Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

• Computing
• Entertainment
• Humanities
• Language
• Mathematics
• Science
• Miscellaneous
• Archives

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.

See also:

• Teahouse
• Help desk
• Village pump
• Help manual

June 23

Rhododendrons, Camellias, and Magnolias

Is there an easy way to distinguish between rhododendrons, camellias, and magnolias? I tend to get them confused at times. DuncanHill (talk) 00:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes the flowers will do it. Camellias also tend not to repeat flower while magnolias do. Camellias and magnolias tend to flower before rhododendrons (as a rule of thumb, if you see a rhododendron in flower when the magnolia is, it's an azalea). Camellia flowers tend to be more spheroid in form with rounded petals, rhododendrons flower in clusters and the flowers are more trumpet-like, and magnolias flower singly and their flowers tend to have thinner, more pointed petals. Having said all that, there is a great deal of variation within each species and it can be very hard to tell which is which at times. --TammyMoet (talk) 04:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Are you looking for more rules of thumb, or do you want a Identification_key that covers this? I'm assuming the former (as keys are hard to use and generally people don't like them). Tammy's advice is good. I'll add that magnolias are older than bees! - and this shows in their flower - very tough carpels and buds compared to the others. Also, rhodos don't really ever get bigger than "shrub" sized, while magnolias can tower over a courtyard. If it's over ~30 ft, it's probably not a rhodo. Also all camellias are evergreen, while some magnolias are deciduous. Rhodos can go either way too, but usually in my experience only the evergreen type are planted ornamentally. If you see one not in bloom and not in winter, you'll have to start looking at leaf margin, leaf veination and other stuff like that to be sure. If you do want a rigorous key, I can probably help with that too. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both. A rule of thumb is pretty much what I came here for, but a key would be great. I'm particularly interested in those that grow in Cornwall (both wild and domesticated), where of course many plants stay in leaf much longer than in less temperate climes. DuncanHill (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not so good for UK plants, but here is a fun group of the RHS you could check out [1], and here's a nice Cornwall-specific site that might be of interest [2]. As for keys, I'm not finding anything that great at the moment, but this one [3] is at least fairly easy to use. I didn't walk through this one [4], but it is at least better designed for web use. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Rhododendrons and azaleas are vaguely similar to camellias. Magnolias are quite different, in that they have what I call "leathery" leaves and petals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Not all of them. The American tulip tree (commonly called "Yellow Poplar" or "Tulip Poplar"), though no relation to true poplars) is a very common hardwood tree in the American Southeast and Midwest, especially around me in North Carolina, and it is actually from the magnolia family. The leaves are more reminiscent of a simplified maple leaf, not at all like the leathery leaves of the classic Magnolia virginiana or Magnolia grandiflora which are the classic ornamental Magnolias found around the U.S. The flower and seed pods of the tulip trees are close to other magnolias, so I would say that's the class way to identify most magnolias, not necessarily the leathery leaves, which are most common in popular ornamental varieties (and thus well known to many suburban homeowners) but not necessarily in all wild species. The tulip tree is a common timber tree, rather than ornamental, so it isn't perhaps as well known. --Jayron32 01:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Cassava as food.

Could you direct me to information about how a people learn to modify a food stuff to render it edible instead of just forgetting about it when upon first eating it makes them sick? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.9.181 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Cassava#History. References 11 and 12 specifically describe early consumption by humans, and the rise of cassava agriculture. Here's another summary from University of Colorado: CU Team discovers Mayan crop system. Nimur (talk) 13:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

One method is Trial_and_error. I mean who would have thought 10,000 years ago you could get a low glycoalkaloid content "by leaving potatoes out in the open, where they are frozen at night, stomped underfoot and dried in the sun for many days"? http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/09/potatoes-and-human-health-part-i.html Remember the old saying for mushrooms: There are OLD mushroom eaters and there are BOLD mushroom eaters but not old bold mushroom eaters. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if there is a page somewhere on Wikipedia about foods that are poisonous before they have been processed. There's so many things people eat like that. I suppose it isn't so strange after seeing the discussions above, after all people eat rotting meat and drink quinine. Dmcq (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. A WP page may be of interest on this subject as there are a lot of common foods that need preprocessing. Do you want to start it off? Examples could include mushroom that give off cyanide during frying, bitter almonds, cashews, kidney beans, caster oil, cotton oil, rhubarb leaves, escargot, et cetera. There is quite a list. Editor Medais could also help, as she is a bit of a know-it-all when it comes to food.--Aspro (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any grouping like that, but it would be fun to start! Hákarl is an interesting one (make sure you start with a rotten shark, it's safer!), but it would be tricky deciding group inclusion. After all the dose makes the poison, and things like onions and garlic contain compounds that are harmful in high doses. Here's a similar list [5], some of them are literally poisonous before processing, while others like the tomato are just fruits that come from plants whose stems and leaves we shouldn't eat. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:43, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think a fair amount of intelligence goes into it, too. People observed animals eating those things, so concluded that there must be nutrition in them, but got sick when they ate them, so then tried various ways to prepare them. (Now they may have thought they were trying to find a way to "drive out the demons", but that didn't matter, only the results did.) StuRat (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

June 24

Pregnancy category of Ethanol?

On Drugs in pregnancy it is said that Ethanol is in Category X, but on Ethanol article it is in Category C. Googling yields mixed result too. I changed it to Category X because of Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder but somebody reverted it saying that it is Category C on drugs.com.--Jsjsjs1111 (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I can not find any evidence that the United States Food and Drug Administration maintains any listing for ethanol regarding "pregnancy category" (as defined in 21 CFR 201.57). Instead, they have information about rules for labeling drugs, the "Pregnancy and Lactation Labeling Rule."

Furthermore, the FDA does not regulate or label ethanol in the United States. This is not an indication of its category as a drug, nor in any way a reflection of its health risks. For purely historical reasons, alcohol is regulated at state levels in the United States, and at the Federal level by a totally different agency (the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives). The FDA is very careful not to overstep its mandate in this matter: see, for example, FDA's published Memorandum of Understanding Between The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and The Food and Drug Administration regarding the Promulgation and Enforcement of the Labeling Regulations Promulgated under the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (if you love reading fine print!)

So: any website that lists a "pregnancy category" for ethanol and attributes it to FDA should cite an FDA website. If they do so, they probably will not find any information placing Ethanol in any category at all. "drugs.com" is not an affiliated with the FDA, nor is it an official publication of the FDA; and in my opinion, it does not meet requirements to qualify as a reliable encyclopedic source. For the record, this website also lists ethanol as a "prescription drug," which is absolutely false in the United States. That website is full of auto-generated junk and should not be cited on Wikipedia.

Let me restate this rather more emphatically: random internet websites do not have standing to label a drug in Category C or X. Only the FDA can do that. The FDA has not placed ethanol in either category, and probably will never do so, because they choose not to enforce labeling rules for ethanol at all.

Nimur (talk) 13:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Short Tucano Ejection Seats

Did James Horner's Embraer EMB 312 Tucano not have ejection seats? 20.137.7.64 (talk) 15:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• James Horner contains statements that the aircraft was a Short Tucano, the British-built version of the Tucano. However, the Short Tucano is still in military service with the RAF. I have checked the cited sources in James Horner and I didn't see any confirmation of the aircraft type. How could Horner have been flying an RAF operational training aircraft in the USA? I think it is likely the aircraft wasn't a Tucano, but some other type, and most likely one without ejection seats. Dolphin (t) 06:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The aircraft was a Short Tucano but other details have not been released to the public. Within a few weeks, information will be published on the National Transportation Safety Board website in the aviation accident database.

It is not illegal to own or operate a Short Tucano in the United States, provided that all regulations, airworthiness directives, and other applicable laws are complied with. Many military trainer aircraft are operated recreationally: I know at least a couple of T-6 Texans are based at my field; and Max-G just bought a BT-13 and a PT-19. In comparison to those trainers, a Tucano is a more complicated, more expensive aircraft (although we could quibble about style); but some people can afford to fly expensive aircraft.

Trainers are very common because they are fun, safe aircraft. Some people (whose limits are evidently not budgetary) even fly more dangerous "military-style" aircraft (like jet fighters and bombers) in the United States. For example, see FAA Advisory Circular 21-54, Experimental Airworthiness Certification of Certain Former Military Aircraft, which contains information on demilitarization and airworthiness certification of such aircraft for operation under (e.g.) Part 91. To whom, other than super-rich enthusiasts, is this AC really relevant? Consider, if you will, a recent air crash near Douglas, Arizona. There is a great probability that for legal purposes, the people responsible for foreign-owned military aircraft flown by foreign military pilots were taking great care to abide by civil airworthiness and civil air operations laws. It is not likely that American air defense decision-makers would permit foreign military aircraft - even of a friendly nation - to operate over the United States in any other fashion). These Iraqi Air Force pilots operated aircraft in the United States in the same way as Mr. Horner: by very carefully following very specific rules. Even still, accidents happen.

It is not likely that the Short Tucano flown by Mr. Horner had operational ejection seats, but anything is possible, and very little information has been published. Even the tail number of the accident aircraft has not been publicized. Until we know more information, I would defer to an accident information report when it becomes available.

Nimur (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Natural Gas Liquids

What is making my NGL's cloudy? 205.201.206.143 (talk) 15:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Your question is very broad. maybe Here Agent of the nine (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Radiation

Is there any type of radiation that is not electromagnetic radiation? Or is all radiation considered electromagnetic? Agent of the nine (talk) 18:00, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Alpha particle emission is usually lumped in to the category of "radiation" - at least in introductory textbooks. Alpha particles are not, in themselves, a form of electromagnetic radiation: they are ionized helium nuclei.

We could probably list some more esoteric radiant energy forms that are not electromagnetic in nature; but to do so would be to use uncommon terminology (even if it might be strictly, literally accurate). Perhaps you should read about fundamental interactions: when we come down to the real core physics, every interaction is one of those four types. We call the interaction "radiation" if it conveys energy in a "ray-like" fashion. Nimur (talk) 18:15, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Strictly speaking the only non-electromagnetic radiation is gravitational radiation. All other types of "radiation" are just streams of some particles with mass. Ruslik_Zero 18:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If they exist, Gravitational waves have mass too. It's unclear what form it takes though. Ariel. (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

You could say that sound radiates from the source, although sound isn't typically called "radiation". StuRat (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

So Ruslik said that "All other types of "radiation" are just streams of some particles with mass." What about photons or neutrinos? I thought those were massless and still produced radiation?Agent of the nine (talk) 19:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Mass is complicated to define. What we normally think of as mass is rest mass. But there's also relativistic mass created by a rapidly moving object, even one without any rest mass. StuRat (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Photons are what constitute electromagnetic radiation. Rojomoke (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Neutrinos are believed to have mass. I would define it broadly as "things" shooting out in bulk at high energy. So Neutrinos, Neutrons, Alpha particles, Beta particles and electromagnetic are the most common. But any particle will do - Muons for example. Ariel. (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Many types of radiation are not electromagnetic radiation. See Radiation protection#Particle radiation and Radiation protection#Electromagnetic radiation. Of the four types of ionizing radiation most commonly dealt with by radiation workers (such as those in the nuclear power industry) -- alpha radiation (helium nuclei), beta radiation (electrons), gamma radiation (high energy photons), and neutron radiation -- only gamma radiation is an electromagnetic radiation; the other three are not. GCR (Galactic cosmic radiation), which is of concern for astronauts (particularly deep space astronauts who venture beyond LEO (Low Earth orbit) and thus loose the protection afforded by the Earth's magnetic field), is another example of a non-electromagnetic radiation. GCR is a mix of about 1% electrons (beta radiation), 89% protons (hydrogen nuclei), 9% alpha particles (helium nuclei), 1% heavier ions (typically just the nuclei of heavier elements, and thus highly charged such as Fe +26, the iron nucle; see HZE ions), and a smidgen of antimatter such as positrons or antiprotons.

Note that there is both ionizing electromagnetic radiation (gamma rays, x-rays, and far ultraviolet rays) and non-ionizing electromagnetic radiation (such as near ultraviolet, visible light, infrared radiation, microwave radiation, and radio waves), but any radiation which is not comprised of photons (whatever their frequency or wavelength and thus energy; see electromagnetic spectrum) is not an example of electromagnetic radiation. -- ToE 11:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you all! Very informative with good sources. This quesiton was sparked when I met a man witha BA in quantum physics who replied "depends on who you ask"Agent of the nine (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"Bringing out flavour"

I sometimes see references to the addition of e.g. salt to "bring out the flavour" of a food. Is it actually bringing something out of anything or is it just adding a flavour to the food? ----Seans Potato Business 18:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

We recently had the exact same discussion here. To me, salt covers up the other flavors, it doesn't "bring them out". I also suspect that chefs don't want to admit the truth, which is that most people just like salty food. It sounds much more impressive if they say they are "bringing out the flavor" than "making it salty". One possible exception is when making bread with yeast, where some salt seems to help the yeast grow, which in turn could add flavors (although most people don't actually like the flavor of yeast, but rather do like the light fluffy texture it gives bread). StuRat (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

There are four tastes on the tongue, one being salty (and yes, some Japanese guy swears that there is a fifth one). If you use just enough salt to trigger the salty taste, but not enough make it taste salty, there are some people who believe that it will increase the brain's reception of the other three senses. There is a lot of discussion of balancing the four tastes in Asian food (especially Chinese). The French also make many claims to balance the four tastes with foods that compliment one another by having one trigger one taste while another triggers another taste. It could very well be all hogwash, but the believe in it is very real. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 19:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

As discussed at taste, there are at least five taste sensations (and possibly a sixth). Dragons flight (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yea, I'd need to see some research showing that the receptivity of the other taste buds increases in the presence of salt. I can't see why, from an evolutionary POV, that would have developed. Or maybe they think that salt water makes a better solvent than water alone ? I've never heard this, but I suppose it's possible. StuRat (talk) 20:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Lay article explaining how it works. Paper in Nature explaining how it works. Longer overview of the role of salt in flavor and taste (two different concepts, the difference of which is also explained) by a U.S. National Institute of Health publication. Science website explaining how salt works to enhance flavors. News article which summarizes how salt enhances flavors. Explanation of how small amounts of salt enhances sweet flavors. Review of a research article which explains the role of salt in enhancing sweet flavors. Research that explains how salt enhances other flavors by suppressing bitterness. Research which discusses how lowering sodium content of foods for people on low sodium diet also changes other flavors as well. It's like you aren't even trying to provide references. This took me 10 minutes. This is the reference desk, you know, not the "Let's just report my own personal experiences as though they were universal" desk. --Jayron32 20:31, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Well said Jayron. Richard Avery (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

If it only took you 10 minutes, then you apparently didn't read those sources through before recommending them to us. StuRat (talk) 00:42, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Like -- To sum up -- Yes salt enhances perception of some other flavors in humans. This fact is not currently mentioned in our article that I can see, perhaps someone would be interested in adding a sentence or so, citing one of Jayron's many good sources. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That might be premature. The 2nd source Jayron listed says "virtually all published psychophysical studies show that NaCl either suppresses or has no effect on other flavours". (It's behind a paywall, so I couldn't read much further.) StuRat (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

said " can't see why, from an evolutionary POV, that would have developed". humans need it to survive! Agent of the nine (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and that explains why we like salt, but not why we would like foods that are both bitter and salty. Bitter foods are disliked because they may contain substances harmful to us, so why would we no longer want to avoid such foods, just because they are also salty ? (Perhaps if suffering from a sodium deficiency, then the need for sodium might outweigh the need to avoid those bitter compounds ?) StuRat (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It does say that. It then continues

“ To reconcile this [apparent] contradiction we have proposed that salts selectively filter flavours, such that unpleasant tastes (such as bitterness) are more suppressed than palatable ones (such as sweetness) thereby increasing the salience and/or intensity of the latter. We now present evidence to support this idea. ”

emphasis and a word added by me. The title of the paper is "Salt enhances flavour by suppressing bitterness", and that is their primary conclusion. When A and B are both suppressed, but B moreso than A, the result is the perceived enhancement of flavor A. I'm fairly skeptical but I tend to mostly trust papers published in Nature. If you (or anyone else) would like a copy of the whole article, contact me by email through my talk page. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:27, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it list the mechanism by which salt suppresses bitter tastes ? StuRat (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

No. This paper [6] by the same authors from 1995 says they didn't know at that time why NaCl suppresses bitter taste, only that they have ample evidence that it does. The same work also implicates the sodium ion is the active part, and that the lithium ion has similar bitter suppressing properties. I would suppose that in the intervening 20 years someone has worked on figuring out the suppression mechanism but that also means figuring out how bitterness itself works. This paper discusses the challenges of understanding bitterness [7], and this one [8] suggests that cGMP might be part of a then-unknown signaling mechanism for bitterness. It might be that nobody yet fully understands the full mechanism by which NaCl suppresses bitter taste, but it also may be that I just couldn't find it in 5 minutes of searching. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Something else that was mentioned in the previous Ref Desk discussion is that whether adding salt "enhances other flavors" may vary by individual. I don't believe anyone found any research on the question, however. StuRat (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

A comment Alton Brown makes in the Good Eats episode "Eat This Rock" is that "Salt makes food taste more like itself" and "four out of five scientists agree that this is due to salt's ability to electrically turn the volume up on our taste buds." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdjewell (talk • contribs) 12:30, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned Chinese and French cooks' attitudes towards salt. You mentioned another cook. Everyone else appears to be stuck on arguing about science experiments. I believe that the best answer we can give is that some cooks believe that salt brings out other (non-salty) flavors in food. Scientists don't necessarily agree. 199.15.144.250 (talk) 14:18, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well this is the science desk. I agree that information from cooks and chefs is valuable and interesting, but if that were all the OP was interested in, perhaps the Humanities desk would have been a more appropriate venue. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

In fairness to Alton Brown, his first show (Good Eats) has a very strong emphasis on the scientific explanations behind culinary decisions, even though it is primarily a food entertainment program. Nimur (talk) 16:58, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, especially considering the inherent conflict of interest there, that chefs want their recipes to sound impressive so they can charge more and "I know how to bring out the flavor" is likely to sell far better than "I know how to make it salty". The scientists, hopefully, will lack any conflict of interest. StuRat (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The brain has to interpret the signals it gets from its senses and it is well known that the brain uses input from all its senses, even using information that we would think is irrelevant. E.g. Utensil Color, Shape, Size Affect Food Flavor, therefore there is a priori no reason to believe that salt cannot create some effect that looks inconsistent with the effect it should have on taste based only on its saltiness. Count Iblis (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The expression "bring out the flavor" is often used about umami as well as saltiness. There are some traditional ingredients (soy sauce, dashi) and some less traditional ones (hydrolyzed vegetable protein, MSG) that add umami. Foods that are high in umami taste good because they provide the body with protein, in the same way that salty foods taste good because they provide salt and sweet foods provide sugar.

Still, I think cooks say "bring out the flavor" instead of "make it salty" partly because cooking is an art, not a science. Sometimes a cook will know that the ingredient will make the dish hotter, sweeter, or some other specific. But sometimes they just know that adding an ingredient makes the dish taste better. They don't know why, they don't necessarily care why, and there may not even be a "why". Roches (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

June 25

What is the most laminar liquid?

Question is in topic. Malamockq (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Pitch Count Iblis (talk) 18:31, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Laminar as in flow regime like Reynolds number, or laminar as in some sort of microstructure? shoy (reactions) 18:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Laminar as in a laminar flow, smooth. Malamockq (talk) 23:45, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Fluids are not laminar: flows are laminar. Review the definition of laminar flow (and laminar, in general). Also see intrinsic and extrinsic properties (not to be confused with intensive and extensive properties!). We don't use "laminar" as an intrinsic property of a fluid; it is extrinsic, in the same way that pressure or temperature are extrinsic properties. When you ask "which liquid is most laminar?" ... the question is malformed. It is similar to asking "which liquid is the hottest?" There is no correct answer. These properties depend on the circumstances, both qualitatively and quantitatively. Nimur (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, though one would struggle to produce non-laminar flow in anything more viscous than treacle or syrup (at room temperature). Count Iblis and I assumed that Malamockq intended to refer to the intrinsic property of viscosity. Dbfirs 07:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok but some liquids are easier to make a laminar flow from than others correct? Would running a current through a ferrofluid make its flow laminar? Malamockq (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Stars

1. When was the population III stars were created? In the ‘recombination epoch’ or in the ‘reionization epoch’? - Article's point to start from
2. What about population II and I stars? any specific dates?

Space Ghost (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Population III stars appeared during the ionization epoch. Population II stars followed shortly after them (by a few hundred million years). Population I stars started to appear after Population II stars and continue to form now. Ruslik_Zero 20:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any 'ionized epoch' article. I pressed CTRL+F and searched for the 'ionized' word. This two diagram illustrates during/after the reionization epoch also the article I stated. This article states what you stated .

Assuming that the population III stars were created after the 'Dark ages' and that it started reionizing, the article I stated, in the 'recombination epoch' 'plasma' was already there, why its is saying that from the 'reionization epoch' 'the universe is composed of plasma'?. Which plasma is it talking about?

If the first stars and quasars were created 400 million years after the Big Bang, then its not stated in the article I stated in the beginning. Can someone fix it after rechecking if I'm correct please? - I believe it should be entered in the 'Structure formation' point. Also 'Star formation' should go up, before 'reionization'.

Space Ghost (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting for an answer!!! can someone help please!

Shall I take the liberty in changing it? Cause if I don't understand then no dumb soul/spirit will...

Space Ghost (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

literacy in animals

Can non‐human animals be taught how to read? Are there chimpanzees that can read? --Romanophile (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Well you can teach a dog how to read. I know that apes can sign language. But in regards to literacy that is "moderate" (to the extent a non-human animal could read a children's book say) I think you are out of luck. Perhaps one of the smart people on WP/reference desk have further information. Agent of the nine (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Sort of, yes. See Great_ape_language#Plastic_tokens. Kanzi_(chimpanzee) seems to be the best, though Sarah_(chimpanzee) was the first. This book also looks pretty good, but I can only see a few of the relevant pages about Sarah [9]. Essentially, as I understand it, Kanzi can read and write various things using magnetic symbols. This is not reading and writing English, but it is reading and writing some language in the core sense of those words. David_Premack was one of the key researchers to first seriously look at non-human-ape language acquisition. (It would be really interesting to learn how Kanzi would respond to simple short stories written by humans, something on the level of Goodnight Moon or Dick and Jane. I suspect they've tried something of the sort, but I can't look into it at the moment).

For dolphins, see the work of Denise Herzing (TED talk here [10]). She has a symbol board she uses to create a "shared language" with dolphins, it's not clear to me if any of them do anything like writing though. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Resveratrol content in cranberries

Hi. Could someone improve the Resveratrol content table? I was specifically looking for the amount in cranberries. A decreasing table by highest content would be great. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF86:1660:A80A:109C:37C6:1033 (talk) 19:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

The article is at Reservatrol. You can make the tables sortable by looking at how it'd done in other places, e.g. List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate. This paper [11] says "The concentrations of resveratrol were silmilar in cranberry and grape juice at 1.07 and 1.56 nmol/g, respectively." You can use that ref to add that info to the table too. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think the OP is asking for the average resveratol content in raw cranberries rather than in juice. Nil Einne (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, probably. This paper [12] says cranberries have 900 ng/g by dry weight. Perhaps of note, regular Grapes have 6471 ng/g dry. For the heck of it (and since it is paywalled), I'll also post all the the other values from tables 1 and 2.

Unformatted data from Rimando et al (2004), table 2

scientific name (common name) cultivar source resveratrol a (ng/g dry sample) n b V. angustifolium Ait. (lowbush blueberry) not known c Nova Scotia 863 2 V. ashei Reade (rabbiteye blueberry) Tifblue United States 1691 3 V. corymbosum L. (highbush blueberry) not known c Southern United States 1074 3 V. macrocarpon Ait. (cranberry) not known c Nova Scotia 900 2 V. myrtillus L. (bilberry) not known c Nova Scotia 768 2 V. vitis-idaea var. vitis-idaea (lingonberry) not known c Nova Scotia 5884 2 V. vitis-ideae var. minor (partridgeberry) not known c Nova Scotia 924 2 V. vinifera L. (grapes) Table grapes Nova Scotia 6471

Table 1, even messier, slightly better readability in editor view

scientific name (common name) cultivar source resveratrol a (ng/g dry sample) n b V. arboreum Marshall (sparkleberry) not known Leakesville, MS 519 2 Lucedale, MS 125 1 V. ashei Reade (rabbiteye blueberry) Tifblue Lamar Co., MS 106 4 Poplarville, MS 154 3 Stone Co., MS 61 3 Climax Lamar Co., MS 390 4 Poplarville, MS 77 4 Stone Co., MS 583 4 Premier Lamar Co., MS 7 c 4 Poplarville, MS 16 c 4 Stone Co., MS 10 c 3 V. corymbosum L. (highbush blueberry) Bluecrop Corvallis, OR 327 d 2 853 e 2 V. elliotti Chapman (Elliot’s blueberry) not known Poplarville, MS 406 1 Monticello, MS 453 1 V. stamineum L. (deerberry) not known Leakesville, MS 204 2 B-59 Jackson Springs, NC 331 2 B-76 Jackson Springs, NC 503 2 Batesburg White Jackson Springs, NC 47 2 NC 78-8-1 Jackson Springs, NC 322 1 NC 78-8-21 Jackson Springs, NC 104 2 SHF3A-7:13 Jackson Springs, NC 291 2 SHF3A-2:14 Jackson Springs, NC 242 2 SHF3A-2 − 108 Jackson Springs, NC 115 2 V. vinifera L. (grapes) Cabernet Corvallis, OR 2475 2 Pinot Noir Corvallis, OR 5746 2 Merlot Corvallis, OR 6356

It's unformatted but fairly human readable, the value for each Vaccinium spp. comes after the place name (Nova Scotia or United States in table 2). Hopefully someone can add some of the values to the article. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Do it! Be Bold. Here's a link on making Sortable Tables. (I would suggest making an account first, but you don't have to.) Ariel. (talk) 20:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

June 26

What happened to the INSC?

Please answer me at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Government#INSC. --Ysangkok (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced that the International Nuclear Safety Center ever existed. The history pages at the USDOE (here), which go into considerable detail about its activities ("November 25, 2002. The Department's Los Alamos National Laboratory fires two security guards and places three employees accused of theft on paid administrative leave."), make no mention at all of this organization. Tevildo (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Some more detailed searching has revealed the existence ([13]) of an "International Nuclear Safety Center Database", hosted at the Argonne National Laboratory in the mid-90's. Tevildo (talk) 23:40, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Determining gender of parrot from behaviour

Is a male parrot likely to be more sociable towards human females, and a female parrot more sociable towards human males? Enough so for it to be a reliable indicator of the parrot's gender? People keep saying this, but I'm not sure if it's true. Something to do with pheromones? But I'm not sure if those even work cross-species. Thanks. --87.112.205.195 (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

What kind of parrot? Some types of parrots have sexual dimorphism, but many don't. For monomorphic species, there may be some behavioral tendencies that can provide evidence that would support one sex or the other, but it is never fully reliable and accurate. Even for species that are normally considered monomorphic, there are often subtle differences. See here [14] for a guide on sexing African Grey Parrots (Determining the sex of an animal is called "sexing", and you can find guides more easily by google searching /sexing [species]/). But even those are not 100% reliable, just good enough for a casual interest. Nobody would set up parrots for breeding based only on visual or behavioral cues, but it's good enough to confirm that your lovely pet Sally is at least most likely a female.

The only reliable ways to sex birds with no obvious sex-distinguishing characteristics is to have a surgical exam done by a vet, or do DNA testing. These days if people want to know for sure, they usually just send off a small blood (sometimes feather) sample to a lab for DNA sex testing, as it is less risky for the bird than anesthesia and surgery, and roughly equivalent in price. There are many such services, this is one I just found via google [15]. I can try to find more info on behavioral evidence if you'd like, but I can't do that without knowing what kind of parrot you're interested in sexing. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

on waking

I ask this out of curiosity only. I take a low dose (10 mg) of of Doxepin as a sleep aid. This drug is especially helpful with the later hours of sleep. The curious thing is that sometimes I wake up with a wonderful sense of peace and relaxation. I'm in no hurry to get up, I feel very positive about the day. However, most of the time this is not the case at all. The contrast is very pronounced. I wonder why? --173.17.244.250 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk to the doctor who prescribed your medication and/or consult the fact sheet that came with it, to read about possible side effects. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:10, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

It's an Anticholinergic, and has many mental effects. It's not surprising it could do that. Is your question why it does it sometimes, and sometimes not? I don't know the answer to that. Ariel. (talk) 23:05, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize I wasn't logged in on my original post. Yes, that's my question. Thanks for the information. I wonder if the pleasant effect might be due to oxytocin? --Halcatalyst (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Metrophobia

Question moved to "Metrophobia" on the Language desk. -- Ariel. (talk) 23:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Where in the body the water we drink is absorbed?

Where in the body the water we drink is absorbed? Is the water even manage to get on their way to the small intestine? What place in the digestive system is 'terminus' to absorb water?5.28.181.99 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Water is absorbed in several places along the digestive tract; because water acts as a "universal solvent", anywhere other nutrients are absorbed, water takes the trip too; so as the bulk of nutrients are absorbed in the small intestine, lots of water gets absorbed there; though some water gets to the blood stream at every stop along the starting in the stomach. See here (page down to absorption) or here, which notes that 80% of water which will be absorbed has done so before reaching the large intestine. --Jayron32 00:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Yet one of the major functions of the large intestine is to reabsorb the water from the bolus before it is excreted, else one suffers diarrhea. μηδείς (talk) 02:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

True, but that doesn't mean that, proportionally, most of the water hasn't already been absorbed. --Jayron32 14:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Is there a medical term that describes the non knowledge of the mechanism of disease?

The term "idiopathic" is given when the cause is not known but I'm taking about condition that the cause is known and just the mechanism of this cause is not known. Is there? 5.28.181.99 (talk) 23:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I assume you mean "The term "idiopathic" is given when the cause is not known" because that's what idiopathic means. There is a two-word phrase, "unknown mechanism", which could meet the requirements you seek. This seems to indicate it is widespread, and I can't find any other single word. --Jayron32 00:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I edited it. 5.28.181.99 (talk) 01:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

"Idiopathic"" literally means having to do with a self-caused illness, so that is a way of using Greek so as not to say unknown cause. (It doesn't really cause itself. It is just that the physician doesn't know what causes it, and does know a Greek term.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

June 27

Possible to stop eyes from watering?

I haven't cried since I was a little kid and am basically the least emotional guy on the planet, never getting angry or sad, but in tv shows/movies/news my eyes water when there's something really emotional (even during scenes in movies when I'm also rolling my eyes in derision at its sappiness). I know this is a long shot, but is there some technique to prevent this? I thought tricking your brain into not doing it by pinching yourself really hard whenever it happens might work, but I don't want to go through that if it turns out brains don't work like that. Jeembooo (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

We don't give medical advice here but run this by you doctor. If you tell him this bothers you and mention emotional contagion he will refer you to someone that help you contextualize your responses to these situations. Feel fortunate that you're not a psychopath (unlike the editor that is likely to 'hat' my post).--Aspro (talk) 01:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Your attacking comment shouldn't be hatted, it should be sent to the bit bucket. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I pretty much consider a day wasted if I don't cry for some reason. There is so much good music to listen to and drama to watch, not to mention such evil news, although I don't seek that out. I feel sorry for people who don't weep from strong emotion, or due to improper indentation. μηδείς (talk) 02:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why are you worried about this? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It would be supremely embarrassing if it happened in front of someone. Jeembooo (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

SSRIs should work well. Count Iblis (talk) 02:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Did you just advise someone on a medical treatment? Were you unaware that we don't do that here. --Jayron32 02:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't write a prescription for Jeembo, only his/her own doctor can do that, and that doctor will only do so based on his/her own assessment of Jeeembo. Count Iblis (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, so why are you recommending treatments? Whether you intend it to be that way or not, it's still medical advice to say "treatment X can help you". That you say "I'm not a doctor", "I can't write a prescription", or "this is not medical advice" doesn't change the fact that it's medical advice and completely inappropriate. If someone wants to suppress emotions or alter emotional responses, the proper thing is to say "talk to your doctor" because it's an incredibly complicated matter that even a doctor couldn't (or at least wouldn't) jump to a conclusion as quickly as you did based on the very small amount of information available. Why even assume that helping OP to chemically suppress his eyes from watering is even in his best interest? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

While the OP is free to discuss this with his/her own doctor, in no way can or does what we do here interfere with the treatment of patients. The medical disclaimer makes it clear that patients should not substitute what they can find here on Wikipedia for genuine medical advice, but what I say cannot lead to that anyway. E.g. if I say that you don't need to go to the doctor because supplement X that you can order from online store Y will cure the disease, then that would be a clear violation of the rules as this would interfere with the medical treatment that the doctor would recommend when acted on. In this case, if the OP does act on what I say, then that already implies that the OP would go to a doctor and ask about this. And if the OP were to visit his doctor then the OP could discuss all the complexities of the matter that you mention in full detail. Count Iblis (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

From The Devil's very own user page: "Count Iblis rejects most of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. He just edits in any way he sees fit to improve Wikipedia. Whether such edits violate Wikipedia's policies is neither here nor there." μηδείς (talk) 19:07, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not depressed or even sad when my eyes water. As I said, even in movies when I'm rolling my eyes in derision at cheesy sappiness my eyes will water. Is it possible to train my brain to associate eyes watering with pain? Or do brains not work like that? Jeembooo (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why do you consider it "embarrassing" to cry at a movie? Who put that idea in your head? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm a guy so the most I could get away with is one tear at the end of Schindler's List. Like seriously, it happens for no reason. I started this thread after watching Obama sing Amazing Grace at that church. If I was there in the audience I would've been the only guy who's eyes were watering. So this is like a priority to get rid of. It's really weird, because it's not crying, it's eyes watering even when I'm thinking "Jesus Christ this is the cringiest, sappiest, cheesiest scene ever (this was during Battle: Los Angeles when this kid's father died and the soldier is trying to comfort him). Jeembooo (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not about depression, the seratonin system can be modified by such medicines to make you a bit less sensitive to emotions. Medicines that do this are usually used to treat depression, but then you need larger dosages; people who are on such a treatment will typically experience numbed emotions which for them is an undesirable side effect. Count Iblis (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I guess I could keep a pack of pills on-hand in case I end up watching a said movie with someone. Though if I'm caught with it people will think I've got depression... Will the brain trick not work? Jeembooo (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

@Jeembooo: Not only is Count Iblis not supposed to be giving medical advice, but the advice is just bad. Taking an SSRI or any drug intended to affect emotion is a serious decision. It will affect all of your emotions in ways you can't predict --certainly more than just eyes watering or emotional responses to movies. It also might not always act as a suppressant and could intensify certain kinds of feelings. They also aren't typically designed to work on a pop-a-pill basis but rather for consistent use over time. If you did start taking them you probably wouldn't even notice the effects for a few days. If you do take them inconsistently, your emotions will be far more out of whack.

I'll also add that men are supposed to feel emotions. The idea that men don't get emotional, or that we should suppress emotions, is more social than biological -- a traditional concept of masculinity increasingly marginalized. For decades psychological studies have pointed out problems it can cause (e.g. "undermining health"). ...I'm just saying, you would've been far from the only guy in the audience at the funeral to shed a tear. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Thing is that if Jeembooo discusses this with his/her doctor then the doctor will probably also ask about possible other symptoms Jeembooo has that would suggest that such drugs are or are not a good way to treat this (and possibly other) problems. Count Iblis (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those pills would affect my emotions, as I'm not driven by or I think even affected by emotions... "am the least emotional guy on the planet, never getting angry or sad". Hmm, that sounds weirder than it really is.

If I was at my parents funeral my eyes would no doubt water and I wouldn't mind people seeing (does that count as crying, eyes watering? I think of crying as sobbing with tears). But this happens just during emotional scenes in movies/tv in which some girls probably wouldn't even cry/have eyes watering. Anyway, does anybody know where I can ask about tricking the brain into associating eyes watering with pain? Some "ask the doctor!" type medical website or forum? I'm sure I've come across that sort of thing before, tricking the brain. Jeembooo (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If you're concerned that you have something physically wrong, you should see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

A doctor of psychology who knows how to make the brain associate eyes watering with pain would be fantastic... Damn this really was a long shot. Thanks anyway everyone for contributing. Jeembooo (talk) 21:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Capillary refill in newborns

In the article capillary refill is written that "The upper normal limit for capillary refill in newborns is 2 seconds." But who look at the source of this sentence (source No. 3) will find that the upper normal limit is 3 seconds rather than 2 sec. 5.28.181.99 (talk) 11:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Fixed. (You could have done that yourself.) --70.49.171.136 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Chimpanzee#Anatomy_and_physiology

I don’t know how to put this politely. As I view films of chimpanzees, I notice that their rears look very unusual. One particular documentary that I saw on YouTube (I can link to it if necessary) included a chimpanzee with a disturbing growth on its bottom. At first, I assumed that it was a sign of poor health, but the narrator said that it’s attractive to male chimpanzees. The article above doesn’t mention anything about their arses. So, may I please know what this weird thing is? --Romanophile (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe you could do the research and edit the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Uhh… doesn’t asking here constitute research? I’m confused. But perhaps I was foolish to ask this awkward question here. --Romanophile (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

If the article doesn't have the info, then someone needs to research it. There's no reason you couldn't do that work, unless someone turns out to be willing to do it for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:14, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

E.C. Hey Romanophile. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for asking such an interesting question; I look forward to reading the answers. I don't believe that BB intended his remark to sound quite as harsh as it does, and I assume that he is simply saying that if you don't get an answer here, but do eventually find out elsewhere, then please either be bold and add that referenced material to our article, or if you are concerned that the material may not belong, then add it to that article's discussion page at Talk:Chimpanzee where other editors can help decide where it belongs. Also, we appreciate follow up posts here on the reference desks providing answers to previously unanswered questions. We have several well informed biologists who frequent this desk, so I suspect that you will soon receive both an answer and, most likely, a link to a relevant Wikipedia article. Thank you for looking for the answer in our articles first and for pointing out that you didn't find it where you expected to. Such information helps us improve our encyclopedia. -- ToE 21:34, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Life expectancy, what difference requires an explanation?

Given a list of countries ordered by life expectancy like here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy, you can see the gap between Japan (84), Canada (82), Denmark (80), and so on, until you reach Sierra Leone (46) at the bottom.

It's clear that a difference like Japan to Sierra Leone would prompt a question and be worth an explanation.

However, how small does a difference in years need to be to NOT require an explanation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scicurious (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 June 2015 (UTC)