Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!rutgers!sri-unix!hplabs!cae780!tektronix!orca!tekecs!mikes
From: mikes@tekecs.TEK.COM (Michael Sellers)
Newsgroups: sci.med
Subject: Re: Activated charcoal
Message-ID: <7869@tekecs.TEK.COM>
Date: Wed, 12-Nov-86 17:06:08 EST
Article-I.D.: tekecs.7869
Posted: Wed Nov 12 17:06:08 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Nov-86 05:29:10 EST
References: <541@sfsup.UUCP> <528@aecom.UUCP> <601@hadron.UUCP> <3792@hplabsb.UUCP>
Distribution: net
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Wilsonville, OR
Lines: 16
Summary: AAIIIIIEEEEEE! Its back!

In article <3792@hplabsb.UUCP>, bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes:
> In article <601@hadron.UUCP>, jsdy@hadron.UUCP (Joseph S. D. Yao) writes:
> > Activated charcoal is pretty general -- it will absorb just about
> > any molecule within a certain range.
> 
> I believe the word should be "adsorb".

Boy, this distinction haunted me all through college, and now here it is
again on the net!  I think the answer is a partial "yes" in favor of 
adsorbtion.  If you view the charcoal collectively/macroscopically, then 
it would appear to be absorbtion, while on the particulate scale, it is
actually adsorbtion.  Amazing the little things you remember from school;
now if I could just remember the formula for a differential solid of rotation
or the algorithm for Quicksort or the names of the various cortical sulci and
gyri ... ah, well.
--