Rectal Bacteria

[The Mad Hatter]

I'll be fairly concise here - how does E. Coli get into our intestines?

[baron]

You eat it

[fuelair]

You eat it

That's one way.:D

[Soapy Sam]

Maybe we acquire our gut flora from our mother? Before birth, I mean.

[casebro]

Maybe we acquire our gut flora from our mother? Before birth, I mean.

No, there is no intestinal link between mother and child. There may be e coli in the womb though, it's everywhere else in the world. But I think Baron has it right.

[Lisa Simpson]

According to that font of internet knowledge, Wikipedia:

As soon as an infant is born, bacteria begin colonizing its digestive tract. The first bacteria to settle in are able to affect the immune response, making it more favorable to their own survival and less so to competing species; thus the first bacteria to colonize the gut are important in determining the person's lifelong gut flora makeup. However, there is a shift at the time of weaning from predominantly facultative aerobic species such as Streptococci and Escherichia coli to mostly obligate anaerobic species.

[Aerik]

casebra, the umbilical cord goes to the stomach - which is only a hop away from the intestines, and in addition the vessels where the connection is made forms a delta. Indeed, it is fact that all the symbiotic bacteria we hold in our intestines that help us digest and we cannot live without are inherited in this way.

[athon]

We're not born with our full colonisation of microflora. Amniotic fluid is essentially sterile - thankfully - and it's this which the foetus consumes during its time in the womb.

On leaving the womb, it picks up the more common microflora in its immediate environment, mostly skin microflora from its mother. Most won't survive the conditions of the gut, selecting for coliform bacteria such as E.coli. The fact children put everything in their mouth helps to get a range of gut microflora, but as Lisa quoted, there can be problems if virile pathogens are consumed in the process.

Athon

[joobz]

According to that font of internet knowledge, Wikipedia:

As soon as an infant is born, bacteria begin colonizing its digestive tract. The first bacteria to settle in are able to affect the immune response, making it more favorable to their own survival and less so to competing species; thus the first bacteria to colonize the gut are important in determining the person's lifelong gut flora makeup. However, there is a shift at the time of weaning from predominantly facultative aerobic species such as Streptococci and Escherichia coli to mostly obligate anaerobic species.



Is that what makes baby poop transition from smelling like butter milk to smelling like.....ewwwwwwwwwww

[Slimething]

casebra, the umbilical cord goes to the stomach - which is only a hop away from the intestines, and in addition the vessels where the connection is made forms a delta. Indeed, it is fact that all the symbiotic bacteria we hold in our intestines that help us digest and we cannot live without are inherited in this way.

Aerik, I believe that the umbilicus connects to the fetal circulatory system, not the GI tract. Also, e. coli would have to be transferred from the blood-enriched placental lining to the fetus' circulatory system via the umbilicus. Then the bacteria would have to somehow selectively travel to the fetus' intestines.

Do you have any evidence that e. coli are transferred to the fetus' gut in this way?

[fls]

casebra, the umbilical cord goes to the stomach - which is only a hop away from the intestines, and in addition the vessels where the connection is made forms a delta. Indeed, it is fact that all the symbiotic bacteria we hold in our intestines that help us digest and we cannot live without are inherited in this way.

Those statements are incorrect. The umbilical cord does not go to the stomach or the intestines. We do not normally carry bacteria in our blood. Bacteria that colonize the gut do not arrive through the blood. We do not need bacteria in our intestines in order to digest food.

Linda

[blutoski]

casebra, the umbilical cord goes to the stomach - which is only a hop away from the intestines, and in addition the vessels where the connection is made forms a delta. Indeed, it is fact that all the symbiotic bacteria we hold in our intestines that help us digest and we cannot live without are inherited in this way.

The umbilical cord does not expose the stomach, and the umbilical cord does not share blood with the mother. It connects to the placenta, where substances cross membranes that act as a barrier between mother and infant.

Furthermore: if the mother had E. coli in her blood supply, she'd be near death. Remember: blood vessels are inside the body, bowel surface is outside the body.

Intestinal flora is ingested after birth.

[Goshawk]

Is that what makes baby poop transition from smelling like butter milk to smelling like.....ewwwwwwwwwww
No. What makes baby poo smell so bad is when they start eating meat, even in tiny pureed baby-food amounts. Digesting milk products alone is a comparatively non-odiferous procedure, but digesting meat is pretty stinky.

[Soapy Sam]

Furthermore: if the mother had E. coli in her blood supply, she'd be near death. Remember: blood vessels are inside the body, bowel surface is outside the body.

You're either a topologist at heart, or you smell bad.;)

[joobz]

No. What makes baby poo smell so bad is when they start eating meat, even in tiny pureed baby-food amounts. Digesting milk products alone is a comparatively non-odiferous procedure, but digesting meat is pretty stinky.
Are you claiming that vegan's poop don't stink?
that doesn't smell right to me.

[casebro]

No. What makes baby poo smell so bad is when they start eating meat, even in tiny pureed baby-food amounts. Digesting milk products alone is a comparatively non-odiferous procedure, but digesting meat is pretty stinky.

So why do cow droppings smell? Horse dung, rabbit terds, I think you get a whiff of my point.

[meg]

I don't think the smell changes when they start eating meat, I think it's when they start eating solid food.

And, while it's not particularly pleasing, I would say that horse, cow, and rabbit poops are far better smelling than the average human's.

[joobz]

I don't think the smell changes when they start eating meat, I think it's when they start eating solid food.

And, while it's not particularly pleasing, I would say that horse, cow, and rabbit poops are far better smelling than the average human's.
I've noticed you didn't mention chicken or pig.

ewwwww!

My wife had a soils class where she brought home little dime bag samples of manure. definitely gave me the jibblies.

jibblies jibblies jibblies.

[meg]

Well, actually, I would say the same thing about chicken and pig poo. They just weren't in casebro's examples.

[joobz]

Well, actually, I would say the same thing about chicken and pig poo. They just weren't in casebro's examples.
Oh god, you have to be kidding me. Those smells get into your brain and never leave. Perhaps we should conduct a double blinded smell test.:)

[Piscivore]

What makes baby poo smell so bad is the fact they s[rule 8] Evil. Pure, undiluted, concentrated Evil.

[meg]

I think there is a big difference in smell between animals that eat meat and those that don't. It's all about the undigested stuff. Undigested (rotting) plant matter doesn't stink as much as undigested (rotting) meat.

As a matter of fact, that's one of the ways a farmer can tell if they've got their feed mix right. If the cow/pig/chicken poo gets a heavy ammonia smell to it, there could be too much protein in the feed. They can't absorb it all, so it passes out in the poo.

So anyway, in my not very scientific sample size of one's opinion, if I were given a choice between mucking out the chicken coop vs a human outhouse, I'd head for the birdbarn without even thinking twice.

Sorry for the poopy derail there... back to e. coli.

Meg

[Piscivore]

Undigested (rotting) plant matter doesn't stink as much as undigested (rotting) meat.

That's subjective, and I think you're expanding your definition of "rotting" too far. The steak on my plate may not be alive any longer- they won't serve them to you that way any longer, more's the pity- and in some sense could be considered "rotting", it is yet pretty far from rotten, and smelling.

[hgc]

That's subjective, and I think you're expanding your definition of "rotting" too far. The steak on my plate may not be alive any longer- they won't serve them to you that way any longer, more's the pity- and in some sense could be considered "rotting", it is yet pretty far from rotten, and smelling.
When I order filet mignon, in case "rare" doesn't capture the spirit of how I like it, I say "still mooing." As close to alive as possible. ;)

[meg]

I'm confused, Piscivore. Are you saying that if something that is no longer alive gets kind of crushed and ground up with other no longer alive stuff, soaked in gastric acids which break it down a good deal, then spends another 12 to say 48 hours in a pretty warm, dampish place being attacked by microbes and bacteria that are further assisting its decomposition, that calling it "rotting" at that point is expanding the definition of the word too far?

By your terms, when does "rotting" begin?

[Piscivore]

I'm confused, Piscivore. Are you saying that if something that is no longer alive gets kind of crushed and ground up with other no longer alive stuff, soaked in gastric acids which break it down a good deal, then spends another 12 to say 48 hours in a pretty warm, dampish place being attacked by microbes and bacteria that are further assisting its decomposition, that calling it "rotting" at that point is expanding the definition of the word too far?

By your terms, when does "rotting" begin?

"Rotting", as applied to food, usually means the decomposition of an organic substance by bacteria. While the dictionary defines the word with "decomposition", digestion isn't typically listed as a synonym to either word. The key difference here is what is doing the breaking down of the food and who utilises the materials and energy that are the products of that break down. If the process you describe occurs within and by the appropriate human organs and the body associated with those organs utilises the products of that process, I feel it is disingenuous to call that "rotting". If the exact same process were to occur in the dumpster behind Arby's, not so much.

It's the difference between a car being taken apart to be recycled and one that rusts out in the junkyard.

[Piscivore]

When I order filet mignon, in case "rare" doesn't capture the spirit of how I like it, I say "still mooing." As close to alive as possible. ;)

"Walked through a warm room." :D

[joobz]

I think there is a big difference in smell between animals that eat meat and those that don't. It's all about the undigested stuff. Undigested (rotting) plant matter doesn't stink as much as undigested (rotting) meat.
[/quote]

I would think that the poop smell is directly tied to the E.coli in the intestines. The short chain molecules that are oderific would have been absorbed by the gut if it was from the gastric enzymes. It would have to be produced later in the large intestine/colon.

[RandFan]

I was raised on a farm across from a dairy. My experiences are purely anecdotal and subjective so take them as you will.

This is a subject that comes up frequently with farmers and from my experience there is no controversy to the list. My family raised chickens and rabbits and I worked at the dairy and had friends with horses and pigs. I've mucked out pens, coops, cages and barns. IMO, From least offensive to worst.

Horse
Cow
Human
Chicken
PigFor the record, 4 & 5 are orders of magnitude worse than the rest.

[meg]

Ok Piscivore, I get what you're saying. However, wouldn't you say that as soon as it exits the digestive system of said cow/pig/chicken/human and is deposited, say on a sunny spot on the lawn, that the undigested bits contained within said package are now "rotting"?

I would agree with your ranking of stinkiness of barnyard doo, RandFan. I would put human last/worst, though.

[hgc]

I was raised on a farm across from a dairy. My experiences are purely anecdotal and subjective so take them as you will.

This is a subject that comes up frequently with farmers and from my experience there is no controversy to the list. My family raised chickens and rabbits and I worked at the dairy and had friends with horses and pigs. I've mucked out pens, coops, cages and barns. IMO, From least offensive to worst.

Horse
Cow
Human
Chicken
PigFor the record, 4 & 5 are orders of magnitude worse than the rest.
I don't know much about the topic, and certainly defer to your superior shitpertise. But, I've worked in confined chicken houses (on a kibbutz in Israel), and I can't see chickenpoo being worse than human.

[Piscivore]

Ok Piscivore, I get what you're saying. However, wouldn't you say that as soon as it exits the digestive system of said cow/pig/chicken/human and is deposited, say on a sunny spot on the lawn, that the undigested bits contained within said package are now "rotting"?

Okay, but with the caveat that the odor of rotting meat would be incidental and particular to the feces of the animal in question, and not part of the normal biological workings of said creature. The waste product of a normally operating carnivore's digestive tract is not meat. If someone or something has a signifigant amount of undigested material in their feces there is a problem, as I understand it.

ETA: And the smell of rotting meat being worse than the smell of rotting plants is still a subjective judgement.

[fls]

I was raised on a farm across from a dairy. My experiences are purely anecdotal and subjective so take them as you will.

This is a subject that comes up frequently with farmers and from my experience there is no controversy to the list. My family raised chickens and rabbits and I worked at the dairy and had friends with horses and pigs. I've mucked out pens, coops, cages and barns. IMO, From least offensive to worst.

Horse
Cow
Human
Chicken
PigFor the record, 4 & 5 are orders of magnitude worse than the rest.

I grew up on a farm and raised those animals and more. And we had an outhouse (just so we didn't have to go all the way back to the house when we were working). That list is accurate. Ducks and geese are similar to chicken. Sheep fall in between cow and human (maybe between cow and horse). Rabbits are less offensive than horses.

Linda

[athon]

To go back to the original point made, baby's poo changes with both an adoption of microflora AND a change in diet. The first couple of defecations are made of a substance which coats the inside of the digestive tract whilst it's in utero, something called 'meconium'.

The first intestinal discharge from newborns is meconium, which is a viscous, dark green substance composed of intestinal epithelial cells, lanugo, mucus, and intestinal secretions, such as bile. Intestinal secretions, mucosal cells, and solid elements of swallowed amniotic fluid are the 3 major solid constituents of meconium. Water is the major liquid constituent, making up 85-95% of meconium. Intrauterine distress can cause passage into the amniotic fluid. Factors that promote the passage in utero include placental insufficiency, maternal hypertension, preeclampsia, oligohydramnios, and maternal drug abuse, especially of tobacco and cocaine. Meconium-stained amniotic fluid may be aspirated during labor and delivery, causing neonatal respiratory distress. Because meconium is rarely found in the amniotic fluid prior to 34 weeks' gestation, meconium aspiration chiefly affects infants at term and postterm.
http://www.emedicine.com/ped/topic768.htm

Athon

[casebro]

Just to add fuel to the fire, I've heard that feces is 1/3 undigested food, 1/3 live bacteria, and 1/3 dead bacteria. My guess is that the smell is most likely from the rotting bacteria, since it is nothing like the way rhe food smelled on it's way in, and I doubt if the live bacteria smell- why would they, to attract mates?

[Dogdoctor]

Some odors in poop come from what is eaten however I think bacteria produce the majority of stinky things in poo (indoles, skatoles and hydrogen sulfide)

[Piscivore]

Just to add fuel to the fire, I've heard that feces is 1/3 undigested food,

Would that be bits of actual whole food, or the undigestible/unusable leftover components of the food?

[Schneibster]

You're either a topologist at heart, or you smell bad.;)"I am a donut?"

Sorry.

[casebro]

Would that be bits of actual whole food, or the undigestible/unusable leftover components of the food?

Unless you have some kind of absorption problem, Undigestible bits, I assume. Like fiber/bulk/roughage. I don't think that estimate is good for horses, whose intestinal fauna digest cellulose, but not all of it.

Somebody up-thread said the bacterias don't contribute to digestion, but that's not true. True, humans don't have the critters that cows have to digest cellulose, but we do have many that do neccessary processes. Like yeasts that make B vitamins. Or lacto-bacillus that digest milk components. Ever know anybody that needed to take one of those strong intestinal anti-biotics? Flagyl, I think is one. It probably took them months to get their digestion back to normal after killing everything inside.

[casebro]

"I am a donut?"

Sorry.

No, topolo-GIST, one who studies Dough-nuts. They usually have the waiste line to prove it.

[fls]

Somebody up-thread said the bacterias don't contribute to digestion, but that's not true. True, humans don't have the critters that cows have to digest cellulose, but we do have many that do neccessary processes. Like yeasts that make B vitamins. Or lacto-bacillus that digest milk components. Ever know anybody that needed to take one of those strong intestinal anti-biotics? Flagyl, I think is one. It probably took them months to get their digestion back to normal after killing everything inside.

I didn't say bacteria doesn't contribute to digestion. I said that we don't need bacteria to digest food, as opposed to the poster that I was responding to that said we cannot live without bacteria to help us digest.

If you have insufficient lactase to break down all the lactose, you don't die. The extra is simply excreted as waste. There are B vitamins in food, they don't have to be produced in the gut by microbes in order for them to be available for absorption. Etc.

The problem with antibiotics is that they can allow one or a few types of bacteria to dominate and lead to infection, not that bacteria necessary for digestion are gone.

Linda

[negativ]

From the subject, I was expecting another discussion of the 9/11 conspiracy movement.

Then I realized that this isn't the CT forum.

Oh well!

[huw-l]

once upon a time I was a microbiologist so I thought I'd take the opportunity to up the ick factor of this thread.

Sometimes the healthy gut flora get overwhelmed by a single species of bacteria. This interferes with digestion in many nasty ways. This infection is usually eradicated with powerful antibiotics.

The reason I bring this up is that after treatment the patient needs to have a healthy set of microbes re-introduced. This is achieved by a 'feacal transplant'.

Aren't you glad you now know that?

[joobz]

once upon a time I was a microbiologist so I thought I'd take the opportunity to up the ick factor of this thread.

Sometimes the healthy gut flora get overwhelmed by a single species of bacteria. This interferes with digestion in many nasty ways. This infection is usually eradicated with powerful antibiotics.

The reason I bring this up is that after treatment the patient needs to have a healthy set of microbes re-introduced. This is achieved by a 'feacal transplant'.

Aren't you glad you now know that?
"You're gonna put what where?":jaw-dropp

[Dogdoctor]

I have heard that within a day any bacteria placed at one or the other side of the digestive tract will show up at the opposite end. Basically your digestive tract is a tube through the middle of your body which is continuous with your skin. The bacteria which inhabit your digestive tract are found in lots of places other than your digestive tract so chance encounters suffice to introduce them. In the case of an infant likely the mothers skin and mouth will have these bacteria and inoculate the infant (my guess since I don't really know)

[boooeee]

This thread is fantastic.

[Schneibster]

You have to admit, the title is something else again. And I confess a certain admiration for anyone who can start a thread with that title and not say "no, really" in the IP.

[skeptigirl]

It's been answered but let me add, amniotic fluid is sterile. If it weren't then we'd all be born with pneumonia.

Breast milk does not require e-coli for digestion and the infant is born with enough reserve of vitamin K and e-coli is not required for some time. (But vitamin K is also given via injection to newborns as standard postnatal care in the US because there is some danger it will not be produced in time to prevent bleeding.)The bacteria we use in our digestive cycle has several months to be introduced before it matters. Moms are the likely source for both gut bacteria and mouth bacteria. Those who inherit the right mouth bacteria have less cavities in childhood provided they are not given bottles of juice or other sugars to sleep with.

[skeptigirl]

I have heard that within a day any bacteria placed at one or the other side of the digestive tract will show up at the opposite end. Basically your digestive tract is a tube through the middle of your body which is continuous with your skin. The bacteria which inhabit your digestive tract are found in lots of places other than your digestive tract so chance encounters suffice to introduce them. In the case of an infant likely the mothers skin and mouth will have these bacteria and inoculate the infant (my guess since I don't really know)Yes and no. The acid in the stomach kills a lot of microbes so they do not all pass so easily through the tube.

[skeptigirl]

I didn't say bacteria doesn't contribute to digestion. I said that we don't need bacteria to digest food, as opposed to the poster that I was responding to that said we cannot live without bacteria to help us digest.

If you have insufficient lactase to break down all the lactose, you don't die. The extra is simply excreted as waste. There are B vitamins in food, they don't have to be produced in the gut by microbes in order for them to be available for absorption. Etc.

The problem with antibiotics is that they can allow one or a few types of bacteria to dominate and lead to infection, not that bacteria necessary for digestion are gone.

LindaMicroorganisms play a similarly critical part in animal and human bodies. (http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.php/317.html) Bacteria, for example, play an important role in digestion; they help synthesize vitamin K and absorb certain nutrients, and they help convert bile and acids in the intestines. Some bacteria also help to prevent other, harmful bacteria from invading the intestines.Actually B vitamins are used by bacteria and if we don't have intrinsic factor to absorb B12, the bacteria take it all for their greedy little selves.

Many people do not produce lactase into adulthood so they don't digest lactose. It merely leads to gas and discomfort but certainly not to malnutrition.

I can't find a source on the cavity preventing oral flora so I'll have to keep looking to see if that hypothesis is still accepted.

[skeptigirl]

Maybe some of you saw this news article on evolution of the gene producing lactase.Convergent Adaptation of Human Lactase Persistence in Africa and Europe (Nature Genetics) (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/science/10cnd-evolve.html?ex=1323406800&en=6576a01a1bb4ce31&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss) A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found.


The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice — the raising of dairy cattle — feeding back into the human genome. It also seems to be one of the first instances of convergent human evolution to be documented at the genetic level. Convergent evolution refers to two or more populations acquiring the same trait independently.

[wipeout]

On a not unrelated note, I've read the lactobacillus acidophilus that makes up much of the natural bacterial "feminine flora" gets there from the mouth, down and out the digestive system and... uh... travels across and sets up home.

Not sure if it's true.

[joobz]

On a not unrelated note, I've read the lactobacillus acidophilus that makes up much of the natural bacterial "feminine flora" gets there from the mouth, down and out the digestive system and... uh... travels across and sets up home.

Not sure if it's true.
I don't know about that, But I did find it amusing to see in forum page..
Rectal Bacteria---wipeout

[wipeout]

Aside from the obvious association, that also sounds like an ultra-heavy rock band and their album title. :D

[skepticdoc]

There is also symbiosis, the bacteria in our gut produce vitamin K that we absorb, call it physiological ecology if you will.

[RSLancastr]

I was raised on a farm across from a dairy. My experiences are purely anecdotal and subjective so take them as you will.

This is a subject that comes up frequently with farmers and from my experience there is no controversy to the list. My family raised chickens and rabbits and I worked at the dairy and had friends with horses and pigs. I've mucked out pens, coops, cages and barns. IMO, From least offensive to worst.

Horse
Cow
Human
Chicken
PigFor the record, 4 & 5 are orders of magnitude worse than the rest.Never let it be said that RandFan doesn't know [Rule8].

:boggled:

[RandFan]

Never let it be said that RandFan doesn't know [Rule8].

:boggled: Damn straight!

Ask me about castrating and docking sheep sometime. BTW, the sheep lie.

[DavidS]

It's been answered but let me add, amniotic fluid is sterile. If it weren't then we'd all be born with pneumonia.

Well, AREN'T we all born with pneumonia?

Some medical professional correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pneumonia the condition of having excess liquid in the lungs, not the infection nor disease that induces that condition? That is, bacterial and viral infections are effective ways to get pneumonia; alternatives include inhalation or water or gasoline or amniotic fluid, sterile or not.

Of course, even if I'm right (for a change), that doesn't change the gist of skeptigirl's assertion: Bacteria-laden amniotic fluid might pose a neonatal health hazard. I say *might* because if that were the norm the survival of the species would probably depend strongly on our evolutionary adaptation to resist pathological infection by those bacteria. I attribute our existence today to either the sterility of normal amniotic fluid or its typical bacteria's inability to harm a reasonably healthy infant.

The hypothesized benign bacteria's apparent inability to give poop a more mature aroma doesn't really count. I mention this only to maintain pretense of posting on-topic.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

Domestic cat sh** is the worst, IMO. I rank it as the worst thing I've ever smelt, even beats raw sewage.

[skeptigirl]

Well, AREN'T we all born with pneumonia?

Some medical professional correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pneumonia the condition of having excess liquid in the lungs, not the infection nor disease that induces that condition? That is, bacterial and viral infections are effective ways to get pneumonia; alternatives include inhalation or water or gasoline or amniotic fluid, sterile or not.

Of course, even if I'm right (for a change), that doesn't change the gist of skeptigirl's assertion: Bacteria-laden amniotic fluid might pose a neonatal health hazard. I say *might* because if that were the norm the survival of the species would probably depend strongly on our evolutionary adaptation to resist pathological infection by those bacteria. I attribute our existence today to either the sterility of normal amniotic fluid or its typical bacteria's inability to harm a reasonably healthy infant.

The hypothesized benign bacteria's apparent inability to give poop a more mature aroma doesn't really count. I mention this only to maintain pretense of posting on-topic.
No babies aren't born with pneumonia. Their lungs are not inflated so pneumonia does not apply until the first breath. The chest is compressed passing through the birth canal squeezing excess amniotic fluid out. And a C-section baby doesn't have that much fluid in the lungs normally either though it is a tad more than a regular birth.

There are times the amniotic fluid becomes infected before the baby's born. It's one reason when membranes rupture > 24 hours before delivery problems ensue. There are no typical bacteria in the womb.

[fls]

Well, AREN'T we all born with pneumonia?

Some medical professional correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't pneumonia the condition of having excess liquid in the lungs, not the infection nor disease that induces that condition?

No. Pneumonia is an infection in the lung.

Linda

[Modified]

Domestic cat sh** is the worst, IMO. I rank it as the worst thing I've ever smelt, even beats raw sewage.

My vote goes to bat guano.

[DavidS]

No. Pneumonia is an infection in the lung.

I stand corrected. That's within a letter or two of verbatim quote of the NYU Medical Center web page definition (which I've now been motivated to find).

I appeal to the excuse that the term does seem to be applied casually so it wasn't too unreasonable for me to mistake which use was erroneous, e.g.:

From Wikipedia (admittedly not an authoritative source):
Pneumonia is an illness of the lungs and respiratory system in which the alveoli (microscopic air-filled sacs of the lung responsible for absorbing oxygen from the atmosphere) become inflamed and flooded with fluid. Pneumonia can result from a variety of causes, including infection with bacteria, viruses, fungi, or parasites. Pneumonia may also occur from chemical or physical injury to the lungs, or indirectly due to another medical illness, such as lung cancer or alcohol abuse.The American Lung Association page corresponds to my misunderstanding (italics mine):
Pneumonia is an inflammation of the lung caused by infection with bacteria, viruses, and other organisms... Pneumonia is mainly caused by viruses, bacteria and other organisms. Pneumonia can also be caused by the inhalation of food, liquid, gases or dust.I can get over being wrong. After all, it's not as novel an experience as I might wish.

[skeptigirl]

The fluid in fetal respiration doesn't normally cause inflammation. So while pneumonia doesn't have to be from an infection, it does have to be a pathological process. But babies still don't retain pulmonary fluid normally. If they did they couldn't breathe very well.

[joobz]

The fluid in fetal respiration doesn't normally cause inflammation. So while pneumonia doesn't have to be from an infection, it does have to be a pathological process. But babies still don't retain pulmonary fluid normally. If they did they couldn't breathe very well.
but could it be considered pulmunary edema?

[skeptigirl]

but could it be considered pulmunary edema?Pulmonary edema includes inflammation. The fluid is within the tissues rather than in the air spaces. It can be very bad as well. It's usually a symptom the heart and/or kidneys are not handling the fluid load in the bloodstream.

[skeptigirl]

There is a condition called TTN or transient tachypnea of the newborn. (http://www.hmc.psu.edu/childrens/healthinfo/t/ttn.htm) My son was born with it though I had none of the risk factors. I had a 56 hour labor and I think the nurses let an IV run wide open unchecked right near delivery. I think they overloaded him plus the labor was well...labored. The doc of course denied it but I saw them when they noticed the IV and the looks of 'oops' were there. But he survived it and these things happen.

Again, it was a pathological condition, not a normal one.

[skepticdoc]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16296772/

[fls]

The American Lung Association page corresponds to my misunderstanding (italics mine):

Quote:
Pneumonia is an inflammation of the lung caused by infection with bacteria, viruses, and other organisms... Pneumonia is mainly caused by viruses, bacteria and other organisms. Pneumonia can also be caused by the inhalation of food, liquid, gases or dust.

I can get over being wrong. After all, it's not as novel an experience as I might wish.

Well, you're in good company. :)

The American Lung Association is not really correct. Inflammation of the lung that is not from infection is more properly termed "pneumonitis".

Linda

[joobz]

Pulmonary edema includes inflammation. The fluid is within the tissues rather than in the air spaces. It can be very bad as well. It's usually a symptom the heart and/or kidneys are not handling the fluid load in the bloodstream.
Thanks for the info!

[joobz]

Does anyone else find it a wee bit disturbing that a thread talking about "Rectal Bacteria" is on the subject of Lung infections?

[skeptigirl]

Well this little exercise caused me to review the terms and think about the conditions a bit more carefully.

Pneumonia is almost exclusively used to indicate infection.

Aseptic pneumonia is used but fls is correct that pneumonitis is the more commonly used term when there is inflammation without infection.

But, pneumonia isn't merely "fluid in the lungs" and I should have thought more carefully about what was being said before replying. The X-ray changes in pneumonia reflect what is called "consolidation". If it were simply liquid in the lung where air should be, you could literally turn the person upside down and drain it out.

The lungs are like sacks of sponges. And just as with a sponge, you could fill them with fluid or you could allow gravity to act and a large amount of the fluid would eventually run out. Thus, if there was only fluid in the lung, it could be drained and that isn't the case. Instead you have a combination of fluid, inflammation (swelling), mucus, pus and sometimes collapsed alveoli. The air sacs are no longer full of air.

However, there are several organisms (like SARS) and certain conditions which can be caused by any serious infection (ARDS (http://www.ards.org/learnaboutards/whatisards/brochure/) in the first stage) where the fluid leaking from the bloodstream and lymph system into the lungs is so voluminous, one cannot keep the lungs drained and the air sacs indeed fill with fluid. The other components of consolidation are there, but there is a lot of 'liquid' in the air sacs as well.