Talk:Physiology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Veterinary medicine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Veterinary medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Veterinary medicine on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Biology (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Physiology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Physiology (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to the field of physiology.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Early discussion[edit]

Should this be reverted? I don't see how a highly technical discussion of urination belongs on such a high-level page. -- Pakaran 02:26, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Not sure where this should go, moving to Talk for the moment. --Lexor 14:07, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC) jnhljhkjhjhlkj

Respiration tracheal stenosis is a respiratory problem that narrows the tracheal lumen that can be congenital or acquired. In congenital tracheal stenosis the trachea is very much narrowed due to tracheal cartilages being smaller than normal and to the absence of posterior menbrane. Thus the trachea becomes very rigid. The sequence of events that leads to this kind of stenosis involves the ulceration of the mucosa and cartilag, inflammatory reactions with the grannulation tissue, fibrous tissue formation, and the contarction of the scar tissue. The capillary perfusion pressure is a possible suspect in mucosal injury. Mucosal ischemia is created by direct contact with a segment of the endotracheal tube or an increase in pressure of the tube cuff. It seems that the initially the laryngotracheal ijury was gormed by the endotracheal tube is ulceration itself. The ulcer healing would involve the regeneration of the epithelium. In this process if the healing does not cover the granulation tissue the groth of this tissue would become larger. The tissue itself has two forms: pseudopapillary and nodular granulation. Many weeks and months that pass, the granulation tissue that was initially vascular, becomes somehat of an avascular scar that just contain a few widely separated blood vessels. In the United States alone, 4-13% adults alone have traceal stenosis and in newborns, about 1-8% occurs after prolonged intubation.
Micturition: Reflex is a activated when the urinary bladder wall is stretched and it results in micturition, which is the elimination of urine from the bladder. The micturition occurs in the spinal cord, specifically in the sacral region. That is modified by the higher centers in the brain the pons and cerebrum. It is due to the presence of urine in the bladder stimulates the stretch receptors, which produces action potentional.
The action potentials are carried by sensory neurons to the sacral segments of the spinal cord through the pelvic nerves. the parasympathetic fibers carry the action potentials to the urinary bladder in the pelvic nerves. This causes the wall of the bladder to contract. In addition, decreased somatic motor action potentials cause the external urinary sphincter, which consists of skeletal muscle, to relax. When the external urinary sphincter is relaxed urine will flow from the urinary bladder when the pressure there is great enough to force urine to flow through the urethra. The micturition reflex normally produces a series of contractions of the urinary bladder.
Action potentials carried by sensory neurons from stretch receptors in the urinary bladder wall also ascend the spinal cord to a micturition center in the pons and to the cerebrum. Descending potentials are sent from these areas of the brain to the sacral region of the spinal cord, where they modify the activity of the micturition reflex in the spinal cord. The micturition reflex, integrated in the spinal cord, predominates in infants.
The desire to urinate normally results from stretch of the urinary bladder wall, but irritation of the urinary bladder or the urethra by bacterial infections or other conditions can also initiate the desire to urinate, even though the urinary bladder may be nearly empty.

<<Physiology has several independent subdivisions>>

This is not true. Physiology studies organisms "as a whole". Even there are many "subdivisions" of physiology, made for in deep study, they are not independent. All physiological areas of study are deeply interconnected.

This entire page is not satisfactory. How is neurophysiology an "independant subdivsion" and yet respiratory physiology a "topic"?PhatRita 29 June 2005 22:38 (UTC)

Gaya[edit]

Not every organism can reproduce. But every organism has a birth and a death date. Why not study the Earth as an organism?

See also the Gaia hypothesis. Indeed, but this is more related to the field of environmentalism.Userafw (talk) 18:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio[edit]

A large edit to this article [1] appears to be taken from Encyclopædia Britannica [2]. --Ronz 02:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I removed the information in question on October 24. --Ronz 02:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Chaos theory[edit]

I removed the addition of the sentence "The emergence of chaos theory renewed physiology in the 1980s." If this is a true, it needs a reference. I didn't know physiology was having any trouble before the 1980s, and I'm not sure what chaos could do to help with any problems that physiology was having. Human medical physiology is a huge field, comparative physiology is small but seems steady or slow growing in size, plant physiology grew a lot in the 80s and 90s, but that was from portable technology, not from chaos theory. - Enuja (talk) 05:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Vitruvian Man[edit]

Is this image appropriate for this article? How was Vitruvian Man significant in physiology (as opposed to anatomy or biomechanics)?--Wiki11790 (talk) 05:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

A agree, it's not a terribly appropriate image; do you have an idea about what would be better? - Enuja (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

the second sentence is ungrammatical and unclear; the sense is not clear. and it seems to me an indefensible statement that galen was the first to use experiments to probe the human body. if you can back this up, then you need a reference. also in the history section, you have failed to mention chinese medicine. you furthermore state that galvanism came to an end with vesalius and harvey, this is an anachronism because galvani lived after these men. so how could his philosophy have come to and end 200 years before he was born. you have provided a refernce for this statement, but in that link there is no reference to galvani at all.

why do you describe avicenna as a muslim physician? you dont describe vesalius as a christian physician. avicenna was a persian, and it is a matter of serious controversy to what extent he was a muslim at all, for example it is recorded of him, that he was inordinately fond of wine. other than that its ok, execpt that it is really short. but seriously, my friend, if it werent for the contribution of physiology to human understanding, you and i would probably have died from an infectious disease, before we were old enough to be having this conversation. dont you think a contribution like that deserves a bit more intellectual rigor and factual accuracy from people writing about it? also, a huge amount of people use wikipedia, do you think its ok to be leading them astray? i dont. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cleobolus (talkcontribs) 18:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Expansion DESPERATELY needed[edit]

Okay, the coverage of physiology in this article is, in a word, embarrassing. I've never seen a better example of an article where the Croughton-London rule applies. Physiology is a basic topic. Expansion is desperately needed. —Skittleys (talk) 10:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Misusing of refs[edit]

Jagged 85 (talk · contribs) is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits; he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. Please see: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jagged 85. The damage is so extensive that it is undermining Wikipedia's credibility as a source. I searched the page history, and found 8 edits by Jagged 85 (for example, see this edits). Tobby72 (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Awkward sentence[edit]

"Most aspects of human physiology, and animal experimentation has provided much of the foundation of physiological knowledge." This sentence is really awkward, but I can't piece together what the original author intended to say. Take a shot at fixing it if you can. TennysonXII (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I wrote what I thought the sentence meant. Also re-wrote some of the rest of the Human physiology paragraph. Should it be moved to after the history section? Shanata (talk) 04:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Biological basis of the study of physiology[edit]

The first phrase of this paragraph is not entirely clear.

The biological basis of the study of physiology, integration refers to the overlap of many functions of the systems of the human body, as well as its accompanied form. It is achieved through communication which occurs in a variety of ways, both electrical and chemical.

Does anyone know where the first phrase come from? Who affirms that integration is the biological basis of the study of physiology? What's the "accompanied form"?

A perhaps clearer version:

Communication processes across and within organization levels (e.g., tissues, organs and systems) are crucial and central issue in physiology, as they enable the existence of cooperatively exerted functions. This communication may occur in a variety of ways, both electrical and chemical.

Ricardohz (talk) 23:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Citation Needed[edit]

I notice that you need a citation under the section titled Human Physiology. I have a suggestion.
Your article states, "Much of the foundation of knowledge in human physiology was provided by animal experimentation.[citation needed]" In the Wikipedia article on Leonardo da Vinci, the section titled "Anatomy," states, "Leonardo also studied and drew the anatomy of many other animals as well, dissecting cows, birds, monkeys, bears, and frogs, and comparing in his drawings their anatomical structure with that of humans."
Using that source as a citation would give you an historic source dating back to 1500 or so.
I hope this is useful. --Walter Wright (talk) 19:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

There is one thing I notice... NONE OF THIS MAKES ANY DARNED SENSE!! I believe all articles should have a simplified version for middle schoolers like me.Isimisi32b (talk) 21:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Physiology History[edit]

Attached behind the history section on Physiology are two paragraphs that do not include references or citations, and that certainly have nothing to do with the history of physiology. I assume someone added them erroneously. I realize they must fit somewhere else, so I opted not to delete or tamper with them. --Vize X-- 14:55, 30 October 2013 (UTC)