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

May 30

The good, the bad, and the immunocompromised

Can the immune systems of immunocompromised individuals distinguish "good bacteria" from "bad bacteria"? Do they get sick because of the immune cells are overwhelmed by opportunistic pathogens, or do they get sick because of the failure of the "good bacteria" to protect by creating a barrier? In regards to the microbiota of the gut, do these individuals have trouble with absorption of nutrients too? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 04:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

As far as absorbtion goes - yes. Very much so. See Crohn's_disease. My sister has it. 196.213.35.146 (talk) 12:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Immunocompromised conditions form a spectrum that can run from mild to severe, and whose impact can vary depending on what component(s) of the immune system have been affected. That being said, it is not really possible to give a complete answer that covers all possible immune conditions. However, I will give one example. For patients with severe neutropenia (a kind of failure of the innate immune system) the most common problem is often from ubiquitous bacteria already present on or in the body that start to grow out of control or migrate to tissues where they would not ordinarily reside. Obviously, such a patient is also at risk from new pathogens, but often the most immediate risk is from the body's inability to continue to control normal bacteria. Dragons flight (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• I recommend the book I Contain Multitudes by Ed Yong, which goes into a lot of detail about this. Long story short, there aren't really good and bad bacteria - the bacteria that are "good" for us only stay good as long as they stay exactly where they're meant to be. Even 'good' bacteria are opportunists, and if they get out of the gut, the 'good' bacteria will make you very sick indeed. Smurrayinchester 14:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

About Amader Electronics a popular Bengali Educational website and blog

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to know about Amader Electronics website but I haven't found any wiki page regarding this. As like who the founders are, what is there motto, what they want to do... etc.

I know that i can know more about them by going on to there site but I am looking a neutral point of view from fellow wikipedians.

Regards --Syed.raiyan (talk) 09:24, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not finding many sources for this, and it's not a topic currently covered in the English Wikipedia. I did find that you have a page bn:ব্যবহারকারী:Syed.raiyan/খেলাঘর. Are you looking for help expanding that article? —Guanaco 09:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

GuanYes actually I'm seeking help to translate and possibly neutral point of view article written about this site. --Syed.raiyan (talk) 12:26, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"Amader" is a common word in Bangladesh that means "Ours". Amader Electronics: Here is their website (in Bengali), reportedly[1] owned by Syed Raiyan of Amader Electronics and hosted by CloudFlare Inc.; their web shop (in English and Bengali) offers a wide range of electronic components and a few kits; and their Facebook page offers design and writing services. Since Nov. 2007 Amader Electronics have uploaded to their YouTube channel videos about amateur electronic projects. The OP has been reminded that Wikipedia does not allow advertising. Blooteuth (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed info Blooteuth. Appreciate it. But actually I'm seeking help regarding writing an article about that site which will not violate any "RULES" of wikipedia and also which will not be a promotional material. If you go to my bn:ব্যবহারকারী:Syed.raiyan/খেলাঘর there you will find an article as Guan said. --Syed.raiyan (talk) 07:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Syed.raiyan: Please read WP:COI, which basically says you, as the site owner, should not be the one creating the article. It should be mentioned that I can't find sufficient independent reliable sources to establish notability, however, so in any case, Amader Electronics is not eligible for a Wikipedia article at this time. Please read this as well: Wikipedia:An article about yourself is nothing to be proud of.--Jasper Deng (talk) 15:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. But i didn't get my answer. Anyway, leave it. Cheers and take care. --Syed.raiyan (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cancer spreading through the blood

Our article Metastasis says

Some cancer cells acquire the ability to penetrate the walls of lymphatic or blood vessels, after which they are able to circulate through the bloodstream (circulating tumor cells) to other sites and tissues in the body.

It seems to me that this implies that if a metastisized cancer patient donated blood, the recipient would acquire the cancer. But this site says

The only situation in which cancer can spread from one person to another is in the case of organ or tissue transplantation. A person who receives an organ or tissue from a donor who had cancer in the past may be at increased risk of developing a transplant-related cancer in the future. However, that risk is extremely low.

Why isn't metastisised cancer contagious through blood donation? Loraof (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Blood is often classified as a tissue. See for example [2] and [3]. So, the quote from cancer.gov does not exclude blood. --Jayron32 14:00, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The American Cancer Society writes that there have been no reports of cancer transmission by blood transfusion. The American Red Cross allows most people who have had cancer to donate blood if the cancer was treated at least 1 year ago and the cancer has not come back. Blooteuth (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The same site also notes "You cannot donate blood for other people if: You are being treated for cancer, Your cancer is spreading or has come back, You have had leukemia or lymphoma as an adult (including Hodgkin’s Disease), You have ever had Kaposi sarcoma" Which would indicate that they consider active or metastisized cancer to be a reasonable enough risk that they remove such people from the donation pool; they also exclude people with any history of blood cancers. "There have been no reports of cancer transmission by blood transfusion" could mean "our system does a good job of stopping it from happening" rather then "it cannot happen". --Jayron32 14:41, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Kaposi sarcoma is likely a proxy for HIV, of which it was the first widely noted symptom (if symptom is the right word for an opportunist infection). —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Foreign cancer cells in the blood are very likely subject to immediate immune system attacks. Organ donors are well-matched, and patients still require massive immunosuppression. Red blood cells (the ones usually transfused) have a much simpler immune response (mostly due to the ABO blood group system and the Rh blood group system). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Red blood cells also don't have nuclei and wouldn't be reproducing anyway. -Nunh-huh 15:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

The reason is probably because of the immune system of a recipient quickly destroys cancer cells. These is because (i) The recipient's immune system is less tolerant of cancer cells then the donor's immune system (ii) the immunological differences between different people are significant. This may lead to a transplant rejection but is protective against an infection with cancer cells. Ruslik_Zero 14:52, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Stephan Schulz answered faster them me. Ruslik_Zero 14:53, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you guys have any additional reading on that? --Jayron32 15:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Our core article is blood transfusions, which describes both some of the immunological aspects and the modern practice of using only selected blood components. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

It has been well documented that melanoma can exhibit trans-placental malignancy, see e.g. [4]. There seems to have been considerable research into whether a sub-clinical melanoma in blood donors can affect the blood transfusion recipients (see e.g. [5]) but I certainly wouldn't speculate as to what the consensus in the field currently is or how well the donors are screened for melanoma in various jurisdictions. Dr Dima (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

A key factor here is tissue rejection. Basically, the body has a cell mediated immunity, immune cells that examine other cells in the body and reject them if the major histocompatibility complex isn't right. Cancer cells are foreign cells, and so they get rejected just like a foreign finger or liver would be rejected. Persons on immunosuppressant drugs to prevent tissue rejection therefore may be at higher risk not to reject a cancer from someone else. In general, clonally transmissible cancer is rare, with the notable exception of devil facial tumor disease. It is, however, not impossible - nothing is really impossible in biology. Wnt (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

In a Swedish study, 3% of 354 094 blood donations were given by donors with an undiagnosed cancer. There was no excess risk of cancer among the 12,012 recipients of such units. See: Risk of cancer after blood transfusion from donors with subclinical cancer: a retrospective cohort study. Edgren, G. et al., Lancet 2007 PMID 17512857. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Effect of purified vitamins orally and topically vs vitamins in foods orally or topically

Is there a difference in the effects? Is there a difference between putting on retinol skin creams and eating a carrot? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Retinol also known as Vitamin A₁, is a vitamin found in all these foods and used as a dietary supplement. Vitamin A has multiple functions: it is important for growth and development, for the maintenance of the immune system and good vision. and it serves a role as retinoic acid (an irreversibly oxidized form of retinol), which is an important hormone-like growth factor for epithelial and other cells. Vitamin A skin creams reportedly show a reduction in lines and wrinkles, control acne, and relieve psoriasis. However intake via the skin is too uncertain to count against the recommended dietary allowance. Blooteuth (talk) 11:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

May 31

Bbits per second

Can you calculate the rate of bits per second at which a human learn? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.177.96.46 (talk) 15:44, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@31.177.96.46: No, because this is not a well-defined quantity (yet). For example, how many bits of information is learning an Axel jump and at what point in time does it become fully "learned"? We can't answer the former and the latter does not admit a natural definition.--Jasper Deng (talk) 16:01, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Since even world-class figure skaters fall on jumps, the question of when they "fully" learn it might be answered "never". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

And yet you can safely assume that most senior-level skaters have "learned" it in the everyday sense of "learned", even if they cannot do it 100%, because they know all the different components of the move and (usually) can demonstrate it to others. Hence the point remains that there is no natural definition of "learned" suitable for a calculation like the OP asks for. Also, to be a bit clearer, my statement about "learned" is intended specifically for each bit of information. Even if we could model a learning process as a stream of bits entering the mind, at what point does each bit become learned? "Learned" does not obey the law of the excluded middle.--Jasper Deng (talk) 21:21, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Figure skating is fun, but this discussion is distracting from the pedagogical purpose of bringing it up.

Doing back-to-back jumps and having to skate several minutes are handicaps. A 10 second routine with 1 jump would be easier and even female skaters seem to do double jumps like they're a piece of cake. Maybe some human has in fact become practically immune to falling from a single Axel (assuming fair conditions. Not drunk, tired etc, no wind, earthquakes but no mulligans). No one will ever do a centuple Axel without cheating. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC) @Sagittarian Milky Way: Next time, make sure you don't overrun my comment! Also, not all jumps are strictly done back-to-back. When it is, we call it a combination.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Human senses and the human brain, or Neurons in general are far beyond binary math. If you would try to brake this down into the binary system you could count all the nerve cells and multiply the number with 256 kbps, which is known as near real "resolution" in mp3-audio. On one hand the result would probably be much to high but on the other your Question is alike much to wrong. --Kharon (talk) 20:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

You can, however set an upper limit by calculating the rate at which the human retina transmits data to the brain (around 10 million bits per second, which is close to an Ethernet connection) and repeating for hearing, touch, etc.[6][7] You can't learn any faster than that, but you can learn a lot slower. Judging by some of the people I come in contact with, learning can sometimes be as slow as several bits per year, or can even go negative. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• This article deserves to be shared every time this question comes up. The OP should read it daily until it becomes ingrained. --Jayron32 23:35, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The bit is a unit of information, independent of the machine acting on it. So the OP's question is quite valid to ask even without the proposition that we're computers. Ultimately, the state of our mind at a given moment can be given as a large but finite amount of values of state variables, so information theory still applies.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Let's not forget that the article linked by Jayron is just an opinion about how things work or could work. And it's a minority view in cognitive science.--Hofhof (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This article provides no evidence for the very big claims it makes. It claims that humans are not born with and never develop representations, rules, models, algorithms or memories which is a ridiculous claim alone. He cites not basis for the claim that there is no symbolic representation of the world in the brain and fails to offer a clear alternative. 208.90.213.186 (talk) 20:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
    • It also commits a crucial error, namely saying that a byte is 64 bits. The article on the byte does not suggest that 64 bits was ever considered a "byte" and in common computer science parlance, a byte is always 8 bits.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Landauer, in this paper, came up with an estimate that the total amount of information stored by a human brain was on the order of one gigabyte, and the learning rate for some tasks he measured was about 1 bit per second. I don't know how well this paper has stood the test of time, but a look at the 213 papers that cite it might be informative. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 09:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

• This paper suffers from the crucial flaw I mentioned above: the definition of "learned" is not specified and this analysis cannot be applied to learned activities such as figure skating.--Jasper Deng (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The world record for memorising random binary digits is 2385 digits memorised in half an hour. While agreeing that the exact definition of "learning" is undefined in this whole discussion, this suggests that a rate of 1 bit per second is in the right ball park. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

But if a random word from the thousand most common is shown for 1 second and this is done twice without intermission it would take 20 bits to store that data but most people could remember that. Even if English could be compressed to about 1 bit per letter you could make the person also remember the color of the words and color them one of 10 colors and if he can remember that it'd be about a thousand bits in 2 seconds. And Kim Peek memorized the contents of at least 12,000 books and had barely a billion waking seconds to do it in so that seems more like 10 bits per second. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Is sweetness intensity associated with sucrose quantity?

Is sweetness intensity associated with sucrose quantity? Is there a sucrose quantity upper threshold at which the sweetness "tastes the same"? Or is sweetness perception variable from individual to individual? Is there a point at which sweetness becomes unbearable, or is that subjective? All I know is, I've never liked the icing and fillings of bakery goods. They are too sweet for me. It's one reason why my favorite type of doughnut is the plain glazed doughnut, eaten with water to dilute the sweetness. I think this low-sweetness-tolerance threshold is genetic, because my father and mother also prefer mildly sweet things so icings, fillings, jams and fruit preserves, fruit juices, fruit smoothies are rarely consumed in the house. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article with the surprising title of sweetness gives the common scale by which sweetness is measured, with pure sucrose given a sweetness value of "1.00" Concentrations of sucrose less than pure will, of course, have values less than one. Here are some external sources which go into more detail on methods for determining sweetness. --Jayron32 23:20, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's difficult to separate genetic and environmental factors in such cases. You may have inherited genes making you more sensitive to sweetness, or you may have become habituated to a lower level of sweetness because you were raised in a family culture, and retain those behaviours, exposing you to lower levels of sugar than the average, or both may be true. ObPersonal, but when in the past I cut down the amount of (cane) sugar I consumed in, for example, tea, at first it tasted insufficiently sweet, but after a few weeks became the new normal, and tea with the previous amount of sugar tasted unpleasantly sweet. I have no doubt that if I were to reverse that change, the reverse would occur. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.9.8.213 (talk) 23:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• The most important reason this doesn't work is that perceived sweetness depends very heavily on context. If a given amount of sugar is mixed with a sour of bitter substance it will be perceived as less sweet. For example if you took the lemon out of lemonade, the amount of sugar in it would taste icky sweet to most people. Looie496 (talk) 15:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

June 1

Gas mask training

What is the gas used for this training[8]? The gas, and the training itself, sounds extremely dangerous. I'd like read up on how they picked this irritating and yet non-lethal gas. Scala Cats (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

My wife has done similar training as part of her law enforcement certification, she had to be exposed to tear gas. There are any number of types of non-lethal tear gases, so there's no telling which they used in that exercise. --Jayron32 05:16, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The video describes training in South Korea. Amnesty International was trying to stop them from sending 1.9 million grenades like the one shown to Turkey for use by the Erdogan regime [9]; apparently they sent at least 3.1 million [10]. The second source links a large manufacturer, which has a list of products. [11] The first one I looked at was CS gas, and I'm skeptical there are other gasses mixed in when I look at that list, but I don't know. I also don't know if "CS gas" is truly a uniform standard or if there are secret sauces in something like that. Wnt (talk) 11:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

CS Gas training. I did it twice a year for six years. It isn't a big deal. The instructors do it multiple times a day every day for months. Yes, it is irritating. The point of the training is to show that it is irritating, but you survive just fine. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 12:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

A requirement that police officers be exposed to non-lethal weapons each time they use them on a suspect might stop their overuse. Same comment for lethal weapons, but only when they use them improperly. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

This is about a gene named "cerebum", right?

[12]. Why was the gene so confusingly named? It looks like a typo for cerebrum, has something to do with central nervous systems(?) and isn't Latin or anything else on Wiktionary. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 08:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The mutant appears only in this one 1997 paper. Consider the context of a freer era and one with escalating research spending when people did not have an omnipresent sense of being unwanted and unnecessary nor worry some careless indulgence of creativity would be a danger to them, so there were a lot of really kooky gene names being introduced. To take a wild guess, the idea may be bum cerebrum. The mutant phenotype was mapped carefully and could be recovered in another mutagenesis screen, but no further work was done with it - perhaps people assumed that reverse genetics would identify it in short order. Wnt (talk) 11:30, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Gecko's foothold

Those who are familiar with them, must have observed that how easy it's for them to climb over the finest surfaces of glass etc. But now and then I have seen that if they somehow fall into the (dry and empty) bathtub in our toilet, then climbing out of it is simply not possible for them no matter how hard they try ! Can someone please explain this mystery.210.56.126.61 (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Geckos can stick to even smooth glass, so smoothness is not the issue. scholarly paper says "On dusty or exfoliating surfaces, attachment to a well-anchored substrate will not be possible for every seta." Here is a National Geographic article [13] describing what geckos have trouble sticking to, it mentions dust but also oils. It also mentions water, but you say your tub is dry. It seems a parsimonious answer is that some combination of dust or oils is keeping them from sticking. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article Gecko feet gives some information but not a clear answer. This report notes that Geckos lose sticking power with wet feet. If the OP has a Hard water supply and uses ordinary Soap, the dry bathtub walls may have a powdery precipitate of Soap scum that spoils the Gecko's adhesion. Blooteuth (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

As stated in the article Gecko feet, Teflon and surfaces coated with it are an exception. Some plants like the familie of Pitcher plants also use such surfaces, in that case with waxy surface coating, to catch Insects and according to some sources even frogs and geckos. Alike working are multiple newer coatings invented by and used in the Industry. Your bathtub is likely a newer one with exactly one of these newer "Non-stick surface"-coatings. --Kharon (talk) 22:55, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Animal species: Recently and unintentionally introduced and now protected/endangered

Can anyone come up with any animal species that recently (say the past 150 years) came to a new region as either an invasive or introduced species and have since become a protected species? Of course excluding the deliberate re-introduction of protected species for the purpose of conservation, such as wolves in Yellowstone Park or the red kite Great Britain. I guess one example would be the mustangs and others covered in the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971, but I gather that most of their ancestors became feral (were introduced) over several centuries ago, and I'm also (or even more) interested in non-feral examples. ---Sluzzelin talk 19:14, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Can go back further. The invasive 1% of Palefaces into North American , they have made themselves now into a protective species- Hell, they don't even have to pay taxes equal to what we have to. The current president has made himself seem like the nice guy by forgoing his presidential salary of some $400,000 but is signing in even more tax breaks that will make him $400 million richer. Aspro (talk) 19:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

"Palefaces" are the same species as the native Americans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

See The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill. I don't know if they are a protected species by law yet, but you can bet that if a government plan was devised to kill them all, it would be defeated. The combo of being cute, having a book and movie about them, and living in liberal San Francisco, makes them pretty well protected. See Telegraph_Hill, San Francisco#Parrots. Even an ordinance to prevent feeding them in public spaces was controversial. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

June 2

Can drones "shell" a target ?

[14] describes just that ("...drones also shelled a number of ISIS targets..."). Is it a typo ? If a drone can shell a target, is this a ground robot, or are flying drones firing artillery shells ? StuRat (talk) 00:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is apparently a direct quote from the federal police [15], although as no source conveniently links or provides the verbatim original press release, I have no idea if this is a translation or what. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

That article refers to "missile shelling", so I am guessing that they misuse the term "shelled" to mean "fired a missile at". StuRat (talk) 02:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This is more English usage than anything. I mean, a "wikt:bomb" is a closed container that explosive can rip apart, so people started specifying a "wikt:bombshell" to mean really, really, just the container, and then that came to mean a bomb, by which I mean an explosive.  ;) The way I see it, so long as the drone released some object with a hard outer shell around it, personally I'll give them a pass. But you should take it to Wiktionary or the language section or something if you want a reliable answer. ;) Wnt (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Anecdotally, when you are on the receiving end of bombardment, it is very hard to understand (let alone to correctly describe) what weapon payload is being deployed against you. A lot of news reports use the term "shelling" to describe any form of bombardment, whether it is artillery or air-delivery or even, sometimes, small-arms fire.

Here's one of the best academic treatments of the problem: a morphogenesis of the Beirut Green Line: Theoretical Approaches between Architecture and Geography.

“ War overrules civic laws, and its result is an iconisation of the urban tissue. War makes forms erode. Buildings loose their edges through erosion. Lasting gunfire gives rounded edges, soft, flesh-like shapes, but it very rarely produces structural collapses. Just like erosion due to acid rain, only faster. Forms withdraw and become pregnancies. Shells do not penetrate a wall, they barely touch it. The touch detonates the explosive inside the shell. The explosion creates an opening in the wall, and imprints a regular pattern radiating from the centre of the detonation, like an ornament, around the opening. After years of urban warfare the omnipresence of shell impacts take on mythical dimensions, and in the Balkan war they were named 'Roses of Sarajevo'. The seeds of the roses came with the wind, and the weapons, from Beirut. ” — Dr. Ing. Ole Møystad, Post Graduate Programs Manager, Norwegian Academy of Architecture at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Tragically, even when academic study helps us to understand shelling, it does not seem to help us prevent it from falling upon another capital city.

Nimur (talk) 17:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Terminology: "Payload" in plasmid

A plasmid will usually have certain components that make it possible to work with like an origin of replication and an antibiotic resistance gene. What do you call the stuff you put into the plasmid that you actually *really* care about? Is there a better term than "payload"? I would like a term that also covers things that are not being expressed from the plasmid (like "expression cassette") but includes things like DNA to be Sanger sequenced and homology donors used in genetic engineering. Thanks <3 --129.215.47.59 (talk) 10:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

"Insert" is a pretty generic term for this, and ill-defined enough to allow flexibility. Wnt (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I think payload is a good term. What have you against it? Dmcq (talk) 12:45, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

My supervisor doesn't like it. --129.215.47.59 (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should ask your supervisor what word they would prefer. CodeTalker (talk) 19:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You may think payload is a good term, but it's not used in the field in this context. Therefore it's not a good term, as it will be confusing to readers. Agreed insert is the common term. Fgf10 (talk) 22:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Agree at a low level talking about the process 'insert' is the appropriate term. And definitely if you have a supervisor and are talking technically :) Dmcq (talk) 10:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Larsen Ice shelf

If the Larsen ice shelf breaks off, like they're saying could happen soon, could it create a tsunami?144.35.114.222 (talk) 14:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No. It is already floating. The only effect of breakage would be to allow the ice to move, potentially creating an enormous iceberg. Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, according to our article, "If all the ice that the Larsen C shelf currently holds back were to enter the sea, it is estimated that global waters would rise by 10 cm (3.9 in)". --Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:50, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

The article doesn't make it very clear what it means by "holds back". I'll fix it. Currently, if you go to the cited BBC News story it's clearer: "As it floats on the sea, the resulting iceberg from the shelf will not raise sea levels. But if the shelf breaks up even more, it could result in glaciers that flow off the land behind it to speed up their passage towards the ocean. This non-floating ice would have an impact on sea levels." So the reference is to a possible, gradual sea-level rise of 10 cm after the ice shelf breaks up. --69.159.63.238 (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Is it indeed forbidden to clean a rabies wound with alcohol?

I've listen to a lecture of a Russian doctor who said that it is forbidden to clean a rabies wound with alcholol ("spirt") as a first treatment, he added that it is possible to disinfect the wound with the alcohol just after a well cleaning with water and soap, he explained that the alcohol not only not help to remove the virus but it is helps it to enter... Well, my question firstly is it is correct or acceptable in the medical world or just a personal opinion or caprice of this doctor (as sometimes it happens...). I started to hesitate his things especially after I saw WHO instructions (p. 4) for treatment: "Wounds should be washed and flushed immediately with soap and water for 10–15 minutes. If soap is not available, flush with water alone. This is the most effective first-aid treatment against rabies. Wounds should be cleaned thoroughly with 70% alcohol/ethanol or povidone-iodine, if available". But it is not certain because if you look at the order you'll see that first of all it's water and soap and later alcohol, but it's not necessary that the order is matter. It is a matter of interpretation of course. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 17:39, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

We are not allowed to give medical advice here, and this question is explicitly asking for a medical advice. Sorry. Dr Dima (talk) 17:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not asking for medical advice. "I've just been bitten by a rabid dog; what should I do?" would be a request for medical advice. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

It is not a medical advice for me or for someone else. it is a matter of scientific criticism (or "peer review"). If it is a medical advice then we should delete the article of rabbies which has an entire section just about the treatment (see here). Now, is it possible just to say things and not ask about them? or what is the difference between this section and my question here while both talking generally? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 18:02, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

If you can improve the article then please do so. Medical articles are covered by special guidelines and rrquire a higher level of care than other articles. We can't do peer review, just follow the sources according to their weight. What the WHO says has weight in this context. I can't see your problem, you seem to be construing the WHO advice as being some sort of cryptic code where one can apply logical computation to try and derive something silly rather than something straightforward to be done. What is your problem with 'immediate' and 'this is the most effective'? Dmcq (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Answer coming up here  :) . Count Iblis (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

You (or somebody with your exact IP address) asked this question here just a couple months ago: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 March 24#To disinfect with alcohol or not after a bite from dog?. Did that not sufficiently answer your question?--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 20:42, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

And as with the last one, "forbidden" has to be a bad translation. You can't "forbid" someone from doing something of that nature. But you can strongly recommend against it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Note that of the sources I provided there, the Canadian OHS specificallys says to wash first. As for the WHO (and NHS, the Rabies Alliance page doesn't seem to be working and archive.org is also having problems), while they may not specifically say to wash first, it's difficult to do something immediately if you do something else first which you weren't ask to do before hand. In other words, you need a very weird definition of immediately for the claim to be made it's a "matter of intepretation".

P.S. To ward off possible future dispute, obviously this only really applies to treatment of the wound. Clearly neither the WHO or NHS are telling you if you are bitten by a dog which appears to still be uncontrolled and a potential risk, you should go to the nearby hose and ignore the possible risk of being bitten again by the same dog.

P.P.S. There is the open question of what you should do in cases where you do happen to have disinfectant on hand for whatever reason but water is not readily available and may take many minutes, it seems unlikely the 30 seconds - 1 minute it takes to disinfect the wound is doing to make a significant difference in terms of time to the washing part 20 minutes later. IMO based on general current medical advice for cleaning wounds as mentioned in the previous discussions, it's probably still not advised. However since the sources mostly do specifically mention cleaning with a disinfectant after thorough washing, I'm not certain whether this is just outdated advice, or there's a specific reason it's recommended for animal bites where rabies may be a concern. It still seems unlikely though because even ignoring possible irritation, there would seem to be a risk of rubbing the virus into the open wound unless you're just pouring or soaking in the disinfectant would would seem to raise greater irritation risks.

Nil Einne (talk) 05:25, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. The issue -as mentioned in the previous time that I asked the question- is that his claim is that alcohol causes 2 things which support the enter of rabies: 1. Alcohol is a vasodilatator and it opens the vessels for the rabies entering. 2. Alcohol is a suppressor for the immune-system, and it may interrupt as well to the rabies to fight against it. What would WHO answer about that? 93.126.88.30 (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked

I'm seeing this article, https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/15624-cooking-climate-consensus-data-97-of-scientists-affirm-agw-debunked, referenced on the Internet as if it were gospel. Is there any truth to it? I assume not, but I'm not an expert on global warming. Can anyone help me with a valid counter argument? Pealarther (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Your valid counter-argument should begin with: which publications constitute reliable sources on the topic of anthropogenic global warming?

For example, I consider several independent organizations to be reliable sources: the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change); the American Geophysical Union; the National Weather Service and its parent organization the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and so on. These different groups represent widely different perspectives, and they each publish detailed technical reports and abbreviated short policy statements.

Absent from this list of reliable sources: internet bloggers, activists of any ilk, and, subsumed by those priors, the publication of The New American. Such sources are not, in my estimation, reliable sources on the very complicated scientific topic of climate. That last one does not, in my mind, constitute a reliable primary source. I won't waste my time to read what they say, irrespective of their policy position. They are not a community of scientists and geophysicists; they are not a policy think-tank; at best, they are a second-tier source, and even to concede that much is to be generous to their publication. So again - I won't waste my time reading what they say... because I can spend an equal quantity of minutes reading writings by authoritative, qualified groups of scientists. When you woke up this morning, did you read the news from a source that actually matters? What's stopping you?

If we can agree on who the authoritative and well-qualified sources of information are - then we can agree on their interpretations of facts and hypotheses. Until then, this grand debate about consensus is ultimately outside of the realm of scientific discussion.

Nimur (talk) 18:44, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

From Climate.gov:

• "Are humans causing or contributing to global warming? Yes, human activities have increased the abundance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere, which a large majority of climate scientists agree is the main reason for the 1.5°F (0.85°C) rise in average global temperature since 1880."
• "How strong is the scientific evidence that Earth is warming and that humans are the main cause? There is overwhelming scientific evidence that Earth is warming and a preponderance of scientific evidence that human activities are the main cause."

These are the official positions of the United States Government, attributable to the scientists they employ. With respect to these facts, consensus is irrelevant: scientific evidence is not a democratic process. The part that is democratic, in the United States, is that we must garner consensus among our lawmakers and government executives, whose roles are to make and execute policy. We can only hope that their consensus is informed by fact - until the next election cycle, at which point "hope" will have nothing to do with it.

Nimur (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, very good work as usual. One problem OP and others may encounter: some people, climate change deniers in particular, will swear the IPCC is part of the United Nations conspiracy to enslave freedom-loving Americans, and as such is in no way a reliable source. We may know that argument is rubbish, and the IPCC is made up of world experts who would leap at the chance to disprove any spurious claims made by their peers. However, it can be very difficult to engage in a polite and civil discussion with such a person, who has basically left the path of reason. I say this only as fair warning to OP, who has now been provided with suitable counterargument, useless though it may be. See also Post-truth_politics. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Validity is POV (Point of view) and so it is completely pointless to argue with/about that towards Persons who are not willing to try out multiple Points of view and that is very likely the case especially when a tiny minority claims that a huge majority got it "all wrong".

So in such a case the much stronger argument would be to ask in general, which group is more likely right, assuming we are all equally smart enough (WP:AGF) to see true. --Kharon (talk) 00:28, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

If beans were stuffed up one's nose, then will there be brain injury or choking?

If beans were literally stuffed up one's nose, then will that result in brain injury or choking or both? 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

This [16] overview is a good place to start. There are many others, too. Just search the literature for "foreign body in nasal passages" or "nasal foreign body". --Dr Dima (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the formal term. 140.254.70.33 (talk) 19:51, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Or ... you could try it and see what happens. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:0:0:0:2 (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Manually, probably not, unless you really tried. With a device akin to a nail gun, probably yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Asteroids and dwarf planets graphics and animations

Is there a websites that shows the graphics or animations of asteroids such as the three types of asteroids, the distributions of asteroids like Apollo, the trojans and the orbits and info of dwarf planets? Donmust90 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:46, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Maybe check out https://eyes.nasa.gov/ and download the nice app they offer there. Its very good. --Kharon (talk) 00:42, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Distributions of asteroids into three types

Is it possible that the asteroids of Apollo, Aten, and Amor can be divided into or fall into the three types of asteroids: S-Type, M-Type, and C-Type? Donmust90 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 23:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

No. Both 1866 Sisyphus (Apollo) and 433 Eros (Amor) are S-type, for example. Henry^Flower 07:43, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

June 3

7-9 hours of sleep

It is usually recommended that a human needs 7-9 hours of sleep. Does this mean 7-9 hours of continuous sleep or sleep whenever one finds the time? Maybe a human begins sleep at 10:00 pm on the ground floor and wakes up at 1:00 am (but just half-awake) and ascends the stairs to the second floor to continue sleeping until 6:00 am because the ground floor is naturally cooler than the upper floor. Or maybe the person sleeps for five hours at night continuously, but in the afternoon, the person falls asleep for about two to three hours. What counts as healthy sleep? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 05:12, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you can sleep when you want without any problems. Ruslik_Zero 10:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Basically, anything which leaves you not feeling tired when you wake up counts as healthy sleep. That will vary greatly from person to person. Wymspen (talk) 11:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

See the main article Sleep. A person's desire and ability to fall asleep is influenced both by the length of time since the person woke from an adequate sleep and by internal Circadian rhythms, which cause harmful psychological and functional difficulties when disordered. See Sleep deprivation. Blooteuth (talk) 11:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Not chewing food

Chewing food is an important step in the digestive process. If a hypothetical "average person" did not chew any of their food and instead cut it into small pieces and swallowed them whole, what would be the likely effect on their digestive system?

Would it take longer for the body to digest the food? Would the body actually manage to digest all the food fully?

My understanding is that simple sugars and carbohydrates like bread would probably be fully digested, but other foods might not be. What foods would be the most difficult for the body to digest if they were not chewed before being swallowed? Links to research papers on the subject would be great.

Thanks for your time and help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.253.44.86 (talk) 07:56, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

See Mastication. A study found that unchewed meat and vegetables were not digested, while tallow, cheese, fish, eggs, and grains did not need to be chewed.. Blooteuth (talk) 11:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)