Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:45, 13 February 2020

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/S

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

Select the section of the desk that best fits the general topic of your question (see the navigation column to the right).
Post your question to only one section, providing a short header that gives the topic of your question.
Type '~~~~' (that is, four tilde characters) at the end – this signs and dates your contribution so we know who wrote what and when.
Don't post personal contact information – it will be removed. Any answers will be provided here.
Please be as specific as possible, and include all relevant context – the usefulness of answers may depend on the context.
Note:
- We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice.
- We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate.
- We don't do your homework for you, though we'll help you past the stuck point.
- We don't conduct original research or provide a free source of ideas, but we'll help you find information you need.

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.

February 7

Cetacean dorsal fins

It is well known that land vertebrates' limbs evolved from fins, and in cetaceans they became fins (flippers) again. But what about dorsal fins? Is their fetal development in whales and dolphins controlled by the same genes as in fish? Meaning, when they evolved, did long dormant genes reactivate, or is it a completely new development? If it's not known on a genetical level, are they similar structures anatomically or are there fundamental differences? User38453838 (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be a new development: "There aren’t any bones or cartilage in the dorsal fin and flukes. Instead, they’re made up of dense connective tissue" in https://oceantoday.noaa.gov/killerwhaleanatomy/ 2003:F5:6F06:7900:D570:A85B:2650:24B6 (talk) 11:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC) MPB[reply]

Note that the gray whale lacks a dorsal fin: "instead bearing 6 to 12 dorsal crenulations ("knuckles"), which are raised bumps on the midline of its rear quarter, leading to the flukes. This is known as the dorsal ridge". Alansplodge (talk) 17:40, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 8

Does tendinitis lead to osteoarthritis

I'm curious as to whether or not tendinitis could lead to osteoarthritis. Yes, i do know that tendinitis affects tendons and osteoarthritis affects joints, but has any research been done if tendinitis can cause osteoarthritis in the future? Or would it be the other way around? Or, could someone be afflicted with both ailments at the same time? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.54.20.194 (talk) 18:44, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you want research and I can't give you that, but consider that tendons connect bone and muscle, and tendinitis is an inflammation of the tendon. It would make sense that arthritis caused tendinitis because the bony outgrowths that are common in arthritis would rub on and inflame the tendon. And that would mean that yes, someone could have both ailments at the same time. (I speak from bitter and painful experience, which I know I'm not supposed to!) --TammyMoet (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really answer the question but this YouTube video is on Osteoporosis and this YouTube video is on Rheumatoid arthritis. These don't answer your question but they may be a start for further research. Bus stop (talk) 03:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asked for Osteoarthritis not osteoporosis or rheumatoid arthritis. Those are all three different diseases, with different causes and symptoms, despite sharing some of the same syllables in the name. --Jayron 32 17:03, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Tendinopathy says in the lede that the causative relationship is the other way around, with a citation. Quick scan of pubmed isn't turning up any studies of your question, but you might fiddle with the search terms and try more at [1]. 70.67.193.176 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 9

Coffee addiction

Is it possible for a person to be addicted to coffee, in the same way that some people become addicted to alcohol? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are differences but you can be mildly "addicted" to the caffeine in coffee. See Caffeine dependence. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enough said already. DroneB (talk) 00:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here we go again. Are you talking about just-plain coffee, or about coffee with added stuff like cream and sugar? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:55, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did I even mention cream and sugar? No, of course not. Had I been asking about whether coffee with sugar is addictive, then I would have specified coffee with sugar. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The last time someone brought up the subject of coffee, they said that to them "coffee" could imply cream and sugar already added. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:59, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your response is another example of you reading more into a question than the person asking it actually intended. Enough said about that. Archive this whole thing already if you like. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was you yourself who said it, a few weeks ago.[2] So you need to be CLEAR about what you're asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question was, as usual, perfectly clear. Your response judges it in terms of what I said in a different discussion, which is unwarranted. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your previous question made unwarranted assumptions about the definition of "coffee". It made total sense for any observer to expect you might be doing it again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a distinction has to be made between caffein and coffee as a cup of coffee could mean the double mocha cappuccino with the whipped cream topping with the cocoa powder dusting. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Baseball Bugs, User:Freeknowledgecreator - Both of you! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tea. Earl Grey. Hot. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 08:13, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm-guy. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember him looking a bit peeved on Top Gear because he wanted to talk about his latest theater project but Clarkson kept badgering him with Star Trek jokes. To think you're a Shakespearean actor and get remembered for one facepalm... 93.136.88.203 (talk) 21:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar addiction

Is it possible for a person to become addicted to sugar? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 05:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article says the answer is Yes.[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have to ask if chocolate is addictive. Bus stop (talk) 05:26, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And cookies. And bread. Milk. Boiled lollies. Potatoes. Lettuce? HiLo48 (talk) 05:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to create a Boiled lolly redirect for Hard candy? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:53, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just wasted almost 20 minutes watching how peanut brittle is made as a result of researching "Boiled lolly". Bus stop (talk) 08:23, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikt:lolly; in Australia it means any candy or sweet, elsewhere in the Anglosphere it has to be on a stick to qualify. In the UK, we would say "boiled sweet". Alansplodge (talk) 14:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

creation of black holes

Hi. A few years back, global media was talking about how the large hadron collider might accidentally create "tiny black holes". Today I was looking up if there was something created. I searched for creation of micro black hole, and quantum black hole, with a few different keywords. All I could find were results from past, talking about future. Like this forbes, or this NASA article. So just wanted to know, has it been done? If yes, when and where. No excessive details are required. Its just, I am going to start working at new location (but same job) in a non-physicist capacity, which has similar installation/setup as of LHC. (or maybe it is the LHC itself ) —usernamekiran (talk) 12:52, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a physicist and my information may be out of date but I doubt black holes have been created. We would've heard about it by now. And even if they were, they wouldn't really be able to do anything before evaporating in a tiny burst of Hawking radiation. See also Micro_black_hole#Man-made_micro_black_holes 93.136.88.203 (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No black hole yet the Standard Model of Particle Physics still stands strong.^[1] Creation of black holes creation is predicted in some physics beyond the Standard Model that require extra dimensions (eg M-Theory) and one of the extra dimensions is "large". Dja1979 (talk) 03:27, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Search for black holes and other new phenomena in high-multiplicity final states in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV". Physics Letters B. November 2017. pp. 279–307. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.053.

how does alcohol intake affect white blood cells?105.112.24.49 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

How does alcohol intake affect white blood cells? Really red wine has some phytochemicals that may guide against the effect of acetaldehyde, an intermediate in the oxidation of alcohol that undermines a healthy living,105.112.24.49 (talk) 21:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One study found a positive correlation, another one found the opposite. And this is one study that found that specifically red muscadine wine has benefits to the immune system. I don’t know if there is a final verdict from the jury. I assume we are not considering long-term alcohol abuse here. --Lambiam 09:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 10

What is the LD 50 of play dough?

Wikipedia does not respond to requests for medical advice. If you are concerned, please seek medical attention --Jayron 32 13:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I need to know because I accidentally ingested some! 69.5.123.24 (talk) 03:34, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you are concerned about something you ingested, you should contact an appropriate professional, not ask on the reference desk. In many developed countries, there are poison control centres who can provide front line advice, [4] has a number for the US. Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Play-Doh™ is non-toxic, unless you are allergic to any of its ingredients; but, of course Nil Einne is right: don't get medical advice from random people on the internet; contact a professional. 2606:A000:1126:28D:9451:2A3:1A64:CCAF (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The LD50 values of toxins, radiation or pathogens are usually measured by giving a population of animals such as mice enough dose to kill half the population. Commercially marketed play dough should contain only innocuous ingredients such as flour, salt and starch because it is intended for use by children. A meaningful LD50 measurement is impractical because play dough is neither a toxin, radiation or a pathogen, and a mouse force-fed play dough will likely be harmed more by congestion than toxicity. A young child should not play unsupervised if it is liable to put dough in its mouth. DroneB (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remember trying to eat it as a kid but it tasted terrible, much too salty. Anyway, nothing happened. You are fine. Kids these days eat Tide pods instead. Now that's dangerous. 73.93.155.38 (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a study out there (can't find it offhand, as a storm is trying to take my phone out) on bacterial contamination in shared modelling dough in playgroups and its conclusion was that the salt was the only thing keeping the bugs down! Otherwise anything which combines stickiness, small children and being effectively uncleanable is getting the Monsters Inc. treatment from me! Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just for info: "It is composed of flour, water, salt, borax, and mineral oil." But if you tried to swallow an entire pot, that might well prove to be a lethal choking hazard. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complex homeopathy

What is complex homeopathy? I note that Complex homeopathy redirects to Homeopathy, but the article appears to have no information on this subject. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the original article said "Complex homeopathy is a natural result of clinical homeopathy, usually a mix of low homeopathic potencies are used....."--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(: I searched for “science of homeopathy” but accidentally, instead of google, pressed the dictionary search button and got this back: “Did you mean sense of humor?” :) In any case, in one book I found: "Complex homeopathy, which has a high prevalence in Germany, produces drugs that are combined by mixing different homeopathic remedies." Apparently A. Vogel's remedies are based on this. --Lambiam 13:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since people are dancing around it, we need to make clear that homeopathy is unmitigated bullshit, so complex homeopathy is just complex unmitigated bullshit. To wit "Despite the claims by the practitioners, homeopathic preparations are not effective for treating any medical condition...Clinical trials have generally demonstrated no objective effect from homeopathic preparations...Its lack of effectiveness has led to it being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as quackery and nonsense." All of that would apply to "complex homeopathy" as well. --Jayron 32 14:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you combine various types of garbage, your result is still very likely to be garbage. Just "complex" garbage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathic remedies tend to have fewer and less severe adverse side effects than evidence-based medication, and all the proven beneficial effects of placebo medication. The classical style also helps one to remain hydrated, which promotes healing. --Lambiam 20:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the reality is that homeopathic remedies tend to have fewer effects than evidence-based medication, if any. Forget the "side effects". HiLo48 (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect Lamb I Am is saying exactly that: "...all the proven beneficial effects of placebo medication." That is to say, none. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I know that's the absolute scientific position, one I largely agree with, but I also know that putting a Band-Aid on the slightly bruised finger of my two year old grand-daughter makes her very quickly forget about the bruise. HiLo48 (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Some here might benefit from reading the article Placebo. It is generally accepted that placebos do work: not by any direct physical actions on the body, but rather by the effects that the action of taking them has on the mind – and hence the mind-affected body – of the taker, (even when they know it's a placebo). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230 195} 90.205.58.107 (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately my local pharmacy doesn't stock them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I rather like the idea of bringing out a range of placebos, with all the different marketing BS you can apply to them. "Placebo". "New and Improved Placebo". "Herbal Placebo". "Original Placebo". "MAX STRENGTH Placebo". "Placebo FOR MEN". etc. Iapetus (talk) 12:22, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Complex placebo... --Jayron 32 12:56, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 11

Ayn Rand, Radium girls

What impact did the horrible situation of the Radium girls have on Ayn Rand’s opinions. Did Rand ever comment on it, or did anyone else discuss how it impacted the Objectivist philosophy?Rich (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of any such commentary. The refdesk regular most likely to know would have been Medeis, of blessed memory. --Trovatore (talk) 01:49, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was literally jealous of serial killers' selfishness so empathy wasn't her strong suit. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should I have put this on Humanities or Miscellaneous desk instead?Rich (talk) 11:25, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly off topic but... To say it wasn't her "strong suit" is a reference to games with trump cards. In a strong suit in your hand, you'd have many, or top scoring cards in that suit... Jealousy of people who are selfish would seem to suggest that her empathy suit was stronger than she could cope with. I don't think that she has come out of the blue and declared that empathy is too commonplace in the world, but that in her position, or disposition, empathy is more abundant than is useful. The grass is always greener on the other side, but if you get stuck there... you might wonder what it was about the original side you liked, is what I think she was saying. ~ R.T.G 12:58, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, WP:RD/H would be a better fit, unless you have questions about radioactivity and its health effects.

If you want useful answers I suggest to cut the emotional appeal ("horrible situation") and focus on the history of philosophy aspect. If you want a debate about Ayn Rand, get lost. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 13:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)p[reply]

Get lost? Please don’t pick a fight with me. I asked for any comments Ayn Rand or others made about the Radium girls and how it affected Objectivism. But actually anything she or her close followers said about Radium girls would interest me too, whether or not it affected Objectivism. The word horrible doesn’t matter for that. Now I absentmindedly put this question on the Science Desk, can one of you computer whizzes move it to Humanities or Miscellaneous? ThanksRich (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rand didn't write anything about industrial accidents or malfeasance of any kind, nor DDT, thalidomide, or even the dustbowl. The reason she avoided those topics is because they didn't comport with her preconceptions; there's not a lot more to it than that. One of her minor sympathetic characters, Ken Danagger, started as a coal miner at age twelve before working his way up to becoming a captain of industry. EllenCT (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turning to stone? (medicine)

Hello, many of you may have seen this image of four winners of a 1922 beauty contest before. I found another image of the lady on the far right in the black suit with the umbrella, wearing the same suit at a bathing contest, so I searched up to see if she had been doing a circuit of beach contests. She wore it to a few, but then I found this newspaper clipping from 15 years later...[5]

"Stone Girl Happy" Mrs. Lola Swinnerton of Chicago celebrates after 10 years in hospital... She is slowly turning to stone after taking anti-typhoid medication...

I searched but I don't find the explanation. The only mention of "stone" on the typhoid article is something to do with Maidstone. I'm sure it might be common knowledge what exactly it means... Has anyone here ever heard of typhoid sufferers "turning to stone" as a result of medication? ~ R.T.G 11:50, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The disease is probably fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva. It is now known to be a genetic disorder, but was previously thought to be caused by muscular inflammation. The newspaper clipping does not suggest it was triggered by typhoid fever, but rather by anti-typhoid medication. I don't know what that could have been almost a century ago; antibiotics were still unknown. --Lambiam 13:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Modern antibiotics were unknown, but treatments for infections involving some rather nasty stuff, like arsenic and mercury compounds, were used in the early 20th century. Some examples include Salvarsan and calomel and stuff like that. --Jayron 32 14:38, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Typhoid Mary was treated (unsuccessfully) with hexamethylenamin/Urotropin, laxatives, and brewer’s yeast. - Nunh-huh 13:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The two links provided by RTG are the same. They both provide the same image. Is there supposed to be a link to a "newspaper clipping from 15 years later"? Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bus stop, Jayron32, and Lambiam:Oops! Sorry about that, wasn't on search but still in history. Here is the clipping I was looking at. Maybe it is that bone growth disease, but turning to stone? Never heard of it in describing reality. If it was published today I'd put it down to "Weekly World News" reports or something like that... ~ R.T.G 03:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
403 NOT FOUND. Uses of "turning to stone": [6], [7], [8] – where the last one is not about fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva but scleroderma. --Lambiam 07:25, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's still working for me. Shorpy is an American foundation for preserving photography. It's not on a search of their site. You'll have to click the link if you want to see it. ~ R.T.G 08:09, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
[9] This shows the clipping. Bus stop (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to me. --Lambiam 14:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of an airborne virus

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding what constitutes an airborne virus. I, at least, am confused and haven't found a comprehensive explanation. Different sources and articles are contradictory and/or vague. This question has become relevant to the public again recently because of COVID-19/~~2019-nCoV~~/SARS-CoV-2. All seems to agree it is spread via respiratory droplets, while some also say aerosols and airborne others insist it is certainly not airborne. Adding to the confusion, at today's WHO press conference about COVID-19 they at one time said the virus was airborne, then made a correction saying it wasn't and only spread via droplet transmission, and that airborne was the military terminology. The transmission article doesn't really help clarify this, it lists similar viruses under both airborne and droplet. From a physics point of view, droplets in air would be aerosols by definition, and all viruses spread via respiratory droplets could reasonably be called airborne. If someone could help clarify what the precise definition is, I, and I think many others, would be grateful. The transmission article list other coronaviruses, the common cold and influenza in the airborne category. It would be nice if someone could also say whether it is correct to call ~~2019-nCoV~~ SARS-CoV-2 an airborne virus, (why/why not)? People who care for Ebola patients wear respirators, yet Ebola is said to not be airborne, is that just a precaution? --78.82.231.51 (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can read Airborne disease. Ruslik_Zero 18:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I have, but like the transmission article it doesn't really clarify the issue. --78.82.231.51 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For a disease to be considered an airborne disease, airborne transmission has to play a major role in its transmission. Avian influenza is believed to also have spread through airborne transmission, but this is thought not to have been a major pathway for the outbreaks; hence, it is not classified as an airborne disease. If our article Airborne disease is confusing, it may be because an anonymous editor changed the phrase "may be spread in aerosols of dust or liquids" to "may be spread in aerosols, dust or liquids", making it look like these are three alternatives on an equal footing, instead of two forms of aerosol. Whether (liquid) droplets or (solid) dust particles, these have to be pretty small to behave like a suspension and remain airborne for extended periods, and only then are they called an aerosol. For infective pathogens that affect the respiratory system, the aerosol carrying the pathogen to the next host will generally consist of tiny liquid droplets. That also holds for pathogens that cause diarrhea, particularly but not only where flush toilets are common. Another pathogen that can be transmitted in tiny droplets are the bacteria causing Legionnaires' disease – but now the aerosol is produced mechanically, like by an air conditioning unit. For airborne diseases transmitted by aerosols formed by solid particles, the particles can just be the pathogen itself, likes the spores of anthrax. Or microbes and viruses may hitch a ride and travel on dust particles. --Lambiam 20:48, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a "major role in its transmission", who decides that, is there a precise definition? The Airborne disease article just says "An airborne disease is any disease that is caused by pathogens that can be transmitted through the air." As the aerosol article says "The liquid or solid particles have diameters typically <1 μm; larger particles with a significant settling speed make the mixture a suspension, but the distinction is not clear-cut", i.e. there's no precise droplet size/settling time defining an aerosol. (Small dust particles/solids will be covered by moisture as well unless the air is perfectly dry). When you sneeze you definitely create an aerosol. Would any disease where sneezing is thought to have a major role in its transmission be considered airborne? What did the WHO mean by military airborne terminology? Is there an authoritative list of airborne diseases? --78.82.231.51 (talk) 21:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect that there is no precise definition for any of these concepts. That is a common situation: there is also no precise criterion for what is an infectious disease – and for the criteria that are used, there may be no practical way to apply them in concrete situations. There is also a subjective component in assessing when cognitive impairment becomes severe. The speed at which a droplet of a given size evaporates depends very much on the local temperature and humidity. And yes, a disease where sneezing has a major role in its transmission will be considered airborne. I have not heard or read what precisely was said at the WHO press conference, and I have no idea what they may have meant. In various documents WHO recommends implementing "airborne precautions" (which means: precautions against airborne transmission), and they have been doing that since at least 25 January. This implies that they believe or suspect that airborne transmission is a significant pathway in spreading the disease. --Lambiam 07:14, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These links may be of interest [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. The first 3 establish how airborne transmission and droplet transmission are generally handled different and why. The last 2 point out (and they're both from before this outbreak) that in truth we don't really know how significant the airborne route is even for more established respiratory diseases like H1N1.

I don't know if I'd agree that the WHO recommending airborne precautions means they believe or suspect it's a significant pathway. This [15] relating to the more extreme case of Ebola does IMO in part emphasise why it an be complicated.

More significantly, the precautionary principle can apply, especially given that we don't even know that well for established respiratory diseases, let alone a new one like H1N1. And that the spread in healthcare settings can cause significant problems such as an increased strain from a loss of healthcare workers (whether from temporary illness, an unwillingness to work, or unfortunately in some cases, death), and also may make patients reluctant to seek treatment. For largely different reasons, Ebola was an extreme example of this.

So although airborne precautions to pose an additional burden as the earlier sources point out, they may still be considered worth it even if it's not believed to be a significant route.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that made it a lot clearer, especially the last link [16]. --78.82.231.51 (talk) 16:42, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External signs of abnormal mutations.

A male child was born a year ago, the product of pregnancy complicated by severe flu infection. He has what is considered a groove on his foot soles and abnormally thick phalanges of the first fingers. I wonder if there exist a list of such and similar physical features with interpretations, but that would be an icing on the cake. Thanks AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the condition was caused in utero by an external agent (exposure to a harmful chemical or an infectious disease), it is congenital, but does not qualify to be called a mutation. There is no reason to think the condition may be inherited by offspring of the affected individual. --Lambiam 21:09, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epigenetic mutations they are. AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:51, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you just believe this, or do you have specific evidence for this assertion? --Lambiam 07:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIUI (I'm no biologist) "epigenetic" is barely usable as a word. Its meaning has been 'skunked' by so many variations in its meaning that it can no longer be expected to convey any unambiguous meaning, without being further hedged around by qualifiers. It now has a current meaning in medicine that's fashionable (i.e. fundable!) and stable, but that only goes back a few decades. So it's still widely used outside that scope, old books could mean anything, even older doctors can interpret it differently. When you go back to the Victorians, Haeckel's name crops up, and we know how whacky and now-discarded some of his ideas have become.

A core part is it being a "stably heritable phenotype" (but then, what's "heritable"?). Also it's fundamental that the encoding of the DNA is not changed, but the expression of the genome is, see DNA methylation.

So it's extremely relevant here, and in many cases of in utero environmental influences from chemical exposure to Rubella. But even just adding 'mutations' makes the term contentious. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 12

Insomnia and failure to drink enough fluids

Is there a connection between insomnia and failure to drink sufficient fluids, such as water? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 18:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several places here to start researching the answer to your question. --Jayron 32 19:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Insomnia and Dehydration (see also Thirst) are symptoms each of which has many possible causes. There are individuals who report both together but there is little evidence of a causal connection i.e. such Correlation does not imply causation. Important: Consult a qualified doctor if you experience either or both symptoms because this reference desk will not give medical advice. DroneB (talk) 19:11, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was not asking for medical advice and have never done so. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, especially if the water is the water portion of black coffee. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:45, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am interested in serious answers only. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 21:59, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am serious. But don't call me surely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your answer appeared to be a joke and is in any case unsupported by evidence. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What, you think caffeine can't cause insomnia? You definitely need to talk to your doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I neither stated nor implied that caffeine cannot cause insomnia, so what a bizarre response. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:39, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a response to your comment that coffee causing insomnia is "unsupported by evidence." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made no such comment. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look a few lines upward, where you said it. Or has someone hijacked your account? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better not to respond to my questions at all than write such stuff. Remember that no one is forcing you to do it. You could just ignore me and let others respond. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want someone to respond to your weird comments, then don't write them in the first place. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking you not to respond, if you cannot avoid absolutely unnecessary rudeness and hostility. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My alleged rudeness and hostility is no worse than your own. Stick to what you seem to do well, which is article work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 13

Obesity and failure to drink enough water

Is there a connection between obesity and failure to drink enough water? Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Followup at talk page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Talk to your doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An irrelevant response. The question was not about me or my health. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then that is very rude of you, and a blatant violation of our rule about assuming good faith. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:38, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're rather rude yourself. You ask these bizarre questions and expect everyone to assume you're not trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:49, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whether there is a connection between obesity and failure to drink enough water is not a bizarre question. The IP editor below provided evidence that there is published literature on the subject. No one is forcing you to respond if the question does not interest you. Per WP:AGF, you should indeed not assume that a question is trolling, especially when it is about an actual recognized subject discussed in scholarly literature. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 08:58, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By itself, maybe not. But among other things, your asking about drinking human blood and your apparent confusion about the contents of coffee cast a cloud of suspicion on your comments. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So there we are again with failing to assume good faith. I say something about coffee you disagree with; you decide to respond with hostility to a question that coming from anyone else you accept would be perfectly legitimate. I'd suggest again that you might want to let others respond to my questions. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF only goes so far. And it's not just me that's questioning your comments. Or have you forgotten that lengthy discussion on the talk page? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:04, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop answering my questions if you cannot avoid rudeness and hostility. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then stop asking them. Stick to what you seem to do well, which is article work. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no intention of stopping asking questions simply because you respond with rudeness. If you respond in a rude or aggressive way when you don't have to (you could instead simply ignore me, as I've pointed out repeatedly), then your behavior is the problem. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page discussion would indicate that your behavior is a problem. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See [17] and [18] for example. 73.222.115.101 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which medical conditions require the use of blood thinner?

I've previously heard some confidential information that a particular supercentenarian (I'm obviously not going to say which one) could have lived for an additional several days or several weeks had they not been given an incorrect dosage of blood thinner. I've also heard that this blood thinner was given to them in order to deal with an existing medical condition that they had.

In turn, this motivates me to ask--what medical conditions (including life-threatening ones) require blood thinner to treat? Any thoughts on this? 68.96.93.207 (talk) 00:15, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Warfarin. It's an anti-coagulant, so it's taken to treat conditions (chronic or acute, i.e. long- or short-term) where clotting is a problem. Thrombosis would be a long-term condition, orthopedic surgery such as a hip replacement would be a short-term example. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the most frequent use is in cardiac arrhythmias that predispose to clot formation and emboli. Atrial fibrillation or supra ventricular tachycardia. Also mechanical heart valves. -Nunh-huh 05:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What causes thrombosis? 68.96.93.207 (talk) 04:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Thrombosis#Causes. HiLo48 (talk) 05:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tangent alert: The term "blood thinner" is the popular name for what is more properly called an anti-coagulant. I don't think they actually make the blood any thinner, just less likely to clot. But I would be interested to see actual evidence either way.

In Warfarin#Mechanism of action we find the assertion "While warfarin is one of several drugs popularly referred to as a 'blood thinner'; this is a misnomer since it does not affect the viscosity of blood." However this claim is unsourced, and in any case strictly speaking is only about warfarin, not about anti-coagulants in general. --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to a 1970 study, hemodilution seems to be "the only definite practical method" (available at the time of writing) for lowering blood viscosity. --Lambiam 07:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Search for black holes and other new phenomena in high-multiplicity final states in proton-proton collisions at sqrt(s) = 13 TeV". Physics Letters B. November 2017. pp. 279–307. doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2017.09.053.

[1]

@@ Line 198: / Line 198: @@
 == Obesity and failure to drink enough water ==
 Is there a connection between obesity and failure to drink enough water? [[User:Freeknowledgecreator|Freeknowledgecreator]] ([[User talk:Freeknowledgecreator|talk]]) 00:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
+{{hat|Followup at talk page. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 09:45, 13 February 2020 (UTC)}}
 :Talk to your doctor. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 01:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 ::An irrelevant response. The question was not about me or my health. [[User:Freeknowledgecreator|Freeknowledgecreator]] ([[User talk:Freeknowledgecreator|talk]]) 02:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
@@ Line 211: / Line 212: @@
 ::::::::::::::I have no intention of stopping asking questions simply because you respond with rudeness. If you respond in a rude or aggressive way when you don't have to (you could instead simply ignore me, as I've pointed out repeatedly), then your behavior is the problem. [[User:Freeknowledgecreator|Freeknowledgecreator]] ([[User talk:Freeknowledgecreator|talk]]) 09:09, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 :::::::::::::::That talk page discussion would indicate that ''your'' behavior is a problem. ←[[User:Baseball Bugs|Baseball Bugs]] <sup>''[[User talk:Baseball Bugs|What's up, Doc?]]''</sup> [[Special:Contributions/Baseball_Bugs|carrots]]→ 09:10, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
+{{hab}}
 :See [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4940461/] and [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23803882/] for example. [[Special:Contributions/73.222.115.101|73.222.115.101]] ([[User talk:73.222.115.101|talk]]) 02:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)