Talk:Blood/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Blood libel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A recent addition to the article tries to claim that blood libel is still common. Reliable sources for this claim are required. It is simply not good enough to give a string of example cases. Drawing a conclusion from individual cases is WP:SYNTH. One could claim that spontaneous human combustion or self-surgery is common by citing a long list of examples when clearly neither is actually particularly common. I think this claim should be removed from the article if not properly referenced. By that I mean to some scholar who has actually done some statistical research, not some newspaper making an unsubstantiated claim.

This article is not really a suitable page to be discussing this issue in any case; it is about blood, not social issues. A brief mention and link is all that is required. SpinningSpark 12:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. I'll find such a reference for it. (I'll get to it soon; I'm just too sleepy right now.)

Regarding whether it's suitable to discuss in this article, since it is standard practice to include references to the article's subject even from popular culture and works of fiction, it is entirely in order to briefly mention social stigmas such as the blood libel, although a detailed treatment should be and is left to a separate article. All the more so, since blood has meaning beyond its biological significance. Musashiaharon (talk) 13:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It is kind of two degrees separated, particularly since the term "blood libel" is on modern usage applied to other antisemitic accusations as well IIRC. I demoted the section to an entry in the "see also" section; feel free to revert if you feel more discussion is warranted. Cheers! VQuakr (talk) 05:29, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's relevant whether are current-day blood libels or not. The fact is, it is a well-documented historical phenomenon that shaped the communities that it affected. Some Jews will still not use red wine for traditional services on account of blood libels. There are plenty of sources available so WP:V is not the problem. JFW | T@lk 09:36, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with everything you wrote above, which is an excellent argument against deleting the article Blood libel. But to my knowledge no one is suggesting that we do that. But the idea of removing the summary paragraph on blood libel and using a link in the see also section instead is a different issue, and I do not see how your reasoning above applies. The underlying issue is that unlike the other subsections in the article, blood libel really has very little to do with blood and a lot more to do with antisemitism. VQuakr (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have undone your revert. There was a discussion below which was closed with a decision. It is fine to reopen the discussion and a different conclusion might result but in the meantime it is not helpful to revert the article. SpinningSpark 13:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello VQuakr and Spinningspark. I am a little bit surprised about this sudden removal of well-established content that was most certainly suitable for discussion in the context in which it was presented. I am sorry that I was unable to weigh in when the discussion (however brief) in November, but I don't think the case for removing the content is strong at all. Incidentally, the discussion above seems mainly about whether blood libels are still a common occurrence. If anti-Israel cartoons in certain newspapers are anything to go by, I am not so sure whether this is just a historical phenomenon. JFW | T@lk 17:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I was surprised to learn that blood libel was still a current issue, I was under the impression that it had long been assigned to the history books along with witch ducking and scold bridling. However, I concede to the evidence that it still does exist. However, that is beside the point of the reason given in the debate close. That is, that it relates to a belief about Jews, not a belief about blood. However, I am not seeing the overwhelming consensus in the debate that user:VQuakr seems to think there is that would justify an early close. I urge VQuakr to reverse his close and let the debate run for the standard 30 days for RFCs. If that is done the material in the article should be restored for the duration of the debate so that everyone can see what is being discussed. VQuakr, if you don't do that it is fairly obvious that the discussion is just going to start up again anyway. SpinningSpark 18:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

We are talking about two different things. The RfC below was regarding removing most or all of the "Cultural and religious beliefs" section, which was met with clear consensus for the status quo when considering this and this. The second issue was one that User:Spinningspark raised during the RfC - whether blood libel is relevant enough to an article on blood to merit a summary paragraph here. As far as I am concerned, that discussion is still open which is why I invited reversion and further discussion in my article-space edit [1].Not that anyone needs my permission to follow WP:BRD, but sometimes a reminder helps. VQuakr (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand your position. So let's start a new RFC. SpinningSpark 19:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Blood libel

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Is blood libel relevant to the blood article? 19:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, for reasons stated above. It is part of the role of blood in a societal and cultural dimension. JFW | T@lk 19:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
• Yes. Reiterating from below: I was initially inclined to agree with SpinningSpark, but I was surprised to see that other religions were indeed accused of blood libel. Interested in this, I did some research and found a reference for it, which I added. Hence, although typically about Jews, the topic is not exclusive to them. Combined with the fact that this was historically such a common problem in Europe and even now is common in the Arab world, I think it it merits inclusion as a general social issue.

To add to my above, the objection to including blood libel here seems to be splitting hairs at the expense of convenience and usefulness. But I question even whether there is a hair to split: the blood libel is a salient issue that gives further insight into the (cross‑!)cultural significance of blood, and this is a proper venue to present that information. Musashiaharon (talk) 06:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

• No, it is not about blood, it is about false accusations against Jews. SpinningSpark 02:02, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
• Yes - only if strong secondary and contemporary sources exist. --LT910001 (talk) 08:39, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that there is an objection here. The references are already secondary and contemporary, and as far as I can tell they are WP:RS. Musashiaharon (talk) 12:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

They don't attribute the term blood libel to the persecution of other groups. FMMonty (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes - sort of. Blood libel as a term is for false allegations against Jews, although more recently it has become a more general term for a false accusation. The reference that was added covering false allegations of Christian cannibalism isn't really the same thing. I'd move a sentence on blood libel into the section on Judaism where it would sit more cleanly, as a page mentioning blood and Judaism would seem strange without pointing at blood libel.FMMonty (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

The reference clearly describes supposed rituals of consuming children's blood on pages 420 and 421, et al. This usage is essentially the same as the admittedly more common blood libel against Jews. Hence the reference is on-topic. Since we now know that another culture has been similarly accused of blood libel, it is difficult in my mind to move that section under any one culture. Musashiaharon (talk) 12:09, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

That is a scholarly article on the early claims that Christians murdered and consumed infants and blood. The term blood libel has been very specific for a long time, so much so that you'll notice that source doesn't mention the term in a Christian context. If you look at a dictionary definition of blood libel http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/blood-libel you'll see that it is very specifically targeted at Jews. FMMonty (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford definition is clearly incomplete and out-of-date. As can be seen from the sources I referenced in our own article here, the blood libel is current and is now no longer limited to charges that Jews murder Christians; it has evolved to be a charge that Jews do the same to Muslims, too. Given that the victims can change and this is still called blood libel, it is entirely reasonable that the identity of purported perpetrators is not fixed either. Although the context is typically that of an accusation against Jews, there is no compelling reason why the same moniker shouldn't also apply to the same situation with another group. For an example usage demonstrating this, see the Encyclopaedia Judaica's Blood Libel article, where it mentions a case of blood libel against Christians. Musashiaharon (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

You'll notice that the article you've quoted there talks about allegations of blood sacrifice and infanticide against Christians, and specifically states that blood libel is against Jews.

While blood libels are of different forms and perpetrated by different groups, persecuting Jews doesn't change as far as the term goes in common understanding. As I said earlier people have started to use the term on occasion for non blood persecution of non Jews, however they are usually slated in the press very heavily. The point of encyclopedic articles isn't to create new usages of words, or to give equal time to fringe viewpoints. I'm happy to agree with LT910001 and say if there are strong modern sources attributing the term blood libel to the persecution of non Jews then by all means keep it separate. However there would need to be a body of strong sources, as although I can find some examples of white people being called the N based insult usually used for black people it doesn't really change the meaning. FMMonty (talk) 10:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

• No There are many terms with 'blood' in them ('blood brothers', 'blood relatives', 'blood diamonds' etc) we obviousy cannot put them all in here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• No Just like there is no section "Blood in popular culture". Debresser (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
• No Blood is relevant for blood libel but not the other way round.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
• No: blood libel is tangentially related to blood itself, but discussion of the libel does not contribute to an encyclopedic understanding of blood itself. A link in the "See also" section is the most appropriate way to facilitate navigation there. VQuakr (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Same goes for the Eucharist, actually. "Blood itself" is just as absent there. Are you arguing that the symbolic aspect of blood is irrelevant in the notion of blood libel? If not, I'd say your argument is inconsistent. Peter ^Isotalo 18:18, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

A brief mention of Eucharist is included in the section on Christianity. I would agree that the Eucharist itself is not relevant enough blood to merit an entire section in this article. VQuakr (talk) 20:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Symbolism is a completely valid encyclopedic topic. The Eucharist and blood libel both refer to actual, literal blood, even if they are merely metaphysical. This is not at all comparable to the metaphorical meaning of "blood" as a synonym to "ancestry" as in "blood feud" or "bloodlines". Even those aspects are worthy of a reasonable amount of information here. We're a general encyclopedia, so please don't try so hard to purge this article of everything that isn't about physical science.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:50, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• No there is no need to cover blood libel in the blood article; I like the way VQuakr puts it in terms of encyclopedic coverage. -- Scray (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
• No The primary title of the article deals with a huge subject dealing with physiology, medicine, and a great deal of biology. It is already too large, but at least the topics are coherent and deal with matters of material fact. Even so, the field is so wide that it could persuasively be argued that the various topics should be split into smaller (linked) articles. Matters that refer to blood in other material contexts, such as industrial uses of blood in food, plastics and fertiliser could well be split off. Metaphorical, legal, superstitious, or traditional uses of the term might or might not be of encyclopaedic interest, but they have no material relevance to anyone looking up the subject of blood, and the subject of blood as a material or tissue would be of no interest to anyone interested in metaphorical expressions such as "blood feuds" or "blood libel" for example. By lumping all that into a single article we are doing no one any favours, neither WP, nor editors, and certainly not the users. JonRichfield (talk) 19:45, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
• No As said above, there are many things that involve the word blood. Just because it has the word blood in it does not make it pertinent to a person searching an encyclopedia about Blood. As VQuakr says, it does not contribute to the encyclopedic understanding of blood. Rmosler | ● 00:17, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
• Yes, since it's a very well-known negative myth that is directly tied to the idea of blood as a sacrificial matter. But not as a separate section, but rather as an example of myths about sacrifices. This goes far beyond the mere inclusion of the word "blood". And I strongly oppose that common, if negative, beliefs regarding blood should be forked out. Cultural history is a serious field of study and an important topic, not some subservient appendix to "real science". Peter ^Isotalo 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Blood libel is already a separate article, and certainly not a POV fork. This discussion is not a merge proposal. VQuakr (talk) 20:47, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm talking about the general drive against cultural aspects of blood. When it comes to common topics, this is something that receives rather poor treatment due to a systemic bias towards natural sciences. This type of content needs to be improved, not reduced to a minimum or replaced by "see also"-links.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

And why is "culture" and "religion" kept under the same heading? It smacks of a "this is where we dump everything that isn't Proper Science"-attitude. Peter ^Isotalo 18:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:OVERLINK

Greetings! I did the following changes to the article:

Phlegm redirected to Phlegm#Phlegm and humourism
Black bile was redirecting to melancholia. However, melancholia has been described as a mere consequence of excess black bile; the link was not pertaining to "black pile" itself.
Yellow bile was redirecting to humorism that was already linked in the article. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Jayaguru-Shishya. Overlinking is common. It is good practice to determine the destination before adding any links to articles, but it can be cumbersome. JFW | T@lk 19:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Proper platelet range, and name

Reference 7 Ganong is the reference for saying the normal range for platelets is 200,000 to 500,000, and that platelets are called thrombocytes. Apparently I am not allowed to edit this page: anyone care to research this, provide another reference for the correct information? Platelets are only called platelets in mammals. Thrombocytes is for non-mammalian vertebrates.

The upper limit of normal for platelets is 400,000.

IiKkEe (talk) 19:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not enough pictures

There is only one picture in the whole article showing what fresh blood actually looks like, and to even get to see that, you have to scroll down five pages' worth. There should be more such pictures. JIP | Talk 10:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Blood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090108093007/http://artscad.com:80/A.nsf/Opra/SRVV-6MDNX5 to http://artscad.com/A.nsf/Opra/SRVV-6MDNX5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:25, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Classical Greek medicine

Greetings! I took a quick look about the recent edits[2] in the Classical Greek medicine section, and the section says now following:

A dark clot forms at the bottom (the "black bile"). Above the clot is a layer of red blood cells (the "blood"). Above this is a whitish layer of white blood cells (the "phlegm", now called the buffy coat). The top layer is clear yellow serum (the "yellow bile").

I couldn't find such a detailed description in the article. Instead, the description given in the article is somewhat more vague:

Following the clotting of the homogeneous red fluid, it separates into a dark red/black clot at the bottom with a thin layer of red cells above it. Above this is a pale green or whitish layer and the contents are surrounded by clear yellow serum. Certainly, clotted blood reveals the humours of blood and yellow bile, but the appearance of black bile and phlegm is not so apparent.

So, I couldn't find an equation mark between:

1. dark red/black clot and "black bile"
2. red cells and red blood cells (the "blood"),
3. pale green or whitish layer and whitish layer of white blood cells (the "phlegm", now called the buffy coat)
4. the contents are surrounded by clear yellow serum and the top layer is clear yellow serum (the "yellow bile")

With the first one, the source says that a dark red/black clot at the bottom, but it doesn't equate that with the "black bile" (humourism).
With the second one, the source mentions red cells, and it doesnt equate those with the "blood" (humourism) either.
With the third one, the source speaks about pale green or whitish layer, but doesn't equate it with the "phlegm" (humourism). The whole source doesn't even mention the word "buffy coat", so I am not sure what that one is standing for.
With the fourth one, the source says that the contents [pale green or whitish layer] are surrounded by clear yellow serum. Surrounded, not above the "pale green or whitish layer". Neither does the source say that this serum is considered the "yellow bile" of humourism.

@St.nerol:, I removed some excess links at this point, and placed an {{fv}} tag. I hope the current section could be changed to conform the source a bit better! Cheers! =P Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 15:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking so thuroly. I didn't write the section myself – I took it from Humorism#Origins, as it seemed legit. I added a similar tag to the section there. If you find some good way to rephrase or rewrite the section maybe you could change in both places. –St.nerol (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits and quick resonse St.nerol. I guess this is how we keep improving Wikipedia little by little :-) Anyway, I try to think some rephrasing to meet the source (or maybe an additional source will be found). I guess it's justified to make similar changes to the Humorism#Origins as well? =P Cheers! Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

The bit about fish blood being forbidden in Judaism is a simplification, I think. I had learned that fish blood was perfectly permissible PROVIDED that it was apparent that it was from fish. Thus, a bowl of fish blood might be used as a dip, if some scales were left floating in the blood. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.192.55 (talk) 04:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Viscosity

@User:Maunus: You reverted my addition of "citation needed" on the claim that blood flows more easily through capillaries than plasma. I commented that the German Wikipedia says the red blood cells increase the viscosity. Your comment was "De wiki is not relevant as a source of comparison, also the claim here does not seem to contradict DE wikipedia, but rather seems a more nuanced way of describing the relation". Well, the German says "Blut hat aufgrund der enthaltenen Erythrozyten eine gegenüber Plasma erhöhte Viskosität. Je höher der Hämatokritwert und je geringer die Strömungsgeschwindigkeit ist, desto mehr steigt die Viskosität." Which means "Because of the erythrocytes it contains, blood has a raised viscosity compared to plasma. The higher the hematocrit and the lower the flow velocity, the higher the viscosity." That certainly does contradict what the English Wikipedia says. I know that the German Wikipedia cannot be used as a source, but I didn't put in a reference to it. The burden of proof is on you! Logically, adding red blood cells should raise the viscosity. If you have a source saying the opposite, you have to put it in. You shouldn't be removing a "citation needed" note on a controversial point. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:20, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I only removed the reason given, the cn tag is still there - since the entire paragraph is uncited it does need a citation.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Well what's the point in doing that? I want people to know that this statement is probably not true. I'm not like those people who go around sticking citation needed tags on everything just to be ornery! I'm putting it back in. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Blood nature when flowing

Blood, with 55% solid deformable and heterogeneous, red cells, is not exactly a fluid because a fluid is continuously deformable and holds conservative properties, especially in flow mechanics. Blood cells organize themselves and can aggregate. Other reactions happen in the flow depending on the shear stress and rate, and make blood a complex liquid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.39.49 (talk • contribs)

What kind of change do you propose? JFW | T@lk 18:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

blood viscosity, blood circulation, blood flow, answer to jfw and german

First to be a good source, we must specify the words used in Wiki, especially because of translation languages. Otherwise we speak about words and syllogisms instead of the real problem of blood circulation. So, blood is not a fluid, and, pressure, viscosity, speed and other fluids mechanics data are not exactly constitutive of the traditional models of Couette, Poiseuille, Navier-Stokes when applied to blood. In reality, blood flows as a sheath and a plug flow and cells, molecules etc... form packs in the flow, making blood heterogeneous and out of fluids models. The viscosity of blood depends on its organization, and on the size of the sheath flow layer in determined geometries. Thurston introduced this observation well known with a first order model. Now, concerning RBCs and plasma in different vessels diameters, most of the time in a sane blood, RBCs amount increases blood viscosity. In small diameter vessels, for a same sane blood sample, the plug flow and the sheath flow adapt according to Thurston and viscosity increases when diameter decreases. There are less RBCs close to the wall surfaces of blood vessels because RBCs migrate to the central line of the vessels. In a main vessel, when there are secondary smaller vessels or bifurcation, on the sides of the main vessel, at the walls, the flow separates. As it separates at the wall where there are less RBCs coming from and in the main vessel, the amount of RBCs transported to the secondary vessels is relatively smaller than in the main vessel. So the RBCs re increases in the main vessel. We have to admit that some blood samples are less viscous sometimes because of RBCs because their amount can diminish the viscous effect of very slury coomponents like Ig or fibers. It happens in case of spesis where the problem of viscosity is in the secondary vessels because there are less RBCs. As a conclusion, the models of fluids mechanics fail at modeling exactly blood flow. Instead of using the models, there are a lot of experiments to do to analyze blood circulation and viscosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.37.88 (talk • contribs)

What WP:RS citations do you propose using? In reality, at a macroscopic level blood behaves as a non-Newtonian fluid but the model breaks down in flow through characteristic diameters within a few multiples of a red blood cell. We already describe blood as non-Newtonian in the article, but there probably is room for improvement in its fluid mechanical characterization. VQuakr (talk) 08:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If blood flows as a two phases material, it is not a fluid anymore because a fluid is still conservative wherever it is taken. For blood instead, there are more RBCs in the high speed area in the midle region of a vessel. So blood characteristics are very different from one location to another in a same volume, what does not work in case of a fluid. Fluid approach is not adapted to analyze blood flow. Now, we can say that blood behaves in somewhat as a non newtonian fluid but it is restricted to Couette cells or rotating flows. If you take a vessel, blood flows as complex liquids with the characteristics that Thurston, as well, shows : the resistance R is constant, where, for a defined vessel radius, the value η(δ)/δ is constant in the sheath flow. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_resistance

The real problem is using unadequate models to study blood viscosity or blood circulation. The other problem is that most of the praticians only deal with fluids models for viscosity analysis and they use it without knowing that it was made for fluids. And sometimes praticians think simply that blood is a fluid (non Newtonian). So the results are wrong to allow crosscorrelations between blood composition, blood flow regime and cardiovascular activity. For example, for 2 different viscous blood samples, it can be found same pressures, tensions and pulses because it depends on vessel sizes and blood flow rate too. Not knowing the exact viscosity unallows a realistic complete diagnostic on CV diseases.

A future problem will be to admit that viscosity exerts a pressure on vessels and CV elements surfaces which is not "non Newtonian". In fact it looks like it is Newtonian, just the opposite. The force exerted behaves exactly the opposite as Thurston notices : the vascular restistance coefficient is constant. This is due to the fact that the effective viscous boundary layer in a blood flow can vary and regulate viscosity variations. So if viscosity and boundary layey thickness vary both, the viscosity force itself, shall vary as well but differently. And Thurston showed that the viscosity force behaves as a Newtonian fluid because the coefficient is constant...

So in fact the approach has to be adpated to blood and not to a fluid. In reality, blood is a complex liquid and its viscosity coefficient varies but there is a constant mainstay between viscosity value and viscous layer thickness at the wall that makes blood viscosity force or drag behave as a fluid, depending on its composition.

It would be good to start by not putting blood in fluids sections. And then, it would be good to develop a serious state of art of blood flow and not of contradictory data of blood viscosity based on fluids models. The good identifyer of blood viscosity variations is the quantity η * D / δ (respectively : viscosity, diameter of the vessel, vicous boundary layer thickness ) because it is constant in vascular resistance coefficient, which regulates viscous force of blood flow. see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vascular_resistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.33.230 (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I refactored your post; no need to add all the line breaks or start a new section every time. What specific changes do you propose to the article? What sources do you propose using? VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

answer to VQuakr (talk) 20:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Specific changes : 1 blood is a complex liquid ( see difference between nouns "a liquid" and "a fluid", or between qualificative adjectives "liquid" and "fluid" 2 viscosity is attachment inside the material, how it stays itself in itself. The model for fluid viscosity is based on linear shear rate in fluids mechanics ( Newton, Poiseuille, Couette ) where the fluid is connex (Newtonian or non Newtonian fluid ) but, for complex liquids, viscosity delivers an attachment force in the complex flow that cannot follow fluids laws. Instead we have to follow Thurston

Now to make effect and sense of these fundamental evidences of blood ability to flow, i suggest to reorganize the article for 2 setions :

1 blood definition : blood is a complex liquid made of solid deformable cells, fibres, micells, aggregates, serum holding chemical and mechanical phenomena, it regulates necessary elements in different part of the body like oxygen, energy, proteins, immunitary actions...

and 2 in the section blood viscosity : 1 blood viscosity definitions (speaking about recieved ideas of fluids models) 2 blood flow description 3 blood viscosity identifyer 4 blood viscosity variations due to blood composition 5 confront perspectives of correlations between presssure, tension, pulse, diameter of the vessels, mass flow rate and blood viscosity

the reference is Thurston in Vascular Rsistance WIKI page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.50.21.82 (talk) 08:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Color of Blood

The lead describes deoxygenated blood as dark blue. All the blood I've ever seen is a shade of red, regardless of oxygenation. Veins however appear blue due to light wavelengths filtering and reflecting through the skin. Am I missing something or should this be corrected? Mr Ernie (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I have changed the color in the lead. I will make further changes when I can find better sources and wording. Mr Ernie (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Just came here to complain about the infobox picture. That's not the blood I know. The kind I know I know is indeed red, not blue, black, grey or white. They say those things are worth a thousand words. I'm a nice guy, so I'm not suggesting replace the picture only certain scientists really know with a gory scene. Just clear vials of blood or something. Scientists can relate to vials, and the rest of us can relate to the stuff in our hearts. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@InedibleHulk: I agree; the microscopy image is very helpful but maybe not as the infobox image. What about using File:Venous and arterial blood.jpg, which is already in the article a little further down? VQuakr (talk) 19:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty good. As a kid, I was "taught" venuous blood was the blue stuff. This could set the record straight, right off the bat. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

How's this? VQuakr (talk) 07:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

That's some fine blood. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Blood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/LanNaLee.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708073035/http://www.bloodmed.com/home/hannpdf/bjh3130.pdf to http://www.bloodmed.com/home/hannpdf/bjh3130.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:01, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blood. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/LanNaLee.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101110081655/http://www.edwards.com/SiteCollectionImages/edwards/products/presep/ar04313hemodynpocketcard.pdf to http://www.edwards.com/SiteCollectionImages/edwards/products/presep/ar04313hemodynpocketcard.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120210145120/https://www.imt.liu.se/edu/courses/TBMT36/pdf/blue.pdf to http://www.imt.liu.se/edu/courses/TBMT36/pdf/blue.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Litre

There is one "litre" and four "liters". --5.43.68.69 (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone change the use of "including:" to "including the following:" (per the general rules of English which require this phrase to be a complete sentence, which it currently is not). Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3FB0:1800:30D8:F41B:ED8E:F2BC (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It seems fine the way it is. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 23:08, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2020

Add that blood is red and fluid 2.100.86.205 (talk) 14:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: already in article. Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 15:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Blood is a tissue, blood thickness is characterized by its inner frictions

Blood is a tissue made of many formed elements (cells, fibres, proteins, clots, packs, plugs, aggregates, macromolecules) constituting around 50% of the volume. More than carrying gas, solids and fluids, blood is made of all these fundamental states. The formed elements never stay at the same place. The rest of blood is serum. We call, plasma, blood without red cells and white cells and sometimes without immunoproteins. Blood is heterogeneous because the formed elements migrate and change of distribution depending on the flows situations (rotation, straight flows, sedimentation, filtration, smear, drop). Blood is discontinuous because the formed elements breack the continuity of atomic bonds in the serum. There is a blood friction due to blood composition distribution in movements. Blood thickness is as Thurston said : a combination of a plug flow and a free cells layer. Formed elements benefit from drag, lift and inertial forces. They shock, rub between each others and draw different patterns according to blood composition and vessels and pressure and streams conditions. Usually we observe platelets and white cells close to the vessels walls and red cells in a central plug flow. There is a sheath flow made of plasma around the plug flow.

In blood, formed elements chock and adhere differently than in a fluid. Blood thickiness is different than a fluid viscosity . In blood, viscosity is of poor action compared to formed elements.

There are many fluids mechanics models for continuous fluids interested in blood flow saying blood is a complex fluid with a non Newtonian fluid behaviour. A fluid is characterized by continuous atomic or molecular bonds. Serum can be a fluid, a biofluid. In incompressible fluids flows, the fluid data is the dynamic viscosity. The rest of the flow depends on boundary conditions which are geometrical and material (mass flow rate, pressure) and depends on the model of study (Navier Stokes, Poiseuille, Newton, Lagrange, Couette for examples). Viscosity is coming from the friction between parallel layers of different velocities due to atomic and molecular adherence and brownian chocs inside the fluid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.57.120.24 (talk) 17:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you!.--Bolzanobozen (talk) 15:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

So what? Was this an edit request or were you just venting about something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3FB0:1800:30D8:F41B:ED8E:F2BC (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree on your point, blood solid be studied more as biological tissue and less as physical property. Vamsi Kumpatla (talk) 19:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

First paragraph not restricting topic

Multiple body fluids, such as peripheral fluids, meet the description given in the first paragraph. A more restrictive introductory description is needed. Gewath (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Misspell?

I'm unregistered and don't make edits to Wikipedia at all, but if I'm not mistaken is the heading of "Cell prooduction and Degradation" misspelled? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.149.24.25 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for pointing this out - I've fixed it. Spicy (talk) 00:13, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Vertebrates - vs - some invertebrate animals.

I suggest the majority of people reading this article would assume that it applies to all animals, even though the second paragraph starts "In vertebrates, it is composed of blood cells suspended in blood plasma", there is no information or discovery link for "some invertebrate animals" - this phrase being picked up from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemocyanin.

I am not able to edit directly, hence my comment here.

Further the first reference [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood - defines blood as:

1a (1): the fluid that circulates in the heart, arteries, capillaries, and veins of a vertebrate animal carrying nourishment and oxygen to and bringing away waste products from all parts of the body (2): a comparable fluid of an invertebrate b: a fluid resembling blood

By this definition there should as a minimum be some information regarding invertebrate blood that is currently totally lacking. In particular, not all blood uses iron as the carrier for oxygen, Hemocyanin uses copper and has a blue colour as a result.

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Timplee (talk • contribs) 14:04, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Vertebrates - vs - some invertebrate animals

I suggest the majority of people reading this article would assume that it applies to all animals, even though the second paragraph starts "In vertebrates, it is composed of blood cells suspended in blood plasma", there is no information or discovery link for "some invertebrate animals" - this phrase being picked up from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemocyanin.

I am not able to edit directly, hence my comment here.

Further the first reference [1] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blood - defines blood as:

1a (1): the fluid that circulates in the heart, arteries, capillaries, and veins of a vertebrate animal carrying nourishment and oxygen to and bringing away waste products from all parts of the body (2): a comparable fluid of an invertebrate b: a fluid resembling blood

By this definition there should as a minimum be some information regarding invertebrate blood that is currently totally lacking. In particular, not all blood uses iron as the carrier for oxygen, Hemocyanin uses copper and has a blue colour as a result.

Timplee (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)