Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:55, 21 December 2017

Welcome to the science section
of the Wikipedia reference desk.

skip to bottom

Select a section:

Shortcut

WP:RD/S

Want a faster answer?

Main page: Help searching Wikipedia

How can I get my question answered?

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

Ready? Ask a new question!

How do I answer a question?

Main page: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Guidelines

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

December 14

Location of mission critical controls

Why do designers place mission critical controls in such a way as to maximise the likelihood of d'oh! moments?

For example

I have lost track of the number of times I have wanted to preview a Wikipedia edit and unintentionally pressed the "publish changes" button, simply because the preview button is right next to the publish changes button.
When I am composing a text on my iphone the send message arrow is located in the right of the text field in which I compose my message. In the course of composing a text my finger or thumb will sometimes slip to the right and prematurely send the incomplete text.
The wireless router that sits behind my TV has the wireless local area network (WLAN) button right next to the router on/off button. In the course of reaching behind my TV to power cycle the modem I accidentally turned off the WLAN instead. When I did manage to complete power cycling the router I could not get a wifi signal to the rest of the house, as I had turned off the WLAN, and had to press the WLAN button again to get the wi-fi going.

I guess the designers involved have little to no awareness of human factors and ergonomics design principles but would be interested to hear others' thoughts. Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hearing other's thoughts is not what we do here. This is a desk for getting directed to reading material about a subject. Also, I should point out that your question contains a problem known as the plurium interrogationum problem: It presupposes an idea which is not yet established, and then asks a question which requires the not-yet-established idea to be true. Your presupposition, that designers "place mission critical controls in such a way as to maximise the likelihood of d'oh! moments" has not been established yet, so we cannot answer "why" yet. If one were to try to answer "why", then it turned out the presupposition was wrong, it'd be beyond stupid. It's like asking "why did you stop beating your wife". Such a question is impossible to answer because we have not yet established either a) that you beat your wife or b) that you stopped. I should point out that your personal experience with these design elements is not sufficient evidence as to designers intent, and until you can produce sources which establish that intent your question has no chance of being meaningfully answered by anything except unmitigated bullshit. Which several people will be along below to provide you with starting... now. --Jayron 32 00:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are being unduly harsh. I don't see anything in the original question accusing designers of designing controls with the intent of maximizing accidents. Indeed, the line "I guess the designers involved have little to no awareness of human factors and ergonomics design principles" implies the exact opposite - that its due to ignorance rather than intent. Also, while we are not supposed to provide our thoughts and opinions, the request "to hear others' thoughts" can be answered by providing references to relevant people's thoughts. I don't have time now to do a thorough search for literature on this subject, but ~~Googling~~Binging "reasons for bad design" yielded this page among others. Its mostly just comparing good and bad designs, but does include a little bit of discussion about why designers tend to do the bad ones. Iapetus (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The OP has not established that designers have little awareness of those issues. Information in the article and video I linked below indicate the exact opposite; which again makes the "why" question based on a false premise (even worse than an indeterminate one), which means that "why do they..." is still not answerable. --Jayron 32 13:38, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little tangential reading for you as well, directly related to how these things are designed, this video here explains a bit about Fitts's law, which is a useful tool used in designing human-computer interfaces. I will note that it does not answer your direct "why" question (for reasons noted above), but that video, and the Fitts's law article, at least provide you with references to read (and watch), which is the purpose of this desk. --Jayron 32 00:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I didn't intend for my post and its speculation to imply that designers deliberately placed mission critical controls in such a way as to maximize d'oh moments. And my speculation was intended to do more than garner answers. Iapetus was on the mark. The Fitts' law article is interesting. The video is too, and the person being interviewed mentions a design decision by Apple to move the X at the top right of some Apple interfaces a few pixels down, and to place it in a circle resulting in the control being harder to get to. So while the interviewee says Fitt's law is more than an academic exercise it is evidently not always observed. Sandbh (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just decide that there are no mission critical controls on wikipedia, your iphone or your wlan router and your problem is solved. --DHeyward (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...unless your iPhone hosts the app your pilot depends on...

21st-century technology has seen the creation of casual low-cost toys that approximate mission-critical systems so well that we are entering an era of human-factors crisis. Real, actual humans no longer know the difference between a toy and a mission-critical system, and the effects of software-UI only compound this human-factors problem.

Even the president of the United States does not appear to appreciate the impact of using a toy chat-app as a means for communicating policy-statements to the entire world. Perhaps the enticing user-interface conditions people to prefer toy UIs over well-engineered systems.

Before long, people acclimate - more people get their news from Twitter instead of the actual White House press-statements; more pilots begin to rely on "supplemental electronic flight information system" instead of certified flight instrumentation. The next thing you know, a plurality of people actually believe that iPhone-powered robot cars can drive themselves without human intervention. We have constructed toy UIs that are sufficiently similar to real mission-critical engineering products that we've completely steam-rolled over the human in human-machine interaction.

People who design well-engineered mission-critical systems do spend a lot of time to make sure that humans can interpret and interact with the interface; and a lot of effort is spent to ensure that the view is clear, and the controls are obvious; that incorrect interpretation of a view, or incorrect actuation of a control, is a rare event. People who build toys that approximate well-engineered systems might not have spent such care and effort. Yet, billions of dollars of economic activity traverse through those toy UIs every single market-day; actual commercial airplane paperwork gets filed and approved through those toy UIs every day; actual news and politics are communicated through those toy UIs every single day. If there is an impending nuclear strike, or a flood warning, or an active armed-police-action in your neighborhood - the old well-engineered user-interface of the Emergency Broadcast System has been formally replaced with a new UI on your toy smart-phone. Are these items "mission-critical User Interface"?

I found this delightful research project: the Psychology of Trust. They've taken a peer-reviewed piece of their own scientific findings, and ... formatted it as a bad website: partially to see if you'll take it seriously, and partially to demonstrate that most of you will not.

Nimur (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This site reviews a book by Don Norman entitled The Design of Everyday Things. Some of the reasons listed for poor design include: "design that ignores the needs and psychology of people"; laziness by programmers; and business constraints (competition, costs, and schedules). Sandbh (talk) 09:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Writing in Tragic design: The impact of bad product design and how to fix it, Shariat and Saucier (2017) observe that bad design decisions may come about due to an error of judgement; while this marketing blog refers to, among other reasons, what they call "The hippo factor" or the Highest Paid Person’s Opinion overruling (on the basis of personal preference) an otherwise good design decision. Sandbh (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cone cell responses to violet

How would File:Cones SMJ2 E.svg look if extended into the violet wavelengths for all three cone types? Is the lingering response of red cones in that range enough to explain why violet is metameric to a mix of red and blue -- despite being a shorter wavelength than either -- or is some other phenomenon responsible? Neon Merlin 09:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused; the graph does extend to the violet range. Violet is from about 380-450 nm or so, and that's on the graph you showed. --Jayron 32 13:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He must be talking about the red cone line cutting off before 400 or less. Now what confuses me is why there's 3 basic color terms for bluish red and only one looks bluish red (magenta). Females must have awesome color discrimination if purple and violet don't look alike. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:26, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not following an example from the book The Fabric of the Cosmos

I'm reading Brian Greene's book The Fabric of the Cosmos, and trying my best to understand it. In Ch 5 of the book, Greene works up to a hypothetical example which I guess is supposed to illustrate some funky features of spacetime. I'm confused by his example and hoping someone might be able to help me understand it or point me to resources that might do the same.

I may be misinterpreting his example and that may be the source of my confusion. That said I have no choice other than to give my own recap of the scenario:

His scenario involves two characters, you and Chewie, separated by 10 billion light years. For this example to keep things simple he says ignore the motion of the planets, the expansion of the universe, gravitational effects, and so on. He says that if you and Chewie are both not moving relative to each other, then both will agree on what is happening "now" on each other's worlds. (In the context of the full chapter I take this to mean that Chewie would be receiving photons from 10 billion years ago that came from my location & vice versa.) Then he says that if Chewie decided to stand up and walks directly away from you at about 10 miles per hour. Greene seems to explain that the consequence of Chewie walking away with the 10 billion light year separation will result in Chewie sensing things from my location an additional 150 years ago. The author does not state how long Chewie walks or total distance or anything like that.

I'm confused as to how 150 years came about. The only way I can understand this is if Chewie moved a distance equal to 150 light years, but my sense is that is not part of the author's scenario.

Any thoughts?

--128.229.4.2 (talk) 16:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd need to see directly what Greene writes to know what he's talking about, but I think I can tell you where the 150 years come from: Chewie's speed is 10 miles/hour = 4.5 meters/second. Divide that by the speed of light (0.3 billion meters / second) and multiply by 10 billion years gives you 150 years. He may be talking about special relativity where the axes (actually spaces) of simultaneity in two reference frames that are moving with respect to each are slightly tilted with respect to each other by an angle v/c. By moving away from you, Chewie's "simultaneity space" would cut your world line about 150 years in your past. Not sure where Greene is going with that... --Wrongfilter (talk) 17:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, this seems to fit in with the text surrounding the example. Thank you, I'll read up on Relativity_of_simultaneity and hope for a better understanding.

--128.229.4.2 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book example is ugly: because it's trying to use simple language, it's confusing you by losing detail.

The author is attempting to illustrate two totally different pieces of physics that are both very complicated, and to show that they combine.

First, there is a Lorentz transform, caused by relative motion. If you worked that math out, you would get time dilation, but 10 mph does not yield 150 years. The standard math for a Lorentz contraction is found in almost every book on special relativity. Here's a nice summary from Oxford University that pulls no punches: course notes for Relativity from the Oxford Department of Physics. Using standard equations, the time dilation is essentially negligible.
Secondly, in this example by Brian Greene, there is a non-flat universe. Over the distance of 10 billion light-years, the shape of the universe varies (in his example problem). Your meter is not the same as the meter that "Chewie" measures! (That's... the subtle detail of new physics that is the core thesis of his whole book!)

When you combine these effects, you get a bizarre and non-standard Lorentz-transform. The author doesn't give you equations; he gives you sloppy plain-English descriptions; so to the casual reader, it is hard to see which parts are "standard" relativistic physics, and which parts are "Brian Greene's curved space-time theory" physics.

It is the combination of these effects that yields the weird "150 years" number. Regrettably, neither the author nor I write out the details of the combined-form equation!

Though these types of book make for casual fun reading, they don't give you a lot of the formal preparation, nor the specific mathematical tools you need, to actually do anything with modern theoretical physics. Like always, if you're really interested, I recommend a real textbook! A good place to start - if you haven't got it already - is any of the Stewart calculus books. These are great introductions to modern mathematics in a format that a real student can actually use. Specifically, the third section of Multivariable Calculus will give you the exact tools you need to study mathematical representations of non-flat universes. At the end of the day, "curved space-time" is just u-substitution by a fancier name!

Nimur (talk) 18:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I guess it is good to know that the author is playing a little more fast and loose than is useful to the uninitiated. Not what I was hoping for when I bought the book and started reading, but probably not a huge surprise. My curiosity wants to understand the nature of the universe but my brain isnt as eager when it stumbles upon anything beyond basic math symbols. But I guess that is often the rub.

--128.229.4.2 (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See also Relativity of simultaneity. Loraof (talk) 19:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, this graphic from that page was very helpful in trying to follow this example.

And now that I think about it & see the visual, the author did introduce this topic earlier in the book. So I missed the connection upon first reading.

--128.229.4.2 (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that this is a silly, pure academic example to prove or illustrate some simplified theory. In reality it is already wrong because everything moves. "A" moves and "B" stands still on the plain of our Space-Time Continuum does not exist. Even black holes move. --Kharon (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The thing to bear in mind is that "now" (spacelike interval) is not something that can be seen. So if you start walking relative to Chewie, "now" may change by 150 years -- in the sense that in 10 billion years, when the light from "now" arrives where you were, you will have walked 150 light years! (note: I didn't check that math) But what you actually see is only the slightest decrease in the apparent speed of events at Chewie's location because the light takes an iota longer to get to you with every step. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organ connection

What is connection between the artery and the right hemisphere of the brain? 119.30.38.179 (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which artery? The body is full of arteries... The one going to the brain is one of the carotid arteries. --Jayron 32 19:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My bad, should've specified it more. Talking about model-like pictures of skeletons like such images. Point is - I'm looking for images like that in a "standing" position as if an xray if the thorax is going to be taken. --62.214.191.65 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no direct connection. Read Blood–brain barrier. --Kharon (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 15

Rod vision color

Wavelength responsiveness of short (S), medium (M) and long (L) wavelength cones compared to that of rods (R)

I'm trying to create a "color" that approximates the R curve in this graph. Suggestions? —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:E1C0:A059:2D66:D4C4 (talk) 00:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cyan?--Jayron 32 05:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gray. But when bright enough to overpower the rods it looks like grue. Or bleen. [1]Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:48, 15 December 2017 (UTC) (Jayron was the original answerer (erased cause I was only up to checking for edit conflicts 95-99% of the time) and this isn't much different but I'll keep it since it was replied to. The edit conflict window has way too many false negatives, even 97% show changes isn't enough..) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 498 nm (blue/green) does correspond with the peak, but what about the rest of the curve -- that would include contribution from other frequencies (hue vs. luminosity and/or chromaticity perhaps?). —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:791C:B79C:EA4D:5BB3 (talk) 06:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above question is related to creating a light that maximizes stimulation of rod cells while minimizing stimulation of cone cells; perhaps as an approximation of moonlight. Is there any correlation between rod vision and moonlight? Relatively recently, depictions of night in films, art, etc. tend to be green-lit rather than previous blue-tones used to suggest moonlight. Is there any scientific basis for this or is it simply a modern artistic trend? —[OP]:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:ACD6:943D:BA3A:3FD4 (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An positron and proton have opposite charges.

Would they "annihilate" each other, even partially? In general how would they interact?155.97.8.169 (talk) 02:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A positron and a proton have the same charge, namely +1. They would repel one another. --Trovatore (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For some light reading on complex, unconventional antiparticle interactions, here's the website of Antimatter at CERN, where several active experiments are exploring exotic matter, including mixtures of particles and antiparticles.

Positron interactions are well-understood; the main positron experiment shut down two decades ago to make room for the LHC. If you want to do cutting-edge antimatter experimental physics, these days the trick is making antiprotons and keeping them around for non-trivial amounts of time - in 2015, the longest lived antiprotons lasted for about a thousand seconds; and more recently, atoms of anti-hydrogen (a stable antiproton/positron system) have been kept in a cryo-trap for a full year.

Mixed atoms that have no net charge are really hard to confine - without a usable charge, there's no way to apply a Lorentz force, and the samples eventually bang into the walls of the container, and annihilate on whatever ordinary matter the walls are made of. The antiprotons will hit an hydrogen nucleus - or worse [2] - and the positrons will rip an atomic electron off whatever atom they hit first; and you're left with some nasty gamma rays and ions - and usually, antimatter experiments only have a tiny number of particles to begin with - so the sample dissipates within a very short amount of time.

All the latest and greatest anti-proton stuff comes out of CERN; here in the USA, it's really hard to find a good home for a poor fragile antiparticle; they need to be kept cool and clean and safely isolated from almost everything on Earth that would otherwise cause premature annihilation. So: if you like antimatter interactions, it's a great idea to start by learning scientific French! Les antihydrogènes, elles sont tres difficiles, mais les ions sont si facile!

Nimur (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical hemolytic anemia

I've just spotted the article mechanical hemolytic anemia which shows that red blood cells are prone to mechanical induced damage - running, drumming, etc. This looks somewhat paradoxical, because I instantly compared it to microscopic insensitivity to macroscopic processes, e.g. trying to kill bacteria with a hammer. How the red blood cells are different? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that hitting bacteria with a hammer won't harm at least some of them? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pound some bacterial surface and let me know how many of them you managed to kill. The point is why RBCs are so prone to mechanical influence. The article says in particular that "Repetitive impacts to the body may cause... bursting (hemolysis) of red blood cells". 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently some can be harmed. hydnjo (talk) 16:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That stands to reason. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:23, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

One difference is their short lifespan of just 100–120 days. Young humans even have a much faster metabolism. So in case you are 20 years old the red blood cells in you are already in their 60th-100th generation. Cells of the outer skin have an even shorter lifespan but internal cells have a much longer lifespan in general i believe. I only know basics about medicine and biology but i read red blood cells are like the outer skin cells kinda cannonfodder soldiers of our body. --Kharon (talk) 03:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bacteria are surrounded by a cell wall (the specifics differ from gram positive to gram negative though). Red blood cells have a cytoskeleton but they are also designed to be relatively flexible to fit through small spaces (like capillaries and the spleen). More to the point, evolutionarily, bacteria are meant to survive, period, while red blood cells that suffer damage are supposed to break up and get removed from circulation for the greater good. If you took a vortexer and went at a tube of blood and a tube of bacteria, my money is on the bacteria. I should also add that red blood cells, being confined to capillaries, might suffer odd effects based on abrupt changes in pressure and flow rate as the total body part is squeezed, but I don't know how to begin thinking about that. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 16

What is the opposite of Nootropics?

Nootropics are defined as memory enhancers. Then my question is what is the name of those substances that cause to forgetfulness? 185.191.178.183 (talk) 09:51, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesics. Looie496 (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I didn't find usage of this word for substances that cause loss of memory or forgetfulness. Can you show me please where there is a source for that? 185.191.178.183 (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The word amnesic is normally used as an adjective (and very rarely as a synonym for amnesiac), but I can imagine that someone somewhere has used it as a noun meaning amnesic drug (but I can't find anywhere other than Bill's usage above). Dbfirs 21:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is used with that meaning in the SCP Foundation fictional universe, though I think the more common term is "amnestic". In either case, it denotes a drug used to erase memory (like a pharmaceutical equivalent of the device in Men in Black). 169.228.159.225 (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes, "An amnestic is an amnesia-inducing agent that can take many different forms", but use of the noun in a fictional universe does not qualify the neologism for a dictionary entry until it escapes into our universe (as it may well do in future). As an adjective, amnesic is more common than amnestic. Dbfirs 22:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is anterograde and retrograde amnesia. Midazolam is used intentionally as part of mild sedation to produce anterograde amnesia. Propranolol administered when a traumatic memory is recalled can help disassociate the memory from the traumatic emotional aspect of it. There is, according to Harvard, just normal forgetfulness as well. And many drugs have the undesired effect of retrograde amnesia, including, e.g., Cholesterol-lowering drugs (Statins) ...Antiseizure drugs. ...Antidepressant drugs (Tricyclic antidepressants) ...Narcotic painkillers. ...Parkinson's drugs (Dopamine agonists) ...Hypertension drugs (Beta-blockers) μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The benzodiazepines, like midazolam, and other classes can be described as 'amnestic drugs' in scientific articles like:

Galizio, M; Mathews, M; Mason, M; Panoz-Brown, D; Prichard, A; Soto, P (November 2017). "Amnestic drugs in the odor span task: Effects of flunitrazepam, zolpidem and scopolamine". Neurobiology of learning and memory. 145: 67–74. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2017.09.006. PMID 28893667.
Han, CJ; Pierre-Louis, J; Scheff, A; Robinson, JK (1 September 2000). "A performance-dependent adjustment of the retention interval in a delayed non-matching-to-position paradigm differentiates effects of amnestic drugs in rats". European journal of pharmacology. 403 (1–2): 87–93. PMID 10969148.

Klbrain (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

on sugars and carbohydrates

I was told that carbohydrates are sugar (the white sugar). Now if there is a product without sugar, but it has carbohydrates, does it mean that these are same as sugar? then in the end of the day, carbohydrate has influence on the body the same as sugar, and from both should be avoid. Isn't it? --185.191.178.183 (talk) 09:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar is a specific type of carbohydrate. Carbohydrates, protein and lipids are the 3 different classes of substances that the body can derive caloric value from. All three are part of a balanced diet. Simple sugars sometimes can sometimes be metabolized faster than starches or other carbohydrates but avoidance would only be necessary if other health issues are present. --DHeyward (talk) 10:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As a slight caveat, the body can derive caloric value from several other substances, most notably ethanol. Looie496 (talk) 16:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ethanol contains carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. That would make it a carbohydrate.--Phil Holmes 17:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect. Carbon, hydrogen and oxygen are the fundamental elements of organic life and are not an indicator of being a carbohydrate. --DHeyward (talk) 04:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to understand the pathophysiology of diabetes melitus for example that it has to do with high levels of sugars in the blood. Now, if all carbohydrates are sugars, and white sugar is the same as carbohydrate in the end of the day (because any carbohydrate become to glucose (C6H12O6)) so why does it matter if a specific food has sugars or carbohydrates, they are the same! and a person who never touched white sugars can get DM (type 2 of course) just from consuming carbohydrates (such as 'natural' bread which contains flour and water only) Isn't it? 185.191.178.183 (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read carbohydrate, sugar, glycemic load, glycemic index, diabetes mellitus type 2, low-glycemic diet, etc.? Those articles would be a better place to start.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 10:58, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are many different types of simple (glucose, fructose) and disaccharide sugars; lactose (made of galactose and glucose), sucrose "table sugar" (made of glucose and fructose). And there are starches and fibers which are more and less digestible chains of sugars/carbohydrate. So it's a common error, but wrong to think that table sugar is the basic type of sugar.

The body converts carbohydrates to glucose for transport by the blood and as a general fuel source in normal conditions. The main problem in diabetes II is carbs with, as William mentioned, high glycemic loads/glycemic index. Eating significant amounts of simple sugars or easily digested starches (the saliva digests starch) can cause glucose spikes, and glucose reacts with proteins in the body causing direct and indirect damage to tissues and blood vessels, especially in the kidneys, eyes, and extremities.

I am a type II diabetic, and although it is in total remission now, after I lost over 1/3 of my body weight with medical treatment (a good endocrinologist working with a nutritionist and a gastric sleeve surgeon basically saved my life) even when my diabetes was full blown, I could eat beans and whole corn without getting spikes. Even though those foods were high in carbs, they were of the kinds that are difficult to digest and are very slowly released to the bloodstream, if at all, before being excreted by the bowel.

So, not all carbs are equal, nor are they identical to table sugar. There are diagnostic tools (blood glucose and A1c tests, regular physical exams, and symptom reviews (like thirst and frequent urination) as well as excellent medicines, procedures and regimes to treat the issue if a medical professional recommends it. See a physician if you have any concerns. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's not about medical concerns. The issue is that a lot of health people avoid the use of sugars (sucrose) but they don't know that in the end of the day carbs are become glucose (C6H12O6) and I wondered why they should avoid sugars while they eating carbs. But now I understand from your answer that the problem is not the glucose but the rate of the absorption of ant carbs, meaning that sucrose is absorbed fast (high glicemic index) and therefore it causes spikes (=hyperglycemia?) and resulting in many diseases that made by high level of glucose in the blood. Therefore, any carb with high glicemic index is the same (or worse than) as sucrose. For example the GI of sucrose is 68 while French baguette has 95 GI! therefore in this case it's better to eat sucrose than French baguette. So in the end of the day everything is about GI, and the way of absorption. Did I get you properly? 185.191.178.183 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. You understood me correctly; yes hyperglycemia is the proper term. As an aside, my nutritionist suggested I try to give up coffee to deal with my regularity; that wasn't happening. Then she suggested almond milk, which I love, instead of cow's milk, since she suspected maybe I was lactose intolerant. But there was no difference after going off lactose (which I have tried before to no effect), and almond milk has only 1/8th the protein content of skim milk at almost twice the retail price. So I told her I would compromise, and now I add a baguette to my coffee rather than a teaspoon of sugar. :) μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I couldn't think that it can be so easy to understand. Now my goal is to understand how the GI is determined for foods. 185.191.178.183 (talk) 20:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, googling "how is the glycemic index calculated" gives the featured result that it is measured by monitoring the blood after the "consumption of test foods" aswell as lots of links. It seems rather odd to think you'd have enough volunteers to do that, especially for unpatented foods where there's no corporate monetary incentive. I suspect there's a lot of fudging and interpolation being done.

In the 80's, my chemistry teacher advised us that they actually measured the caloric content of foods by burning them in a bomb calorimeter. We did an experiment where we burnt a sugar doughnut. The hypothesis was that the experimental result would be higher than the actual metabolic result, given not all that is burnt is efficiently digested. So we obviously were getting proxy results maybe good by an order of magnitude. That may have been a holiday "lab", like when we made peanut brittle under the guise of studying caramelization as an oxidative process on the last day before winter break. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A key thing to bear in mind here is that polysaccharides are made up of simple sugars and often digest quite readily to them. However, there are exceptions like cellulose and insoluble fiber that are put together in a way that isn't readily undone. Oddly, something as simple as allowing pasta to cool and reheating it later [3] reduces the glycemic effect. Bear in mind that much of the effect is related to how polysaccharides crystallize rather than the actual chemical difficulty of breaking the bonds -- a little acid ~~or base (I think)~~ can break down starch or cellulose to sugar (~~wood sugar~~ wood hydrolysis [4]) though it is not to be recommended. Converting one sugar into another, even though they have the same formula, is not a simple process! So fructose has different (generally bad) effects on diabetes compared to glucose, for example. Other sugars like erythritol are used as calorie-free sweeteners because they don't get converted at all. (though actually that has a different formula, smaller sugar) Wnt (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safety in construction vs transport

request for speculation assuming supposition not in evidence. μηδείς (talk) 17:21, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Why is safety not a top priority in construction, compared to in transport? 82.17.228.64 (talk) 11:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Be aware that we don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. Dolphin (t) 11:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.

seashore crustacean ID (Southern California)

What is the crustacean this willet is eating? I took the photos in La Jolla, San Diego. 169.228.156.206 (talk) 19:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Blepharipoda occidentalis*, the spiny mole crab of So. Cal.

It looks very much like a mole crab, although the ones I am used to from the Jersey shore are a light blueish grey, and I am not sure what that long strand hanging down is, whether it's an appendage or damaged tissue or just debris. μηδείς (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, fits the pictured Western Spiny Mole Crab down to the color and oversized antennae compared to ours out East. These critters burrow in the sand at the tide level and filter food from the breaking and retreating waves. They can be dug up by children by the hundreds and in all sizes from fly-sized juveniles to fig-sized adults. μηδείς (talk) 20:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it might be a mole crab of the species you mention, though the long antennae (or whatever that is) looked odd. Thank you for the reply. 169.228.159.225 (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 17

Evolution death

What is evolution death? One of the first medical descriptions of an ebolavirus patient's condition said:

The illness is characterized with a high temperature of about 39°C, hematemesis, diarrhea with blood, retrosternal abdominal pain, prostration with "heavy" articulations, and rapid evolution death after a mean of three days.

A Google search finds mostly results for Stanley Shostak's book The evolution of death, and even if I exclude results mentioning Shostak, I get things mostly related to biological evolution. Nyttend backup (talk) 02:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's either a typo or an idiosyncratic/headlinese jargony usage where progression toward would be the normal term. μηδείς (talk) 02:44, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It looks to me like like a period or comma or perhaps a few words are missing. It's not saying there's an evolution death but rapid evolution of the disease resulting in death after a mean of three days. Although 'evolution' is a very weird word to use in this context, progression would be the norm. Maybe things were different then or perhaps more likely the doctor who wrote that didn't that much experience with English words used in the anglophone developed world to describe diseases. (I'm assuming of course that the transcription from the doctor's log is accurate.) Nil Einne (talk) 02:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A real conundrum of digital historiography!

This thesis, Living under the threat of Ebola : a phenomenological study (2014, Univ. of South Africa) quotes the origin differently than the Scripps website.

"The first accurate clinical description of Ebola is attributed to Dr. Ngoy Mushola, who was part of the medical team during the 1976 outbreak in Yambuku hospital in DRC (Piot et al 1978:7). In the first patient's notes, Mushola describes the clinical presentation of this hitherto unknown disease as: "the illness is characterised by a high temperature of about 39°C, hematemesis, diarrhoea with blood, retrosternal and abdominal pain, prostration with articulations and rapid evolution to death after a mean of three (3) days"; pioneering descriptions true today as they were back then!" [5]

I can't find Piot 1978, but I could find Piot's work from 1976 and 1977 in this online PDF-book format comprising the conference proceedings: Ebola Virus Haemorrhagic Fever, which quotes:

"the illness is characterized with a high temperature of about 39°C, hematemesis, diarrhea with blood, retrosternal abdominal pain, prostration with "heavy" articulations, and rapid evolution death after a mean of 3 days".

Now, that web-formatted book was scanned, some time after 1998, and converted to text:

"We acknowledge the superb scanning performance editing to a useful website document by Dr. Dirk De Bock..."

I would be willing to bet that the original was "evolution to death..."; and that the reason we find "evolution death" in so many places is because most researchers newer-than-1999 are using the free digital copy of the PDF, therefore, they are citing a copy-error verbatim!

Have we got anybody with access to a medical library that contains the actual paper proceedings of the 1978 colloquium - or even better, paper-copies of Ngoy (1976)?

Nimur (talk) 03:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the historically-inclined, here is a 1978 Bulletin of the WHO chronology of the events of 1976: Ebola haemorrhagic fever in Zaire, including attribution of the first possible cases to Ngoy. This PDF is a scanned image, but it unfortunately does not cite the exact questionable passage from Ngoy's notes.

Like always, digging into the history of Ebola only raises more questions than it answers. Like... why were the Belgians intentionally infecting guinea pigs with the virus? What possible research benefit might there be to extracting the liver from an infected guinea pig and liquefying it in a blender? Was this established medical practice in the 1970s, or ever? (...apparently it is). What were the Belgians really doing in the Congo in the first place, and why should we trust their version of events? They don't exactly have a clean record when it comes to importing diseases and conducting medical research on the victims they created.

I'm glad the worst of history is behind us: ~~and Belgians are no longer intentionally releasing diseased rats into hospitals in Africa to benefit humanity~~. ... ~~At least the daily threat of thermonuclear devastation is a glimmer in the distant past.~~ ~~The free world no longer abides, condones, or enables actual enslavement of real humans~~. ~~At least we still lead the world by prioritizing legitimate research over pseudoscience so our species can make it through another decade.~~ Well, darn it.

Nimur (talk) 03:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You were dead on, at least up until that last strikeout paragraph when I kind of lost the point. But our article doesn't even cover all of it -- for example, HIV first showed up in the Belgian Congo during the worst of the atrocities. The usual media explanation is bush meat with a connotation of sex with a monkey, but when desperate quota seekers were cutting up rubber vines and anything potentially edible and getting their hands cut off for failing to meet the quota with those same blades, a more direct route would seem more likely to me. That curse was not lightly cast! Wnt (talk) 12:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It just appears odd. Remove "rapid evolution" and it reads fine. Then simply compare "death" with "rapid evolution death" as a type of death, it makes more sense. Keeping "rapid evolution" together is what's intended, not "evolution death." --DHeyward (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the author did mean to write evolution to death, as this is idiomatic, if not usual. A situation can evolve quickly to the point of no return, for example. Again, I think it's a combination of jargon with an accidental omission of to/toward. There's certainly no phenomenon here "evolution death" lurking in the literature, just this hapax legomenon. μηδείς (talk) 05:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Congolese doctor who first described the condition, as quoted above, would probably have done so in French - and "évolution rapide jusqu'à la mort" sounds much more felicitous than the above used English translation. "Evolution" is commonly used in French to describe the progressive development of a disease. Wymspen (talk) 12:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and jusqu'à means "toward, up to" here. The problem with the English is the ungrammaticl "evolution death" standing for the proper prepositional "evolution/progession to/toward/until/up to death". μηδείς (talk) 03:54, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feynman Lectures. Exercises. Exercise 15-1 JPG

. .

...
15-1. Solve the Lorentz transformation for x,y,z,t in terms of x' , y' , z' , t'.

— R. B. Leighton , Feynman Lectures on Physics. Exercises

I have solved the exercise:
${\begin{aligned}x&={\frac {x'+ut'}{\sqrt {1-u^{2}/c^{2}}}},\\y&=y',\\[2ex]z&=z',\\t&={\frac {t'+ux'/c^{2}}{\sqrt {1-u^{2}/c^{2}}}},\end{aligned}}$
According to the chapter 15-5 I understand that as Joe sees that Moe (moving with u = 0.866c) lays the 1 meter stick down e.g. 8 times. Joe sees this stick with printed "1 meter" mark as 0.5m - stick. So Joe lays his 1 meter stick 4 times. Now a question is how many times does Moe lay his stick in his reference frame and how many does Joe in his system?
Username160611000000 (talk) 10:08, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The total number of times an observer lays his meter stick down is an invariant across reference frames. If one thinks of the observer doing something where a discrete number of separated "events" (e.g. laying down a meter stick) happen, then one could imagine a spacetime diagram where each "event" along that observer's world line is marked by a point. The number of events along a timelike observer's world line would be a constant -- they would also stay separated -- in whatever Lorentz frame is chosen.

However, there is some confusion evident in your post. Let's assume that Joe and Moe are both using a meter stick to measure the length of some object. If one of the observers is moving at .866c relative to the other, then the object is not at rest with respect to both of them. If it is stationary for one, then it is moving at .866c for the other and vice-versa; otherwise, it is not at rest relative to either.

But your post seems to be getting at something a little different from what Feynman was talking about -- he is talking about a meter stick in a more abstract sense, while you are talking about a stick you carry around and place down repeatedly to make a measurement. In this case, Moe were to use his 1 meter stick to measure the object to be 8 meters long, and put a mark on the object simultaneously (in his reference frame) each time he laid his meter stick as if to put "meter marks" on the object, then if Joe arrived at the object later, he would see the same number of marks on the object, but if his velocity relative to the object is different than that of Moe's, in general he would see the marks spaced at a different distance than one meter (this is always true if we restrict Joe and Moe to move along the same axis -- there are caveats when Joe and Moe are both moving at some "angle" relative to one another -- so let's just focus on the case of one-dimensional movement). So, if Joe's velocity relative to the object is less than that of Moe's, the meter marks will be spaced at less than one meter. If Joe's velocity relative to the object is greater than that of Moe's, the meter marks will be spaced at more than one meter. In any case, the number of times Joe lays down his meter stick while making his measurement doesn't depend on the Moe's prior measurement. 72.221.67.126 (talk) 04:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@72.221.67.126:However, there is some confusion evident in your post. Let's assume that Joe and Moe are both using a meter stick to measure the length of some object. If one of the observers is moving at .866c relative to the other, then the object is not at rest with respect to both of them. If it is stationary for one, then it is moving at .866c for the other and vice-versa; otherwise, it is not at rest relative to either.

This changes nothing. Suppose the point P on Fig. 15–1 has a speed = 0 in system (x,y,z,t) and has a speed = -u in system (x',y',z',t'). Then the distance from origin of x'-coordinates to point P contracts 2 times. So if Joe lays down his 1m-stick 4 times , Moe sees this distance as 2 meters and lays down his stick 2 times. But Joe sees that Moe's stick is 50 cm long and x' > x or in other words that Moe lays down his stick more than 4 times. We again come to the paradox.Username160611000000 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Different causes of death

There are many different causes of death whether from illness or accidents etc but isn’t the cause of all deaths, ultimately cardiac arrest? Since the heart is required to stop before death happens. 90.192.100.85 (talk) 15:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say death = brain death. The heart could keep on pumping blood after it, but who would believe someone in this situation is alive?. --Hofhof (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Death is a complicated issue and our opinions of what defines the onset of death have changed over time. For example, in defining when death legally occurs (legal death), the Uniform Determination of Death Act in the US recognizes that a person may die when either there is "irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions" (cardiopulmonary death) or "irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain" (brain death). In most situations both occur at nearly the same time, though in the context of unusual injuries and aggressive medical interventions, it is possible to have only one or the other system fail (at least for a while). Dragons flight (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are conflating a "cause" with "observable." Cardiac arrest is an observable condition that can be caused by a number of diseases. The underlying disease that is behind cardiac arrest is the disease that causes death. --DHeyward (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sequence leading to death commonly ends in cardiac arrest, but the underlying causes and contributory causes are different. There's an interesting discussion of this in the guidance to doctors on completing death certificates by the (UK) General Medical Council: see Section 5.1:Sequence leading to death, underlying cause and contributory causes . Klbrain (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion is between a mechanism of death (cardiac arrest) vs. a cause (e.g. myocardial infarction). All too often a mechanism appears on a death certificate where the cause of death should be; this is either through ignorance or laziness. - Nunh-huh 00:52, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How does a cold environment affect human health

How does low-ish temperatures directly affect our health? Besides from behavioural based changes (like spending more time in a closed space with more people breathing the same air) can spending time in a room below our comfort zone (of maybe 26 C) affect our health? If the human gets enough calories to produce body heat, would it be a problem to live in a 20 C or 15 C room? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.4.156.1 (talk) 15:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Our ancestors did it. I recall seeing scientific papers from the early 1900s, where several authors treated 15 C as room temperature for biological or chemical purposes. Wnt (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant articles: Room temperature and Thermal comfort. --Hofhof (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We have lots of countries with cool climate in the top of the List of countries by life expectancy. Among them even Iceland at #6, with an average of −10 °C in the winter and 10–13 °C in the summer. To a healthy, fed human cold does no damage but freezing temperatures can. --Kharon (talk) 09:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, people in Iceland do not spend more time in a cold space than people in other countries. Why would they? They even have heated streets. For evidence about people being exposed chronically to cold temperatures I'd choose a poorer country, where people simply can't afford to heat their home around the clock. That would probably unfortunately be paired with not getting enough calories, which would contradict the OP's scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofhof (talk • contribs) 12:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all to live in such a room. I just had a look at the temperature and it is 16°C and I'm perfectly happy here sitting in my shirtsleeves. Dmcq (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For a long time England was notorious for chilly and drafty houses, even among the wealthy. It probably has something to do with a climate that is often chilly and wet, but rarely below freezing. Looie496 (talk) 12:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning "health" and temperature above makes me think that it may be of interest to know that the hospital I used to work at kept the temperature throughout the hospital at 60F/15C. The one I work in now keeps the temperature at 63F/17C. Lower temperatures and very low humidity help keep the hospital sanitary. I personally don't think that the lifespan of any bacteria is greatly affected by a chill in the air, but whomever sets the regulations certainly thinks so. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 13:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lower heating bills for the hospital. - Nunh-huh 07:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Makes perfectly sense. Bacteria reproduce faster within a range of temperatures. 15 is probably too cold for some bacteria. --Hofhof (talk) 13:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, living at sub-optimal temperatures can negatively affect human health. We have some information at fuel poverty. You don't need to look at poorer countries: Fuel poverty in the United Kingdom is widely understood as a cause of death among old people ("The UK has an appalling record on cold-related deaths, with one older person dying every seven minutes from the winter cold. Colder countries like Sweden are better at protecting older people from the cold,” says Caroline Abrahams, charity director at Age UK. [6]) but it is increasingly seen as a factor in the deaths of certain poor people below retirement age ("Mum-of-four died alone in freezing home 'wrapped in coat and scarf after her benefits were stopped'. Elaine Morrall, who suffered from an eating disorder and mental health problems, was discovered dead at her home in Runcorn, Cheshire, earlier this month" [7]). NB we are talking about deaths at home, not of people caught outside in a snowstorm. The notoriously poor energy efficiency in British housing has a part to play, but a larger factor is the expense of the fuel compared to a household's income: in other words, poverty. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

PS Here's a pdf briefing from Public Health England:

Fuel poverty, cold homes and health inequalities: Cold homes are associated with a range of poor health outcomes. Cold can increase the risk of respiratory problems, such as asthma and bronchitis;9,10 circulatory problems, such as CVD and stroke;11,12 and exacerbate existing health conditions, including asthma, diabetes and recovery following hospital discharge.13,14 Home temperatures also have implications for mental health: cold is linked with increased risk of conditions such as depression and anxiety.15 [8]

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These are some very good answers, better than I was thinking of. But I still do wonder if cold from poverty is different than cold from social expectation. I'm thinking the early 1900s had a whole science of staying warm and comfortable in cold temperatures - galoshes, raincoats, scarves, many different kinds of hat, long underwear, dickies, sealskin, four-poster beds with canopies and I'm sure I'm just scratching the surface. When most people can afford heat, the ones who can't are left without the old technologies to fall back on, or even knowledge that they exist let alone how to use them. Wnt (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At least we have the Beanie to keep the head warm these days. Note: this is the universal name in several countries, including NZ. Akld guy (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are mammals, not cold blooded reptiles. We burn ten times more energy than we need to just survive given the available food resources. This allows us to thrive in cold conditions, we burn the required amount of energy to keep fat cells filled to a certain level given the food we eat. So, someone in energy equilibrium at 20 C would still be in energy equilibrium at 22 C or 18 C, simply because the body regulates its metabolic rate to match energy expenditure to energy intake. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 18

circuit breaker

I was looking at my fuse panel[9] but couldn't figure what the rating of each circuit breaker is. I see the voltage but can't seem to find the amperage. Am I blind or is the amperage not written anywhere on the circuit breaker? Mũeller (talk) 03:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Google is your friend here; just start throwing text from the label into the search bar.) They appear to be Merlin Gerin miniature circuit breakers. The model/type number is C45N, and the amperage is 10 amps (leftmost, 'C10' designation) or 16 amps (the others, 'C16'). The 'C' refers to the type of overload that will trip the breaker and indicates that it is designed for conventional, general-purpose loads. See here, describing some related products. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What type and where is the service? --DHeyward (talk) 09:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything immediately above the abbreviation AMP that's repeated above each breaker? --69.159.60.147 (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How fast could a specialized company produce generic drugs on demand?

I recently read an article that some drugs are mighty expensive in the US even though the patents have expired years ago because there is only one manufacturer for making drugs for such rare deseases. So I was wondering, in these days of crowdsourcing and on-demand, how hard it would be to manufacture drugs on demand. Say you are a pharmaceutical company and have a state-of-the-art factory and laboratory. I call you one day because I need albendazole to treat a hookworm infection. How fast could you create some pills for me to treat the infection if all you had was access to the patent? (PS: If someone starts a crowdfounding pharmaceutical company that produces pills on demand after reading this question, they agree to pay me 1% of their earnings and give me credit for the idea ). Regards So Why 13:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., or any other country with regulation of pharmaceuticals, a while, because before you are able to legally sell the drug you need regulatory approval. In the U.S., for a generic drug this involves submitting an Abbreviated New Drug Application. Note (as stated in the article) this involves conducting a clinical trial to establish that your drug is equivalent to the original. While we're on the U.S., it's illegal to import medications into the U.S. unless you have FDA approval to sell the medication, so your hypothetical company can't legally just import albendazole from a foreign manufacturer and sell it in the U.S.; you would still need to submit the ANDA. Here's a PBS story discussing this. (Although it's technically illegal for individuals in the U.S. to import medications for their own use, the government looks the other way as long as you have a prescription, if it's a prescription drug, and it's a reasonable quantity for personal use, which is why there are a bunch of Canadian pharmacies making online sales to U.S. residents.) The price issue in the U.S. is because the U.S. doesn't have price control mechanisms for medications, unlike most developed countries. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 20:03, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does the Canadian government subsidize those cheap drugs? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:18, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In a very broad sense, pharmaceutical drugs are less expensive in Canada compared to the US not because of government subsidies, but rather because of government price controls. Gnome de plume (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Price controls typically lead to shortages, especially if foreigners are buying them. How do they get around that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:50, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

^{[citation needed]} In Australia the price of prescription drugs is regulated and prices have been falling since I've need them. i get my blood pressure meds for about $15 now, they were $32 12 years ago. Greglocock (talk) 04:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Citation? It's called Econ 101. See [[Supply and demand]. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once all the R&D is done, the marginal cost of producing a given drug is very low, and below any reasonably-regulated price (and hence the elasticity of the supply is almost zero). Hence already-developed drugs will not be in shortage by that process; the R&D is a sunk cost at the moment the manufacturer must decide to produce or not. (However, drug companies may decide not to develop new drugs, anticipating a regulated price below the breakeven cost.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S. I don't pay more than $5 for 30 days supply of generics ramipril or carvidolol from Walgreens. Prices have also come down. My cost is significantly less than the copay ($10) indicating the medication is very inexpensive. The problem with price controls is that for medications that are regulated outside of demand, there will be no incentive to make. No company is going to make a drug that costs more to make than the price controlled selling point. The only way to overcome it is with subsidies but that destroys the logic of price controls in the first place. --DHeyward (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies. I'm aware of the regulatory hurdles but my question was more of a theoretical one. Assuming those regulations did not exist or getting certification was a matter of minutes (just checking whether your manufactured drug contains the same active ingredients or something like that), how quickly could you actually produce those pills? Regards So Why 08:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As fast as your machine could make them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bounded enough question. The sophistication of the required process will vary greatly between medications. Tooling up for a specific medication so that you have the capability of making a single unit can be time consuming and expensive. Single unit capability is least amount of material and equipment needed. Pharma companies are very aware of the barrier to entry cost and plan pricing accordingly. When there is only a single "high priced" source for a rare, patent-expired medication, it's pretty much guaranteed that it's priced at a point that prevents other companies from getting into the market. If that were not the case, drug makers around the world would try to capitalize on it. After you have the capability to make at least one unit, follow on orders might be faster. Illegal pill mills for MDMA and illicitly manufactured fentanyl have everything including pill presses that replicate the pharmaceutical markings. The replica pills are good enough the law enforcement now sends medications to be tested rather than rely on markings and people are dying from a fentanyl analogue overdose when they think they are taking oxycodone. Those illicit labs seem to be able to ramp up quickly after they get the recipe down and precursor chems are available. If the precursor is something like unicorn tears, it's obviously a much more difficult, time consuming and expensive problem. --DHeyward (talk) 09:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain drugs used by National Health are assessed by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). The drugs are sold at a standard price on prescriptions but the actual cost to the National Health can vary - it can even be cheaper. If a drug is very expensive or not too useful then NICE may simply say it is not overall worthwhile and any use has to be by private medicine. In other cases it will encourage the use of generic drugs by doctors to cut prices. They're quite keen to get medicines cheaper by any means as saying they won't supply a drug because of cost can lead to bad publicity. Dmcq (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Project lifecycle

Why does the Network Rail Governance for Rail Investment Projects (GRIP) have more stages in the earlier parts of the project lifecycle, compared to other similar frameworks such as RIBA or OGc? 82.132.228.171 (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you seen that info? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is the same London-area user who posted the construction safety question above, they asked about RIBA under the other IP back in April. It doesn't seem they are interested in followups or asking clearly answerable questions. μηδείς (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 19

Jumbo jet

Dear Wikipedia. Can a Jumbo jet fly upside down? If so, has this ever been done? Please answer accurately as there is £50 riding on this. And if at all possible by 11.00 pm (which is when the pub closes). Thank you. 86.187.163.251 (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if Tex Johnston is flying the plane. Count Iblis (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can a Jumbo Jet fly upside down? No. Dolphin (t) 21:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both Federal Express Flight 705 and United Airlines Flight 93 flew upside down for short periods as violent struggles for control occurred in their cockpits; ~~they were smaller aircraft, not wide-body aircraft, but I see no reason that the larger aircraft couldn't do the same~~. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back — FEF 705 used a DC-10, which is a jumbo jet. So yes, one hijacker proved that it is possible to fly a jumbo jet upside down, and seeing that he and the crew all survived and landed under control (despite his best efforts), it is proven that it is possible for a jumbo jet to do this without breaking up under stress. Nyttend backup (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Don't think a Jumbo (or other passenger aircraft) has flop-tubes in the tanks to continuing feeding fuel to the engines when flying inverted. Aerodynamically though, sure, even a ham-fisted pilot should be able to keep the kite in control -until it hits the ground. So yes, a Jumbo will fly inverted but without power. Aspro (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2017 (UTC) 21:27, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking more of a large loop or barrel roll which will keep positive g. Greglocock (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To do a barrel roll, press Z or R twice! --47.157.122.192 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Well maybe a bit...

"Goodrich, a 32-year pilot - first with the Air Force, then with Delta Air Lines -- trained pilots to fly MD-88s, which the movie's (Flight (2012 film)) plane most resembles. During production, Goodrich said he reminded Zemeckis and Washington that "you can turn an airplane like this over, but it's not going to fly like this very long. It's gonna go down." "He looked at me and he said, 'Can it fly upside down for a little bit?' I said, 'Yeah a little bit, but eventually you're gonna lose lift in the wings and you won't have the power to keep the airplane up.'". Can airliners really fly upside down? by Thom Patterson, CNN (January 2013) Alansplodge (talk) 21:34, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually any plane can fly "upside down" if it can maintain positive G forces and a non-stalling Angle of attack. "Upside down" can still satisfy those requirements. Jumbo jets can do barrel rolls. What they are not good at is recovering from an aerodynamic stall/spin. Acrobatic and military fighter aircraft recover quite well. In addition, the positive G requirement is needed for proper fuel and oil flow.

Recap:' So which way is this £50 bet going to go ? Think it is agreed that even a Jumbo is controllable whilst inverted. Yet, like any other aircraft that is not designed to be fully aerobatic it wont fly like that for very long. There is only 55 minutes left before the UK pub closes at 11' O'clock, so time is of the essence P.S. Contrary to popular belief, even a pig will fly if provided with enough momentum, from being placed in say a Trebuchet. But I must admit, that they have a little bit of trouble taking off unassisted. Aspro (talk) 22:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some "pigs" can actually take off unassisted, though. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Along those lines, I recall there's a saying among aerospace engineers that "even a brick will fly given sufficient thrust". The Space Shuttle was sometimes called a "flying brick" in its glider mode (re-entry to landing), because it arguably "fell with style" more than it "flew". Shuttle pilots trained to "fly" it in an aircraft with the landing gear down and the engines in reverse, to match the Shuttle's "flight" characteristics. Here's a video on this. Anyway, there isn't really a "right" answer here. Human language is full of ambiguity; you could argue endlessly over the definition of "fly". For "real" disputes along these lines, we rely on a justice system to resolve them. This is why legalese is so stilted: to try to minimize ambiguity. --47.157.122.192 (talk) 05:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 20

Cognitive task where children were much better than adults

I'm trying to find/remember an scientific article about a task/game were small children outperformed adults by far. It was not learning languages. I think it was something like playing Concentration (game)--Hofhof (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not it, but there was an episode of Brain Games (National Geographic) in which subjects were asked to do something concerning a board that showed pictures of animals along with their names - the wrong names, I think. That factor messed with the adults' heads. But it didn't bother one subject: a very young girl who hadn't learned how to read yet! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That anecdote is a twist on the Stroop effect. (A common variant is a list of names of colors where each item is printed in the 'wrong' color, e.g. Green Red Blue. The task is to say the color of each word ("red", "green", "orange") and not just read the list.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a much cooler experiment with people that have had their cranial hemispheres bisected along the sagittal plane to treat seizures. Instructions: Say the word and write the word. They have no idea that they wrote something different from what they said. BTW, there's lots of cognitive tests that develop and slow adults down. One has to do with why children often write letters and numbers backward. Adults catch these errors very quickly while children are still applying basic recognition. A "chair" is still a "chair" regardless as to whether the seat is on left of the back or the right. The letter "h" is only an "h" if the seat is on the right. That's a big step in cognition. I have a feeling that in elderly people, it progresses to knowing it's incorrect but unable to identify what is incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you thinking of a practical & imaginative task/game? Nathan Furr in Forbes describes the Marshmallow Challenge:

"Why Kindergartners Make Better Entrepreneurs than MBAs - As it turns out Tom Wujec has run this same marshmallow experiment hundreds of times and found something interesting patterns. When comparing the performance of different groups, Wujec found that, for all their training, MBAs actually perform the worst on average in building marshmallow towers. Engineers perform moderately well (thank goodness), but which group performs the best? Kindergartners! But why? The reason is quite simple: MBAs want to plan their way to an optimal outcome and then execute on the plan. <snip> In contrast, kindergartners do something much different. Instead of wasting time trying to establish who is in charge or make a plan, they simply experiment over and over until they find a model that works."[10]

Carbon Caryatid (talk) 15:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Children are better at instantly recalling numbers displayed on a screen for a fraction of a second than adults. And Chimpanzees are even better at such instant recall tests. Count Iblis (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The claim has indeed been made for the Concentration game [11], but this has more recently been questioned [12]. Jmchutchinson (talk) 19:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Crop rotation

Where do sunflowers fit in in terms of crop rotation? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 09:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many other factors for a simple answer - where are you growing them, what else is being grown as well, what technologies and agrichemicals are available. Wymspen (talk) 10:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, suppose you are following a variant of the Norfolk four-course system (cereal crop, root crop, cereal crop, legume crop), in a temperate climate (say, Oregon), with mechanized tillage and harvesting, and using chemical fertilizers, but with minimal herbicide use. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:64DA (talk) 11:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you Google "sunflowers crop rotation" (without quote marks), there are a lot of references including SUNFLOWER: A Native Oilseed with Growing Markets from Iowa State University. Alansplodge (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for any reliable sources regarding "brainwashed" experiment

I am trying to construct a reliable article (in Hebrew Wikipedia) regarding this rather shocking experiment. I couldn't find any. Google Scholar yielded nothing while looking for it, or finding relevant results regarding Dr. Mark Stokes or Dr. Synthia Meyersburg, the leading scientists behind the experiment. I recall that in the past there was an article here, but it seems it got deleted. Any input is welcome! אילן שמעוני (talk) 11:49, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those individuals don't have articles here either. On Google, I see a lot of Mark Stokeses, and a number of Cynthia Meyersburgs, but no Synthia Meyersburg. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's exactly my results so far. אילן שמעוני (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Truth: Massacre at Cinema 16 in Aurora Colorado (p. 96) by Steve Unruh (2014), Strategic Book Publishing & Rights Agency, LLC. ISBN 978-1628570830: "Entitled Brainwashed, the experiment was overseen by Harvard Univeristy's Dr. Cynthia Meyersburg and Oxford University's Dr. Mark Stokes, and certified hypnotherapist Tom Silver and how suggestible they were". Alansplodge (talk) 14:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also a mention on the Coastal Carolina University website: CCU science professor featured on Discovery Channel program (October 26, 2012). It seems to have been an experiment staged for a TV program rather than pure academic research: Discovery Channel’s Curiosity episode “Brainwashed” disappoints. Alansplodge (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it was an experiment conducted by amateurs supposedly under professionals supervision. While not a scientific experiment per se, exposed to peer reviews, the fact that two scientists did took charge calls for attention. אילן שמעוני (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like pseudo-science. They might just as well have run The Naked Gun movie, where Reggie Jackson is hypnotically "programmed" to kill the queen. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless two researchers with academic recognition (both of them, especially Stokes, have reputable, peer-reviewed and cited scientific articles)were willing to put their good reputation to risk, which is not likely, this can not be neither a hoax nor pseudo-science. I am looking for evidence weather it was a BAD science. Weather the methodology was rigorous and thorough enough, and to understand why no response came from any academic body. It would seem that such claim requires follow-up controlled experiments. There is some research articles with the claim that such claim is feasible, like THEODORE XENOPHON BARBER: Antisocial and Criminal Acts Induced by "Hypnosis", A Review of Experimental and Clinical Findings, 1961. אילן שמעוני (talk) 16:14, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look on Germany regarding electric cars and Diesel emissions. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 17:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The crucial difference is that in the diesel pollution fraud at stake were entire careers (i.e. the fraudulent researchers were employed by the fraudulent companies), while here we deal with an isolated project. It is highly unlikely that Stokes and Meyersburg would put at risk their entire career for a single one-time reward. Furthermore, since both do have an ongoing career as scientists, such evidence for a pure-and-straight fraud is bound to be either non-existent or extremely hard to prove. Hard core sciences such as neuroscience are unforgiving fields. I urge the skeptics here to try to look further into the matter. Skepticism is indeed sacred, but here it is pointed at an obviously unlikely candidates. There are many questions that are open regarding this, especially the result feasibility and the ensuing lack of academic response - neither condemning nor adopting the outstanding results. אילן שמעוני (talk) 18:42, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmaceutical trademarks/patents?

Are there any drugs that are in the public domain? For example, can only Tylenol, make Tylenol, only Benadryl, make Benadryl? Aren't some common medicine like aspirin, the ingredients are public, so any pharmaceutical company can make their version of it? They just can't give it a new name.

I'm also asking about how we draw the line for trademarks/patents. For example, take 3% hydrogen peroxide, which is 97% water. That can't be patented or given a trademark name, right? The 1st company that made it. And any chemical or pharmaceutical company can manufacture and sell it, right? Then what if you came up with something that was also 1% this and .5% that. I know there are various types of bleaches that are roughly 8-10% NaOCl and 1% NaOH, but with different patents, like Chlorox. Thanks. 12.130.157.65 (talk) 19:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]

The majority of drugs are in the public domain. Tylenol and Benadryl are simply trademarks for particular formulations of acetaminophen (a.k.a. paracetamol, APAP) and diphenhydramine, repectively. APAP and diphenhydramine are in hundreds of different formulations, often combined with other drugs. So in the very literal sense, yes, no one else can make something called "Tylenol" or "Benadryl" without permission from the holders of those trademarks. But, anyone can market their own APAP or diphenhydramine under a different name, and many do. These are generic drugs. At least in the U.S. it's standard in most stores that sell over-the-counter drugs to see the store's own generic brand of a medication on the shelf next to the brand-name version(s). "Aspirin" is actually an odd case because it was originally a trademark of Bayer, and in some countries it still is. However, in most of the English-speaking world, Bayer lost its trademark, and since the trademark was well-known, most English-speakers just kept using it as the name of the drug. As the article states, the International Nonproprietary Name for "aspirin" is acetylsalicylic acid, but you won't see this in English outside of the medical literature, where having a standard, neutral, "official" name for a drug is important so everyone's "on the same page". --47.157.122.192 (talk) 19:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is one of the countries where Aspirin is still a trademark, but the long phrase "acetylsalicylic acid" is confined to the fine print. What the large lettering on brands other than Bayer says is "ASA". For example, these. --69.159.60.147 (talk) 21:08, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, read our article on trademarks and patents. If you're interested in the rules that apply to the United States, have a look at:

General Information Concerning Patents
- What is a Patent? What Is a Trademark?

Trademarks and patents are not the same thing.

To help explain the difference: Tylenol is a brand-name of the drug acetaminophen. In the United States, Tylenol is only sold by Johnson & Johnson. Other companies may sell the drug acetaminophen but they must call it by a different name. Specific rules apply to the way that the drug can be labeled.

A confounding detail that makes the scenario less clear is the case of a generic trademark: in that case, a brand-name may exist for so long, and become so widely-known as an interchangeable word for the product, that the Government no longer authorizes protection of the exclusivity of that name.

Further, the OP has asked, "...That can't be patented or given a trademark name, right?"

...well, here's some bad news for you: you need a lawyer to get a correct answer to that. Patent law is extraordinarily complicated. You can apply to patent anything you like; the patent office will decide if your patent meets their requirements, (e.g. is it even eligible? ...is it obvious? ...is it equivalent to prior work?) - and they may even grant you a patent for it - even if somebody else has already patented it; but the strength of the protection that it offers depends entirely on how well you know how to use existing legal infrastructure. Granted patents can be invalidated, overturned, bought, sold, negotiated; they may expire; they may be useful or useless; they may provide legal protection for something you can't actually do (reasons of technical difficulty, legality, commercial interest, or any other reasons)... this is why people pay thousands of dollars to specialized attorneys to get real legal advice, because free advice about patents is worth very little.

Let's put it in laymans' terms: you can't patent a drug: you patent a "process, machine, article of manufacture, or composition of matter," or an "ornamental design," or a "variety of plant." And you can't trademark a drug: you trademark a "word, name, symbol, or device," (in the sense of an "emblem").

So - if your new and useful mixture of bleach constituted a "new and useful composition of matter," you could patent that; or you could patent a "new and useful" process for making it; and you could trademark the graphical and verbal means that you use to distinguish your mixture of bleach during actual trade. All of these items are totally orthogonal to the other legal questions about whether you could make, market, and sell it as a food or drug - which is typically subject to the regulatory oversight of the FDA, explained on their website: What We Do. FDA, and many other regulators, will probably have authority to regulate what you make and market.

Nimur (talk) 20:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recycling cardboard that has stickers on it

I read this article on Earth911's website, and while I already knew about the grease and food issue, and about the kind of gummy glue that is used in some junk mail, I'm curious about the glue issue for coupons on pizza boxes. I work for Pizza Hut, and the coupons we put on top of the boxes have the same kind of glue that is used on shipping labels and similar stickers, not that gummy glue that I already knew is bad for the recycling process. Are they saying that the sticker glue ruins batches of paper too, or are they talking about other pizza chains (or mom & pop restaurants) using the gummy type of glue? If that's the case, how do they recycle any cardboard when almost all of it has some form of glue, stickers, or tape on it? 76.3.174.28 (talk) 20:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do plants deal with dust coating their leaves?

I came across this old account of a "coughing" plant, which I suspect is nothing but a tall tale, but it got me wondering: plants in deserts must sometimes get coated in windblown dust which could impede respiration and photosynthesis by getting on the leaves. How do they cope with this? Can any plants actually expel dust like the "coughing" plant? 23:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.228.153.91 (talk)

For leafy plants, at least, as far as I know the carbon dioxide intake occurs on the under side of the leaves. (Photosynthesis) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the American Botanist thought little of this story at the time, calling it a "myth". [13] They would perhaps have been more persuasive if they did not provide the sensitivity of Mimosa as the other example of a plant myth in that article.

The original link claims that this "Eutada tussiens" is in fact an Entada species, mentioning Entada scandens while evading any implication that is the plant intended. The story is that the plant is from humid tropical climes, though it ends up being described as coughing in the Sahara. I am reminded of jumping beans, of which the more famous is the Mexican jumping bean, but perhaps Spirostachys africana, being at least African, is more relevant. Jumping beans jump because moth larvae try to move them away from heat, and it seems conceivable this could be observed as "coughing" and thought to be due to the dust rather than the heat. Wnt (talk) 03:13, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the interesting reply. The American Botanist article also includes something about an orchid that extends a tube to suck up water, about which I can't find anything. Seems like these fantastical tales were inspired, at least partially, by the real mimosa which that article dismisses. 169.228.153.91 (talk) 03:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December 21

Oddities of "entombed" toads

From William R. Corliss's Anomalies in Geology, on the phenomenon of entombed animals:

After reading through our collection of a hundred or so accounts of toads-in-holes, it becomes apparent that even though these tales were collected over a period of two centuries and come from several continents, there are several common elements—elements so unique or bizarre that one doubts that they were invented separately so many times. Some of these features are:

Disinterred toads usually expire in only a few hours or days.

Mouths are often nonexistent or sealed shut by a membrane.

Exhumed toads frequently occupied a cavity roughly scuplted [sic] to their shape and size.

Many reports remark on the "bright eyes of the toads.

Freshly disinterred toads sometimes appear transparent.

Aside from the plausibility of the "entombed animal" story, are there any species of toads which are transparent, which would appear to have no mouth, or which develop some sort of membrane over their mouths during hibernation? (I would guess that the latter happens as a way of preserving moisture while hibernating, but I can't find any info on such mouth membranes.) 169.228.153.91 (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Effects of water in the body on sleep

I claim that drinking quite the amount of water right before bed would make me sleep not as deeply as otherwise, thus I would not dream as readily, not solely because of the increased urge to urinate, but just from water flowing around in the body would serve as alleviation factor for sleep. Anyone else claims that? Planet Star 04:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might be interested in what the National Sleep Foundation has to say about the subject:

"The Connection Between Hydration and Sleep". sleepfoundation.org.

—2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312 (talk) 07:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 445: / Line 445: @@
 I claim that drinking quite the amount of water right before bed would make me sleep not as deeply as otherwise, thus I would not dream as readily, not solely because of the increased urge to urinate, but just from water flowing around in the body would serve as alleviation factor for sleep. Anyone else claims that? [[User:PlanetStar|<span style="color: blue;">Planet</span>]][[User talk:PlanetStar|<span style="color: yellow;">Star</span>]] 04:57, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
+:You might be interested in what the [[National Sleep Foundation]] has to say about the subject:
+:*{{cite web|title=The Connection Between Hydration and Sleep|url=https://sleepfoundation.org/sleep-topics/the-connection-between-hydration-and-sleep|website=sleepfoundation.org}}
+:—[[Special:Contributions/2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312|2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312]] ([[User talk:2606:A000:4C0C:E200:B8D8:3FE9:323E:5312|talk]]) 07:54, 21 December 2017 (UTC)