Shrimp Bandages Clot Blood Faster 384
dwbryson writes "A new bandage technology uses ground up shrimp shells to instantly clot blood when applied to an open wound. These new bandages were developed and are being produced exclusively for the military (at $100 for a 4x4" square), but the company who makes them is hoping to mass market them to general consumers."
Quote from TFA (Score:5, Funny)
Oh... I thought it was bullets or bombs.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2, Informative)
Those are indirect causes.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2)
Modern bullets are designed to disable, but not kill people. The idea is that it takes fewer support troops to get rid of a dead soldier than it takes to transport and treat an injured soldier. As a result, armies want to maim their opponents, not kill them.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2)
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think that's right. The IDF (Israeli Defense Force) puts a big premium on survival of individual soldiers.
Also, I don't think it's a difference in ideology so much as 1st world vs 3rd world realities. Medical treatment for basic needs is pretty lacking in many parts of the world, forget staff trained to handle battle wounds...
Guns, they got. Doctors, they don't.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:3, Informative)
The US Goverment issues all bullets as FMJ with the exception of special purpose amunition (Tracers, Armor Piercing, etc.)
FMJ Only applies to bullets that have their lead core FULLy enclosed in a METAL shell (JACKET).
There are plenty of other types of bullets that are not hollow points and not FMJ (Lead Wadcutter and semi-wadcutter, Round-nose and Flat-nose half jackets[aka softnoses], lead shot [sub-caliber round balls
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2)
Also, hollowpoint doesn't penetrate body armor as effectively, so I doubt that an M16 round would be hollowpoint.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2)
I'm no
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:4, Interesting)
Now land mines and hand grenades are a different story.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:5, Interesting)
there are no hollowed out sections section on the xm193 bullet. It is a
The bullets used in wars governed by the Geneva Convention are less lethal than the bullets used by hunters (soft-lead nosed bullets that mushroom)
You're completely wrong (lots of bullet info) (Score:5, Informative)
I'm not sure I believe that - the rounds currently deployed to the US Army for their M16s are intended to tear an opponent apart, since an opponent who dies instantly can't continue to fight injured, or worse, charge and set off a bomb.
No, M855 - used by the M16A2 and up (A3, A4), is built to shatter after passing 4" of flesh, and does this quite well provided the weapon firing the round has a 16" barrel. Weapons with shorter barrels have less time over which to induce force upon the projectile thus resulting in a lower muzzle velocity and less fragmentation. This is one of the complaints about the M4 (14") and Colt Commando (11")
Here is an image of what M855 does within a gel block that has the same consistency as muscle tissue:
M855 wound cross-section [snafu.de]
They're also built to knock the target off their feet to prevent a charging enemy.
Again this is incorrect. No round short of
M-16 rounds are nasty - they have a hollowed out section on one side so that upon a collision, they drastically change shape. This causes them to travel through the body with an increased angular velocity spinning the way though the targets internals
This is vaguely correct but misleading. The small ring in the side of an M855 bullet that exists where the bullet protrodues from the neck of the cartridge does induce a tumbling motion, but upon yawing 90 degrees within the flesh of the target the bullet typically shatters with at less 50% of the bullet mass fragmenting. There reason for this is not to spin the bullet through the target's internals, but rather to create a larger internal surface area to the wound itself, in order to maximize bleeding. The tissue trauma and kinetic energy doctrines of wound theory are largely ignore by 5.56x45mm largely because of the desire to incapacitate rather than kill targets precisely because each soldier wounded means two people busied (the soldier and a doctor/nurse/rescuer). The bullet that most closely describes what you're saying is the 5.45x39mm round fired in the AK-74, the successor to the AK-47. The Afghans in the 80s referred to them as 'poison bullets' for this reason.
If you've ever seen a target dummy shot with an M-16 round, the hole going in is the size you'd expect it to be - you can fit your hand in the hole on the other side. People who get shot in the arms with an M-16 will lose the arm, go into shock (and thus completely exit the battle) and almost certainly die shortly thereafter.
This is, again, garbage. The large holes are due to fragmentation, not tumbling, and the shock is induced by the maximized blood loss, not straight tissue trauma. I don't know who told you the above but they don't know the first thing about wound theory.
Keep in mind that the United States and European armies are the only military forces that don't use disposable regiments and therefor have large support structures for injured troops. The Chinese army is beginning to move this direction, but historically have no problem with wars of attrition.
That's true enough. Chinese firearms have historically been utter shit.
--Ryvar
You are so full of shit as to boggle the mind (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not sure I believe that - the rounds currently deployed to the US Army for their M16s are intended to tear an opponent apart, since an opponent who dies instantly can't continue to fight injured, or worse, charge and set off a bomb. They're also built to knock the target off their feet to prevent a charging enemy
OK, the rounds used in the average M16 rifle are a 5.56x45mm (.223 calibre) ball. Ball means solid, no magic hollowpoint, no poison, no voodoo, it's an upscaled .22 bullet, you can buy similar ammo at any gun store.
As far as the M16 knocking someone off their feet have you ever heard of a little thing called "Newton's third law of motion" you know, that one that says something like "every action has an equal and opposite reaction". OK, if you fire a bullet at someone that has enough power to knock them off their feet then guess what: you as the shooter will also be knocked off your feet. MV=MV and in all of my years of firing M-16s, (and M-60s and M-2s, and M-85s, M-240s and M68E2s) I never noticed any magic inertialess compensators that eliminated the recoil.
The recoil on the M-16 is pretty minimal compared to that of a rifle firing a heavier cartridge such as the 7.62x51 (.308) or 7.62x63 (30.06). If I spend a few hours at the range blasting away at targets with my .308 Vepr, or my Ruger .44 magnum carbine or my .308 M77 Mark II I'll end up with a bruised shoulder. On the other hand I can fire an M-16 all day long (and have done so) without any damage.
M-16 rounds are nasty - they have a hollowed out section on one side so that upon a collision, they drastically change shape. This causes them to travel through the body with an increased angular velocity spinning the way though the targets internals. If you've ever seen a target dummy shot with an M-16 round, the hole going in is the size you'd expect it to be - you can fit your hand in the hole on the other side. People who get shot in the arms with an M-16 will lose the arm, go into shock (and thus completely exit the battle) and almost certainly die shortly thereafter.
Dude, it's a fucking ball round, despite what you might have read somewhere on the internet the US Army was not able to duplicate any magic bullet technology that might have been used in the Kennedy assassination to produce a wonder bullet. IF they had we probably would have won the Vietnam war. "Wow Sarge, I fired ten rounds through my M16 and killed 300 VC and wounded 250 others!." "Yep, that's the magic bullet technology son, we'll be in Hanoi by Christmas. God bless the magic bullet!". I've blasted plenty of things with standard M16 ammo and haven't noticed any magical spinning mushroom effect. I've met and served with a bunch of Vietnam vets who hated the M16 not because of the early design problems (lack of a forward assist, standard barrel and chamber not chrome plated) but because the round didn't have any stopping power, that whole MV=MV thing again, it doesn't hurt you as much when you fire your M16, guess what, that means it doesn't hurt the enemy as much when it hits him. "Damn you Sir Isaac Newton!". Shotguns and Tommy guns were very highly thought of because someone hit with a shotgun or with a .45 round fired from a short distance generally stops what they're doing (trying to kill you) and focuses on something else (bleeding).
The big advantage of the M16 is that it's a lot lighter than an M14 or an M1, it's shorter, so less likely to get caught on things when you're charging through the brush, and you can carry more ammo for it. Given that a lot of the shooting you do in the military isn't aimed at the other guy as much as it is fired at him to keep his head down (so he can't shoot at you) this is a useful feature.
I suggest you stop watching crap
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2)
So yes, bleeding is the largest cause of death.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2)
I would think once you open up an artery or three, clotting is beside the point.
Re:Quote from TFA (Score:2)
The technology to extract Chitosan is well known and very inexpensive. At $100 per 4" Sqr bandage it seems like they are doing a little bit of old fashion price gouging.
Zoidberg! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Zoidberg! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Zoidberg! (Score:2)
Re:Zoidberg! (Score:3, Funny)
Hawkeye-bot: This isn't a war, it's a murder.
Hawkeye-bot: <Maudlin>This isn't a war, it's a moider!</Maudlin>
Re:Zoidberg! (Score:3, Funny)
Nurse: Are you ready to operate doctor?
Hawkeye-bot: I'd love to, but first I have to perform surgery.
Zoidberg: That's my line! I'll kill you!
2.5 year old article? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:2.5 year old article? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Quality of Posts Deteriorating... (Score:2)
If it's that important to you, try emailing Taco. But BE NICE! Be civil. Then MAYBE you'll have a chance of being heeded.
Just bitching and being abusive is likely to get that email deleted and ignored.
Insta-clot (Score:3, Interesting)
I wonder if it's the same chemist
Too pricey for general use (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:2)
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:3, Insightful)
I would bet that after the initial novelty wears off, they'll probably cost about as much as those silver bandages Curad makes.
Give them to EMTs (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Give them to EMTs (Score:3, Funny)
You seen what they charge for an ibuprofen or two?
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:2)
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:3, Interesting)
What I wonder (I don't have a biology degree, and I'm actually really bad at it) is would this help hemophiliacs? Their blood doesn't clot nearly fast enough to seal an injury, but I wonder if this would help? Hemophiliacs don't necessarily lack the clotting agent, but are sometimes (often?) just deficie
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:2)
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:2)
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's see... Hunting, mountain climbing, oil rigs, cargo ships... basically anywhere where medical aid is hard to get to, and the chance of serious injury is high. They might also be useful for paramedics and air ambulance crews to have.
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:3, Interesting)
Monies would be better spent to drill into the kids some sense of traffic saftey or somesuch.
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:3, Interesting)
A couple days into the BWCA, one guy slips off a slope and takes a good size chunk of meat out of his leg due to a branch. Applied pressure and used a t-shirt to try to stop the bleeding, but recognized we were in serious trouble since we
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:2)
Come to think of it, don't mention "I die pretty easily if you get me bleeding" when a bar fight starts either.
Re:Too pricey for general use (Score:2)
Or at least dont associate with any of em.
Ground up shrimp? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Ground up shrimp? (Score:3, Informative)
1: Boiling the live lil tasty fuckers?
2: Us EATING the lil things and peeling the shell off and tossing it into a community bowl?
3: Grinding those shells up for a bandage?
Did you know that when you flash-boil live lobsters, they let out a shriek? Its quite loud.
PETA's going to have a cow (Score:3, Funny)
Re:PETA's going to have a cow (Score:5, Interesting)
Doubtful.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/news.cfm [petakillsanimals.com]
I hate propaganda (Score:5, Informative)
While I think PETA consists mainly of radical nutcases, linking to a corporate mouth-piece in an attempt to discredit them isn't exactly fair and objective, either.
Re:PETA's going to have a cow (Score:2)
Re:PETA's going to have a cow (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PETA's going to have a cow (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, and in Norfolk, VA, PETA euthanizes 85% of animals that come to the shelter, as compared to 27% at the ASPCA shelter. Do the math.
http://www.petakillsanimals.com/petarebuttal.cfm [petakillsanimals.com]
Re:PETA's going to have a cow (Score:5, Interesting)
"The PETA employees were caught allegedly dumping the carcasses on Wednesday, June 15, after other dead animals -- enclosed in plastic bags -- were found dumped in the same spot on at least three preceding Wednesdays."
Peta will have the cow, alright. (Score:2)
Re:Peta will have the cow, alright. (Score:2)
Re:Peta will have the cow, alright. (Score:2)
Ill make sure to be nice to him before I cut his jugular.
Re:Peta will have the cow, alright. (Score:2)
Couldn't this apply to fur coats, then?
Re:PETA's going to have a cow (Score:3, Funny)
What do people have against shrimp? Is it because they're small? Should we also deny bandages to children? They're small, too.
We have bandages for people, bandages for dogs and bandages for horses, but some people think we should discriminate against shrimp. It's unfair, and I am outraged!
-Emily Litella
Re:PETA's going to have a cow (Score:2)
A beady-eyed, multi-legged, bottom-feeding creature has no marketing value and is thus useless for skimming money from tofu-eating nutjobs. A shrimp is PETA's Mr Pibb, whereas a cute and fluffy kitten is their Dr Pepper.
PETA = People Eating Tasty Animals (Score:2)
and what about us vegitarians? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm.... (Score:2, Funny)
I'll take a box! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'll take a box! (Score:2)
While it would be just the thing for a scratch of shallow cut, if it were applied to a deeper cut you might only manage to seal off the blood loss to the outside world, and continue hemorrhaging internally.
Re:I'll take a box! (Score:2)
Re:I'll take a box! (Score:2)
Tough Choice (Score:5, Insightful)
Shellfish allergy (Score:3, Informative)
fta:
It's only the shells and you may only be allergic to the meat.
Chitosan can be taken as dietary fibre supplement [slashdot.org]. With the warning:
I read that as
Re:Tough Choice (Score:2)
I'm going straight to the source... (Score:3, Funny)
If it doesn't clot blood... I am sure I will smell lovely as I'm wheeled into the ER.
Re:I'm going straight to the source... (Score:2)
Wait...accidentally, or as some sort of hemocrustacean performance art?
Re:I'm going straight to the source... (Score:3, Funny)
Dupes (Score:4, Informative)
from 2003
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/01/31/20572
from 2004
http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/08/
$100 a pop!? (Score:4, Insightful)
1 - Their product is difficult to manufacture
2 - They give money back to the Wild Shrimp Rights Society
3 - They have a patent
4 - Their customer is the military, and they don't care paying up the wazoo for that sort of thing, because their money is free (i.e. yours, the taxpayer's)
Two of these four possibilities seem correct to me...
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Setting aside reserves for the inevitable lawsuits.
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:2)
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:2)
The jelly fish bandages were a complete flop.
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:2)
5 - They spent four billion dollars researching how to make the bandage and need to recoup their research costs.
Granted, I don't think 5 is the case here, but be fair and include it.
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:3, Insightful)
p
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:2)
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:4, Funny)
Trial 19438563945. Shrimp and banana. Total bust. Trial 234545345234. Shrimp and strawberry slurpy. Tasty, no observable wound clotting properties. Trial 3452342345. Shrimp and vinegar. Minor clotting effect observed, worth a more formal look. Trial 2345234532. Shrimp and prune juice. Spilled on my lab coat, impossible to get out. Might be useful as a new kind of permanent ink? Or not, it still smells like shrimp and prune juice.
Re:$100 a pop!? (Score:3, Informative)
Why so expensive? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since the article is recycled, allow me to recycle my post from the last time this exact same subject was discussed on slashdot.
Read about some of the reasons why meds are so expensive [yarchive.net].
Apologies for the length of this quote from the above link, but I think it's worth reading (Steve Harris MD on medical costs and litigation):
"...You [Steve's correspondent] were complaining about the cost of American medical care not long ago. You are clueless as to the connection here. Drugs cost more here. Medicine costs more here. A lawyer costs more here. An artitect costs more here. Each of these things has reasons. Until you step away from medicine and see the big picture, you'll never figure it out...
T&K.
Litigation, profit, and human lives (Score:5, Informative)
Take Eflornithine, the best drug available for treating Sleeping Sickness [wikipedia.org]. Obviously, Sleeping Sickness is not a big problem in the US, where we all have lots of money to buy drugs. It's a problem in Africa, where they don't. So what did Aventis, the manufacturer do? They stopped making it in 1995. It took SIX YEARS for the WHO to manage to talk Aventis into letting someone else manufacture it in 2001.
To recap: a drug company SAT ON A VITAL DRUG for SIX YEARS because they didn't find it "profitable enough," yet wouldn't let anybody else manufacture it to save lives.
The other drugs for treating Sleeping Sickness are nearly as bad as the disease. A huge fraction of the people treated with melarsoprol die when it causes reactive encephalopathy (convulsions, coma, etc...) and those that live often have brain damage.
Of course, the second Aventis discovered (recently) that the drug can be used to remove unwanted facial hair in women (now THERE is a profitable use for a drug!) they cranked right back up into production. Saving lives? Not profitable enough-- we won't make it. Facial hair removal? Crank up the factories!!
It appears since this fiasco that Aventis has cleaned up their act and is donating $5M a year worth of the drug to Doctors Without Borders-- but how many died unnecessarily?
And on the litigation front, I know an EM resident who is being sued by the sons of a patient (all three are lawyers). They are upset because the hospital wanted to move the woman, whose condition was stable, out of the ICU and into long-term hospice care. These assholes are why your medical costs are so high.
Sorry for the rant-- this stuff makes me incredibly angry.
Needs salt. (Score:2)
... With the added bonus that your wounds will be delicious.
Hospitals are going to need some of those plastic cones which are used to stop dogs licking their sores.
At last (Score:2)
Ouch... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Ouch... (Score:2)
I had a semi-serious wound when I was a kid. They left the dressings on a *little* too long once and nice new pink flesh grew through and around the gauze in the first layer of the dressings. Getting the gauze out of my flesh was pretty painful.
If this "bonds" to flesh the same way, you won't like the removal process too much.
Black Pepper is Cheaper (Score:2)
And I won't charge you $100 per 4x4 patch for that info.
Save the shrimp for the MRE.
Fruit of the Sea . . . (Score:4, Funny)
No, Bubba, now there's Shrimp Band-Aids.
Aren't they already using this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm curious if this can be on people... (Score:2)
Just a thought.
What about those allergic to seafood / shellfish? (Score:4, Insightful)
Shellfish allergies (Score:4, Interesting)
Obviously she wears a Medical Alert bracelet for this... what are the effects of this bandage on allergies? Since it goes directly on a wound/into the blood, I'd assume it could be near-instantly fatal to some.
mindslip
Re:Shellfish allergies (Score:4, Informative)
"The safety of chitosan for individuals with shrimp allergy is a bit questionable. The chitosan comes from shrimp shells and from lots of different suppliers. Some product may be free of allergen, but I cannot vouch for the safety of all chitosan from all suppliers. I would advise all shrimp-allergic individuals to avoid these chitosan bandages.
"Of course, individuals allergic to crab, lobster, and crayfish should also avoid this product because chitosan can be made from wastes of these shells also and because cross-reactions usually occur between shrimp, crab, lobster, and crayfish."
$100 is not that expensive for a critical product (Score:3, Insightful)
Combining this with the synth steak announcement.. (Score:3, Informative)
While it is mostly derived from seafood shell left from food processing, it can also be extracted from certain fungi, which actually produce it in much larger quantities. This means that it probably will be cheaper in the long run to synthesize it industrially using the fungi rather than harvesting it from shellfish, though unless the market for (or populations of) shrimp and crab suddenly nosedives, they'll probably keep doing that as well (they have to do something with the shells, after all).
No Price (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Vegans (Score:2)
Re:But what if your alergic to shellfish? (Score:2)
Mrs Jackson, your son died from a shot to the back while he was helping a comrade out from under a collapsed wall.
Mrs Jameson, your son cut his neck shaving with a bowie knife and had an allergic reaction to the shrimp bandage.
Yeah I see what you mean, not the noblest of military deaths is it?
Re:Sorry, I'm jaded... :-( (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, that's not to say that the "government" has never paid stupid amounts of money for things like toilet seats and hammers, but in the case of medicine it's usually justified. Again, I don't know the details but this is usually the case for this sort of thing.
There are similar remedies that until recently were too costly to give to the public, surgical glue based bandages for one. Now you can get them at the grocery store for just a little more than traditional bandages.
This is just like any new technology, like LCD displays. Eventually the R&D will be paid for, and they will be produced in quantities that will become acceptable for the average person to purchase.
-illc0mm
Re:How it works.. bullshit (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chitosan [wikipedia.org]
Basically, the chitosan becomes charged in solution (i.e. the water from your blood), as the protons are ripped off by solutions with a pH of 6.5 or higher (blood has a pH of ~7.4).
No, it's not too much to ask... (Score:3, Informative)
Platelets are activated by exposure to injured tissue. In massive bleeding, the plug gets washed out before it can fully form. Chitosan biochemically activates platelets all along its surface (by binding to the gp2b/IIIa receptor, if you care). Also, chitosan becomes e