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

July 31

Lobster behavior

I've noticed that lobsters in tanks mostly seem to climb on top of each other in one corner, with the exception of maybe one or two loners. I don't think of lobsters as social animals, so just what are they doing ? Trying to escape ? StuRat (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This [1] would probably be the best source of info I found, these: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6] also provide some info, mostly of the same sort. It appears that lobsters are solitary, except for mating periods, when in nature, but do establish a social hierarchy when confined together. As for what exactly the ones in tanks are doing, I didn't locate a direct answer. --These ,[7] and [8], may also be of interest, though more tangential - sadly, they also fail to answer your specific question. If I can find anything more directly relevant, I'll share it.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 05:14, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Personal Speculation Alert: As a former freelance whelk-gatherer (no, really!) I used to visit a local seafood wholesaler to sell my harvest, where freshly caught lobsters were kept in large though shallow concrete pens of constantly renewed fresh seawater. In these, presumably fairly benign, conditions they appeared to space themselves out to the extent possible. I suggest that in the smaller tanks (in restaurants?) you've seen, the conditions (temperature, salinity, light levels) may be much less pleasant and may vary greatly in different locations in the tank, so the lobsters are seeking the least uncomfortable spot, overriding any aversion to proximity. Maybe there's a PhD research opportunity here for someone. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Or an IgNobel Prize. Dismas|^(talk) 18:29, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Aircraft

Is there a range of airplane classes which rarely fly outside of airways or the "special airspace" around airports?

By class I mean something like jetliner > commuter jet/small jet service to podunk airport > small bizjet > multi-engine propeller > single-engine propeller

The article says airways are 9.2 regular miles wide. With GPS available today, do they fly much closer in reality? (at least if they have a sufficiently bureaucratic employer?) Actually, with today's safety, even the jetliners might stray far with planes being at the same mile marker due to merging, all the slow biz-jet/commuter jet passing, climbing, descending and sharing of airways by numerous airport pairs lying near a straight line. (I've heard they seperate opposite directions by altitude) Do they at least go out of their way to stay in the zone, going to the outer edge of an airway if need be to avoid clipping the inner angle of an intersection?

When do aircraft use great circle routes (possibly wind modified) instead of airways? In uncongested enough airspace I assume? Victor airways says they're not mandatory. Airlines even nix the magazine to save fuel. So is it possible that airlines use great circles to save even a mile of distance? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

See Airway (aviation)#Air corridor. Airways can be deviated from. Airways can't. Rojomoke (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Based on your link, I think you mean Air corridors can't be deviated from. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, I think the joke is in reference to airway, which is our article on the topic as it pertains to breathing / respiratory systems. Nimur (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

No, just me editing while tired. Rojomoke (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

You probably should start with National Airspace System (which applies to the United States). If you're interested in international air traffic, still start by learning about the US airspace systems, and then be prepared to learn about many extra complexities, bureaucracies, and special-cases.

By using "class" in this way, you are misusing technical terminology. Aircraft are categorized and subclassed; pilot ratings are also classed. In addition (just to make sure you study for your written tests!), airmen are also categorized and classed. For example, you can be an "Airplane / Single Engine Land" category/class airman. The aircraft itself will be a "normal" class. Don't get confused! Not only will this question be on the test - if you get the answer wrong, you might be taking the wrong test! These terms are defined in 14 CFR Part 23, which you can browse online. Speaking from experience: there are no good references for this topic. There are plenty of bad references!

Congestion isn't something the pilot can control: in most cases, the pilot is only responsible for separation. Air traffic control exists to help pilots maintain separation, even in conditions that preclude visual contact with other aircraft.

Aircraft do not need to fly in the airways: they need to comply with regulations, and be familiar with the many many rules that apply to different airspaces. Pilots are trained to plan a flight, taking into consideration "all available information" - which means basic geography, regulatory rules, temporary restrictions, airspace types, air traffic, weather, pre-flight briefings, forecasts, posted signs, placards, PIREPs, NOTAMs, ... ... and all available information. The airways exist because they are commonly-useful in flight planning. There is no requirement to operate only on those routes.

Nimur (talk) 21:04, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Do nocturnal humans exist?

Some people are night owls, but I think most of them are not really nocturnal as exposure to daylight early in the morning (when they normally would still be sleeping) would shift their biorithms to become less night owl-like. So, are there people who naturally become sleepy at, say, 10 am in the morning when exposed to daylight from 6 am onwards? Count Iblis (talk) 22:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

See Circadian rhythm. We have mechanisms which continuously recalibrate our rhythm. So, unless you are completely isolated from all zeitgebern, I don't think that it is possible. Especially in your case, since you explicitly state that the subject is exposed to daylight. Plasmic Physics (talk) 22:27, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have no sources, just speaking from personal experience, but I've worked nights for many years (8+), and I am tired everyday around 9-10am, and I feel extremely out of sorts taking a week off and moving back to a normal schedule (it's hard not to since the rest of the world does). I am routinely exposed to sunlight and I sleep in a room that is not pitch black, but has windows through which sunlight comes. Moreover, for most of my life, I've been inclined to sleep during the day and wake at night, even as a child, I had difficulty sleeping at night and was prone to naps in the day. I'm not saying that I am nocturnal, but I do find that early morning conditions make me tired and regularly notice that around dawn, when going out for a cigarette at work, I am prone to yawning and feeling that it is "late" - around noon, if I stay up, I feel quite very much how most people describe staying up till after midnight to feel. Again, I am just one anecdote, but it seemed relevant.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, people with delayed sleep phase disorder exist. Red Act (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup. And non-24-hour sleep–wake disorder, apparently common among blind people, has been the topic of some drug marketing campaign or other in the United States (where we have such things) for the past six months or so. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:55, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

On a related anecdotal note, I have a friend who swears that exposure to bright light makes him sleepy rather than wakeful. I'm not sure if there's a clinical term for that kind of paradoxical reaction, but I'm inclined to believe him based on personal observation. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:59, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Exposure to bright red light in the afternoon can mimic the effect of sunset. μηδείς (talk) 15:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I guess you would expect that there would have to be a small fraction of the populaton who are nocturnal. From an evolutionary point of view, this makes sense as an insurance policy to make a rapid evolution toward nocturnal humans possible. The longer this would take if it were necessary, the greater the chances are that we would go exinct. Count Iblis (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Evolution doesn't take out 'insurance policies'. 03:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

But it does make sense in terms of group evolution for a small fraction of the group to be nocturnal, so that they could stand watch for nocturnal predators, or for a night raid by an enemy tribe... 24.5.122.13 (talk) 04:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Group selection is a controversial topic, and by no means the established consensus amongst evolutionary biologists. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Propellantless thrusters

Please share your opinions on whether this is likely to achieve additional independent confirmation:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20140006052.pdf

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2014-07/31/nasa-validates-impossible-space-drive

98.147.125.124 (talk) 23:59, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

"We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate". AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the poster used a poor choice of words. Nevertheless, we have a related articles already: Magnetoplasmadynamic thruster & Quantum vacuum plasma thruster; so, in the Wikipedia-sense, the answer is "yes".   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

These forces are known for long time but they are near useless because you can not produce enough thrust with such devices in reasonable dimensions. They are highout thinkable as maneuvering thrusters for small satellites but not suited to propulse interplanetary journeys. Space technology is already very highly sophisticated and in addition always open to new concepts, like for example Laser propulsion. So if NASA is checking it out it usually just means its "interresting", not that it is likely usable. --Kharon (talk) 02:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The magnetoplasmadynamic thruster is very real but requires a propellant so it is not relevant to this discussion. The quantum vacuum plasma thruster is the relevant article and since it exist the subject is by wikipedia considered notable, not necessarily possible. To me it seems like the principle should work in theory, but I don't know what forces to expect and the measurements done so far doesn't seem that reliable. Ulflund (talk) 02:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

It is related, if not relevant in regards to the linked articles, e.g.: "...using classical magnetoplasmadynamics to obtain a propulsive momentum transfer via the quantum vacuum virtual plasma..."   71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Do these have specific impulse measured in time (seconds) which we can compare to other thrusters? How about something less esoteric like Newtons per Watt? 104.128.96.117 (talk) 20:05, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Solid technical information about the performance of the device as a thruster might be a bit much to hope for, given that the experimental results barely count as a positive result, if indeed they count as a positive result at all.

NASA devoted all of 40 person-days to performing the experiment. The test device involved was recycled from a little experiment performed in 2006, and almost looks like you could build it from $100 worth of parts from Radio Shack.[9] One of the parts identified in the photo is an "8oz can lid"! The measured "approximately 30-50 micronewtons" of force (quite a large relative range) was only a few times larger than the minimum the measurement device was designed to be able to measure. And the same measurement device also measured a non-zero force on a "null" test object, that was similar to the "real" test object but was modified to be non-functional. Under the circumstances, the measured force sounds like it was well within the range of experimental error. The Wired article makes the outcome of the experiment sound much more exiting than it really is, but then, Wired is far from being a peer-reviewed journal. Red Act (talk) 21:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I will note in passing that David Hambling appears to be Wired's designated bad-physics cheerleader: [10]. He's been on about the EmDrive and related reactionless drive pseudo-technologies for years, and he's been a credulous mouthpiece for Andrea Rossi's cold fusion device almost as long. He's good at gee-whiz wishful-thinking wonder, but short on critical evaluation of the technologies he writes about. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah - I agree. This is most definitely a case of "Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence". A claim to have successfully violated fundamental conservation laws is without doubt "extraordinary" - and an experiment where the results lie so close to the error bars has to be treated with skepticism. Right now, there may be enough evidence to spend some money to do the experiment with better equipment - but there certainly isn't enough to say that anything whatever of value has been discovered. SteveBaker (talk) 05:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 1

Is there a list of unhealthy ingredients, in order from most to least common?

I reckon High-fructose corn syrup will rank up near (or at?) the top.

The reason why is because I would someday like to lobby for an unhealth tax ("fat-tax" or "fatax") in order to turn the tide of the national obesity epidemic. The tax would pay for subsidies on healthier ingredients, to fund and subsidize healthcare, and education, especially courses pertaining to dieting, nutrition and health.

Instead of taxing individual items (example: A 2-liter bottle of Pepsi), it would be easier to tax any ingredient responsible for the obesity epidemic. Besides, there would be less opposition by the makers of the food & drink with the ingredients in them. Reason being is the makers would swap out the now-pricier unhealthy ingredients for the cheaper, healthier counterparts. That's why I ought to know what these ingredients are.

(I'd also lobby for a tax of too much unhealthy substances in proportion to the weight of the package or serving. Example: A brick of Ramen has too much sodium, so I guess too much salt, for the weight of the product. That's why Nissin, Maruchan or other ramen makers ought to substitute the refined salt for something healthier. However, that's besides the point of this submission.)

Now, without further ado, I look forward to seeing a list of common unhealthy ingredients, and how they're unhealthy in the first place. Thanks. --Shultz the Editor (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This depends on one's definition of "unhealthy ingredients". I would put arsenic, mercury and cyanide high on the list; although no longer in vogue as "ingredients". 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC) —Afterthough: I missed your addition of "common" ingredients, -sorry-. Perhaps caffeine? Alcohol? MSG? It can be highly dependent on the individual, for some folks it would be wheat or peanuts. 71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Since this is the science desk, let's remember there's no strong evidence monosodium glutamate is particularly unhealthy, beyond that expected from the sodium level (but it's likely to be a less than from sodium chloride) and the fact that it may sometimes be used to make food that isn't particularly healthy taste good (but as much as it's hated in some circles, it could also be in preparation of a resonably healthy meal depending on personal preference and other things with a strong cultural factor at play).

For that matter, there's no strong evidence high fructose corn syrup is much worse than refined sugar. And before anyone accuses me of being some sort of industry shill, we don't get much HFCS in NZ and frankly I think it's generally a stupid thing primarily arising from silly US subsidies and tariffs. I'm not saying that refined sugar is a good thing or shouldn't be included, simply that if you want to include HFCS, there's no clear reason why it's much more important than refined sugar.

If you disagree with either of these claims, I welcome your edits to our articles to reflect the evidence from the preponderance of reliable source that you are I presume claiming exists.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Almost any ingredient is unhealthy when there is too much of it in a product. And the evil is often just as much in the combination of ingredients as with individual ones. HiLo48 (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you look back to my answer for the "Salt Poisoning" question ([11]), sodium is not as nasty as it is made out to be - or, at least, that it so is not without controversy from decent sources. Moreover, very few things are purely "unhealthy", some things may no be healthy, or, perhaps, healthiest, but that's a different matter. But, moreover, weight gain, in most cases, is a matter of calories - if I eat 5000 calories worth of super clean health food, I will become obese in time; if I eat one big mac a day, I will end up starving to death in time. The problem with refined sugars, sodium, fats, etc. aren't because they, themselves, are extremely harmful, but because we are adding them to foods for taste reasons and people are accounting for calories; but, instead, eating lowgrade food and guiding when to eat off of how satiated they are. It is a complex problem and I don't think that you can reduce it down to "food additives" and "unhealthy ingredients", especially if you are levying some sort of monetary penalty.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The thing I'd like to know about HFCS is why it has such a strong aftertaste and causes me to continue salivating even 15 minutes or more after consuming it, while sugar does not. There has to be something in it that isn't in sugar - I'm thinking of branched starch structures that might not be broken down in its preparation - but definitely I don't feel like it's interchangeable. And yes - not subsidizing unhealthy foods based on their lobbies would be a more obvious "intervention". Wnt (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

While I mostly agree we shouldn't think of most stuff as purely unhealthy, there's also a matter of degrees here. A key point is that certain ingredients like sugar (including HFCS) can be considered problematic because they themselves are likely to be a problem if used in sufficient quantities. And it's not surprising if they will be used in such quantities precisely because they mostly contribute basic nutrients (carbohydrates in the case of sugar/HFCS).

Something like MSG shouldn't be put in to that category because there's limited evidence it's actually much of a problem. Of course if you use too much, it may become a problem, probably because of the sodium but I don't know how likely it is to be used in such quantities since I suspect it will just make things taste bad if used too much. In fact, a lot of the time people are probably adding sodium chloride with their MSG so it's even more questionable to claim it's a problem. (The secondary effects claimed for MSG appear to be very poorly supported.)

Snack food or fried rice or whatever with MSG may not be particularly healthy but the MSG is at best, probably only a minor contribution to what makes it healthy (the high levels of fat, sodium only some of which probably comes from the MSG and lack of much fibre or many micronutrients are what makes it problematic).

By comparison something like fudge or soft drinks, where the refined sugar (or HFCS) is a key part of what makes it unhealthy even if the lack of fibre and micronutrients also contributes and it obviously depends on quantity.

Of course if you eat a healthy diet, even if have a small soft drink or piece of fudge every other day, you'll still have a better diet than someone who eats a cheese burger and fried chicken every day with little vegetables, fruit etc even if the second person doesn't eat fudge or drink soft drinks, but that's somewhat missing my point.

BTW, as for sodium, I agree people have traditionally overestimated how bad it is. However there are clearly people for who it's a problem. And I think there is some decent evidence a very high level that isn't uncommon in certain diets probably does have sufficiently negative health effects with few positive effects that it's fair to say it can be a problem.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Sodium is a very healthy ingredient - without it in your food you will die, horribly. DuncanHill (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure you need any in your food. If you have a water softener, for example, and drink the tap water, then you have salt in your water. And for everyone else, you probably don't need any added salt in your food, as some foods have plenty, like saltwater fish and seafood. It would be rather difficult to suffer from a sodium deficiency in the West these days, and would require quite an effort on your part, unless you have some biological inability to absorb it. StuRat (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

You really should look to sources - saltwater fish do not have higher sodium, nor is fish a generally high sodium food: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18] (varying degrees of quality). You may also notice that sea fish do offer potassium and omega-3 fats, which are good for blood pressure and reduced cardiovascular issues - in other words, sea fish != sodium, but may equal heart healthy. As for adding salt to food, the majority of sodium comes from prepackaged meals, if you cut out low quality prepackaged processed junk and cook for yourself (instead of eating out), you don't have much to worry about. As for low sodium intake, there is controversy, these [19], [20], [21], [22], and [23] demonstrate that low sodium diets can be risky (and, then , there's the other 10, or so, cites from the "Salt Poisoning" question I mentioned/responded to earlier). Of course, I can find cites indicating the opposite, so take with a grain of salt (:-)); but, it is not universal that low sodium is healthier than reasonable sodium intake levels, and could be less healthy. Finally, as mentioned, the major culprit in high sodium/added sodium cases is low quality prepackaged food eaten in excess - indeed, a lot of the issues involving nutrition, actually, are a result of this. --I'm not trying to be a giant jerk, just a topic that I'm passionate about.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed that fish was a high sodium food, only that it contains enough sodium to meet our dietary sodium requirements. In terms of how much sodium Americans consume, this would actually be a considered a low sodium food, while in terms of what we actually need, it's not low at all. StuRat (talk) 15:44, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, you're right, I did misrepresent what you said - not on purpose, I was in a hurry, read it quickly, and responded poorly. I apologize for that - and you make a good point, while sodium is not the boogeyman it is portrayed in many cases, for the normal American it is irrelevant as they are, already, getting more than any safe limit (and can get within a safe lower limit without going out of their way). Again, I apologize, it was entirely my mistake due to a hasty read, over passionate interest, and too many open tabs:-)Phoenixia1177 (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately I think researching exactly this kind of question on the internet will actually come up with far more baloney than fact. With popular blogs like “the food babe” created by scientifically illiterate self-proclaimed diet “experts” who literally have no idea what they are talking about. Proclaiming ingredients are bad or even dangerous based on how “scary” they think the chemical sounds (see Azodicarbonamide). I’m with Nil Einne on this one. Basically, avoid too much of anything. People see to be very quick to blame their health issues on ingredients, "oh, I'm fat because of HFCS", while they drink a gallon of soda a day. Vespine (talk) 04:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I have one for the list, partially hydrogenated vegetable oils. Those added trans fats are completely unnecessary for life, unlike sodium, and I don't think anyone argues that they are healthy. Yet, here in the US, they remain in half the food we buy, because they don't tend to spoil (maybe the bacteria don't recognize them as food, either). Incidentally, I just now picked the croutons out of my salad from Applebee's, because they are full of trans fats. StuRat (talk) 04:46, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Croutons in salad? Their natural environment is soup. DuncanHill (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Croutons are quite common in salad in the US. I always ask for them to skip those, knowing they are likely laced with trans fats, or at least saturated fats and carbs, making my healthy salad into junk food. Unfortunately, Applebee's ignored my request. StuRat (talk) 11:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

According to the overview of the most recent version of the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, the six food components they recommend eating less of are sodium, saturated fats, trans fats, cholesterol, added sugars, and refined grains.[24] In addition, the full guidelines also lists alcohol. For details, see Chapter 3 of the full guidelines, "Foods and Food Components to Reduce".[25] Red Act (talk) 06:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

True, but that guideline of "reducing" is built around the idea that for the average American their intake of those nutrients is too large. Each of those, save transfat and alcohol, are necessary in some quantity - and for sodium, saturated fat, and cholesterol, I've read decent arguments for each as to why they aren't outright bad for you and ought not be demonized. Refined grains are another interesting case, the recommendation to "eat less" is not because they are bad, in themselves, so much as people are not eating any non-refined ones; it's predicated on the assumption that they end up replaced with better sources, for various reasons. The general problem isn't "these are bad", it's "people eat 3 times the calories they need and are doing so from cheap low quality foods - what can we do?". The mentioned things are only bad because of the excess of consumption and general lack of exercise - in various athletic endeavours, each of those substances (save the two I excluded) has a place in the diet and a value; recommending, globally, that people avoid these gives people very bad misinformation about how nutrition works - this is you get people who buy "whole grain" bread, eat a loaf a day with their "organic low sodium low fat" fillings as sandwiches and stay unhealthy; the name of the game is moderation and education, not "avoid these, they're real bad!".Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And, and to Stu above, after a little looking, turns out that not everything called "transfat" is bad either, see: [26], [27], Conjugated linoleic acid, and Vaccenic acid. Of course, this is not to say that the PHVO is good, or required, or that it contains these and should be consumed because of - just that, once again, you can't give blanket statements like "transfats aren't good, avoid".Phoenixia1177 (talk) 07:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The answer would be incomplete without a redirect to Demolition Man, but it is more essential to understand the component of sin in a sin tax. Sin emanates from poverty, and can only be expiated by taxing the poor. Thus, while all men die, even at roughly the same time, a program like this can only succeed if the lower classes are taxed to the point where a single person's food is very nearly unaffordable; and indeed only to the degree that it is unaffordable the penalty of sin is paid. The revenue collected from these per capita taxes can be used, first and foremost, to be certain that the blasphemy of taxation against the rich is avoided, then further to compensate them for the Sun-like social grace they shed upon us all by being rich, for instance, by granting them modest millions for producing public service announcements calling on the poor to turn over their hoarded food. And yet, poverty is so tenacious! that after such healthful bloodletting the poor are even poorer, and poverty as always correlates directly with obesity.^[28] Like the War on Drugs, the loyal fighter must perceive that the battle can be won only through taking the harshest measures to assure a final solution to the problem. Wnt (talk) 07:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Regarding cholesterol, I believe a distinction must be made, with LDL cholesterol and triglycerides (not cholesterol themselves, but related) being bad and HDL cholesterol being good. Unfortunately, current labeling in the US fails to distinguish the good cholesterol from the bad. StuRat (talk) 11:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Food labeling doesn't distinguish because dietary cholesterol has almost no influence on blood cholesterol. See Cholesterol#Physiology. --Carnildo (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Then why require the total amount to be listed ? The US gov seems to think it's important, as they recommend reducing cholesterol intake. Given that, I'd like to concentrate on reducing my intake of bad cholesterol only. StuRat (talk) 13:54, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, on what basis are you disagreeing? See: [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Dietary cholesterol does not appear to have any impact on health risks in otherwise healthy individuals. As with sodium and fat (and carbs), this is another case of picking out a single nutrient and making it a "boogeyman", as opposed to actually educating a populace about nutrition. I'll say it again: there are no simple fixes like "avoid this!", if you want to be healthy: you need to eat in moderation with an awareness towards all nutrient levels, exercise, sleep regularly, manage stress, and avoid addictive damaging substances. Of course, those things are real hard, so we, in America, have a nation of people looking for shortcuts; and the evidence is clear that those shortcuts just don't work.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I already explained my basis for disagreeing, the US government recommendations. They were linked to by a previous responder, but here they are again: [35]. That was in 2010. Has the science showing dietary cholesterol doesn't matter emerged since then ?

Also, your 2nd source says "Although numerous clinical studies have shown that dietary cholesterol challenges may increase plasma LDL cholesterol in certain individuals, who are more sensitive to dietary cholesterol (about one-quarter of the population), HDL cholesterol also rises resulting in the maintenance of the LDL/HDL cholesterol ratio, a key marker of CHD risk." Then, logically, if I am one of those individuals, wouldn't consuming more good cholesterol and less bad cholesterol improve my LDL/HDL ratio ?

And your 4th source says "For much of the past 50 years, a great deal of the scientific literature regarding dietary fat and cholesterol intake has indicated a strong positive correlation with heart disease. In recent years, however, there have been a number of epidemiological studies that did not support a relationship between cholesterol intake and cardiovascular disease." I get suspicious when a well-established science is overturned by new studies. How were these studies funded ? Specifically those advocating eating more eggs had better not have been funded by the American Egg Board: [36]. StuRat (talk) 15:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll look into the ldl/hdl question later (I have a birthday party to attend for a cousin at the moment) - but, I don't think a vague worry over egg council funding, recentness of studies, and a US dietary guideline support a great deal of dispute with anything posted by me; moreover, I'm quite positive I could dig up 10 more papers if I had to (which I don't believe I do). But, while the specific point is "Cholesterol isn't as bad as you've been told", the general point I'm making here is this: "Don't eat low quality preprocessed junk food for every meal, make your own food from decent ingredients, exercise" - that's the root of being healthy, not avoiding sodium/fat/cholesterol/carbs/etc. The latter are all things that you want to be aware of (as are all nutrients), but none of them are poisons, nutrients and nutrition are something we should be using, in an educated manner, to fuel our activities and increased health through exercise; they are not something to be fearful of, nor are they culprits causing us to become unhealthy. How many people do you know who the following sentence applies to, "Oh yes, he works out every day, uses all natural ingredients, get's good rest, isn't stressed, manages an appropriate caloric intake...but he's so out of shape because he eats two eggs a day and uses the salt shaker."? Unless you have an underlying disorder, that's just not going to apply.Phoenixia1177 (talk) 15:47, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

All of your sources regarding eggs being healthy looked rather similar, making me suspect they aren't all truly independent studies. I certainly agree that eating healthy foods and cooking from scratch is the ideal, but that pretty much means never eating at a restaurant, at least around here. People in my family all seem to have sodium sensitive hypertension, so yes, even if we ate food made from scratch using all natural ingredients we'd still feel sick if we poured too much salt in the food we make. I also get acne whenever I consume more than about a gram of trans fats, and never otherwise, so I certainly do think we need to watch for specific ingredients added to our foods. Trans fats in particular can be in foods you'd never suspect. Cold Stone Creamery, for example, adds trans fats to all their ice cream. Now, I don't have any particular immediate symptoms from consuming either HDL or LDL cholesterol, but based on my experience with sodium and trans fats, I'm not willing to just ignore the harmful or helpful effects they could have. StuRat (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, is the birthday cake for the party all made from scratch from organic ingredients ? StuRat (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Another perspective: nothing is inherently unhealthy about any of the ingredients listed above. The dose makes the poison. E.g. as mentioned, zero sodium diets would be eventually lethal, but so will massively high sodium diets. To understand effects of food on health, one must consider the diet as a whole. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree. Partially hydrogenated vegetable oils are inherently unhealthy and completely unnecessary, in any quantity, in the human diet. StuRat (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

As far as a tax on unhealthy ingredients, I see a problem. If there was a tax on salt, wouldn't a bag of road salt be absurdly expensive ? If not taxed, how about a canister of salt for refilling salt shakers ? Seasoned salt ? Celery salt ? Garlic salt ? A canister of dried Parmesan cheese, which is used as a condiment, and also heavily salted ? Pickles, used the same way ? Potato chips, used the same way ? French fries ? Chili cheese fries ? Wherever you draw then line, those manufacturers of foods on the wrong side will be angry. StuRat (talk) 22:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, wiener protein tends to rapidly accumulate in the throats of children, whether it's salty or not. And yes, I could have phrased that differently. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:02, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

You pervert!.. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. Mark Twain (talk) 14:05, April 27, 1872 (UTC)

If you have untreated onychomycosis, but use athlete's foot prophylaxis daily, is swimming OK?

One of the reason we don't answer medical advice-type questions is that we don't want to be liable or to harm anyone through our ignorance. But that's only one reason - the other reason we don't do it is that we're not doctors and we don't know the specifics. We can't see the infection, don't know the history, aren't sure of the diagnosis, aren't schooled in the latest information about transmission rates, and so on. I also appreciate your attempts to fictionalize this question, but we're still not able to answer it properly. It's not just that we shouldn't; we are also unable. Matt Deres (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Imagine a man by the name of John Doe. This man: Has had distal lateral subungual onychomycosis for years. Is otherwise in 100% perfect health. Uses topical antifungal medication daily to prevent athlete's foot. Was advised by his doctor not to treat the onychomycosis, so as to avoid the possible adverse effects of systemic antifungals. He wants to go swimming with some friends, but doesn't want them to catch anything. Public Health Queensland says that nobody with untreated athlete's foot should swim.[37] Even in chlorinated pool water, dermatophytes survive for months or longer.[38] "But," John thinks to himself, "I don't have athlete's foot. Maybe onychomycosis is different. Anyway, even if I do swim despite my infection, I surely won't be the only one to have done so lately." (Note: Using Google, I found a second article about fungal infections which also mentions swimming pools. I have no idea whether or not it's relevant here. My public library doesn't offer me access. Maybe I'll email one of the authors and ask for a copy I can post online.) Anyway: Is it fine for John and friends to swim in a chlorinated public swimming pool? Or in a nearby river? How about in a natural pond? What if John covers his feet with transparent plastic bags, and covers the bags with water shoes? P.S. Feel free to edit this post. You can even make major changes if you like. Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2014 (UTC) While I do appreciate the phrasing in terms of John Doe, the specifics of this question do amount to asking for medical advice - even if it is entirely in earnest about a fictional "John Doe" the only answer would amount to medical advice for any reader that fit the above. Phoenixia1177 (talk) 08:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC) Dear answerers: I think this is a borderline case. And so the question should not be hatted: please see the relevant guideline section. Each responder should form his or her own opinion on whether or not the question is seeking treatment advice. Any answer which provides treatment advice should be hatted or removed. (Dear all: What do you think? Does the question seek treatment advice, or is it borderline, or is it acceptable?) Plus, keep in mind that the question does not relate to heart disease or liver failure or anything really serious. It's only about a fungal infection in a healthy John Doe, which is much less serious. Please see also Kainaw's words. Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Latex condom

Why is it that when latex condoms tear while it is being used, they completely tear open? Are they designed this way? Is it the same theory as cutting a stretched elastic band which snaps or popping a balloon which makes it break open? 176.254.45.139 (talk) 09:26, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Once a tear starts, all the force is then applied to the damaged front ends of the tear, which is much more than when it was spread out relatively evenly over the entire surface, so it would be difficult to stop it. However, I have seen some plastics that seem to somehow stop tears after a certain distance, even when the same force is applied. I'm not sure how they do it.

There could also be a case made for making condoms "tear evident", so that the users know a tear occurred and take other measures to prevent pregnancy and STDs (morning after pill, showering, douching, etc.). StuRat (talk) 11:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

We have a stub article on tear propagation, and here are some additional references on how tear initiation and propagation can be tested [39] [40]. I don't believe that this behavior in latex condoms is by design. It is, as you say, similar to how a balloon breaks, and due to the concentration of force after tear initiation, as Stu described. There is some info at Condom#Causes_of_failure. One way that tear propagation is commonly halted is through reinforcing with another material, see e.g. ripstop nylon. However, It's not clear that ripstop condoms would have any advantage, even a pinhole is enough to compromise the intended function. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The most common cause of condom breakage is artificial lubricants or other substances which dissolve latex. Water based lubricants usually do not, but people often use oils and other substances which do. 104.128.96.117 (talk) 20:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Are dark cars hotter than other colors?

Did someone studied scientifically how big the difference is? OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

They certainly should absorb more sunlight and change it into heat, however, they may also radiate more heat, so might cool down faster at night. But, assuming conditions are such that any car would absorb more heat than it radiates, then a darker car should get hotter faster, and reach a higher max temp. A darker interior might also make more difference than the exterior color, since interior heat doesn't have to pass through the surface to heat the vehicle. I use reflective window car shades to keep the car from getting hot when parked in the sunlight, but white would work, too. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Most definitely yes. I used to live in Phoenix, and built a VW-based off-road vehicle, and decided to paint it in two-tone. I chose for the part that included the roof, an industrial "zinc white" (catalyzed urethane) and for the lower part, "cobalt blue". On a hot day (115+ F° is not unusual there) you could put your hand on the (white) roof without burning it, but on the (blue) hood, you could literally fry an egg. As for a "scientific study", you shouldn't have much trouble finding such from paint manufactures, etc., but "how much" depends on many factors.    —71.20.250.51 (talk) 01:45, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

There are certain reflective buildings that melt cars. They're not themselves hot, just playing the middleman. In cases like those, the shininess is more important than the brightness of the colour. Like a building heats a car, a shiny white car can heat a nearby person without becoming so hot itself. By our senses, the hotter black, dusty car should be the more comfortable to stand by, but not sit on.

No idea about the interior. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:03, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Note the recent practice in the US of painting school bus roofs white, as that is supposed to reduce heating considerably versus "school bus yellow". (They leave the rest yellow, so it's still recognizable as a school bus.) If they painted it black, presumably the kids would be well roasted, with the meat falling off their bones, by the time they got home. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Possibly why decent gingerbread houses are pitched with molasses and shingled with dark chocolate squares. I doubt you can get the meat off without a cauldron, but it'd certainly soften them up for a stew, Stu. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:28, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

what is worse, frontal crashing at 100 mph against a car exactly like yours driving at 100 mph or crashing at the same speed against a non-deformable wall?

OsmanRF34 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

At those speeds they are both likely to be fatal. At lower speeds, I'd expect both to be just about as bad, although the two vehicle situation will almost certainly result in rotation, as they can never hit exactly straight on. StuRat (talk) 23:01, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

A typical physics excercise. Assuming perfect symmetry, there's theoretically no difference between the two scenarios. Imagine a thin paper sheet exactly between the two cars. That sheet of paper will not move at all, as it's being pushed equally from both sides. Therefore from the perspective of each driver the situation is equivalent to crashing into an immovable wall. - Lindert (talk) 23:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a typical physics-exercise answer. But in most cars the left and right sides are not the same, because there is only one set of driving controls. Since a head-on collision puts the left side of each car against the right side of the other, the imaginary paper sheet will move, although it will do so in a symmetrical manner (for example, perhaps forming an S shape as seen from above). --69.158.94.114 (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Worse to hit another car, because there's another driver (at least) in it. If you survive, there are a lot of probable legal and financial problems that hitting a wall doesn't pose, even if only the cars are hurt. Insurance rates are partly determined on the accident history of the makes and models, so destroying two of the same at once is marginally worse, if you intend to insure a third. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:14, August 1, 2014 (UTC)

This is a great chance to review the difference between elastic collisions and inelastic collisions...

Perfectly elastic collisions conserve kinetic energy and momentum. In those cases, whether the impactor hits a a brick wall or experiences an equal-energy collision with another moving object is pretty irrelevant.

Inelastic collisions conserve momentum but dissipate the energy by deforming the impactor. This changes the situation pretty gravely.

Because automobiles are usually made out of metals, plastics, and glass, they not very elastic. So, they will inelastically deform - and exactly how they deform will depend strongly on whether they hit a wall or hit another vehicle. Complex engineered crumple zones will crush; rigid metal structures and glass parts will undergo brittle failure or ductile deformation; connective parts will shear or snap...

Momentum must be conserved, but energy can be dissipated in an inelastic collision. When a car hits another car, momentum can be conserved by bringing both vehicles to a halt. But, if a vehicle hits a wall, and the wall is "really immovable," then the momentum can only be conserved by disintegrating the vehicle. Relative to the other scenario, parts will go flying with much higher momentum. Nimur (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Lindert that, assuming perfect mirror-image symmetry in the two-car scenario, the two scenarios are theoretically identical as to what will happen on the car side of the plane of collision. This was explored experimentally in the "Mythssion Control" episode of Mythbusters, which came to the conclusion that the two scenarios resulted in equal damage to the one car. Red Act (talk) 00:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, at some point, "immovable wall" and "non-deformable wall" are in direct conflict. One, or other, of these statements must break down first. In the real world that we actually live in, both statements break down: the wall will move and deform - perhaps only by a tiny amount - but enough to satisfy conservation of momentum. Nimur (talk) 03:40, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Not strictly. The momentum of the car against such a wall could transfer momentum to the entire planet...which of course couldn't be immovable - but would be accelerated by such a microscopic amount, it would be truly negligible. From the perspective of someone nearby, the effect would be effectively the same as a truly immovable object.

But this is a very old question - and the way to do it as a thought experiment is to consider a very thin, easily deformed surface to be placed at exactly the impact point of the two cars. A big sheet of kitchen foil, say. As a thought-experiment, that wall wouldn't move at all because the pressure against it is always the same on both sides (presuming a perfectly symmetrical impact). From the point of view of a car on one side, there is no difference whatever between the aluminium foil "wall" and the huge immovable concrete wall.

So on a very theoretical/thought-experiment level, there is no difference. But when you get down to practical situations, the impact won't every be perfectly symmetrical and the differences between hitting a wall and hitting another car will depend entirely on what those asymmetries are.

However, at a higher level of description, the total impact energy of two cars is twice as much as one - and it's distributed over two cars - so there is twice as much energy-absorbing crumple zones for example. So the amount of damage averaged over the two cars will be the same as if they'd each individually hit a brick wall.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:12, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2

resistors

can two resistors be in series to each other if there is a battery between them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.146.126.108 (talk) 02:14, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's possible, in the case of a three-component circuit. Even in an arbitrarily complicated circuit, two resistors with a battery in between them and no other connections to the battery will be Thévenin equivalent to the battery in series with the two resistors in series. Red Act (talk) 02:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Fully hydrogenated vegetable oil

My understanding is that completing the hydrogenation process eliminates any trans fats, however, this isn't often done because the result is too solid. Wouldn't blending the fully hydrogenated vegetable oil with non-hydrogenated vegetable oil allow them to achieve the desired consistency without any trans fats ? StuRat (talk) 02:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. And it is in fact done, that's what Crisco is made of:

Ingredients: SOYBEAN OIL, FULLY HYDROGENATED PALM OIL, PARTIALLY HYDROGENATED PALM AND SOYBEAN OILS, MONO AND DIGLYCERIDES, TBHQ AND CITRIC ACID (ANTIOXIDANTS).

Not sure why they had to also add trans-fats, but the main stuff is like you suggest. Ariel. (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yea, that's the big Q, what does the PHVO do for them that the blend I suggested doesn't ? StuRat (talk) 03:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why they add it - their label claims "0 trans fat" which is an obvious lie, which they are allowed to do because it's less than 0.5 grams per serving. Looks like 12 g fat in total, 3g saturated, 8.5g unsaturated (note they are happy to use decimals here!), 0.5g trans. Maybe they use it to exactly fine tune the melting point? I've seen other recipes that don't include PHVO and just get the desired melting point by adjusting the other two. More common these days is palm oil without hydrogenating it at all - but then you need more of it and can't put as much unsaturated oil and your label looks worse despite actually being better. Lies, Damned Lies, and Nutrition Labels. Ariel. (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Where does Rainier end?

I guess this is a science question, more or less.

Recently I was hiking in Mount Rainier National Park. I was hoping to get onto Rainier itself, not to the summit, but just to physically step on the mountain, but I couldn't make that happen — at least, not by my interpretation, looking at the images on Google Maps.

But at least a couple of different people told me I was on Rainier. And looking again at the satellite images, it's hard to be quite sure they're wrong — the mountain is a little like a candle that's melted down, with rivulets of wax going off in all directions. I could have been standing on one of those wax globs, I guess.

So what say ye? Was I on the volcano as she is goodly understanded? I hiked from the visitor center at Sunrise Ridge, which is about here, to "Frozen Lake", which is about here. I know, short hike, but we were short on time; had to catch a plane. --Trovatore (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rainy, Rainier, Rainiest. Sorry. DuncanHill (talk) 04:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Rainier is a volcano, so if you were standing at the base of the mountain, on or above volcanic debris from the mountain, that should qualify as being "on" the mountain. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, so that was sort of my question. Are the points I mentioned on ejecta from the volcano? --Trovatore (talk) 04:28, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

But then again, it's not the whole question. Sometimes volcanoes deposit enormous quantities of ash some distance from the peak. I suppose geologists have some criterion for distinguishing what is and what is not the volcano. Then again, they may not. Either way, someone here might know. --Trovatore (talk) 04:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

By my reasoning, I would side with your opinion. Since there are named mountains between the location at Frozen Lake, and Mt. Rainier, then, technically you would be on the foothills of one of the other mountains, (imo). Here is a nice PDF map (which takes forever to load)   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 04:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

As a coincidental aside, I noticed your improper use of "ye" — I just finished a discussion about that (over here). It seems that ye is from þ^e —Which is just "the" (but is actually a bit more complicated) 71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you over-interpreted the response there. What you were reading as ye is actually just-plain the, with a thorn. However, there is (or was) indeed a pronoun ye, which is a different word. --Trovatore (talk) 08:11, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

And neither is apparently related to D or dese "da and dat" dialects. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:37, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

There can be only one correct answer to such questions of geography! So what you'll want is a geological map of Rainier, with which you can inform outrageous claims of geographic sovereignty. There's no shortage of those! Start with the 1:24,000 Surficial geology of Mount Rainier National Park, Washington. I'll leave it to you and your co-hikers to debate which geological features historically constitute Mount Rainier. (Obviously you must look to the subsurface to establish the boundary, because the surface features are subject to erosion and are unsuitable for establishing permanent boundaries).

Of course, you may find yourself in the company of fellow hikers who espouse the thalweg principle, which may provide contradictory boundaries to the subsurface material. When geological fact and superficial hydrology contradict, the only solution is senseless warfare to establish the border, which must exist at one specific line that can be mathematically derived from irrefutable scientific data and principles. Nimur (talk) 05:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

• Defining a "mountain" aside from the peak itself is tricky business. Other than monadnocks which rise abruptly from relatively flat plains, most mountains are parts of some rather complex topography, and defining the difference between one "mountain" or the next really comes down to local conventions. One system for defining mountains can be found under Topographic prominence, but I'm not even sure that's helpful hear. We can easily define Mount Rainier's summit as a distinct point, but deciding whether some patch of land an arbitrary distance from that summit is "part" of Rainier, or not, is really a semantic nightmare. Local conventions define a "mountain" (in terms of a geographic area, rather than merely a summit) different from locale to locale. For example, Catoctin Mountain is a 50 mile ridge within the Appalachian system; in other places similar structures may be called a mountain range and would define each of the various peaks a distinct "mountain". See, for example, the Black Mountains (North Carolina), which is a smaller geographic feature, but is structurally similar to Catoctin Mountain (a prominent ridge of high peaks), but which is considered locally to be a series of distinct mountains. --Jayron32 05:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Although this might be a different trail,[this must have been the trail, until you reached the junction to Frozen Lake trail] it describes the area; it seems that you were on Mt. Burroughs (or foothills thereof):[41] (and the map linked by Nimir seems to corroborate this).   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[edit:06:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC)]

OK, thanks, all. Maybe there's not as clear a demarcation as I would have thought. To me, looking subjectively at the relief map, the stuff we were walking on looks like a lot of the little bumpy stuff in the region, which doesn't seem to me to be part of the mountain. I guess I need to figure out where I want to be next time. If I could make to Camp Muir, that would be good enough. --Trovatore (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

An end to "Rainier" will happen when the paleface acknowledges its old Indian name which is "Takhoma".

A British author Captain George Vancouver, in 1792, named the great peak "Mt. Rainier." in honor of Admiral Peter Rainier, of the British Navy. Literature is practically silent about the Mountain for more than sixty years. Those years witnessed the failure of England's memorable struggle to make good Vancouver's "annexation." Oregon was at last a state.

The Northwestern Indian peopled the unknown with spirits good and bad, and felt the Power that dwelt on Tacoma. They told this Flood myth:

WHY THERE ARE NO SNAKES ON TAKHOMA

A long, long time ago, Tyhce Sahale became angry with his people. Sahale ordered a medicine man to take his bow and arrow and shoot into the cloud which hung low over Takhoma. The medicine man shot the arrow, and it stuck fast in the cloud. Then he shot another into the lower end of the first. Then he shot another into the lower end of the second. He shot arrows until he had made a chain which reached from the cloud to the earth. The medicine man told his klootchman and his children to climb up the arrow trail. Then he told the good animals to climb up the arrow trail. Then the medicine man climbed up himself. Just as he was climbing into the cloud, he looked back. A long line of bad animals and snakes were also climbing up the arrow trail. Therefore the medicine man broke the chain of arrows. Thus the snakes and bad animals fell down on the mountain side. Then at once it began to rain. It rained until all the land was flooded. Water reached even to the snow line of Takhoma. When all the bad animals and snakes were drowned, it stopped raining. After a while the waters sank again. Then the medicine man and his klootchman and the children climbed out of the cloud and came down the mountain side. The good animals also climbed out of the cloud. Thus there are now no snakes or bad animals on Takhoma.

See "The Mountain that was 'God' Being a Little Book About the Great Peak Which the Indians Named 'Tacoma' but Which is Officially Called 'Rainier'" 84.209.89.214 (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

flower

small & cute flower

somebody knows the flower in the picture?

79.181.60.192 (talk) 11:16, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

That's a foxglove. Probably the common foxglove Rojomoke (talk) 11:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

thanks

79.181.60.192 (talk) 11:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Where'd you see it? --Trovatore (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Does whole Chia Seeds dismantled anywhere in the Digestive system?

If someone eats Chia seeds when they are whole (unpeeled\uncrushed), Can their Fibrous' bark be dismantled so that most of the nutrients in them be available to the body? thanks. Ben-Natan (talk) 13:07, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

According to our article (Salvia_hispanica#Preliminary_health_research), no, they need to be milled for optimal nutritional benefit. StuRat (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you can generalize from that sentence there ("One pilot study found that 10 weeks ingestion of 25 grams per day of milled chia seeds"...) that the seeds needs to be milled in every case... Ben-Natan (talk) 14:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

HBV

If hepatitis B is more easily transmitted and also there are more cases of it compared to HIV, why is it not included in the standard std panel test in most countries along with Chlamydia, Gonnorhea, Syphilis and HIV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.192.113.228 (talk) 19:01, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Help wanted at the Entertainment desk (botanists, arboriculturists, etc wanted)

Rather than insisting that the OP re-post here (and the question does also involve computer gaming), I am drawing your attention to: Entertainment#Real_Life_Version_of_Runescape_Magic_Tree (crap, yes indeed, see below, thanks Andy!). Thanks in advance! ---Sluzzelin talk 19:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you meant to linkWikipedia:Reference_desk/Entertainment#Real_Life_Version_of_Runescape_Magic_Tree AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Untreated cancer survival rates

Imagine a group of people who have just been diagnosed with the same kind of cancer at the same stage: some of them are weak and elderly, some are young and strong, and we have some who are young and weak and others who are old and strong. Statistically speaking, which of the four groups will likely have the longest life expectancy? I'm assuming no unrelated deaths, e.g. heart attacks or car crashes, because of course that will skew the elderly groups. I can imagine that the stronger and younger people won't succumb as easily to identical cancers, but I can also imagine that cancers in the stronger and younger people will be more vigourous, so I'm not sure what to think — especially since I don't know if my imaginations are right. I've looked at articles on various cancers, and none of them tend to say which populations have the longest life expectancies; with that in mind, the ideal answer will provide details about specific cancers instead of attempting to provide a general answer for all types of cancer. Nyttend (talk) 20:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read many times that most men who die of old age technically have prostate cancer (like 70% if I'm not off), which is usually slow growing and encapsulated. I'll refer you to google for sources and stats. Of course my neighbor is going on her third year now with lung cancer that had spread to the brain. Average survival of that with treatment is less than six months, so I think treatment is usually the preferred option in most cases. μηδείς (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Understood; I'm basically trying to understand the effects of age and weakness on cancer growth, and of course the stats on that will be greatly skewed if we include cancers that are treated. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is why you wouldn't include heart attacks. Even if the cancer isn't directly involved (like through an embolism chunk), it can create stress through physical discomfort, and thinking about the cancer can mentally stress people. Some people grow wiser and calmer with age, others more paranoid about every ache, pain or looming spectre.

In that sense, the strong, in physical and rhetorical heart, should survive. For longer. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:47, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

Then again, cancer relies on the same energy processes normal cells do, so if you're at peak performance, so are they. Dying cures it. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:50, August 2, 2014 (UTC)

I ignored heart attacks as a sample of unrelated deaths, e.g. you're diagnosed with advanced melanoma and die two days later of a sudden heart attack. Of course I understand that heart attacks (and other common causes of death) can be fatal because of cancer-caused systemic weakness or other cancer-caused reasons; I was attempting to ignore only things that would have happened to the patients had they not had cancer. Nyttend (talk) 01:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

Another sort of stress I just learned (a bit) about is oxidative stress. Coincidentally, it seems "likely to be involved in age-related development of cancer". Seems to "suppress apoptosis and promote proliferation." Which again, can be good or bad, depending which cells are stressed. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:05, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

This summary answers some of your questions about physical activity, saying it may be linked to reduced risk of cancer recurrence in addition to its normal positive effects in reducing depression, etc. This study showed people who were fitter at diagnosis had an increased chance of surviving colorectal cancer.

As for age, here are some statistics for survival based on age at diagnosis; it sums up that "Five-year net survival is highest in the youngest adults for nearly all cancers, with survival generally decreasing with increasing age".

I didn't find any exploration of the interaction of these two factors :) 184.147.144.166 (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Climbing steps for exercise

Has anything been studied about the health benefits of walking up long flights of steps as exercise, compared to going to the gym, etc? --rossb (talk) 20:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see a direct answer in our article on stair climbing, but some of the information and references there might be of interest.--Srleffler (talk) 20:57, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

The only additional concern with stairs (along with the usual cautions about overdoing any exercise) is that impact injuries could damage the feet and legs. This is more likely on cement steps, with wood being an improvement, especially if covered with carpet. Footwear also matters, of course. And, of course, if the person has poor balance or is otherwise impaired, falling might be a worry, too.

One downside of gyms is the potential to pick up infectious diseases there. I got plantar warts from my high school gym, for example. It took years to get rid of them. StuRat (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

An upside is the stuff gyms have for all (or some of) your other fitness needs. Stairs are stairs, and that's fine, but that's all. Some stairwells are also pretty filthy. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:53, August 3, 2014 (UTC)

And muggers/rapists can be hiding in stair wells, so I'd stick with open stairs in public places. StuRat (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

At the corporate headquarters, some years ago, after lunch i would ride the elevator down to the basement, then run up the stairs to the 20th (or so) floor where the stairs ended, then walk back down to the 5th floor where my office was, and I found it quite beneficial. In some more modern buildings, it sets off an alarm if you enter the stairs. I never encountered a plausible mugger or rapist in the stairs. (More's the pity). Edison (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

August 3

Is success of countries due to better human biological capital?

http://westhunt.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/biology-and-human-capital/ As in scientific article above, is there generally any evidence of some societies having greater human capital? Is it due to evolution through natural selection or perhaps through other means?74.14.72.22 (talk) 02:10, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd say it's cultural, not genetic. That is, it's memes, not genes. For example, the tendency of a culture to value innovation over tradition is important to the long-term success of that culture.

As far as genetics go, they may help a population to succeed in a given environment. For example, natives of polar regions tend to become short and fat after thousands of years, which helps them to retain heat. However, those adaptations may not serve them well outside their own climate. StuRat (talk) 02:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So if populations can dapt like that, perhaps they also evolved different behaviors and cognitive abilities, and because of that some people are more successful than others.74.14.72.22 (talk) 02:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

For such genetic changes to take place, there must be something different in the environment that kills off people who don't adapt. In my example, it's the cold. What evolutionary pressure would force one population to need to become more intelligent than others, in order to survive ? (One possible answer might be that in an environment where life is easy there would be no pressure to adapt, but in such an environment population would quickly grow to a point where competition for resources would force adaptation, at least until birth control was invented.) StuRat (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

These genetic changes did in fact take place in the Ashkenazim Jews, there is a paper on that by Gregory Cochran called Natural History of Ashkenazi Intelligence74.14.72.22 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The blog is by Cochran too in case you hadn't realized that already. And he didn't exactly pinpoint the "intelligence genes" and definitively proved that the Ashkenazim genetic changes did "in fact take place". Don't make it sound as if Cochran et al.'s paper has been accepted widely, because it's not. Here's one rebuttal. Here's another. All of Cochran et al.'s evidence in their paper is circumstancial. Even conjecture, e.g. when they linked genetic diseases among the Ashkenazim to increased intelligence, or the assumption that wealth equates to intelligence.

Again, the Ashkenazim have only been a distinct ethnic group for a few centuries. How many generations is that? And they somehow evolved the genes for better IQ in that period of time? It is true that Ashkenazim Jews were indeed genetically isolated, preferring to intermarry within their group. They indeed prized intelligence as a trait. But none of these can be demonstrated to translate to actual evolutionary pressure. I mean, Jewish parents did not exactly kill or sterilize children who couldn't understand Algebra did they? Jewish women didn't marry Jewish men for their intelligence alone. Or is Cochran saying that merely the expectations of parents to have smarter children enabled them to bear smarter children? Evolution isn't exactly Lamarckism anymore. So while Ashkenazim may have more Nobel prize winners as of the moment, it's a bit of a leap to declare that it's because they have evolved to be geniuses.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Warfare, for one thing, would be just such an evolutionary pressure -- people who are smarter can invent better weapons (and more efficient ways of producing them), which would help them kill their not-so-smart enemies in battle while also giving them a better chance to survive to fight another day. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

And even smarter people wouldn't engage in warfare in the first place... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

At which point they get conquered by their enemies, as the Romans were. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 05:31, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See Guns, Germs, and Steel. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please provide a clear, unarguable definition of "successful" as it relates to countries? HiLo48 (talk) 03:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Economic prosperity, as measured, e.g., by per-capita GDP, would be a pretty much universally accepted definition of a successful country. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 03:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Says who? And measured over what timescale? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess that definition just failed "unarguable". HiLo48 (talk) 03:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean, "says who"? Are you saying that economic prosperity is not a definition of a country's success, or that per-capita GDP is not a good measure of economic prosperity? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It may well be. but that wasn't the question. HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Define "success". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Oi, I already asked that. HiLo48 (talk) 04:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the OP didn't answer it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

GDP is one marker of success, as is a high level of cultural achievement74.14.72.22 (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Many these days will argue that the way in which a country's wealth is distributed among the populace is possibly more important than total GDP. HiLo48 (talk) 07:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

John Rawls famously argued that the way the most disadvantaged person in a society fares is a good measure of that society's quality. Certainly the median GDP might be a better indicator of popular prosperity than the average GDP. Of course, the "G" in GDP makes every such measure very much problematic - if I total a car and buy an identical replacement, the GDP is plus one car, but the overall state of the economy is the same. Similarly, GDP ignores depreciation of e.g. natural resources. A radical different measure is Gross national happiness.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Distribution of wealth more important than total GDP?! Are you out of your mind?! By that standard, Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge, where everyone was equally dying of starvation, would be a more successful country than the USA -- which is patently, outrageously false on the face of it! 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So.... scientific racism again, eh? From the same guy who thinks homosexuality is the result of pathogens? Not exactly what I'd call persuasive.

The argument that some human populations are just more intelligent than others and thus the reason for the economic differences in modern nations only works if you completely disregard such annoying things like warfare, geography, and human migration. Particularly the inconvenience of several centuries of colonial subjugation and cultural rape. The argument that these had absolutely nothing to do with why most of the most economically successful countries today have mostly European populations is naive at best.

If 90% or more of the native population of the Americas didn't die of Old World diseases, if Genghis Khan didn't force half the world to flee west, if China hadn't banned ocean-going ships, if the Sahara desert didn't isolate the rest of Africa from Eurasia, if the glacial retreat didn't decimate the large herds of megafauna supporting nomadic human populations, etc. the world might be quite a different place right now. So many ifs, and none of them can be attributed specifically to genetics. I agree that the best counterargument to Cochran's position would be Guns, Germs, and Steel.

You don't exactly need to be a genius to know that aiming a gun at someone's head can force them to do what you want them to for your own gain. Even Cochran's favorite supposedly genetically predisposed geniuses, the Ashkenazim, only exists as a distinct ethnic group for a few centuries.

While I don't disagree that some ethnic groups do have more accomplishments in some areas than others, I believe this is mostly environmental. Some cultures encourage scholarly interests, some encourage warfare; some encourage unquestioning obedience, some encourage skepticism, etc. None of these are necessarily genetic. Case in point the Ashkenazim who were forced by xenophobia in the Middle Ages into developing a culture focused on trade and finance. Being good at math and economics because their culture encourages it doesn't necessarily mean that it's evidence that they have evolved to become bankers.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 11:33, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You have given voice to suspicions I share about the OP's premise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, social Darwinism is the name of the mostly discredited theory that successful nations succeed due to genetic superiority (although this term has other meanings, too). There is one sense in which it is true, I suppose, and that's resistance to disease. Isolated populations tend not to have much resistance, which is deadly for them when they come into contact with larger populations which carry diseases they have not encountered before. StuRat (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Success is often a function of superior weaponry. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Which can be bought by whoever wants to avoid spending that money on its less able citizenry. HiLo48 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Except that it first has to be developed and produced, so whatever nation has a bigger supply of technological geniuses and a stronger industrial base for turning their blueprints into metal will still have the advantage -- having better weapons as a result will only REINFORCE this advantage. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not arguing for social Darwinism, I am saying that we have proof for changes in genes that mediate behaviors and that behavior and pretty much anything is genetic and heritable (http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/04/15/more-behavioral-genetic-facts/ & http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2014/03/31/the-son-becomes-the-father/). That fact can't be disputes, in fact what we call culture is basically expression of these innate behaviors. What my question is asking is when did these adaptations happen in different human populations that led to more successful cultures and societies or less successful.74.14.75.23 (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Where has the OP defined what they think "success" means? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:34, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I said its GDP, cultural achievements, etc. Read the article in OP to see what is being talked about.74.14.75.23 (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You're making an argument for ethnic superiority. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

No. Perhaps the facts may present something resembling that argument. Doesn't mean we should shy away from its discussion due to some misplaced sense of political correctness.74.14.75.23 (talk) 01:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Getting up

Why do humans experience a mild loss of balance when getting out of bed in the middle of the night for example to go to the toilet but not in the morning when waking up? 90.194.60.138 (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

If you get up quickly, say if you need to go to the bathroom immediately, there can be a drop in blood pressure to the brain that causes you to get dizzy. Sitting up first, then standing up a minute later, is a good way to prevent this. (I believe the heart beats faster to maintain pressure to the brain, but there's a lag between the low blood pressure signal and when the countermeasures take effect.)

If you gradually wake up in the morning, then your heart will have time to speed up and increase your blood pressure before you get up. StuRat (talk) 12:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See orthostatic hypotension. --catslash (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In the middle of the night it is quite dark, and you cannot orient yourself so easily, while in the morning you can see what is where. I only speak from my own experience. Edison (talk) 23:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Cats and Kittens

Hi everybody, I was wondering when do cats develop their solitary nature. When both of our cats had litters of kittens, the kittens seemed to enjoy being around other kittens and playing with each other. When and why do they go on to develop such a solitary nature? --Andrew 13:07, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, they are rather flexible. If you have a house full of cats, they learn to tolerate one another. In nature, however, they would tend to separate from their mother once they reach adulthood, and avoid other adult cats, except for mating, after that. StuRat (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Feral cats tend to stick together in colonies. Wild cats, however, are solitary. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Puberty. μηδείς (talk) 21:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

How are instincts encoded in genome and get converted into information in the brain? Is the process known?

How are instincts encoded in genome and get converted into information in the brain? In asking the question, I'm making some assumptions:

1. Instincts are based on information in the brain
2. The information is not encoded as gross structures in the brain, but like memory

I'm puzzled by how the process works. Consider the example of arousal in postpubescent human males at the sight of human female breasts. It seems that the information needed to enable the instinct is quite complex:

• The instinct should be activated when the individual has reach a certain maturity level
• The individual needs to recognize that the "trigger objects" are on the body of a female member of the same species; recognizing the latter by sight seems itself a complex task
• The individual needs to distinguish breasts from other objects that bears superficial geometric similarity

I compare the human brain to a computer. From that perspective, the question is about how complex programming instructions get decoded from genome and (pre-)installed into the human brain.

How much does science know about the mechanism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.41.240 (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I was thinking about to asking the very same thing! I've been watching our tiny puppy grow up into a gigantic beast. He wasn't brought up with other dogs - so his opportunity to learn things comes only from my wife and I. So how does he know to do a "Play bow" when he wants to play, or lick your chin as a sign of submission? There are lots of "instinctive" doggy behaviors that he has in common with all other dogs that can only come from his genome.

My suspicion is that finding the genetic trail that causes such a complex behavior as chin-licking may be exceedingly difficult...and most likely, the answer is "We Don't Know...yet".

But let's find out whether anyone here knows.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Instinct and alike precognition is usually simple subconscious logic or logic based on subconscious informations received. So its just "using your senses and brain" in a natural but usually not conscious way.

Its much like your field of view: You can not recognize objects at the edge of your sight - you need to focus to identify objects - but you will recognize something big suddenly moving even 90 degrees out of your focus and your reflexes will process these information in a surprisingly sophisticated way without "needing" your consciousness.

Your genes "only" contain a master plan how all your cells get build and thus how they work (together). Everything beyond that is a consequence of the collected capabilities of all your organs and thus are "extended" capabilities like "instinct" but also "limitations" (like instinct is subconscious). --Kharon (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Such behaviors are medicate by chemicals, appropriate hormones, some of which perhaps haven't been discovered yet. Others are well known, sexual steroids for example, etc. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• This is a hugely complicated issue with no one definition of or mechanism of "instinct". Studies on various types of voles, for example, have shown that genetically determined levels of oxytocin determine (ceteris paribus) whether the males of a vole species are monogamous or promiscuous. Various wasps and other lower animals follow fixed action patterns. Whether they experience pleasure from this in the same way we do masturbating or shooting up is an open question.

No one has any idea what the mechanisms are in beaver brains for building dams, but a simple set of genes that cause pleasure in felling trees, hoarding wood, and blocking running water might explain the issue in five easy steps or less.

Human sex seems to require two whole "instincts". The opposite (or sometimes same or both) sexes smell good, and rubbing is pleasurable. The problem at this point is simply that we don't have instruments delicate enough to probe the brain to determine such obvious truths. We may, or may not achieve such knowledge before skyfall. μηδείς (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Aerobic exercise

Why is it that walking up a steep hill works your cardio more than cycling. When you're walking up a steep hill or a mountain for a while, you get more out of breath than if you cycle. When cycling, you don't really get out of breath regardless of the distance. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.244.21 (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You need to cycle up steeper mountains. Or cycle faster. Or both ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all about gearing. Like any 'engine', our bodies are most efficient at certain energy conversion rates and inefficient at others. The wonderful thing about the bicycle is that it can adjust the gearing to the terrain and the speed you want to go to best match the output that our legs can generate. All our bodies have is shifting gait between walking and running - which isn't so good at that.

So when you're walking up that hill, you're demanding more energy than your body is comfortable at generating, so all of the panting, muscle cramps and exhaustion sets in pretty quickly. On a bike, when the going gets tough, you can just drop down a gear and it gets easier (albeit slower)...and when the ground levels off, you can click up through the gears and get more speed for the same, comfortable, energy input.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we may be answering someone who lacks a gearshift, or who lacks a hilly road. Many of us are blessed with both and the will to use them. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What about rowing machines? Does that work cardio more or less than walking up steel hills and cycling? Rowing machines also don't really get you out of breath. 82.132.244.31 (talk) 16:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I try to do most of my aerobic training with a heart rate monitor (because I'm lazy, and it helps me to overcome the tendency to go slower than I should for good cardio). I can raise my heart rate to more-or-less the same level on a cross-trainer or on my bicycle, or walking up many levels of stairs. I don't measure while walking or hiking. On a bicycle, it's somewhat harder to maintain a constant level because of traffic, turns, and the general need to concentrate on the road, not the heart rate. But on a purely physiological level, I have no trouble to reach the same level on the bike as on the training machine. Of course, I can also cruise at 20 km/h with little exertion. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The power to weight ratio of most people is below 3 Watt/kg. This means that the maximum sustainable speed for cycling up a hill at 30 degrees inclination will be below 2.2 km/h for most people. People will tend to overexert themselves as they are used to cycling uphil for small distances or running uphil much faster than is sustainable. For short busts it's not a problem for an unfit person to expend a kW of power. But of it's a long stretch you have to cycle, then the effort you need to do to move at the 2.2 km/h snail's pace will be demoralizing to most. Count Iblis (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Concurrent properties in materials?

Can a material be transparent as a clear glass and conduct electricity? Be soft as rubber and conduct electricity? Be like soft as rubber and conduct heat? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.58.250.94 (talk) 15:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To combine good transparency with good electrical conductivity is a little difficult. Light is an electromagnetic wave, and if a material conducts electricity at optical frequencies, then it will necessarily be reflective (and shiny if its surface is smooth at a wavelength scale). However, there will be a frequency above which the charge-carriers in the material cannot 'keep up' (the plasma frequency), so that the material will cease to conduct and become transparent (while remaining conductive to lower frequency currents). Unfortunately this frequency is higher than that of visible light for all metals. Some metals are transparent in ultraviolet though, and so only just miss being transparent to our eyes. Generally metals start to become transparent in the X-ray band. --catslash (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See Transparent conducting film and Conductive polymer for our relevant articles on the first two substances. Soft materials with high thermal conductivity are common - see thermal grease for an example. Tevildo (talk) 18:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Like Water? --Kharon (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

pelvic hip question

4 yrs ago I was in wreak. many injuries im not trying to sue anyone my problem is other than im 60 is all I was told was I shattered the cap that the ball at end of leg fits in. drs wouldn't let me rehab they said at least a year. I don't know the proper names of the bones cant pronounce them either for that im sorry.now my question is that part of hip. theres a commercial on tv wear att. are advertising metal to metal hip replacement law suit. im not out for money my dislike for lawyers is well I don't use them don't want to help them make a penny. I was I county hospital no regular MD.is this something I need seen about im having some lower back pain now not that often. I just don't want problems down the road I already have a limp from it. if this don't qualify as a question you answer that's cool I will understand. sorry about my 1st grade spelling THANK YOU69.19.14.43 (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You're asking for medical advice, which we cannot provide. You need to see a doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

To answer the part of the question we're allowed to answer, that part of the hip is called the acetabulum. See also Hip replacement for our article on the procedure. You do need to contact a doctor for medical advice and a lawyer for legal advice, as Bugs has mentioned. Tevildo (talk) 18:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Medicine: non mainstream therapies

Hi all,

I am not a native English speaker, and I should name a therapy that is inside the field of established science (e.g.: not Chinese medicine, or homeopathy) but not really mainstream. It's ok if I say "unconventional therapy", or in this case it would look like something related to "alternative medicine"?

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.217.52.241 (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You might need to clarify "inside the field of established science but not really mainstream". Complimentary medicine might be closer than Alternative medicine; regretfully, both of links redirect to the same page.

This article from the National Institute of Health might shed some light: Complementary, Alternative, or Integrative Health: What’s In a Name?   —71.20.250.51 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I mean a treatment about which already a lot of scientific literature in peer reviewed journals exists, with good results, but that it's not among the most used ones for a given disease.

188.217.52.241 (talk) 20:49, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe I understand what you mean; but I can't find the proper term. "Emergent (new or nacent) medical treatments" might be semantically correct, but that term is used differently in the medical field. Unless somebody has a better idea, I'd go with "unconventional", since "alternative" has a (sometimes unfair) negative connotation. —71.20.250.51 (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Off-label" is the term for this use of drugs - I don't know if there's a more general term for other forms of medical treatment. Tevildo (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be describing mainstream, so "unconventional" might not be entirely appropriate. You seem to be referring to therapy that I would refer to as "not currently the dominant therapy". Just because it is not amongst the highest-ranked treatment does not make it "unconventional" or "alternative". Many factors can influence which treatment is dominant, including factors such as cost, availability and practitioner familiarity and bias. You may also be wanting to distinguish the degree to which a treatment has been established, as in whether it has been through clinical trials etc. Various phrases come to mind: "not established", "not trialed", "emerging", "promising", "in minority use", "unproven", "not approved", whatever, depending on exactly what distinction you're trying to make. I do not know what the best medical terminology is in each case though. —Quondum 01:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Classification of various things.

Hi there. I am looking for a system of classification (in public domain) of various everyday things, in short, things a person runs into during their lifetime. I googled a bit and found many websites aimed primarily at high school students or perhaps their teachers like this one. This is not what I want. I don't need a lot of Latin, I don't need biological classifications, I don't need it to be pictorial. I will give an example of what I want but I am not sure such a thing exists.

Living things that move (a category) ==> human (a subcategory) ==> face (subcategory) ==> nose (a subcategory) A lot of this stuff, as you can see, is trivial, however, it takes a lot of brainstorming to make it really comprehensive. Does anybody know of such a classification? Thanks, --AboutFace 22 (talk) 18:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It is indeed a hard problem to provide such a general classification. OpenCyc and WordNet and two such databases of knowledge, but I don't know if they are public domain. OpenCyc has taxonomic classifications and WordNet has notions of semantic similarity. --Mark viking (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Very interesting references although hardly applicable to what I have in mind. Nonetheless I appreciate what you posted. Thanks. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Roget's Thesaurus is based on this sort of classification system - I'm not sure if it has a name, though. You may also want to look at Leibniz' characteristica universalis (or "universal characteristic" if you don't like the Latin) and Aristotle's Categories. Tevildo (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Suggested Upper Merged Ontology aims at providing such a thing. Note that the example given above is not strictly correct. "Human" is-a subcategory of "Living things that move", but face is not a subcategory of human. Instead, a human has-a face, and a face has-a nose. I am-an incorrigible know-it-all, but at least I have-a sense of humour.  ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

On reading this question, I immediately thought of the semantic web, including its many efforts to standardize a data scheme. You might also find WikiData's knowledge base, which is a collection of structured data in a hybrid MediaWiki / WikiBase format (which is an evolving, amorphous "standard").

For example, you might be looking for OWL - but in order to make use of the OWL language for structuring and defining a data model, you need to understand OWL's context and how it fits into the rest of a semantic environment. Arguably, this kind of data abstraction gets pretty meta: you need a semantic model of your semantic model before you can use it to model your semantics! Nimur (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• My tenth-grade chemistry book had a taxonomy of existence. The first division was between pure and impure substances. Pure substances included elements, particals, and pure molecular chemicals. Impure substances included mixtures and composites. Mixtures included solutions and gross mixtures. Composites included conglomerations (native copper and quartz formation, mountain, planet) and biological entities. Biological enties included organisms, their products, parts remains and artifacts, such as a mollusc's shell, a bird's nest, and a hammer. You might also look up ontology and categories, like Categories (Aristotle). It's also important to remember that what is, is. Our concepts are tools made by humans, not restraints upon nature. μηδείς (talk) 21:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Oxford Historical Thesaurus, which is unfortunately not public domain, has this kind of classification. "Nose," in the relevant sense, has the classification: the external world > the living world > body > external parts of body > head > face > nose, with further subclassifications. John M Baker (talk) 22:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

See Category:Classification systems.—Wavelength (talk) 22:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Electric weapons

Have Leyden jars, Tesla coils, etc. ever been used in warfare? 24.5.122.13 (talk) 21:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ever? It's impossible to know: we can't possibly expect everything that ever happened to be documented! But I am not aware of any famous instances. If you're willing to broaden the definitions of these to mean largely anything similar to a Leyden jar or Tesla coil - like any battery or capacitor, or any coil with a spark-gap - then we can almost certainly say that similar devices were used in early electronics. That would include radios, telegraphs, and so forth - and these technologies were used in support of military activities and warfare.

Leyden jars in particular represent a very primitive type of capacitor. Almost as soon as inventors found practical use for stored charge, large bulky jars were supplanted by more modern forms.

"Tesla coil" is, today, a generic term to refer to a coiled wire with an air-gap for discharging current. Again, if you are willing to suitably generalize this, we could say that Heinrich Hertz's induction coil radio transmitter was built from a Tesla coil - except that Hertz's work predates Nikolai Tesla's!

Nimur (talk) 22:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some speculation that the ark of the covenant may have been an electric weapon. See [42]. My mentioning this is not an endorsement of the idea, but it is at least a well covered one. You can find discussions of the ark in this vein using a simple Google search. --Jayron32 22:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if this fits the category that you are asking about, but the railgun is "an electrically powered electromagnetic projectile launcher", although a practical weapon is still in development. Alansplodge (talk) 22:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not quite what I'm asking about -- I was asking specifically about weapons that directly use electric shock for antipersonnel effects, not to launch a projectile or find a target for other weapons. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Would electric fences, tasers, electrolasers, cattle prods, parrillas, picanas or electric chairs count? InedibleHulk (talk) 00:19, August 4, 2014 (UTC)

Did men really become feminized 50,000 years ago?

Several science articles report without any criticism or scientific analysis a paper published by a Utah graduate student who analyzed a few skulls from tens of thousands of years ago, along with numerous recent skulls, and concluded that mens' testerone levels dropped suddenly, or that receptors for testosterone decreased, 50 thousand years ago, and that as soon as men became thus feminized. great things such as art and technological advances ensued. The reports mention there suddenly occurring "agreeableness and lowered aggression and that, in turn, led to changed faces and more cultural exchange." This is based on the skulls becoming less "masculine" looking 50,000 years ago, in the authors' estimation. I have no access to the original paper, so I would appreciate input and analysis by anyone with access who can evaluate the paper. Has anyone provided alternative explanations of the findings? What on earth would have caused a sudden lowering of testosterone levels in males? Was the paper contrasting Neanderthals, with brow ridges, versus Cro Magnons, without brow ridges? How did they assess the difference in testosterone levels in fossils? By chemical assay or by conjecture and hand waving? Why would women suddenly dig metrosexuals as sex partners 50 thousand years ago, as opposed to the manly men they previously preferred? Edison (talk) 22:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Good old sexual selection for neoteny maybe?-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 23:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You can't make such far-reaching conclusions from skull shape alone -- this sounds like 18th-century phrenology bullshit, not solid science. 24.5.122.13 (talk) 23:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The original press releases are here. The original paper is paywalled. But as far as I understand it, differences in testosterone lead to differences on skull shape. The authors have measured 1400 skulls and found changes that indicate such a change took place. They speculate that increased population density gave an advantage to less aggressive, more cooperative people. It's not the choice between Chuck Norris and Boy George, it's the choice between Darth Vader and Jean-Luc Picard. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't read the paper (except the first page on JSTOR), but from what I have read it seems clear that they just looked at skull shapes, that the correlation between skull shape and testosterone is based on modern medical evidence, and that their association of this change with contemporaneous cultural changes is pure guesswork. "Suddenly" probably means over thousands or tens of thousands of years. I have to assume they only looked at human skulls because otherwise the comparison would make no sense. -- BenRG (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(The reason this is showing up in newspapers is that a university PR department wrote a press release about it and the newspapers' science reporters regurgitated the press release. There's nothing to suggest that this paper is scientifically important; a marketer just identified it as likely to generate buzz and free advertising for the university.) -- BenRG (talk) 23:47, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec)The premise that our direct ancestors became "feminized" does not square well with the hypothesis that it was our direct ancestors who extinguished those supposedly more "masculized" Neanderthals. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:39, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Why not? Do you really think that the Neanderthals were beaten to extinction with clubs? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you think they were beaten to extinction with? Feather boas? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I have seen no evidence that they were beaten to extinction at all. In as much as they are extinct (which isn't entirely true, since a significant proportion of the human race has some Neanderthal ancestry), it is almost certainly a result of lower reproductive rates, rather than physical violence. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The normal term is gracilzation, and it is earlier than 50kya. The women lost their brow ridges and heavy bonse structure as well. Men didn't sprout breasts and labia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 00:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Why would this also have happened to people in Africa and other populations that were isolated from Europeans around that time? Count Iblis (talk) 00:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thermolysis

Is it possible to predict the rate of thermal atomisation of gas into its elements under ideal conditions, as a function of temperature. Primarily, the conditions include a pressure and concentration approaching values of zero, so as to minimise particle interaction. The enthalpy of atomisation, as well as the activation energy are known. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Saha ionization equation can be used to describe the process of dissociation as well as ionization. Application of the equation to dissociation of molecular hydrogen is described here. --Mark viking (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

August 4