editing, but there is still disagreement. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 18:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


The occurrence of symptoms of BPD or ARDS is treated by lowering the fraction of oxygen administered, along with a reduction in the periods of exposure and an increase in the break periods where normal air is supplied. Where supplemental oxygen is required for treatment of another disease (particularly in infants), a [[ventilator]] may be needed to ensure that the lung tissue remains inflated. Reductions in pressure and exposure will be made progressively and medications such as [[bronchodilators]] and [[pulmonary surfactants]] may be used.<ref name=MPBPD>{{cite web |title=NIH MedlinePlus: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia |publisher=U.S. National Library of Medicine |url=http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001088.htm |accessdate=2008-10-02 }}</ref>
== Test cite templates vs manually formatted citations ==


ROP may [[Regression (medicine)|regress]] spontaneously, but should the disease progress beyond a threshold (defined as five contiguous or eight cumulative hours of [[Retinopathy_of_prematurity#International_classification_of_retinopathy_of_prematurity_.28ICROP.29|stage 3 ROP]]), both [[cryosurgery ]] and [[laser surgery]] have been shown to reduce the risk of blindness as an outcome. Where the disease has progressed further, techniques such as [[Scleral buckle|scleral buckling]] and [[vitrectomy]] surgery may assist in re-attaching the retina.<ref name=Regillo />
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AOttava_Rima%2FRoman_Catholic_Church&diff=242878017&oldid=242877574 Sample]. Let's check how much the cite templates affect page-load times: could you compare load times for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ottava_Rima/Roman_Catholic_Church&oldid=242878017 versionA] and [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ottava_Rima/Roman_Catholic_Church&oldid=242877574 versionB]? [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 02:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
: Do you want me to go dialup for worst case? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


==Prognosis==
According to websiteoptimization.com (I'll go to dialup next and test them myself):
Although the convulsions caused by CNS oxygen toxicity may lead to incidental injury to the victim, it remained uncertain for many years whether damage to the nervous system following the seizure could occur and several studies searched for evidence of such damage. An overview of these studies by Bitterman in 2004 concluded that following removal of breathing gas containing high fractions of oxygen, no long-term neurological damage from the seizure remains.<ref name=Bitterman/><ref name=FennRahn>{{cite journal |author=Lambertsen, Christian J. |title=Effects of oxygen at high partial pressure |journal=In: Fenn, W.O.; Rahn, H. (eds.) Handbook of Physiology: Respiration |publisher=American Physiological Society |volume=Sec.3 Vol.2 |year=1965 |pages=1027–46 }}</ref>


The majority of infants who have survived following an incidence of BPD will eventually recover near-normal lung function, since lungs continue to grow during the first 5&ndash;7 years and the damage caused by BPD is to some extent reversible (even in adults). However, they are likely be more susceptible to respiratory infections for the rest of their lives and the severity of later infections is often greater than that in their peers.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Bpd/Bpd_WhatIs.html |title=National Institutes of Health: What is bronchopulmonary dysplasia? |publisher=U.S. Department of Health & Human Services |accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref><ref name="kidshealth">{{cite web |url=http://kidshealth.org/parent/medical/lungs/bpd.html |title=Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) |last=Spear |first=Michael L. - reviewer, |date=June 2008 |publisher=[[Nemours Foundation]] |accessdate=2008-10-03}}</ref>
;Version A
:Connection Rate Download Time
:14.4K 553.95 seconds
:28.8K 283.38 seconds
:33.6K 244.72 seconds
:56K 151.95 seconds


ROP in infants frequently regresses without intervention and eyesight may be normal in later years. Where the disease has progressed to the stages requiring surgery, the outcomes are generally good for the treatment of stage 3 ROP, but are much worse for the later stages. Although surgery is usually successful in restoring the anatomy of the eye, damage to the nervous system by the progression of the disease leads to comparatively poorer results in restoring vision. The presence of other complicating diseases also reduces the likelihood of a favourable outcome.<ref name=Regillo />
;Version B
:Connection Rate Download Time
:14.4K 553.95 seconds
:28.8K 283.38 seconds
:33.6K 244.72 seconds
:56K 151.95 seconds


==Epidemiology==
Shows absolutely equally. Did I make a mistake on Versions A and B? Off to dialup now to manually time the loadtime.
<!-- Before you change "6" to "six". please read [[MOS:SYL#Numbers_as_figures_or_words]], in particular the exception for comparable quantities -->
[[Image:Incidence of ROP.svg|thumb |right |190px |Percentage of Severe Visual Impairment and Blindness due to ROP in Children in Schools for the Blind in Different Regions of the World.]]
The incidence of CNS toxicity among divers has decreased since the Second World War, as protocols have developed to limit exposure and partial pressure of oxygen inspired. In 1947, Donald recommended limiting the depth breathing pure oxygen to {{convert|25|ft|abbr=on}}, or a ppO<sub>2</sub> of {{convert|1.8|bar|abbr=on}}. This limit has been reduced until today a limit of {{convert|1.4|bar|abbr=on}} during a dive and {{convert|1.6|bar|abbr=on}} during shallow decompression stops is accepted: oxygen toxicity has become a rare occurrence other than when caused by equipment malfunction and human error. Historically, the U.S. Navy has refined its Navy Diving Manual Tables to reduce oxygen toxicity incidents. Between 1995 and 1999, reports showed 405 surface-supported dives using the helium-oxygen tables; of these, oxygen toxicity symptoms were observed on 6 dives (1.5%). As a result, the U.S. Navy in 2000 modified the schedules and conducted field tests of 150 dives, none of which produced symptoms of oxygen toxicity. Revised tables were published in 2001.<ref name="Gerth">{{cite journal |last=Gerth |first=Wayne A. |month=February |year=2006 |title=Decompression sickness and oxygen toxicity in U.S. Navy surface-supplied He-O2 diving |journal=Proceedings of Advanced Scientific Diving Workshop |publisher=Smithsonian Institution |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4654 |isbn=20060725 |accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref>


The variability in tolerance and other variable factors such as workload have resulted in the U.S. Navy abandoning screening for oxygen tolerance. Of the 6,250 oxygen-tolerance tests performed between 1976 and 1997, only 6 episodes of oxygen toxicity were observed (0.1%).<ref name="Gould">{{cite journal |author=Walters, K.C.; Gould, M.T.; Bachrach, E.A.; Butler, Frank K. |title=Screening for oxygen sensitivity in U.S. Navy combat swimmers |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=21–6 |year=2000 |pmid=10813436 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2358 |accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref><ref name=pmid3705251>{{cite journal |author=Butler, Frank K.; Knafelc, M.E. |title=Screening for oxygen intolerance in U.S. Navy divers |journal=Undersea Biomedical Research |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=91–8 |year=1986 |month=March |pmid=3705251 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3046 |accessdate=2008-10-02}}</ref>
(Did you ''really'' write a script to strip citations? Hillary ! The problem I see at RCC is they would have to maintain citation consistency; I do that at [[Tourette syndrome]], but with more people dipping into the pot at RCC, citations will get out of whack, so unless the savings is substantial, it may not be recommended.)
[[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


The incidence of CNS oxygen toxicity among patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy is rare and influenced by a number of a factors: individual sensitivity and treatment protocol; and probably [[Indication (medicine)|therapy indication]] and equipment used. A study by Welslau in 1996 reported 16 incidents out of a population of 107,264 patients (0.015%), while Hampson and Atik in 2003 found a rate of 0.03%. Yildiz, Ay and Qyrdedi, in a summary of 36,500 patient treatments between 1996 and 2003, reported only 3 oxygen toxicity incidents, giving a rate of 0.008%.<ref name="pmid15485078">{{cite journal |author=Yildiz, S,; Ay, H.; Qyrdedi, T. |title=Central nervous system oxygen toxicity during routine hyperbaric oxygen therapy |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=189–90 |year=2004 |pmid=15485078 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4007 |accessdate=2008-10-03}}</ref>
:: Download rate should be determined by the size of the rendered html. It's *possible* the rendered html is exactly the same size, but I doubt it. If you used that optimizer website you linked above, it may be striping off modifiers to a page, like "&oldid=". If so then the page loaded would be the same. [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 02:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


BPD is among the most common complications of [[Premature birth|prematurely born]] infants and its incidence has grown as the survival of extremely premature infants has increased. Nevertheless, the severity has decreased as better management of supplemental oxygen has resulted in the disease now being related mainly to factors other than hyperoxia.<ref name="Bancalari" />
::: Since I'm a dummy, I shutdown and restarted to be sure my cache was clear, Version A, 73 long seconds, ugh. Now going to restart again for Version B. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


In 1997 a summary of studies of neonatal intensive care units in industrialised countries showed that up to 60% of [[low birth weight]] babies develop ROP, which rises to 72% in extremely low birth weight babies, i.e. less than {{convert|1000|g|lb|abbr=on}} at birth. However, severe outcomes are much less frequent: for very low birth weight babies (defined as less than {{convert|1500|g|lb|abbr=on}} at birth), the incidence of blindness was found to be no more than 8%.<ref name="Gilbert">{{cite journal |last=Gilbert |first=Clare |year=1997 |title=Retinopathy of prematurity: epidemiology |journal=Journal of Community Eye Health |publisher=International Centre for Eye Health |location=London |volume=10 |issue=22 |pages=22–24 |url=http://www.cehjournal.org/0953-6833/10/jceh_10_22_022.html |accessdate=2008-10-04}}</ref>
:::: Version B, 40 seconds. Since Version B is the version with templates, does that mean I had a caching issue even though I restarted? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:37, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


==History==
::::: Possibly the images. The html is different, however, if for nothing else than
[[Image:Oxygen toxicity testing.gif|thumb|right|190px|Subject breathing oxygen under pressure. Testing for oxygen toxicity in divers by UK Government 1942–3.]]
Accessed 2008-04-12
CNS toxicity was first described by Paul Bert in 1878.<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=Bert>{{cite journal |last=Bert |first=Paul |title=Barometric pressure: Researches in experimental physiology |journal=Translated by: Hitchcock, M.A. and Hitchcock, F.A. College Book Company; 1943 |date= originally published 1878 }}</ref><ref name="BSAC">{{cite book |author=British Sub-aqua Club |title=Sport diving : the British Sub-Aqua Club diving manual |publisher=Stanley Paul |location=London |year=1985 |pages=110 |isbn=0091638313 |oclc=12807848}}</ref>
::::: replacing
He showed that oxygen was toxic to [[insects]], [[arachnids]], [[Myriapoda|myriapods]], [[Mollusca|molluscs]], [[earthworm]]s, [[fungi]], [[Germination|germinating seeds]], [[bird]]s, and other animals.
Retrieved on <a href="/wiki/2008" title="2008">2008</a>-<a href="/wiki/April_12" title="April 12">04-12</a>
Pulmonary oxygen toxicity was first described by Lorrain Smith in 1899 when he noted CNS toxicity and discovered in experiments in mice and birds that {{convert|0.42|atm|abbr=on}} had no effect but {{convert|0.74|atm|abbr=on}} of oxygen was a pulmonary irritant.<ref name=Smith>{{cite journal |author=Smith, J.Lorrain |title=The pathological effects due to increase of oxygen tension in the air breathed |journal=Journal of Physiology |location=London |publisher=The Physiological Society and Blackwell Publishing |volume=24 |issue=1 |pages=19–35 |year=1899 |month=March |pmid=16992479 |url=http://www.jphysiol.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16992479}}</ref>
::::: That accounts for about 8k (91 refs x 88 characters). [[User_talk:Gimmetrow|''Gimmetrow'']] 03:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
The first recorded human exposure was undertaken in 1910 by Bornstein when two men breathed oxygen at {{convert|2.8|atm|abbr=on|lk=on}} for 30&nbsp;minutes while he went on to 48&nbsp;minutes with no symptoms.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Bornstein, A. |title=Versuche über die Prophylaxe der Pressluftkrankheit |journal=Pflügers Archiv European Journal of Physiology |volume=4 |pages=1272–1300 |date=1910 }}</ref>
In 1912, Bornstein developed cramps in his hands and legs while breathing oxygen at {{convert|2.8|atm|abbr=on}} for 51&nbsp;minutes.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Bornstein, A.; Stroink, M. |title=Ueber Sauerstoff vergiftung |journal=Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift |volume=38 |pages=1495–1497 |year=1912 }}</ref>
Smith then went on to show that intermittent exposure to a breathing gas with less oxygen permitted the lungs to recover and delayed the onset of pulmonary toxicity.<ref name=Smith/>


Behnke ''et al.'' in 1935 were the first to observe [[visual field]] contraction ([[tunnel vision]]) on dives between {{convert|1.0|atm|abbr=on}} and {{convert|4.0|atm|abbr=on}}.<ref>{{cite journal |author=Behnke, Alfred R.; Johnson, F.S.; Poppen, J.R.; Motley, E.P. |title=The effect of oxygen on man at pressures from 1 to 4&nbsp;atmospheres |journal=The American journal of physiology |volume=110 |pages=565–572 |year=1935 |url=http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/110/3/565 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Behnke, Alfred R.; Forbes, H.S.; Motley, E.P. |title=Circulatory and visual effects of oxygen at 3&nbsp;atmospheres pressure |journal=The American journal of physiology |volume=114 |pages=436–442 |year=1935 |url=http://ajplegacy.physiology.org/cgi/reprint/114/2/436 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
== [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Bruce]] ==
During World War II, Donald and Yarbrough ''et al.'' performed over 2,000 experiments on oxygen toxicity to support the initial use of closed circuit oxygen [[rebreather]]s.<ref name=Donald1/><ref name=Donald2/><ref>{{cite book |title=Oxygen and the diver. |last=Donald |first=Kenneth W. |year=1992 |publisher=Harley Swan |location=UK |isbn=1854211765 |pages=237 }}</ref><ref name=NEDU47>{{cite journal |author=Yarbrough, O.D.; Welham, W.; Brinton, E.S.; Behnke, Alfred R. |title=Symptoms of Oxygen Poisoning and Limits of Tolerance at Rest and at Work |journal=[[United States Navy Experimental Diving Unit|U.S. Naval experimental diving unit]] technical report |volume=NEDU-47-01 |year=1947 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3316 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
Naval divers in the early years of [[oxygen rebreather]] diving developed a mythology about a monster called "Oxygen Pete", who lurked in the bottom of the Admiralty Experimental Diving Unit "wet pot" (a water-filled [[hyperbaric chamber]]) to catch unwary divers. They called having an oxygen toxicity attack "getting a Pete".<ref name=pete>{{cite web |url=http://www.mindspring.com/~divegeek/eanx.htm |author=Taylor, Larry "Harris" |title=Oxygen Enriched Air: A New Breathing Mix? |publisher=[[International Association of Nitrox and Technical Divers|IANTD]] Journal |year=1993 |accessdate=2008-09-05 }}</ref><ref name=davis1955>{{cite book |author=[[Robert Davis (inventor)|Davis, Robert H.]] |title=Deep Diving and Submarine Operations |year=1955 |edition=6th |publisher=[[Siebe Gorman|Siebe Gorman & Company Ltd]], 693 pages |location=Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey |pages=291 }}</ref>


In the decade following World War II, [[Christian J. Lambertsen|Lambertsen]] ''et al.'' made further discoveries on the effects of oxygen at pressure as well as methods of prevention.<ref name=Penn>{{cite journal |author=Lambertsen, Christian J.; Clark, John M.; Gelfand, R. |title=The Oxygen research program, University of Pennsylvania: Physiologic interactions of oxygen and carbon dioxide effects and relations to hyperoxic toxicity, therapy, and decompression. Summation: 1940 to 1999 |journal=Environmental Biomedical Stress Data Center, Institute for Environmental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center |volume=EBSDC-IFEM Report No. 3-1-2000 |date=2000 |location=Philadelphia, PA }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |author=Vann, Richard D. |title=Lambertsen and O2: Beginnings of operational physiology |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=31 |issue=1 |pages=21–31 |year=2004 |pmid=15233157 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3987 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
* I was just headed over to Oppose [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Steve Bruce]], but it's been promoted. Well, move on to the next one... it's still in the Urgent FACs template; perhaps a bot could rmv articles from the template when they are closed? [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|WP:3IAR]])</sup> 02:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Their work on intermittent exposures for extension of oxygen tolerance and on a model for prediction of pulmonary oxygen toxicity based on pulmonary function are key documents in the development of operational oxygen procedures.<ref name=clark>{{cite journal |author=Clark, John M. |title=Extension of oxygen tolerance by interrupted exposure |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=31 |issue=2 |pages=195–8 |year=2004 |pmid=15485080 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4009 |accessdate=2008-04-29}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Pulmonary oxygen tolerance in man and derivation of pulmonary oxygen tolerance curves |author=Clark, John M.; Lambertsen, Christian J. |year=1970 |journal=Environmental Biomedical Stress Data Center, Institute for Environmental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center |volume=IFEM Report No. 1-70 |location=Philadelphia, PA |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3863 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
:* Steve Bruce has been up since the 22nd ! [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Lambertsen's work showing the effect of carbon dioxide in decreasing time to onset of CNS symptoms has influenced work from current exposure [[guidelines]] to future [[Scuba set|breathing apparatus]] design.<ref name=dan>{{cite book |title=DAN nitrox workshop proceedings |author=Lang, Michael A. (ed.) |year=2001 |publisher=Divers Alert Network |location=Durham, NC |pages=197 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4855 |accessdate=2008-09-20 }}</ref><ref name=rebreather2.0>{{cite journal |author=Richardson, Drew; Menduno, Michael; Shreeves, Karl (eds) |title=Proceedings of rebreather forum 2.0. |journal=Diving Science and Technology Workshop. |date=1996 |pages=286 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/7555 |accessdate=2008-09-20 }}</ref><ref name=padi>{{cite journal |author=Richardson, D.; Shreeves, K. |title=The PADI enriched air diver course and DSAT oxygen exposure limits. |journal=South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society journal |volume=26 |issue=3 |date=1996 |issn=0813-1988 |oclc=16986801 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6310 |accessdate=2008-05-02 }}</ref>
::* I'm sorta pretty much getting into the habit of ignoring the long list of FACs on the FAC page, and working only from the template on its Talk. I spent all last night creating a second version of the lead of [[quark]], and this morning dealing with other things.. and so just now was headed over to Bruce to say that the lead is really poor (in my cranky opinion)... [[User:Ling.Nut|Ling.Nut]] <sup>([[User talk:Ling.Nut|talk]]&mdash;[[User:Ling.Nut/3IAR|WP:3IAR]])</sup>
:::* As I've long suspected, this is a big problem with that list. If people would review articles at the top of the list, we could cut the list in half because I could archive the deficient FACs sooner. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


ROP was not observed prior to World War II, but with the availability of supplemental oxygen in the decade following, it rapidly became one of the principal causes of infant blindness in developed countries. By 1960 the use of oxygen had become identified as a risk factor and its administration restricted. The resulting fall in ROP was accompanied by a rise in infant mortality and hypoxia-related complications. Since then, more sophisticated monitoring and diagnosis has established protocols for oxygen use which aim to balance between hypoxic conditions and problems of ROP.<ref name="Gilbert" />
== Are things like this allowed in FAC's ==
[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/No_Way_Out_(2004)&diff=242943804&oldid=242907898] Supporting or Opposing per another person? Doesn't the user in question if opposing have to provide a better reason in FAC's than that? [[User:D.M.N.|D.M.N.]] ([[User talk:D.M.N.|talk]]) 14:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:It's common to see opinions of others all over Wikipedia who support or oppose something "per" another person. It's shorthand for "s/he said it and I agree with it". It's not something I do, mainly because I ''so'' need to be original, and I don't want anyone stealing my thunder. Seriously though, I speak for myself, but I recognize other people agree with "pers". --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 17:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:: If someone said everything that needed to be said, it's fine. Obviously, I give more weight when it's clear that the reviewer fully engaged the article, but neither do I discount per so-and-so Opposes. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


Bitterman ''et al.'' in 1986 and 1995 showed that [[Lighting|darkness]] and [[caffeine]] will delay the onset of changes to [[electroencephalography|brain electrical activity]] in rats.<ref name="pmid3705247">{{cite journal |author=Bitterman, N.; Melamed, Y.; Perlman, I.; |title=CNS oxygen toxicity in the rat: role of ambient illumination |journal=Undersea Biomedical Research |volume=13 |issue=1 |pages=19–25 |year=1986 |month=March |pmid=3705247 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/3044 |accessdate=2008-09-20}}</ref><ref name="pmid8574677">{{cite journal |author=Bitterman, N.; Schaal, S.; |title=Caffeine attenuates CNS oxygen toxicity in rats |journal=Brain Research |volume=696 |issue=1-2 |pages=250–3 |year=1995 |month=October |pmid=8574677 |url=http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/0006-8993(95)00820-G |accessdate=2008-09-20}}</ref>
==Waterfall Gully FAR==
In the years since, research on CNS toxicity has centered around methods of prevention and safe extension of tolerance.<ref name=natoliMS>{{cite book |title=Factors Affecting CNS Oxygen Toxicity in Humans |author=Natoli, M.J.; Vann, R.D. |year=1996 |volume=Report to the U.S. Office of Naval Research |publisher=Duke University |location=Durham, NC |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/21 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
I placed the notification on its FAR listing on [[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cities]] on 30 September. However, did not know till now that it was supposed to be mentioned on Talk page. [[User:Michellecrisp|Michellecrisp]] ([[User talk:Michellecrisp|talk]]) 15:15, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
These include topics such as [[circadian rhythm]], drugs, [[Ageing|age]], and [[gender]] that have been shown to contribute to CNS oxygen toxicity sensitivity.<ref name="pmid5130131">{{cite journal |author=Hof, D.G.; Dexter, J.D.; Mengel, C.E. |title=Effect of circadian rhythm on CNS oxygen toxicity |journal=Aerospace medicine |volume=42 |issue=12 |pages=1293–6 |year=1971 |month=December |pmid=5130131 }}</ref><ref name="pmid15622741">{{cite journal |author=Torley, L.W.; Weiss, H.S. |title=Effects of age and magnesium ions on oxygen toxicity in the neonate chicken |journal=Undersea Biomedical Research |volume=2 |issue=3 |pages=223–7 |year=1975 |month=September |pmid=15622741 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/2432 |accessdate=2008-09-20}}</ref><ref name="pmid5061633">{{cite journal |author=Troy, S.S.; Ford, D.H. |title=Hormonal protection of rats breathing oxygen at high pressure |journal=Acta Neurologica Scandinavica |volume=48 |issue=2 |pages=231–42 |year=1972 |pmid=5061633 }}</ref><ref name="pmid17672171">{{cite journal |author=Hart, George B.; Strauss, Michael B. |title=Gender differences in human skeletal muscle and subcutaneous tissue gases under ambient and hyperbaric oxygen conditions |journal=Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine |volume=34 |issue=3 |pages=147–61 |year=2007 |pmid=17672171 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/7346 |accessdate=2008-09-20}}</ref>
In 1988, Hamilton ''et al.'' wrote procedures for [[NOAA]] to establish oxygen exposure limits for [[Underwater habitat|habitat]] operations.<ref name=Brubakk/><ref name=repex1>{{cite journal |title=Repex habitat diving procedures: Repetitive vertical excursions, oxygen limits, and surfacing techniques. |author=Hamilton R W., Kenyon David J., Peterson R. E., Butler G. J., Beers D. M. |year=1988 |journal=NOAA Office of Undersea Research |volume=Technical Report 88-1A |location=Rockville, MD |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4865 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref><ref name=repex2>{{cite journal |title=Repex habitat diving procedures: Repetitive vertical excursions, oxygen limits, and surfacing techniques. |author=Hamilton, Robert W.; Kenyon, David J.; Peterson, R.E. |year=1988 |journal=NOAA Office of Undersea Research |volume=Technical Report 88-1B |location=Rockville, MD |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/4866 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref><ref name=spums>{{cite journal |author=Hamilton, Robert W. |title=Tolerating oxygen exposure |journal=South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society journal |volume=27 |issue=1 |year=1997 |issn=0813-1988 |oclc=16986801 |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6038 |accessdate=2008-04-29 }}</ref>
Even today, models for the prediction of pulmonary oxygen toxicity do not explain all the results of exposure to high partial pressures of oxygen.<ref>{{cite journal |title=Performance of various models in predicting vital capacity changes caused by breathing high oxygen partial pressures. |author=Shykoff, Barbara E. |year=2007 |journal=U.S. Naval Experimental Diving Unit Technical Report |volume=NEDU-TR-07-13 |publisher=Navy Experimental Diving Unit |location=Panama City, FL |url=http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/6867 |accessdate=2008-06-06 }}</ref>


==References==
== Battle of Berlin ==
{{Reflist|2}}


==Bibliography==
[[Battle of Berlin]] is a work in progress. All dates should be in the form "day month year" as that is what the majority are in. The reason why the start of the article is without links is because it has been edited in the last month the rest of the article has not and the recommendation on not linking dates has only recently been agreed. --[[User:Philip Baird Shearer|Philip Baird Shearer]] ([[User talk:Philip Baird Shearer|talk]]) 22:47, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
: "Work in progress"? But it's at FAC. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


* {{cite book |title=Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving, 5th Rev ed |last=Brubakk |first=Alf O. |coauthors=Neuman, Tom S. |year=2003 |publisher=Saunders, 800 pages |location=Edinburgh; New York |isbn=0702025712 |oclc=51607923}}
== Tropical Storm Kiko (2007) FAC ==
* {{cite book |title=Oxygen and the diver |last=Donald |first=Kenneth W. |year=1992 |publisher=Harley Swan, 237 pages |location=UK |isbn=1854211765 |oclc=26894235 }}
* {{cite book |title=The Diving Emergency Handbook |author=Lippmann, John; Bugg, Stan |location=Teddington, UK |publisher=Underwater World Publications |year=1993 |isbn=0-946020-18-3 |oclc=52056845}}
* {{cite book |last=Regillo |first=Carl D. |coauthors=Brown, Gary C.; Flynn, Harry W. |title=Vitreoretinal Disease: The Essentials |location=New York |publisher=Thieme, 693 pages |year=1998 |url=http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QUTuvcB68DEC |isbn=0865777616 |oclc=39170393}}


==External links==
Oh, ok. I didn't know that, sorry. I'll see what I've missed on reviews. [[User:Cyclonebiskit|Cyclonebiskit]] ([[User talk:Cyclonebiskit|talk]]) 02:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
* [http://www.scuba-doc.com/oxygentox.html Scubadoc's Diving Medicine Online]
* {{cite journal |url=ftp://ftp.decompression.org/pub/Baker/Oxygen%20Toxicity%20Calculations.pdf |author=Baker, EC |title=Oxygen toxicity calculations |format=pdf |publisher=decompression.org |accessdate=2008-09-18 }}
* [http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/dspace/simple-search?query=oxygen+toxicity&submit=Go Rubicon Research Repository] - Online collection of the oxygen toxicity research
* {{YouTube|BnzUoQ8ajJU|Toxing diver rescue}} - one method of diver rescue from oxygen toxicity
* [http://www.diversalertnetwork.org/FastAccess/2008TechnicalDiving.aspx 2008 Divers Alert Network Technical Diving Conference] - Free download of "Oxygen Toxicity" lecture by Dr. Richard Vann
* {{GeorgiaPhysiology|4/4ch7/s4ch7_7}}


{{Respiratory physiology}}
== Dylan FAR ==
{{Poisoning and toxicity}}


[[Category:Diving medicine]]
Sorry if [[Michael Gray (author)|Michael Gray]]'s opinion was [[WP:TLDR]]. We were discussing what was an authoritative Dylan source, and he's the only expert I know who could give us a well-informed opinion. Thanks for guidance. [[User:Mick gold|Mick gold]] ([[User talk:Mick gold|talk]]) 06:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[[Category:Element toxicology]]
[[Category:Intensive care medicine]]
[[Category:Oxygen]]
[[Category:Pulmonology]]
[[Category:Neurobiological brain disorder]]


[[da:Iltforgiftning]]
== FAC comments ==
[[de:Paul-Bert-Effekt]]

[[es:Efecto de Paul Bert]]
Already fixed, see FAC review. :-) [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 07:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[[fr:Hyperoxie]]
:Too much caffeine, I think. :-D [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 07:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[[nl:Zuurstofvergiftiging]]
Yeah, I added it to a bunch of other articles, for when they all make FA status. ;-) [[User:Jayjg|Jayjg ]]<sup><small><font color="DarkGreen">[[User_talk:Jayjg|(talk)]]</font></small></sup> 22:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[[ja:酸素中毒]]

[[pl:Zatrucie tlenowe]]
== As of linked years ==
[[pt:Efeito Paul Bert]]

[[ro:Hiperoxia]]
I left a response at Tony's talk page, but wanted to leave a note here as well to avoid confusion. You said at the FAC, referring to "as of" links: ''"I don't know when those awful things crept back in to MoS"'' From what I can see, they never did. [[Wikipedia:As of]] says clearly that 'as of' links are deprecated, and [[Template:As of]] was recreated in February 2008, and outputs plain text instead of whatever it did before. Hopefully that is clearer now. I'm dropping a note off to [[User:Ikara]] to make sure I'm not misunderstanding anything. [[User:Carcharoth|Carcharoth]] ([[User talk:Carcharoth|talk]]) 09:11, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
[[ru:Кислородное отравление]]
:The following is the reply I left on [[User talk:Tony1#As of|Tony's talk page]]:
::The "as of year" links are deprecated per [[WP:As of]] and the [[Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 32#Proposal to change WP:As of policy|discussion]] regarding it that took place at the Village Pump. However, they should not be outright removed as they still serve a functional purpose. Instead they should be converted to the {{tlx|As of}} template as appropriate. Links of the form <nowiki>[[As of Year]]</nowiki> should be formatted as {{tlx|As of|Year}}, and links of the form <nowiki>[[As of Month Year]]</nowiki> should be formatted as {{tlx|As of|Year|Month}}. This will output the plain text "As of [Month] Year" and categorise the article appropriately, but not create a wikilink in the article. See the template documentation for more options and information.
:Hopefully that clears things up –&nbsp;[[User:Ikara|'''''Ikara''''']]&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Ikara|talk&nbsp;→]]</sup> 16:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Thanks; most likely, Tony will clear up the MoS page so editors don't think they're still supposed to be adding "as of" year links (likely because of not reading that entire other page). [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

==[[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beyoncé Knowles]]==
Thanks for the note. I left a message there. --[[User:Efe|Efe]] ([[User talk:Efe|talk]]) 09:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: Done. Regards, [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Connie Talbot/archive2]] ==

Can I ask why this was not promoted? Was it the concerns about over-detail/prose? Or was it that the biography may, in the future, change? Surely, using that logic, I can't ever hope to get this to FA, as, inevitably, she's going to outlive me? [[User:J Milburn|J Milburn]] ([[User talk:J Milburn|talk]]) 10:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: At 11 days, it had a solid oppose and one of the supports was a weak support that actually identified deficiencies and read as an oppose. I suggest following the tips at [[WP:FCDW/March 17, 2008]] to open a peer review and invite Karanacs, as well as other [[WP:PRV|peer review volunteers]] to comment there: that should pave the way for a successful FAC next time. Hope to see you back in a few weeks ! [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::J Milburn, it is quite normal for a period off and a re-run. Little weight is given to Supports (see the thrid bullet in the instructions. Good luck next time. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 15:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== WP:GO ==

Sandy, I just read the thread at [[User talk:Gimmetrow#WP:GO]]. I got the impression that the Gimmebot isn't going to maintain it for much longer, and you're frustrated by it. Since WP:FL adds a high number of noms, I don't mind looking after it. What exactly needs to be done to maintain it? Regards, [[User:Matthewedwards|Matthewedwards]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Matthewedwards|talk]] <small>•</small> [[Special:Contributions/Matthewedwards|contribs]]&nbsp;<small>•</small> [[Special:Emailuser/Matthewedwards|email]]) 17:21, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: Matthew, thank you for the offer to help! Here is the history, so you'll understand the issue. If you read through the talk page and the talk page archives there, you'll see that ''for years'' Raul was mentioning that no one else helped do the weekly page archive, and it was a lot of work. The archiving instructions are in the actual page. The dates have to be added to the template, etc. When I came in as FAC delegate, I quickly understood how exasperating it was to maintain this page, particularly since no other process was sharing the burden, and I was having to do it all, every Saturday night at 0:00 UTC; fun way to spend my Saturday night. If I didn't get to it right away, at midnight Saturday, other processes would just add their promotions, without bothering to archive the page, creating even more work. So, Gimmetrow eventually wrote the code into GimmeBot to do the archiving automatically on Sat nights. But there are still issues, and other processes haven't helped. For example, the dates still have to be added to the template about a month in advance. We have to watch for errors: the last thing that tripped up the Bot was a sound with a # in the name, but the Sound people don't even notice or check. I had to manually correct the archiving, and Gimmetrow had to adjust the script to account for the sound files: who knows what's next? So, when I come along to promote, I have to correct the page and re-archive, when I'm in the middle of promoting with six tabs open (my circuit breakers pop :-). If other processes would: 1) help watch on Saturday night that the page archives correctly, 2) make sure the page has archived before adding new entries to it on Sunday or Monday, and 3) help maintain the template dates in advance, it would be most helpful! [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Content policy updates ==

I removed WP:Attack pages and added WP:NFCC to [[:Category:Wikipedia content policy]], so now it's just 7 pages: the 3 core content policies, plus NAME, NFCC, BLP and NOT. Would you like like monthly updates of the 7 content policy pages? I won't have time for all of them but I bet I can find people who are interested in contributing, given the activity on those pages.
: Sounds like a lot of work; have to leave tht decision to you :-) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:08, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I'm going to delegate the work if I can. The style part of [[WP:Update]] is ready; is that useful? Do you want changes? - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 12:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Discussion on Ottava's talk ==

Hi, I noticed your discussion on Ottava's talk page, where he/she mentions six editors who complained about Jbmurray. I am one such editor, and made my concerns about this publicly, on the Mark Speight FAC and his own talk page. I do agree with you to an extent that discussion should be kept on-wiki as much as possible, but sometimes issues are rather too personal to raise publicly. I have however let Murray know of my thoughts publicly, before I began discussing him with Ottava in private. This FAC is my first, and his is the only oppose so far (that wasn't stricken). As someone who is well versed with the process as he is, he could have been much more helpful than he was with me. Instead, he's left a rather rague unhelpful "bad prose" ''strong'' oppose without actually bringing up the issues he has. I have spoken to other editors, and other editors think the prose is fine. He asked me to get others to look through it, so I did, and they think it's fine. I hope his oppose is no longer considered, since I did everything asked of me. It really is a stressful process, and opposes are a bit of a dig, especially when the opposer refuses to explain to me ''how'' to fix the problems, or even what the problems are. Best wishes. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 20:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: Can you point me to the guideline against inline queries? I've never come across it; this is the first I've heard of it, and I haven't yet found it. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::I have no idea about any such guideline. The closest I can see is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:MOS#Invisible_comments here], but that doesn't say they aren't allowed. I thought it was a very odd way to raise concerns, when there's a perfectly useful talk page and FAC page open to do so. However, my real issue with him was his lack of helpfulness to a newbie FA writer, as I explained above. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 20:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::(ec:) As I've tried to explain repeatedly, there are various issues here. But the most important is that a reviewer is not (and should not be) required to mention all instances of an issue at FAC. It's when a nominator views the FAC as a place to get quick fixes and subsequently badgers reviewers (or even, as here, the FAC delegate) to strike opposes, that's when the FAC process starts breaking down.
::::My own approach to FAC, and I'm hardly alone, is first to do some copy-editing on an article, and raise some minor issues inline, to which ideally the nominator can easily respond without fuss.
::::You chose rather to make a fuss. I hardly see that as an improvement.
::::Meanwhile, I have explained to you quite clearly what the issues are with this article. I'm sorry that you cannot see that. Those issues remain. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 20:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::No you haven't. I'm sorry you can't be just a tad more helpful. Anyway, I'm not going to argue about this on someone elses talk page. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 20:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::: I haven't looked at the FAC, so I won't opine on the oppose other than to say that all actionable opposes should be heeded. The guideline on inline queries is my immediate concern. Since I also use this method at FAC, I was surprised to see that it might be against a guideline; it appears that it's not. So, I want to point out that many editors do this as a time-saving, helpful approach to FAC. It is far faster to fix a minor issue right there in the text, based on an inline, than for the reviewer to add minor comments to the FAC or article talk, and for the nominator to have to go back and forth between the talk page, the FAC, and the text. It is a method that is intended to be helpful. If something turns out not to be minor, requiring further discussion, then it can be raised instead on talk. At least that's the way I have always approached FAC reviewing. I hope this helps resolve part of the concern. It is not surprising for a first FAC to be stressful, but little confusions like this only complicate matters, so please do bring them to me or [[WT:FAC]] sooner rather than discussing them off-Wiki, where confusion may only fester. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:57, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
:::::::This puts it perfectly. --[[User:Jbmurray|jbmurray]] ([[User talk:Jbmurray|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jbmurray|contribs]]) 21:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::::::A similar method of communication was used in the recent FAC of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stonewall_riots&diff=242432068&oldid=242153968 Stonewall riots]. Maralia copyedited what she saw needed addressing, and where she had questions, asked in hidden edits. I saw it all when I got up the next morning and got to work fixing what she pointed out. I thought it was convenient enough that I did the same in a recent peer review of [[Columbia River]]. However, it is true that if a reviewer sees multiple problems, it's sufficient to point out examples of repeated issues. FAC is not the place for fixing simple prose and sourcing issues that should be caught in peer reviewing. --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 21:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: So, unless someone can point me to something else, the practice of limited inline comments during FAC (used by many editors) seems fine. This is one of the reason it's best to keep Wiki discussions on Wiki, so we can all decide these things together :-) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 20:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll just chime in to explain where there is a problem. I'm sorry if this may be condescending since I am relying ont he basic pages, but please bear with me. [[Wikipedia:TALK#How to use article talk pages]] - What a talk page is for: A. "The talk page is the ideal place for all issues relating to verification." B. "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits" C. "The talk page is particularly useful to talk about edits" D. "Talk pages are for discussing the article," Since we already have these stated, and this is a strong section that has been carefully worked, it seems that consensus pushes for the talk page to be the center of discussion. It also does not prioritize on who gets to edit, nor favors another. It also grants the ability to archive discussions, which the article page does not. Now, from the invisible comment section: "Invisible comments are useful for flagging an issue or leaving instructions about part of the text," This implies (to me) information such as "this is original spelling", "this page is in ___ English", or "This is a list from ___". Also, "They should be used judiciously" implies that they should not be overused. I would prefer if people had a chance to discuss before changing pages, not make it seem like a page should be changed instantly, especially when it deals with content and style, and not a simple fix. That's all I have to say on it, and I would rather not discuss this further. [[User:Ottava Rima|Ottava Rima]] ([[User talk:Ottava Rima|talk]]) 22:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: I have to say that I agree with Ottava here, substantial changes to the prose should probably be run through the talk pages so there is an archive of it and it's public to everyone. I generally don't use inline comments except to make sure that folks do not change something that is a misspelling in the orginal quotation, etc. I think what everyone needs to remember is that first time nominators don't understand everything at FAC, and taking the time to explain thoroughly is well worth it in the long run. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 22:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::You can say that again (the last part). Not sure how fast I'll be submitting my next article (if I ever do) considering the attitude of some of the commenters. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 22:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::: Not to beat the same drum, but :-) Perhaps if you would have brought your concern early on to [[WT:FAC]], it might have gone smoother. I'm not sure it could have occurred to Jbmurray that the inlines were causing a problem; I use them, and think of them as a way to make things easier on nominators. I have checked the FAC now, and see that three reviewers raised prose issues (and that Ottava has now copyedited), so the next step would be to request previous opposers to revisit. I'm sorry you felt the experience was less than optimal, but I think we could all encourage more discussion at [[WT:FAC]] as the lesson learned. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:33, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry, was this reply to me? <confused> -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 22:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: It's a general reply to all of us; we need to make better use of [[WT:FAC]]. Sometimes I fear my talk page is becoming FAC central, and I'm not sure we're reaching everyone. The take home message here is that inlines are often used among experienced FAC nominators, but perhaps we should use them less liberally with newer nominators. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Sorry about that ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFeatured_article_candidates%2FThe_Other_Woman&diff=243267768&oldid=243264194]. Thanks, –'''[[User:thedemonhog|<span style="color:#ff6600">thedemonhog</span>]]''' <small>''[[User talk:thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]] • [[Special:Contributions/thedemonhog|<span style="color:black">edits</span>]]''</small> 21:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
: No problem :-) This was addressed in the Dispatch that interviewed RickBot, but it still hasn't caught on with FAC reviewers or nominators. RickBot needs a nominator line first for ease of his script; otherwise, he has to manually intervene. And, we had other scripts in the past that bombed on the capital P on previous FAC, so I try to make sure every FAC is standard, as I can't predict our future script needs. If regular reviewers at FAC would be more aware of this, it would be one less janitorial step for me, designed to help the bots and scripts that make us all happy. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== "chunk up the text"? ==

Sorry, I'm trying to learn the stuff to where I can do one of these and you guys don't have to fix a ton of these things in time... what did you mean about the text chunking? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beecher%27s_Handmade_Cheese&diff=243341007&oldid=243340824 I may have gone dumb from a very very long day but I don't get it]. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 02:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: Whenever a cite template has a field that is empty, it's not doing anything in the article but taking up space that you have to edit around; you can remove them. I'll go do a few more samples now so you can see what I mean. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Gotcha, I thought I'd gotten all of those. I was trying to remove them all as I went after I found [http://toolserver.org/~magnus/makeref.php this] tool to format them for me. <font color="0D670D" face="Georgia, Helvetica">[[User:Rootology|rootology]]</font> (<font color="#156917">[[Special:Contributions/Rootology|C]]</font>)(<font color="#156917">[[User talk:Rootology|T]]</font>) 03:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Navboxes on the side ==

You may want to look (and [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Topic navboxes|comment]] about <tt>:)</tt> ) at the solution [[User:Jdorje|Jdorje]] came up with for [[Hurricane Dean]], and which [hopefully] satisfies the [[WP:ACCESS]] concerns you've raised lately. [[User:Titoxd|Tito<span style="color:#008000;">xd</span>]]<sup>([[User talk:Titoxd|?!?]] - [[WP:FAC|cool stuff]])</sup> 06:16, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Vithoba]] ==

Can you please take a look at [[Vithoba]] and comment on any problems present on the article? Thanks. --[[User:Redtigerxyz|Redtigerxyz]] ([[User talk:Redtigerxyz|talk]]) 13:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Italics or quotes? ==

Sandy - been through most of the stuff, but there are some words still in quote marks here in this section - [[Major depressive disorder#Psychological]], they should be in italics, right? Cheers, [[User:Casliber|Casliber]] ([[User talk:Casliber|talk]] '''·''' [[Special:Contributions/Casliber|contribs]]) 13:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

: [[WP:ITALICS]] are used for words as words, ''sparingly'' for emphasis, for foreign terms, and for the other main uses in the guideline. I'm not certain why all of those items in quote marks need quote marks, but I don't believe they would be in italics. I also saw a mix of single and double quotes, and still a lot of errors in [[WP:PUNC|logical punctuation]]. Perhaps ask Tony about the quote marks if he's not too busy? Otherwise Dank55 might help. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 17:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

::Be happy to help if you haven't checked with Tony, Casliber. - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== Blue links ==

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_Speight&diff=prev&oldid=243517779 Your edit is noticed!] I'll get right on with cutting the links down :-) -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 21:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: On the other papers, you don't have to link every occurrence, particuarly since they're well known. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Do the dates need unlinking, or are references different? -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 21:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== ''Concerned'' FAC ==

I took my time, there really isn't any reason why I should wait a few more weeks doing nothing, since I can't think of anything else to do for the article. If it fails again, at least people will point me problems I can't notice otherwise, and it won't be a waste of time. [[User:Diego pmc|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Diego_pmc</span>]] [[User talk:Diego pmc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">'''Talk'''</span></sup>]] 21:48, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: Reviewers are stetched thin, other articles deserve a chance for review, and talk page consensus at [[WT:FAC]] and long-standing consensus has been to allow some time between nominations.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=next&oldid=204636455] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 21:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand that, but as I said I can't see any reason why doing so here would cause harm - WP isn't a beurocracy, after all. As an alternative, you could point out problems that could keep me occupied for a week or so, so that I wouldn't have to wait a week doing nothing, just so that I would respect a set of rules. :) If it is of any significance, I considered the previous nomination to have been closed prematurely, since the problems could have been solved in a matter of days, as you can see. Not that I accuse you of anything, I understand it can be tiring to review all the noms thoroughly. [[User:Diego pmc|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Diego_pmc</span>]] [[User talk:Diego pmc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">'''Talk'''</span></sup>]] 21:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: In fairness to other nominators, other articles, and reviewers, do not re-nom the article until a few weeks have passed.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates&diff=next&oldid=204636455] [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: FAC isn't an article improvement service, articles should come to it pretty much prepared and ready to go. At least that is how I approach my nominations. I suggest you contact the reviewers who left notices and ask for further help, most will probably be happy to do so without having to have the time constraints of FAC. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 22:04, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Just for the sake of it, I'll wait until a week has passed since the last nom, but I think this rule should be a bit more flexible—I find it very absurd in some cases. Is it discussable (should be it's Wiki), and if so where can I start a discussion? Also if there is any reason this rule should stay as rigid as it is, please tell me, so that I could think it over, if needed. Thanks!

P.S.: Ealdgyth, thanks for the tip. [[User:Diego pmc|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Diego_pmc</span>]] [[User talk:Diego pmc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">'''Talk'''</span></sup>]] 22:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:There are discussions about this at [[WT:FAC]] right now. There are not enough reviewers to keep up, and if we keep having to review the same articles over and over then there won't be resources to go around. If you can't think of anything else to do to the article, open a peer review and recruit other users to take a look and offer opinions. You should especially contact anyone who has already opposed the article at FAC; if you don't address their concerns then your next FAC will likely fail too. [[User:Karanacs|Karanacs]] ([[User talk:Karanacs|talk]]) 22:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
:: Just a note, PR now requests 14 days before an article that wasn't promoted at its FAC be listed at PR. [[User:Ealdgyth|Ealdgyth]] - [[User talk:Ealdgyth|Talk]] 23:03, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::: I keep forgetting that, but it makes sense. A FAC gives the nominator enough to work on, so immediately listing at PR doesn't make sense either. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

So bottom line, the reason this rule is still up is not that it is too great, but because there aren't enough reviewers? [[User:Diego pmc|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Diego_pmc</span>]] [[User talk:Diego pmc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">'''Talk'''</span></sup>]] 22:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:No, it's also because I don't take archiving a FAC lightly, and they are archived when reviewer consensus is that more work is needed than can be done at FAC. Bringing them back right after archival disrespects reviewer effort. Also, the rule is flexible; if a nominator, for example, is affected by a hurricane or illness, and had to withdraw for a logical reason, I'm open to letting the nom come back sooner. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:59, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but there are exceptions from your 1st argument (IMHO ''Concerned'' is one of them, as I could have fixed the article in even less than 4 days—I took my time out of respect you could say). Also, it is relative if a renom is disrespectful or not. If you renom an article immediately after it's been closed, without making any improvements than that is very disrespectful. But I don't think that renoming it after fixing the problems is.<br>And last, about natural disasters slowing down a contributor, I find that kinda funny. I guess that person will have other worries than promoting an article, so a week will still pass anyway.<br>BTW, don't take any offense in this (you seem a little irritated), we're just having an argument. Anyway, I'm not going to push for renoming ''Concerned'' now, because the not-enough-reviewers reason is actually a good one. :) [[User:Diego pmc|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Diego_pmc</span>]] [[User talk:Diego pmc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">'''Talk'''</span></sup>]] 06:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== The Scott Mills Show Peer Review request ==

Hi.

Could you please review [[The Scott Mills Show]] and leave comments [[Wikipedia:Peer review/The Scott Mills Show/archive1|here]].

Thanks, [[User:TwentiethApril1986|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#00009C">TwentiethApril1986</span>]] [[User_talk:TwentiethApril1986|<span style="font-family:Verdana;color:#FCC200">(talk)</span>]] 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Syracuse University]] copyedit request ==

I've cleaned up this article from top to bottom. I've got one more subsection to write, although I'm finding it difficult to get good sources of information that aren't just out and out propaganda. Joe Biden is prominently displayed with all the appropriate NPOV stuff... in other words, he was a graduate of Syracuse University School of Law. LOL. I was wondering if you could start a copyedit once-through. Just so you know, I used [[Georgetown University]] as my template, since it's one of the few FA university articles that would be similar to Syracuse. And their competitors. So, Go Bosox, and any advice you have for me (no one else is helping, so this is basically mine) would be greatly appreciated. I think copyedit help is the level at which you're not considered a involved editor for FAC purposes. I'd like to nominate it for FA status soon, after you and Tony give it a once through. Again, ignore the one section that needs writing. Next, some medical article, probably [[Herpes zoster]]. That should be easy (unless you know who shows up). Then I think it's time to get HIV/AIDS back to FA status--it's an abomination that those two articles aren't FA. So that's my 1-2 month plan around here. Cause trouble here and there. Help out with [[Multiple sclerosis]] for Garrondo, who is doing yeoman work in neurological articles. Thanks for everything.[[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
: Publishers missing on most citations; can you get someone to fill those in, and I'll chip away as I can? It won't be soon, because [[Samuel Johnson|this old dead writer]] is killing me. (PS, On a quick flyover, I see lots of MoS stuff to fix, but I'll also be leaving inlines about missing context ... ) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
::Wow, you're fast!!! I just want to get this article off my things to do. I'll start working on some of those MOS things, including publishers.[[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 23:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== A question ==

Sandy, you've kept your opinions out of the short FA discussion, which is fine, but I'd like to know if you have an opinion on how much value there is in trying to shepherd the discussion to a consensus, as I am trying to do. If we let things lie at WT:FAC, and no consensus forms, we stay with the status quo ante, which doesn't seem to be the preference of many people. Do you feel that we can carry on happily without resolving this discussion? If the consensus is to promote ''Space SF'' without resolving this discussion, I'd be slightly disappointed; I didn't nominate it to get a star, but to determine if it ''could'' get a star. If it gets one without a supporting consensus on the issues I suppose that's harmless; if you don't promote (which even with majority support I'd not object to, since !votes != votes) then that's also disappointing without a consensus to make the reasons for not promoting more explicit. I suppose another way of looking at it is that that FAC discussion, which I've done my best to draw attention to as a proxy for the abstract debate, may itself turn out to be the best location for the debate, and the decision there may be regarded as precedent-setting.

Anyway, I don't want to try to draw you out on your opinion on short articles at FA, but I would be interested to hear your opinion on the status of the discussion, and the best way to resolve it. [[User:Mike Christie|Mike Christie]] [[User_talk:Mike Christie|(talk)]] 02:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: Unless we hear something concrete from Raul (who knows more of the history of WIAFA), I think the discussion is valuable. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

== New quark intro ==

Hi there. I have written a new introduction for [[quark]] at [[User:SCZenz/Quark#New intro]]. As you expressed concern about the complexity of the previous introduction, I'd be especially pleased if you would take a look, let me know what you think, and help improve it. -- [[User:SCZenz|SCZenz]] ([[User talk:SCZenz|talk]]) 06:58, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
: I don't think "complexity" was the word I used :-) The first sentence is ''much'' better: it now has something closer to a fundamental definition of a quark, although it's still lacking. The second sentence goes right into the same issues present in the previous version: terms are used before they're defined, and readers who don't speak physics are forced to click on blue links to try to decipher the article.

:For some samples of how simple it is to write with clarity about Quarks, refer to the pros at SLAC:

:* http://www2.slac.stanford.edu/VVC/theory/fundamental.html

: I also have a sneaking suspicion that most of the article editors are too young to remember how exciting each quark discovery was, how they changed basic physics concepts taught to older generations, or to understand how confusing the Quark article might be to anyone over 40 or 50 years old, who may still think of protons and electrons as the basic building blocks of matter. That's what I mean by context is lacking, in addition to the overreliance on blue links for basic concepts. If you were a 60-yo liberal arts major, who had never taken a course in physics, never heard of a quark, and thought you knew the most fundamental building blocks from your high school science courses, would you get this basic information from the lead of this article? Or would you be forced to click on a bunch of blue links to try to understand what the heck?

:* http://www.particleadventure.org/frameless/quarks.html "Quarks are one type of matter particle. Most of the matter we see around us is made from protons and neutrons, which are composed of quarks."

: Quarks are such a basic concept that the introduction should be clear and accessible to all audiences. Then, the body of the article needs to use scholarly sources, not high school websites. And goodness, the discovery of quarks was exciting to some of us; the history section could use some beef !! [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 00:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States Naval Gunfire Support debate]] ==

First, thanks for the move. Now that the name issue has been dealt with I am working on the other issues. In particular, I write this message with regard to the quotes in the articles; I left a note with a link to a discussion about the quotes in the current form. I think this is the only suriviving issue relating to the MOS that you had, and I would like to get it straightened up before moving on to address any of the other major issues. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 03:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:BTW: Your quote recommendation was retoractively applied to the article [[Montana class battleship]] as well after it occured to me that the article had been using the some curly quotes. Thanks for fixing that, I apreciate it. [[User:TomStar81|TomStar81]] ([[User talk:TomStar81|Talk]]) 23:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Death Valley National Park]] ==

Hi Sandy. Mav feels he's done with this one. [[User:Marskell|Marskell]] ([[User talk:Marskell|talk]]) 08:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Tourette syndrome]] ==

Thanks for cleaning up my minor edit to [[Tourette syndrome]]. I'm still getting used to Wikipedia's MoS, which is slighly different than the writing style I'm accustomed to for research papers and articles, so I appreciate your patience and apologize for making you have to clean up after me so much! Happy editing. &mdash;[[User:Politizer|Politizer]]<sup><small>(&nbsp;'''[[User talk:Politizer|talk]]'''&nbsp;•&nbsp;'''[[Special:Contributions/Politizer|contribs]]'''&nbsp;)</small></sup> 17:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

== He was very rude to us Scots, you know. ==

{| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;"
|rowspan="2" valign="top" | [[Image:Civility barnstar.png]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''Civility Award'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For outstanding patience, to SandyGeorgia in respect of a [[Samuel Johnson|particular English gentleman's]] FAC. [[User:Ben MacDui|<font color="#6495ED">Ben</font>]] [[User talk:Ben MacDui|<font color="#C154C1">Mac</font>]][[Special:Contributions/Ben MacDui|<font color="#228B22">Dui</font>]] 20:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
|}

== [[Wikipedia_talk:Today's_featured_article/requests#Manchester_Bolton_.26_Bury_Canal|MBB FP]] ==

I'm unclear what is happening here. I've read and re-read things, but don't quite understand the process. Could you offer a little advice and tell me what I should do? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 22:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
: The article is eligible to be put up as soon as Raul schedules Oct 16. The recommendation that you wait (not put it up right away) is based on not tying up the slots on the page, keeping other articles off for a full month, since you will surely get a slot with so many points. However, waiting too long carries a risk; sometimes Raul schedules far in advance, sometimes he doesn't. If he happens to have some plans that require him to schedule far in advance for November, and you missed the chance to get your slot by following the advice to wait til the end, you could miss the slot. So, you have to weigh the risks, and decide when to put in the request. I was concerned that no one pointed that out to you. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 22:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:: But - I thought I'd already put a request in, on the talk page? So should I just leave well alone until Oct 16 is scheduled, and then...well what exactly? Do I create a new section with exactly the same text in the proposal? [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 23:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
::: The talk page is not a request; the talk page is discussion. A request is entered when you add it to [[WP:TFA/R]]; you should carefully read the instructions there. It's your decision as to when you want to enter it on the page; it can be anytime after Raul schedules the 16th, but you don't have to jump right on the 16th. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
:::: Ok thank you. From the main page I see that no more than five proposals are allowed at any one time. If there are already five on the page by the time I come to propose, what do I do exactly, especially since it is by no means certain that the article I want to propose may have those 6 points for a bi-centennial? Thank you for your patience on this, sometimes the finer points of Wikipedia policy can be tricky. [[User:Parrot of Doom|Parrot of Doom]] ([[User talk:Parrot of Doom|talk]]) 12:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
::::: Read the first paragraph of [[WP:TFA/R]], and the "Adding requests" section, and let me know if you're still uncertain. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:52, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Not sure if there's a rule ==

I made [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Syracuse_University&diff=244053517&oldid=244024730 these two edits] to the article. I wikilinked the name of the person, but not the name of the building. Then I thought about it, and I'm not sure if it's useful or silly. I'm sure you know the exact rule to follow in this case. [[User:Orangemarlin|<font color="orange">'''Orange'''</font><font color="teal">'''Marlin'''</font>]] <small><sup>[[User talk:Orangemarlin|Talk•]] [[Special:Contributions/Orangemarlin|Contributions]]</sup></small> 02:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
: I suspect that's fine, as there's not enough to be said about the building to make it notable enough for its own article. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 02:57, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== [[Template talk:cite map]] ==

{{tl|cite press release}} also lists publisher first and has no field for press release authors. Maps aren't the only sources where the publisher is the important detail and the person who authors the work, if even known, is actually less important. [[User:Imzadi1979|Imzadi1979]] ([[User talk:Imzadi1979|talk]]) 03:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== Citing video interviews ==

I have a small question, and I thought you might be able to help. When citing video interviews should I use {{tl|cite video}}, or {{tl|cite interview}}? [[User:Diego pmc|<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Diego_pmc</span>]] [[User talk:Diego pmc|<sup><span style="font-family:Verdana;color:Gray">'''Talk'''</span></sup>]] 09:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: Since I've never used either, I'm really not sure. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::It really depends how you want your end reference to look, and how many fields you can fill in. I doubt there's a strict rule on which to use. -- [[User:How do you turn this on|<span style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:white; background:gray;">how&nbsp;do&nbsp;you&nbsp;turn&nbsp;this&nbsp;on</span>]] 23:48, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== an alternative to the proposed [[WP:FSAC]]? ==
I should like to [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#proposal: enhanced notability for featured articles?|suggest]], as an alternative to the proposed [[WP:FSAC]], excluding articles on "semi-notable" topics from the ambit of the Featured Article project entirely, diverting them into [[WP:GA|WP:GA(N)]] instead. In other words, put more articles into [[WP:GAN]] (hopefully increasing the prestige of the [[WP:GA?|WP:GA]] status, to where people wouldn't ''want'' to submit "unencyclopædic" [[WP:FAC]]s), rather than creating a new process. I know you support the new process but I thought I would still seek your [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#proposal: enhanced notability for featured articles?|input]].

On a different subject, I also have been thinking that when the Featured Article Director's delegate [[WP:FARC|demotes]] a ''former Good Article'' [i.e., WP:GA → WP:FA → WP:FAR(C),] a decision expressly be made whether to re-submit the article to [[WP:GAN]] or not. (Needless to say, if the article contains serious error then it shouldn't.) If you think this is a bad idea then please [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Good articles#a procedural question|offer your input]].

Finally, on a ''completely'' unrelated question, does your [[Shermanesque response]] to my [[WP:RFA|earlier question]] still hold?
[[Special:Contributions/69.140.152.55|69.140.152.55]] ([[User talk:69.140.152.55|talk]]) 13:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: 1) I'm not sure how we define "semi-notable". 2) Almost all FARC'd articles do not meet [[WP:WIAGA]]; I can think of no example of a FARC'd article that would meet WIAGA. 3) yes, Yes and YES. My answer won't change, so you really don't have to keep asking :-) Best regards, [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

==will be back==
I have to go out of town for a couple of days for family reasons and I may not be able to respond at FAC. I just wanted you to know I will be back soon, definitely by Monday. I have alerted other editors who worked with me on the page and they will be helping out while I'm gone. Thanks. [[User:NancyHeise|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#E75480">Nancy</font><font color="#960018">Heise</font></font>''']] <sup> [[User talk:NancyHeise#top|'''<font face="verdana"><font color="#F6ADC6">talk</font></font>]]</sup> 14:54, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

==MIT==
[[Massachusetts Institute of Technology]] has been through a GAR (kept) and PR in the past three months in preparation for a FAC in the near future. The [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Peer_review/Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology/archive2 primary stumbling block] seems to be the [[Massachusetts Institute of Technology#Research activity|Research activity]] section which is a mass of "over-linked" (but really easter egged) blue and probably worthy of some [[WP:SS|Summary style]]. I've let the article sit for a few more weeks to see if anything developed from other editors after the PR and GAR, but nothing has. I know of no way to equitably slice and dice it. I would appreciate your thoughts and any suggestions you had for that section or the rest of the article. Cheers! [[User:Madcoverboy|Madcoverboy]] ([[User talk:Madcoverboy|talk]]) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
: I see quite a few issues there, and an article that is a ways from FAC-ready. Unfortunately, as I was searching around for a better University article to show you as a sample of which way you need to head, all I found was featured University articles that need to be submitted to [[WP:FAR]]. I'm afraid you've gotten a very superficial peer review there; I, too, have issues with the way that one section is written, but I see much more work needed to prepare the article for FAC. [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

== I'm interested in your impression... ==

of my proposal on short articles at [[WT:FAC#Even more arbitrary section break]]. (Feel free to respond there, here, or not.) - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 20:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: I like the first sentence :-) [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 23:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

: For the next sub-heading, I respectfully suggest ''Chaotic section break''. [[User:The Duke of Waltham|Waltham]], <small>[[User talk:The Duke of Waltham|''The Duke of'']]</small> 05:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== Ideas on just what is wrong with people ==

Are now solicited...

* [http://www.showandtellmusic.com/pages/galleries/gallery_v/babylulu.html Exhibit A] - Seriously...what is ''wrong'' with people?
* [http://www.showandtellmusic.com/pages/galleries/gallery_t/barbra.html Exhibit B] - must listen to let me know what ''you'' have always wanted the chance to do...
* [http://www.showandtellmusic.com/pages/galleries/gallery_q/tortura2.html Exhibit C] - there's a sociologist working on this somewhere, right? Right??

Anyone? --[[User:Moni3|Moni3]] ([[User talk:Moni3|talk]]) 02:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

== FYI on Pump discussion ==

Quiddity gives a number of useful links pointing out potential article problems at [[WP:VPP#When to use hidden/collapsible sections]] and asks which style guideline should address these issues. What would you like to see in the style guidelines? - Dan [[User:Dank55|Dank55]] ([[User talk:Dank55|send/receive]]) 04:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

: It's already dealt with at [[Wikipedia:MOS#Scrolling_lists]]; once again, what is MoS, chopped liver ??? [[User:SandyGeorgia|Sandy<font color="green">Georgia</font>]] ([[User talk:SandyGeorgia|Talk]]) 04:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:23, 11 October 2008

Oxygen toxicity
SpecialtyEmergency medicine Edit this on Wikidata

Oxygen toxicity or oxygen toxicity syndrome (also known as the "Paul Bert effect" or the "Lorrain Smith effect") describes harmful effects caused by breathing oxygen at elevated partial pressures.[1][2][3] The condition of an excess of oxygen in body tissues is known as hyperoxia. Such above-normal concentrations of oxygen within the body can cause cell damage and death.[1] Oxidative damage is most often reported in the central nervous system (CNS), lungs (pulmonary) and eye (retinopathic conditions).[1][4][5][6][7] It may also be implicated in red blood cell destruction (erythrocyte hemolysis), liver (hepatic) effects, heart (myocardial) damage, endocrine effects (adrenal, gonads, and thyroid), kidney (renal) damage, and general damage to cells.[1][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

The damage is caused by long exposure (days) to lower concentrations of oxygen or by shorter exposure (minutes or hours) to high concentrations. Short exposures to partial pressure of oxygen above 1.6 bar (160 kPa) are usually associated with CNS oxygen toxicity and are most likely to occur among patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy and divers.[17][18][19] Long exposures to partial pressures of oxygen above 0.5 bar (50 kPa) can result in pulmonary oxygen toxicity and are a concern for patients breathing pure oxygen for extended periods.[20][21][22]

The serious effect of CNS oxygen toxicity is a seizure, consisting of a brief period of rigidity followed by convulsions and unconsciousness, which is of concern to divers who breathe gases at much greater than atmospheric pressure. Pulmonary oxygen toxicity results in damage to the lungs causing pain and difficulty in breathing, while oxidative damage to the eye may lead to myopia or partial detachment of the retina. These occur when supplemental oxygen is administered as part of a treatment, particularly to newborn infants.

Prevention of oxygen toxicity is an important precaution whenever oxygen is breathed at greater than normal partial pressures and has led to use of protocols for avoidance of hyperoxia in such fields as diving, hyperbaric therapy, neonatal care and human spaceflight. This has lead to oxygen toxicity seizures becoming increasingly rare, with pulmonary and ocular damage being mainly confined to the problems of managing premature infants.

Classification

In humans, a convenient classification is by organ affected. There are three principal types of oxygen toxicity:[1][3]

  • Central nervous system (CNS), characterised by convulsions followed by unconsciousness, occurring under hyperbaric conditions
  • Pulmonary, characterised by difficulty in breathing and pain within the chest, occurring when breathing elevated pressures of oxygen for extended periods
  • Ocular, characterised by alterations to the eye, occurring when breathing elevated pressures of oxygen for extended periods

Oxidative damage may occur in any cell in the body but the effects on the most susceptible organs will be the primary concern. In unusual circumstances, effects on other tissues may be observed: it is suspected that during spaceflight, high oxygen concentrations may contribute to bone damage. Hyperoxia can also indirectly cause carbon dioxide narcosis in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).[23] Oxygen toxicity is not associated with hyperventilation, because it never results from breathing air at atmospheric pressure.

Signs and symptoms

CNS oxygen toxicity manifests as symptoms such as visual changes, ringing in the ears, nausea, twitching (especially on the face), irritability (personality changes, anxiety, confusion, etc.), and dizziness. This may be followed by a tonic-clonic seizure where intense muscle contraction occurs for several seconds followed by rapid spasms of alternate muscle relaxation and contraction producing convulsive jerking, which is followed by a period of unconsciousness (the postictal state).[1][2] The onset depends upon partial pressure of oxygen (ppO2) in the breathing gas and exposure duration but experiments have shown that there is a wide variation in exposure time before onset amongst individuals and in the same individual from day to day.[1][2][4] In addition, many external factors, such as underwater immersion, exposure to cold, and exercise will decrease the time to onset of CNS symptoms.[17][18] Decrease of tolerance has been shown to be closely linked to retention of carbon dioxide.[24][25][26] Other factors, such as darkness and caffeine increase tolerance in test animals, but these effects have not been proven in humans.[27][28]

Image is of pulmonary oxygen toxicity in a rat lung following long hyperbaric oxygen exposure. Histology shows alveolar edema, hyaline membranes, inflammatory cell infiltration, and septal thickening.

Early symptoms of pulmonary oxygen toxicity are breathing difficulty and pain or discomfort within the chest (substernal pain). The lungs show inflammation and swelling (pulmonary edema).[1][2]. Tests in animals have indicated a similar variation in tolerance as found in CNS toxicity as well as significant variations between species. When the exposure to oxygen above 0.5 bar (50 kPa) is intermittent, it permits the lungs to recover and delays the onset of toxicity.[29]

Causes

CNS toxicity

As CNS toxicity is caused by breathing oxygen at elevated ambient pressures, patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy are at risk of suffering hyperoxic seizures following short exposures to the high pressure oxygen.[1][19][30] For the same reason, divers breathing air at depths greater than 60 metres (200 ft) face a risk of an oxygen toxicity "hit" (seizure) as do divers breathing a gas mixture enriched with oxygen (Enriched Air Nitrox).[24]

Pulmonary toxicity

The lungs have a very large area in contact with the breathing gas and contain thin membranes with limited antioxidant defenses, making them particularly susceptible to damage by oxygen. Pulmonary toxicity occurs with prolonged exposure to elevated concentrations of oxygen. Pulmonary manifestations of oxygen toxicity are not the same for normobaric conditions as they are for hyperbaric conditions.[31]

The risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia ("BPD") in infants, or adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in adults, begins to increase with exposure for over 16 hours to oxygen partial pressures of 0.5 bar (50 kPa) or more.[20][21][22] At sea-level, 0.5 bar (50 kPa) is exceeded by gas mixtures having oxygen fractions greater than 50%, while the rate of damage rises non-linearly between the 50% threshold of toxicity and the rate at 100% oxygen. Partial pressures between 0.2 bar (20 kPa) (normal at sea level) and 0.5 bar (50 kPa) are considered non-toxic but intensive care patients breathing more than 60% oxygen, and especially patients at fractions near 100% oxygen, are considered to be at particularly high risk. If the treatment continues for a lengthy period, it may begin to cause lung damage which exacerbates the original problem requiring the high-oxygen mixture. Oxygen toxicity is also a potential complication of mechanical ventilation with pure oxygen, where it is called respiratory lung syndrome.

Breathing 100% oxygen eventually leads to collapse of the alveoli (atelectasis), while — at same partial pressure of oxygen — the presence of significant partial pressures of inert gases will prevent this effect.[32] In the treatment of decompression sickness, divers are exposed to long periods of oxygen breathing under hyperbaric conditions. This exposure, coupled with that from the dive preceding the symptoms, can be a significant cumulative oxygen exposure and pulmonary toxicity may occur.[19]

Ocular toxicity

Prolonged exposure to high inspired fractions of oxygen causes damage to the retina.[5][33][34][35] Damage to the developing eye of infants exposed to high oxygen fraction at normal pressure has a different mechanism and effect from the eye damage experienced by adult divers under hyperbaric conditions.[36][6] Hyperoxia may be a contributing factor for the disorder called retrolental fibroplasia or retinopathy of prematurity (ROP) in infants.[5][36] In preterm infants, the retina is often not fully vascularised. ROP occurs when the development of the retinal vasculature is arrested and then proceeds abnormally. Associated with the growth of these new vessels is fibrous tissue (scar tissue) that may contract to cause retinal detachment. Supplemental oxygen exposure, while a risk factor, is not the main risk factor for development of this disease. Restricting supplemental oxygen use does not necessarily reduce the rate of ROP, and may raise the risk of other hypoxia-related systemic complications.[36]

Hyperoxic myopia has occurred in closed circuit oxygen rebreather divers with prolonged exposures.[6][33][37][38] This must be due to an increase in the refractive power of the lens, since axial length and keratometry readings do not reveal a corneal or length basis for a myopic shift.[6][39]

Mechanism

Lipid peroxidation mechanism

A high concentration of oxygen damages cells.[4] Not all mechanisms of damage caused by reactive oxygen species (ROS) are known, but the process of lipid peroxidation causes damage to cell membranes.[40] ROS form as a natural byproduct of the normal metabolism of oxygen and have important roles in cell signaling. However, during times of environmental stress ROS levels can increase dramatically, which can result in significant damage to cell structures. This cumulates into a situation known as oxidative stress.[4][41] One example is that oxygen has a propensity to react with certain metals to form the ROS superoxide, which attacks double bonds in many organic molecules, including the unsaturated fatty acid residues in cells.[42][43] High concentrations of oxygen are also known to increase the formation of free radicals which harm DNA and other structures (see nitric oxide, peroxynitrite, and trioxidane).[4][44] Normally the body has many defense systems against such injury, such as glutathione, catalase, and superoxide dismutase, but at higher concentrations of free oxygen, these systems are eventually overwhelmed, and the rate of damage to cell membranes exceeds the capacity of the systems which control or repair it.[45][46][47] Cell damage and cell death then result.

Diagnosis

Diagnosis of CNS oxygen toxicity in divers prior to seizure is difficult as the symptoms of visual disturbance, ear problems, dizziness, confusion and nausea can be due to many factors common to the underwater environment such as narcosis, congestion and coldness. However, these symptoms may be helpful in diagnosing the first stages of oxygen toxicity in patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy. In either case, a seizure occurring while breathing oxygen at partial pressures of 1.4 bar (140 kPa) or greater will be diagnosed as oxygen toxicity.

Diagnosis of BPD in new-born infants with breathing difficulties is difficult in the first few weeks. However, if the infant's breathing does not improve during this time, blood tests and x-rays may be used to confirm BPD. In addition, an echocardiogram can help to eliminate other possible causes such as congenital heart defects or pulmonary arterial hypertension.[48]

The diagnosis of ROP in infants is typically suggested by the clinical setting. Prematurity, low birth weight and a history of oxygen exposure are the principal indicators, while no hereditary factors have been shown to yield a pattern.[49]

Prevention

The diving cylinder contains oxygen-rich gas (36%) and is marked with maximum operating depth of 28 metres.

A seizure caused by CNS oxygen toxicity is a deadly but entirely avoidable event while diving.[24] The diver may experience no warning symptoms. The effects are sudden convulsions and unconsciousness, during which victims can lose their regulator and drown.[1][2] There is an increased risk of CNS oxygen toxicity on deep dives, long dives and dives where oxygen-rich breathing gases are used.[24] Divers are taught to calculate a maximum operating depth for oxygen-rich breathing gases.[24][26] Cylinders containing such mixtures must be clearly marked with that depth.[24][26]

In some diver training courses for these types of diving, divers are taught to plan and monitor what is called the "oxygen clock" of their dives.[24] This is a notional alarm clock, which "ticks" more quickly at increased ppO2 and is set to activate at the maximum single exposure limit recommended in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Diving Manual.[24][26] For the following partial pressures of oxygen the limit is: 45 minutes at 1.6 bar (160 kPa), 120 minutes at 1.5 bar (150 kPa), 150 minutes at 1.4 bar (140 kPa), 180 minutes at 1.3 bar (130 kPa) and 210 minutes at 1.2 bar (120 kPa), but is impossible to predict with any reliability whether or when CNS symptoms will occur.[1][2][50][51] Many Nitrox-capable dive computers calculate an "oxygen loading" and can track it across multiple dives. The aim is to avoid activating the alarm by reducing the ppO2 of the breathing gas or the length of time breathing gas of higher ppO2. As the ppO2 depends on the fraction of oxygen in the breathing gas and the depth of the dive, the diver obtains more time on the oxygen clock by diving at a shallower depth, by breathing a less oxygen-rich gas or by shortening the duration of exposure to oxygen-rich gases.

BPD is reversible in the early stages by use of "break periods" on lower oxygen pressures, but it may eventually result in irreversible lung injury if allowed to progress to severe damage. Usually several days of exposure without "oxygen breaks" are needed to cause such damage.

Pulmonary oxygen toxicity is an entirely avoidable event while diving. The limited duration and naturally intermittent nature of most diving makes this a relatively rare (and even then, reversible) complication for divers. Guidelines have been established that allow divers to calculate when they are at risk of pulmonary toxicity.[1][2][52][53][54][55]

In low-pressure environments oxygen toxicity may be avoided since the toxicity is caused by high oxygen partial pressure, not merely by high oxygen fraction. This is illustrated by oxygen use in spacesuits (historically, for example, the Gemini and Apollo spacecraft).[56] In such applications high-fraction oxygen is non-toxic, even at breathing mixture fractions approaching 100%, because the oxygen partial pressure is not allowed to chronically exceed 0.35 bar (35 kPa).

Vitamin E and selenium were proposed and later rejected as a potential method of protection against pulmonary oxygen toxicity.[57][58][59] There is however some experimental evidence in rats that vitamin E and selenium aid in preventing in vivo lipid peroxidation and free radical damage, and therefore prevent retinal changes following repetitive hyperbaric oxygen exposures.[60]

Management

Scleral Buckle: a silicone band is placed around the eye to move the wall of the eye close to a detached retina allowing the retina to re-attach.

Treatment of seizures during oxygen therapy consists of removing the patient from oxygen, thereby dropping the partial pressure of oxygen delivered.[2] A seizure underwater requires that the diver is brought to the surface as soon as practicable. The buddy will ensure that the victim's air supply is established and maintained, then carry out a controlled buoyant lift. The buddy will need to ensure their own safety is not compromised during the convulsive phase, but lifting an unconscious body is taught by most diver training agencies. Upon reaching the surface, emergency services should be contacted as there is a possibility of further complications requiring medical attention.

The occurrence of symptoms of BPD or ARDS is treated by lowering the fraction of oxygen administered, along with a reduction in the periods of exposure and an increase in the break periods where normal air is supplied. Where supplemental oxygen is required for treatment of another disease (particularly in infants), a ventilator may be needed to ensure that the lung tissue remains inflated. Reductions in pressure and exposure will be made progressively and medications such as bronchodilators and pulmonary surfactants may be used.[61]

ROP may regress spontaneously, but should the disease progress beyond a threshold (defined as five contiguous or eight cumulative hours of stage 3 ROP), both cryosurgery and laser surgery have been shown to reduce the risk of blindness as an outcome. Where the disease has progressed further, techniques such as scleral buckling and vitrectomy surgery may assist in re-attaching the retina.[49]

Prognosis

Although the convulsions caused by CNS oxygen toxicity may lead to incidental injury to the victim, it remained uncertain for many years whether damage to the nervous system following the seizure could occur and several studies searched for evidence of such damage. An overview of these studies by Bitterman in 2004 concluded that following removal of breathing gas containing high fractions of oxygen, no long-term neurological damage from the seizure remains.[4][62]

The majority of infants who have survived following an incidence of BPD will eventually recover near-normal lung function, since lungs continue to grow during the first 5–7 years and the damage caused by BPD is to some extent reversible (even in adults). However, they are likely be more susceptible to respiratory infections for the rest of their lives and the severity of later infections is often greater than that in their peers.[63][64]

ROP in infants frequently regresses without intervention and eyesight may be normal in later years. Where the disease has progressed to the stages requiring surgery, the outcomes are generally good for the treatment of stage 3 ROP, but are much worse for the later stages. Although surgery is usually successful in restoring the anatomy of the eye, damage to the nervous system by the progression of the disease leads to comparatively poorer results in restoring vision. The presence of other complicating diseases also reduces the likelihood of a favourable outcome.[49]

Epidemiology

Percentage of Severe Visual Impairment and Blindness due to ROP in Children in Schools for the Blind in Different Regions of the World.

The incidence of CNS toxicity among divers has decreased since the Second World War, as protocols have developed to limit exposure and partial pressure of oxygen inspired. In 1947, Donald recommended limiting the depth breathing pure oxygen to 25 ft (7.6 m), or a ppO2 of 1.8 bar (180 kPa). This limit has been reduced until today a limit of 1.4 bar (140 kPa) during a dive and 1.6 bar (160 kPa) during shallow decompression stops is accepted: oxygen toxicity has become a rare occurrence other than when caused by equipment malfunction and human error. Historically, the U.S. Navy has refined its Navy Diving Manual Tables to reduce oxygen toxicity incidents. Between 1995 and 1999, reports showed 405 surface-supported dives using the helium-oxygen tables; of these, oxygen toxicity symptoms were observed on 6 dives (1.5%). As a result, the U.S. Navy in 2000 modified the schedules and conducted field tests of 150 dives, none of which produced symptoms of oxygen toxicity. Revised tables were published in 2001.[65]

The variability in tolerance and other variable factors such as workload have resulted in the U.S. Navy abandoning screening for oxygen tolerance. Of the 6,250 oxygen-tolerance tests performed between 1976 and 1997, only 6 episodes of oxygen toxicity were observed (0.1%).[66][67]

The incidence of CNS oxygen toxicity among patients undergoing hyperbaric oxygen therapy is rare and influenced by a number of a factors: individual sensitivity and treatment protocol; and probably therapy indication and equipment used. A study by Welslau in 1996 reported 16 incidents out of a population of 107,264 patients (0.015%), while Hampson and Atik in 2003 found a rate of 0.03%. Yildiz, Ay and Qyrdedi, in a summary of 36,500 patient treatments between 1996 and 2003, reported only 3 oxygen toxicity incidents, giving a rate of 0.008%.[68]

BPD is among the most common complications of prematurely born infants and its incidence has grown as the survival of extremely premature infants has increased. Nevertheless, the severity has decreased as better management of supplemental oxygen has resulted in the disease now being related mainly to factors other than hyperoxia.[20]

In 1997 a summary of studies of neonatal intensive care units in industrialised countries showed that up to 60% of low birth weight babies develop ROP, which rises to 72% in extremely low birth weight babies, i.e. less than 1,000 g (2.2 lb) at birth. However, severe outcomes are much less frequent: for very low birth weight babies (defined as less than 1,500 g (3.3 lb) at birth), the incidence of blindness was found to be no more than 8%.[69]

History

Subject breathing oxygen under pressure. Testing for oxygen toxicity in divers by UK Government 1942–3.

CNS toxicity was first described by Paul Bert in 1878.[1][70][71] He showed that oxygen was toxic to insects, arachnids, myriapods, molluscs, earthworms, fungi, germinating seeds, birds, and other animals. Pulmonary oxygen toxicity was first described by Lorrain Smith in 1899 when he noted CNS toxicity and discovered in experiments in mice and birds that 0.42 atm (43 kPa) had no effect but 0.74 atm (75 kPa) of oxygen was a pulmonary irritant.[29] The first recorded human exposure was undertaken in 1910 by Bornstein when two men breathed oxygen at 2.8 atm (280 kPa) for 30 minutes while he went on to 48 minutes with no symptoms.[72] In 1912, Bornstein developed cramps in his hands and legs while breathing oxygen at 2.8 atm (280 kPa) for 51 minutes.[73] Smith then went on to show that intermittent exposure to a breathing gas with less oxygen permitted the lungs to recover and delayed the onset of pulmonary toxicity.[29]

Behnke et al. in 1935 were the first to observe visual field contraction (tunnel vision) on dives between 1.0 atm (100 kPa) and 4.0 atm (410 kPa).[74][75] During World War II, Donald and Yarbrough et al. performed over 2,000 experiments on oxygen toxicity to support the initial use of closed circuit oxygen rebreathers.[17][18][76][33] Naval divers in the early years of oxygen rebreather diving developed a mythology about a monster called "Oxygen Pete", who lurked in the bottom of the Admiralty Experimental Diving Unit "wet pot" (a water-filled hyperbaric chamber) to catch unwary divers. They called having an oxygen toxicity attack "getting a Pete".[77][78]

In the decade following World War II, Lambertsen et al. made further discoveries on the effects of oxygen at pressure as well as methods of prevention.[79][80] Their work on intermittent exposures for extension of oxygen tolerance and on a model for prediction of pulmonary oxygen toxicity based on pulmonary function are key documents in the development of operational oxygen procedures.[52][81] Lambertsen's work showing the effect of carbon dioxide in decreasing time to onset of CNS symptoms has influenced work from current exposure guidelines to future breathing apparatus design.[24][25][26]

ROP was not observed prior to World War II, but with the availability of supplemental oxygen in the decade following, it rapidly became one of the principal causes of infant blindness in developed countries. By 1960 the use of oxygen had become identified as a risk factor and its administration restricted. The resulting fall in ROP was accompanied by a rise in infant mortality and hypoxia-related complications. Since then, more sophisticated monitoring and diagnosis has established protocols for oxygen use which aim to balance between hypoxic conditions and problems of ROP.[69]

Bitterman et al. in 1986 and 1995 showed that darkness and caffeine will delay the onset of changes to brain electrical activity in rats.[27][28] In the years since, research on CNS toxicity has centered around methods of prevention and safe extension of tolerance.[82] These include topics such as circadian rhythm, drugs, age, and gender that have been shown to contribute to CNS oxygen toxicity sensitivity.[83][84][85][86] In 1988, Hamilton et al. wrote procedures for NOAA to establish oxygen exposure limits for habitat operations.[1][53][54][55] Even today, models for the prediction of pulmonary oxygen toxicity do not explain all the results of exposure to high partial pressures of oxygen.[87]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n Brubakk, Alf O. (2003). Bennett and Elliott's physiology and medicine of diving, 5th Rev ed. Edinburgh; New York: Saunders, 800 pages. ISBN 0702025712. OCLC 51607923. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e f g h US Navy Diving Manual, 6th revision. United States: US Naval Sea Systems Command. 2006. Retrieved 2008-04-24.
  3. ^ a b Acott, C. (1999). "Oxygen toxicity: A brief history of oxygen in diving". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society journal. 29 (3). ISSN 0813-1988. OCLC 16986801. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
  4. ^ a b c d e f Bitterman, N. (2004). "CNS oxygen toxicity". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 31 (1): 63–72. PMID 15233161. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
  5. ^ a b c Nichols, C.W.; Lambertsen Christian (1969). "Effects of high oxygen pressures on the eye". New England Journal of Medicine. 281 (1): 25–30. PMID 4891642. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  6. ^ a b c d Butler, Frank K.; White, E.; Twa, M. (1999). "Hyperoxic myopia in a closed-circuit mixed-gas scuba diver". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 26 (1): 41–5. PMID 10353183. Retrieved 2008-04-29.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Beehler, C.C. (1964). "Oxygen and the eye". Survey of ophthalmology. 45: 549–60. PMID 14232720. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  8. ^ Clark, J.M. (1974). "The toxicity of oxygen". The American review of respiratory disease. 110 (6 Pt 2): 40–50. PMID 4613232. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  9. ^ Goldstein, J.R.; Mengel, C.E. (1969). "Hemolysis in mice exposed to varying levels of hyperoxia". Aerospace medicine. 40 (1): 12–3. PMID 5782651. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ Larkin, E.C.; Adams. J.D.; Williams, W.T.; Duncan, D.M. (1972). "Hematologic responses to hypobaric hyperoxia". The American journal of physiology. 223 (2): 431–7. PMID 4403030. Retrieved 2008-09-28. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  11. ^ Schaffner, Fenton; Felig, Philip (1965). "Changes in hepatic structure in rats produced by breathing pure oxygen". The Journal of cell biology. 27 (3): 505–17. PMC 2106769. PMID 5885427. Retrieved 2008-09-28. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  12. ^ Caulfield, J.B.; Shelton, R.W.; Burke, J.F. (1972). "Cytotoxic effects of oxygen on striated muscle". Archives of pathology. 94 (2): 127–32. PMID 5046798. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  13. ^ Bean, J.W.; Johnson, P.C. (1954). "Adrenocortical response to single and repeated exposure to oxygen at high pressure". The American journal of physiology. 179 (3): 410–4. PMID 13228600. Retrieved 2008-09-28. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  14. ^ Edstrom, J.E.; Rockert, H. (1962). "The effect of oxygen at high pressure on the histology of the central nervous system and sympathetic and endocrine cells". Acta physiologica Scandinavica. 55: 255–63. PMID 13889254. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ Gersh, I.; Wagner, C.E. (1945). "Metabolic factors in oxygen posoning". The American journal of physiology. 144: 270–277. Retrieved 2008-10-08.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  16. ^ Hess, R.T.; Menzel, D.B. (1971). "Effect of dietary antioxidant level and oxygen exposure on the fine structure of the proximal convoluted tubules". Aerospace medicine. 42 (6): 646–9. PMID 5155150. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  17. ^ a b c Donald, Kenneth W. (1947). "Oxygen and the diver: Part I". British medical journal. 1(4506): 667–672. PMC 2053251. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  18. ^ a b c Donald, Kenneth W. (1947). "Oxygen and the diver: Part II". British medical journal. 1(4506): 712–717. PMC 2053400. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  19. ^ a b c Smerz, R.W. (2004). "Incidence of oxygen toxicity during the treatment of dysbarism". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 31 (2): 199–202. PMID 15485081. Retrieved 2008-04-30.
  20. ^ a b c Bancalari, Eduardo; Claure, Nelson; Sosenko, Ilene R.S. (2003). "Bronchopulmonary dysplasia: changes in pathogenesis, epidemiology and definition". Seminars in Neonatology. 8 (1). London: Elsevier Science: 63–71. doi:10.1016/S1084-2756(02)00192-6. ISSN 1084-2756. PMID 12667831. Retrieved 2008-04-30. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  21. ^ a b Tin, W.; Gupta, S. (2007). "Optimum oxygen therapy in preterm babies". Archives of disease in childhood. Fetal and neonatal edition. 92 (2): F143–7. doi:10.1136/adc.2005.092726. PMID 17337663. Retrieved 2008-04-30. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  22. ^ a b Thiel, Manfred; Chouker, Alexander; Ohta, Akio; et al. (2005). "Oxygenation inhibits the physiological tissue-protecting mechanism and thereby exacerbates acute inflammatory lung injury". PLoS biology. 3 (6): e174. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0030174. PMID 15857155. Retrieved 2008-04-30. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
  23. ^ Patel, Dharmeshkumar N; Goel, Ashish; Agarwal, S.B.; Garg, Praveenkumar; Lakhani, Krishna K. (July 2003). "Oxygen toxicity" (PDF). Journal, Indian Academy of Clinical Medicine. 4 (3): 234–7. Retrieved 2008-09-28.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  24. ^ a b c d e f g h i Lang, Michael A. (ed.) (2001). DAN nitrox workshop proceedings. Durham, NC: Divers Alert Network. p. 197. Retrieved 2008-09-20. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  25. ^ a b Richardson, Drew; Menduno, Michael; Shreeves, Karl (eds) (1996). "Proceedings of rebreather forum 2.0". Diving Science and Technology Workshop.: 286. Retrieved 2008-09-20. {{cite journal}}: |author= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  26. ^ a b c d e Richardson, D.; Shreeves, K. (1996). "The PADI enriched air diver course and DSAT oxygen exposure limits". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society journal. 26 (3). ISSN 0813-1988. OCLC 16986801. Retrieved 2008-05-02.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  27. ^ a b Bitterman, N.; Melamed, Y.; Perlman, I.; (1986). "CNS oxygen toxicity in the rat: role of ambient illumination". Undersea Biomedical Research. 13 (1): 19–25. PMID 3705247. Retrieved 2008-09-20. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  28. ^ a b Bitterman, N.; Schaal, S.; (1995). "Caffeine attenuates CNS oxygen toxicity in rats". Brain Research. 696 (1–2): 250–3. PMID 8574677. Retrieved 2008-09-20. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  29. ^ a b c Smith, J.Lorrain (1899). "The pathological effects due to increase of oxygen tension in the air breathed". Journal of Physiology. 24 (1). London: The Physiological Society and Blackwell Publishing: 19–35. PMID 16992479. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  30. ^ Hampson, Neal B.; Simonson, Steven G.; Kramer, C.C.; Piantadosi, Claude A. (1996). "Central nervous system oxygen toxicity during hyperbaric treatment of patients with carbon monoxide poisoning". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 23 (4): 215–9. PMID 8989851. Retrieved 2008-04-29. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ^ Demchenko, Ivan T.; Welty-Wolf, Karen E.; Allen, Barry W.; Piantadosi, Claude A. (2007). "Similar but not the same: normobaric and hyperbaric pulmonary oxygen toxicity, the role of nitric oxide". The American journal of physiology Lung Cell Mol. Physiol. 293 (1): L229–38. doi:10.1152/ajplung.00450.2006. PMID 17416738. Retrieved 2008-09-18. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  32. ^ Wittner, M. (1966). "Pathophysiology of pulmonary oxygen toxicity". Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Hyperbaric Medicine. NAS/NRC, 1404, Washington DC. pp. 179–188. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) - and others as discussed by Clark, John M. and Lambertsen, Christian J. (1970) Pulmonary oxygen tolerance in man and derivation of pulmonary oxygen tolerance curves pages 256-260.
  33. ^ a b c Yarbrough, O.D.; Welham, W.; Brinton, E.S.; Behnke, Alfred R. (1947). "Symptoms of Oxygen Poisoning and Limits of Tolerance at Rest and at Work". U.S. Naval experimental diving unit technical report. NEDU-47-01. Retrieved 2008-04-29.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  34. ^ Anderson, B.; Farmer, Joseph C. (1978). "Hyperoxic myopia". Trans Am Ophthalmol Soc. 76: 116–24. PMC 1311617. PMID 754368.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  35. ^ Ricci, B.; Lepore, D.; Iossa, M.; Santo, A.; D'Urso, M.; Maggiano, N. (1990). "Effect of light on oxygen-induced retinopathy in the rat model. Light and OIR in the rat". Documenta ophthalmologica. 74 (4): 287–301. PMID 1701697.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  36. ^ a b c Drack, A.V. (1998). "Preventing blindness in premature infants". New England Journal of Medicine. 338 (22): 1620–1. PMID 9603802. Retrieved 2008-09-19. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  37. ^ Shykoff, Barbara E. (2005). "Repeated Six-Hour Dives 1.35 ATM Oxygen Partial Pressure". US Naval Experimental Diving Unit Technical Report. NEDU-TR-05-20. Panama City, FL, USA. Retrieved 2008-09-19.
  38. ^ Shykoff, Barbara E. (2008). "Pulmonary effects of submerged oxygen breathing in resting divers: repeated exposures to 140 kPa". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 35 (2): 131–43. PMID 18500077. {{cite journal}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help)
  39. ^ Anderson, B.; Shelton, D.L. (1987). "Axial length in hyperoxic myopia". In: Bove, Alfred A.; Bachrach, Arthur J.; Greenbaum, Leon (eds.) Underwater and hyperbaric physiology IX. Ninth international symposium of the Undersea and Hyperbaric Medical Society: 607–611.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  40. ^ Bowen, R. "Free Radicals and Reactive Oxygen". Colorado State University. Retrieved 2008-09-26.
  41. ^ Piantadosi, Claude A. (2008). "Carbon monoxide, reactive oxygen signaling, and oxidative stress". Free radical biology and medicine. 45 (5): 562–9. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2008.05.013. PMID 18549826. Retrieved 2008-09-26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  42. ^ Thom, Steven R. (1992). "Inert gas enhancement of superoxide radical production". Archives of biochemistry and biophysics. 295 (2): 391–6. PMID 1316738. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  43. ^ Ghio, Andrew J.; Nozik-Grayck, Eva; Turi, Jennifer; Jaspers, Ilona; Mercatante, Danielle R.; Kole, Ryszard; Piantadosi, Claude A. (2003). "Superoxide-dependent iron uptake: a new role for anion exchange protein 2". American journal of respiratory cell and molecular biology. 29 (6): 653–60. doi:10.1165/rcmb.2003-0070OC. PMID 12791678. Retrieved 2008-09-26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  44. ^ Oury, T.D.; Ho, Y.S.; Piantadosi, Claude A.; Crapo, J.D.; (1992). "Extracellular superoxide dismutase, nitric oxide, and central nervous system O2 toxicity". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 89 (20): 9715–9. PMC 50203. PMID 1329105. Retrieved 2008-09-26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  45. ^ Thom, Steven R.; Marquis, R.E. (1987). "Free radical reactions and the inhibitory and lethal actions of high-pressure gases". Undersea Biomedical Research. 14 (6): 485–501. PMID 2825395. Retrieved 2008-09-26. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  46. ^ Djurhuus, R.; Svardal, A.M.; Thorsen, E. (1999). "Glutathione in the cellular defense of human lung cells exposed to hyperoxia and high pressure". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 26 (2): 75–85. PMID 10372426. Retrieved 2008-09-26.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  47. ^ Freiberger, John J.; Coulombe, Kathy; Suliman, Hagir; Carraway, Martha-sue; Piantadosi, Claude A. (2004). "Superoxide dismutase responds to hyperoxia in rat hippocampus". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 31 (2): 227–32. PMID 15485085. Retrieved 2008-09-26.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  48. ^ "How is bronchopulmonary dysplasia diagnosed?". U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved 2008-09-28.
  49. ^ a b c Regillo, Carl D. (1998). Vitreoretinal Disease: The Essentials. New York: Thieme, 693 pages. ISBN 0865777616. OCLC 39170393. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  50. ^ Butler, Frank K.; Thalmann, Edward D. (1986). "Central nervous system oxygen toxicity in closed circuit scuba divers II". Undersea Biomedical Research. 13 (2): 193–223. PMID 3727183. Retrieved 2008-04-29. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  51. ^ Butler, Frank K. (2004). "Closed-circuit oxygen diving in the U.S. Navy". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 31 (1): 3–20. PMID 15233156. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
  52. ^ a b Clark, John M. (2004). "Extension of oxygen tolerance by interrupted exposure". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 31 (2): 195–8. PMID 15485080. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
  53. ^ a b Hamilton R W., Kenyon David J., Peterson R. E., Butler G. J., Beers D. M. (1988). "Repex habitat diving procedures: Repetitive vertical excursions, oxygen limits, and surfacing techniques". NOAA Office of Undersea Research. Technical Report 88-1A. Rockville, MD. Retrieved 2008-04-29.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  54. ^ a b Hamilton, Robert W.; Kenyon, David J.; Peterson, R.E. (1988). "Repex habitat diving procedures: Repetitive vertical excursions, oxygen limits, and surfacing techniques". NOAA Office of Undersea Research. Technical Report 88-1B. Rockville, MD. Retrieved 2008-04-29.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  55. ^ a b Hamilton, Robert W. (1997). "Tolerating oxygen exposure". South Pacific Underwater Medicine Society journal. 27 (1). ISSN 0813-1988. OCLC 16986801. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
  56. ^ Webb, James T.; Olson, R.M.; Krutz, R.W.; Dixon, G.; Barnicott, P.T. (1989). "Human tolerance to 100% oxygen at 9.5 psia during five daily simulated 8-hour EVA exposures". Aviation Space and Environmental Medicine. 60 (5): 415–21. PMID 2730484. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  57. ^ Schatte, C.L. (1977). "Dietary selenium and vitamin E as a possible prophylactic to pulmonary oxygen poisoning". Proceedings of the Sixth International Congress on Hyperbaric Medicine, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, Scotland: 84–91. ISBN 0-08-024918-3.
  58. ^ Boadi, W.Y.; Thaire, L.; Kerem, D.; Yannai, S. (1991). "Effects of dietary supplementation with vitamin E, riboflavin and selenium on central nervous system oxygen toxicity". Pharmacology & toxicology. 68 (2): 77–82. ISSN 0901-9928. PMID 1852722. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  59. ^ Piantadosi, Claude A. In: The Mysterious Malady: Toward an understanding of decompression injuries (DVD). Global Underwater Explorers. Retrieved 2008-09-19. {{cite AV media}}: Unknown parameter |year2= ignored (help)
  60. ^ Stone, W.L.; Henderson, R.A.; Howard, G.H.; Hollis, A.L.; Payne, P.H.; Scott, R.L. (1989). "The role of antioxidant nutrients in preventing hyperbaric oxygen damage to the retina". Free radical biology & medicine. 6 (5): 505–12. PMID 2744583.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  61. ^ "NIH MedlinePlus: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia". U.S. National Library of Medicine. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
  62. ^ Lambertsen, Christian J. (1965). "Effects of oxygen at high partial pressure". In: Fenn, W.O.; Rahn, H. (eds.) Handbook of Physiology: Respiration. Sec.3 Vol.2. American Physiological Society: 1027–46.
  63. ^ "National Institutes of Health: What is bronchopulmonary dysplasia?". U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. Retrieved 2008-10-02.
  64. ^ Spear, Michael L. - reviewer, (June 2008). "Bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD)". Nemours Foundation. Retrieved 2008-10-03.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  65. ^ Gerth, Wayne A. (2006). "Decompression sickness and oxygen toxicity in U.S. Navy surface-supplied He-O2 diving". Proceedings of Advanced Scientific Diving Workshop. Smithsonian Institution. ISBN 20060725. Retrieved 2008-10-02. {{cite journal}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
  66. ^ Walters, K.C.; Gould, M.T.; Bachrach, E.A.; Butler, Frank K. (2000). "Screening for oxygen sensitivity in U.S. Navy combat swimmers". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 27 (1): 21–6. PMID 10813436. Retrieved 2008-10-02.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  67. ^ Butler, Frank K.; Knafelc, M.E. (1986). "Screening for oxygen intolerance in U.S. Navy divers". Undersea Biomedical Research. 13 (1): 91–8. PMID 3705251. Retrieved 2008-10-02. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  68. ^ Yildiz, S,; Ay, H.; Qyrdedi, T. (2004). "Central nervous system oxygen toxicity during routine hyperbaric oxygen therapy". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 31 (2): 189–90. PMID 15485078. Retrieved 2008-10-03.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  69. ^ a b Gilbert, Clare (1997). "Retinopathy of prematurity: epidemiology". Journal of Community Eye Health. 10 (22). London: International Centre for Eye Health: 22–24. Retrieved 2008-10-04.
  70. ^ Bert, Paul (originally published 1878). "Barometric pressure: Researches in experimental physiology". Translated by: Hitchcock, M.A. and Hitchcock, F.A. College Book Company; 1943. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  71. ^ British Sub-aqua Club (1985). Sport diving : the British Sub-Aqua Club diving manual. London: Stanley Paul. p. 110. ISBN 0091638313. OCLC 12807848.
  72. ^ Bornstein, A. (1910). "Versuche über die Prophylaxe der Pressluftkrankheit". Pflügers Archiv European Journal of Physiology. 4: 1272–1300.
  73. ^ Bornstein, A.; Stroink, M. (1912). "Ueber Sauerstoff vergiftung". Deutsche medizinische Wochenschrift. 38: 1495–1497.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  74. ^ Behnke, Alfred R.; Johnson, F.S.; Poppen, J.R.; Motley, E.P. (1935). "The effect of oxygen on man at pressures from 1 to 4 atmospheres". The American journal of physiology. 110: 565–572. Retrieved 2008-04-29.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  75. ^ Behnke, Alfred R.; Forbes, H.S.; Motley, E.P. (1935). "Circulatory and visual effects of oxygen at 3 atmospheres pressure". The American journal of physiology. 114: 436–442. Retrieved 2008-04-29.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  76. ^ Donald, Kenneth W. (1992). Oxygen and the diver. UK: Harley Swan. p. 237. ISBN 1854211765.
  77. ^ Taylor, Larry "Harris" (1993). "Oxygen Enriched Air: A New Breathing Mix?". IANTD Journal. Retrieved 2008-09-05.
  78. ^ Davis, Robert H. (1955). Deep Diving and Submarine Operations (6th ed.). Tolworth, Surbiton, Surrey: Siebe Gorman & Company Ltd, 693 pages. p. 291.
  79. ^ Lambertsen, Christian J.; Clark, John M.; Gelfand, R. (2000). "The Oxygen research program, University of Pennsylvania: Physiologic interactions of oxygen and carbon dioxide effects and relations to hyperoxic toxicity, therapy, and decompression. Summation: 1940 to 1999". Environmental Biomedical Stress Data Center, Institute for Environmental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Medical Center. EBSDC-IFEM Report No. 3-1-2000. Philadelphia, PA.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  80. ^ Vann, Richard D. (2004). "Lambertsen and O2: Beginnings of operational physiology". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 31 (1): 21–31. PMID 15233157. Retrieved 2008-04-29.
  81. ^ Clark, John M.; Lambertsen, Christian J. (1970). Pulmonary oxygen tolerance in man and derivation of pulmonary oxygen tolerance curves. Vol. IFEM Report No. 1-70. Philadelphia, PA. Retrieved 2008-04-29. {{cite book}}: |journal= ignored (help)CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  82. ^ Natoli, M.J.; Vann, R.D. (1996). Factors Affecting CNS Oxygen Toxicity in Humans. Vol. Report to the U.S. Office of Naval Research. Durham, NC: Duke University. Retrieved 2008-04-29.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  83. ^ Hof, D.G.; Dexter, J.D.; Mengel, C.E. (1971). "Effect of circadian rhythm on CNS oxygen toxicity". Aerospace medicine. 42 (12): 1293–6. PMID 5130131. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  84. ^ Torley, L.W.; Weiss, H.S. (1975). "Effects of age and magnesium ions on oxygen toxicity in the neonate chicken". Undersea Biomedical Research. 2 (3): 223–7. PMID 15622741. Retrieved 2008-09-20. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  85. ^ Troy, S.S.; Ford, D.H. (1972). "Hormonal protection of rats breathing oxygen at high pressure". Acta Neurologica Scandinavica. 48 (2): 231–42. PMID 5061633.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  86. ^ Hart, George B.; Strauss, Michael B. (2007). "Gender differences in human skeletal muscle and subcutaneous tissue gases under ambient and hyperbaric oxygen conditions". Undersea and Hyperbaric Medicine. 34 (3): 147–61. PMID 17672171. Retrieved 2008-09-20.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  87. ^ Shykoff, Barbara E. (2007). "Performance of various models in predicting vital capacity changes caused by breathing high oxygen partial pressures". U.S. Naval Experimental Diving Unit Technical Report. NEDU-TR-07-13. Panama City, FL: Navy Experimental Diving Unit. Retrieved 2008-06-06.

Bibliography

External links