-1
$\begingroup$

Odunayo's principle of inhalation states that provided a given amount of water is ingested, inhalation through the nostrils will be excluded due to the presence of oxygen in the water.

From the above theory, I was drinking water and it suddenly hits me that when drinking water, it'll be impossible to breathe. So.....

Q1. My principle is based on the fact that why it's impossible to breathe while drinking water is because of the presence of oxygen in the water, Is this true?

Odunayo's principle of immortality states that provided the injuries to the heart and brain remain excluded, an organism will be unable to experience immediate blackout with the aid of determination by that organism although weakness and other symptoms related to it may persist.

I actually came up with this principle when wondering if when a person is shot apart from the heart or brain, will be able to survive much longer than how an ordinary person would due to that person determination to stay alive.

Q2. Is that true or is it simply due to the place the person was shot,(still, apart from the brain and heart and when no treatment is involved in such scenario)

Q3. If the second principle given above is true, could it also be applicable to animals?

Q4. Which of the principles given above is worth being validated and how can it be improved, if there is any room for improvement?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I know this question is a bit primarily opinion-based, but i'm not sure where to post this question except from here, since it's a biology related question. $\endgroup$
    – Prince
    Dec 2, 2016 at 18:47
  • $\begingroup$ Odunayo is actually my late colleague's name, I named the principle from him. And the principle was made up by me,(a 16yr old kid) $\endgroup$
    – Prince
    Dec 2, 2016 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ No matter how much an individual wants to live, an untreated traumatic injury that is causing loss of blood will lead to loss of consciousness and eventual death unless something is done to treat the condition. A body (human or otherwise) requires a certain amount of oxygen to be delivered to the brain per minute in order to survive. Go lower than that limit, and the brain shuts down. Stay lower than that limit for a certain amount of time, and recovery is impossible. It's as simple as that. You need to stop watching quite so many movies and crack open a few books. $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Dec 3, 2016 at 1:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Additionally, it's not very scientific (I understand you're only 16) to make up pompous-sounding "principles" just to ask about them on a website. If you have a question, ask it, according to the rules discussing what is on-topic and what is not. Pay attention to the advice given in How to Ask a Good Question as well. We encourage curiosity, but not lying. $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Dec 3, 2016 at 1:04

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

I don't know who this Odunayo is, but the reason you can't breathe while drinking water (or swallowing anything else for that matter) is that your epiglottis closes off your trachea to make sure you don't aspirate the food/drink which could cause infection or drowning. This has absolutely nothing to do with the oxygen content of either.

Other organisms that do not use the same orifice to eat/drink and breathe, such as invertebrates with a trachea or book lung system would not be subject to these limitations; you could say the same for the gills of fish.

These "principles" sound meaningless from any scientific standpoint, though there are some studies that support a true effect of "will to live" in some terminal patients, though it's hard to separate cause and effect and impossible to do a true randomized experiment. There is no evidence that "will to live" has any effect on outcomes related to acute trauma like a gunshot - these studies are mainly focused on elderly patients with chronic illnesses.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, so, I guess you've shown to me that my first principle doesn't actually have a scientific background. What of the second principle, from your answer, you clarified that the second principle could be supported in some cases(that is, 50% proved) $\endgroup$
    – Prince
    Dec 2, 2016 at 19:38
  • $\begingroup$ I never said anything was 50% proved, I said there is some support that terminal patients who have a strong will to live may possibly live longer than others who don't. The biological explanations for this are very unlikely to involve any sort of "mental power" but maybe something more along the lines of differences in cortisol levels. This isn't the same thing as surviving a severe trauma - the Hollywood "just stay with me!" refrain, for example, is totally bogus. If EMTs ask patients something like that they are just trying to judge their level of injury, not actually provide treatment. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Dec 2, 2016 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ @BryanKrause as far as I know, the whole "will to live" thing applies to people late in life who still want to do things, remain active, be involved in family, community, and decisions about their care, etc. etc. These active participants tend to live longer than neglected elders in nursing homes with little to know family or social interaction, often previously-deceased spouses or significant others, and little desire to remain in this world. You might want to clarify that a bit in your answer. I've never read of, for example, gunshot victims who just want to [...] $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Dec 3, 2016 at 1:13
  • $\begingroup$ [...] hold on for little Jonny back home, and have the will to live, vs. a depressed gunshot victim who welcomes the circumstance and just wants to die in peace. That sounds 100% Hollywood. An injury is an injury, and while there is certainly medical evidence of some people being able to control certain aspects of their physiology, including heart rate/blood flow, breathing, body temperature, etc., two in other ways identical average Joes who get the same traumatic injury will die pretty much at the same time, regardless of the "will to live" of one over the other. $\endgroup$
    – MattDMo
    Dec 3, 2016 at 1:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @MattDMo yes I think in my comment I made that clear, and in the answer I said terminal patients. Even in those cases, the science is a bit unclear. There are clear statistical trends for increased death rates following holidays, for example, but it isn't really known if that is because people are "holding on" for the holidays or if there are stresses caused by the holidays that hasten death in the following days to weeks. Nonetheless, I will clarify my answer a bit. $\endgroup$
    – Bryan Krause
    Dec 3, 2016 at 7:44

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .