I am sure that "blue blood" looks like dark red blood too every one but it is the scientific 'slang' that has stuck. It comes out of the "blue" veins (I know they are not actually blue under the skin but again 'slang') so therefor it is blue blood.Azuaron said:John Funk said:"Some of the most convincing experiments were the early ones," he says. "We drew each other's blood, mixed it in a test tube with the microparticles, and watched blue blood turn immediately red, right before our eyes."Yeah... now I'm confused. I learned in school that vein blood was blue, then in college that it wasn't really and people were just mistaken. I've also given blood to the Red Cross, and they pull that from your veins into a vacuum (so no oxygen addition), and it's definitely not blue.Farther than stars said:Maybe someone can explain this to me. I've never really been good with how the pigmentation of blood works. There isn't any actual "blue" blood, right? Or is it possible to make blood appear blue in an oxygen-free environment?
So I looked it up. [http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2008/02/11/is-blood-ever-blue-science-tea/] If by "blue" you mean "darker red", then it sounds like blood can be blue. But if by "blue" you mean, you know, "blue", then no, that's just the vein color.
I don't know what Kheir is talking about. He's either assuming people think de-oxygenated blood is blue and speaking appropriately, totally unclear about the meaning of color, or he dyed the blood.
Or I've been lied to by the internet.
OT: this is excellent news. To think what the possibilities are for this in 20, 30, or 40 years. They might actually make it possible too live nearly indefinitely without breathing. Lung cancer patients can have their lungs removed and transplant new lungs (cloned lungs even). That is only one possibility among dozens.
This will be fascinating too see develop.