Science desk
< June 15	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 17 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 16[edit]

Canadian geese[edit]

I remember reading somewhere that shooting Canadian geese was illegal for some reason, but this page seems to indicate that it is not illegal. Can anyone clarify this? I'm in the usa.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/hunting/goose/tips.html

--Wrk678 (talk) 00:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on your state's laws. 00:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

It is also likely to be true that there will be times of the year when such hunting is not permitted, wherever you are. Bielle (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 might apply. StuRat (talk) 02:38, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that U.S. federal law is often claimed to apply to Canada Geese. Whether or not a given goose has migrated is a different question. More and more of them don't migrate these days, due to easy overwintering at golf courses, etc. The OP may be interested in this summary of some of the issues [1]. SemanticMantis (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Branta canadensis is listed there, but the bird is residential in many areas. μηδείς (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Their non-residency is why they are properly called Canada Geese. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is a legally hunted bird - If you have a state license, a federal stamp, are hunting in season, in an appropriate area, within your daily and season bag limits, with the legally allowed weapon, and the legally allowed ammunition, the legally allowed amount of ammunition in your gun, with the legally allowed hunting aids, and the legally allowed clothing, blinds, legally allowed movement (and lack thereof), legally allowed bird calls, etc. Many ways to fall afoul of the laws and regulations. Rmhermen (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why haven't I heard right-wingers complain about so much "government interference in their hunting" for some reason? They complain so much about having to register their gun and get their background checked when buying a gun and wait a waiting period for their gun and having to get a permit to own a gun and not being allowed to buy semiautomatic versions of guns that have too many military features and not being able to sell their guns to anyone that shows up at a gun show without checking their background and not being allowed to buy over one gun a month (or similiar frequency). People in the US that are right wing enough seem to complain about everything, especially anything the government does. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I have to wait 3 days just to get a gun ? But what if I'm not angry any more by then ?" - Homer Simpson StuRat (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

"Why haven't I heard right-wingers complain about so much "government interference in their hunting"" Because you haven't been listening? 203.27.72.5 (talk) 20:33, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

People can't hunt around here. Too many people and not enough animals. McCain got like 10% in the region. I don't watch Fox News. So if it's not in the national news I won't know about it. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they realize that they will kill each other off without hunting safety regulations, like Cheney almost did. :-) StuRat (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

And seriously, if they let people shoot as much as they want there won't be enough animals for everybody. See the passenger pigeon. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are plastic bag bans worth it?[edit]

I've asked a similar question about two or three times already, but it always went out of topic. Now, I'll get straight to the point. From an economic or environmental perspective, is a plastic bag ban worth it? I'm not asking for opinions, merely facts, studies or just logic. Of course from an environmental perspective, at least in the short-term it will be beneficial, but will the economic, environmental and practical cons, such as cutting more trees, the use of more paper and chemicals etc. eventually outweigh the benefits? Will it be effective, and will it be worth it? I read somewhere that in a landfill, paper takes just as long to decompose as plastic, can't remember why though (I think I read it at Listverse). Does this mean that a plastic bag ban is not worth it? I also read that plastic bags wouldn't cause floods if they were more properly disposed and people were more disciplined with their use. Does this mean that a plastic bag ban is not even necessary? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

From the POV of visual litter, plastic bags are far worse, in that they can blow around till they get stuck in a fence, while paper bags tend to get wet and soggy and stay on the ground. StuRat (talk) 02:35, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by a ban being "worth" something? I am a hardcore libertarian free-marketeer, but I favor bans on the free distribution of plastic bags for the same reason I favor a ban on the free distribution of firearms. See attractive nuisance and pollution. μηδείς (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is, if in the long run, a total ban on plastic bags can lead to a better society, or will the problems surrounding such a ban outweigh whatever benefits that are gained? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You say you're "not asking for opinions, merely facts, studies or just logic". If the facts bear out that for every plastic bag not used, one less tree dies, whether it's worth it or not depends on your opinion of the relative values of trees and human convenience. The environmentalist says "yeah, trees are way better than plastic bags" and the Thatcherite says "who cares about trees? I've got to get my groceries home". This question is at it's heart not scientific. The answers will always be tainted by opinion and subjective judgements.203.27.72.5 (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's really asking for a political opinion then, since free market supporters like myself are, at worst, going to argue that as long as the users and distributers of such bags are held fully responsible for their removal and recycling there is no justification for such a ban. See opportunity cost. μηδείς (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The idea is not to replace plastic with paper, except in small matters, but to replace plastic with re-usable. Some reusable bags are plastic, of course, but they are more durable and meant to last through many shopping expeditions. Until recently, if you went shopping anywhere in Europe, you had better have brought your own string bag or similar. I believe that is still true in small tons or in small stores even in big towns. (I once carried home a half kilo of cherries in my pockets from a store in Mijas Pueblo. Messy.) So, based on this change of habit in North America, it would seem logical that both long-term and short-term savings will be achieved. Bielle (talk) 04:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Paper bags have been the traditional shopping bag of choice in the US, but while these biodegrade in landfill, the UK Environment Agency study points out that they have a higher carbon footprint than standard plastic carrier bags.

It also says the available evidence suggests paper bags are not generally reused, either as bin liners - a purpose for which they are not well suited - or for other purposes.

Mr Duboise of the Plastic Bag Ban Report website says pressure from the "powerful wood pulp industry" is one reason paper bags are used in the US.

Over the years, supermarkets drifted towards plastic bags, he says. But, he adds: "A lot of supermarkets are going back to paper bags even though the environmental people say it's just as bad as plastic."'

This and much more at BBC News. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Paper bags don't need to be used as trash can liners, since they can collect trash in a stand-alone manner (both figuratively and literally). StuRat (talk) 04:46, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr Duboise of the Plastic Bag Ban Report website says pressure from the "powerful wood pulp industry" is one reason paper bags are used in the US."--Is there anything possibly more POV than such a statement? μηδείς (talk) 04:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brings to mind the argument that anti-spam measures are a plot of the Lumber Cartel, who want to eliminate the competition for paper advertisements. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 09:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

c 79.180.156.254 (talk) 08:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Medeis (μηδείς) has a clear ideological perspective, allow me to also contribute my own. Purveyor bagging of goods constitutes an element of both productive labour (in the sense of producing a commodity, including its commercial transport and marketable status), and of non-productive labour (or mere circulation). When large scale externalities are first recognised, such as the aesthetic detriments of a landscape clouded with slowly biodegrading bags, these externalities are usually inflicted upon wage earners in the form of profits, by incorporating the externality as a cost onto an existing product. Both paper and plastic are equally detrimental, but (in my market) explicit rather than implicit pricing of bags is proceeding on the basis that workers will put up with bearing the costs of externalities by being gulled regarding their appropriate share of social remuneration. Medeis is correct to the extent that unincorporated externalities ought ideally within capital to be commodified and thus bourne, though this disagrees with the sociology of "actually-existing capitalism." If the externalities are fully incorporated then the environmental costs of plastic bags will be fully represented in the price, and each consumer will be forced to ask herself the question "how much of my grandchildren's life can I ammortise for my plastic bag?" In reality, externalities are usually solved by parliamentary management in private interest; so enjoy paying a plastic bag tax because no court will accept suit on your grandchildren's enjoyment. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:26, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that this is going off target again. Fifeloo says " Both paper and plastic are equally detrimental" but where is the proof? Rmhermen (talk) 13:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In Norwegian experience householders can be expected to sort trash at source and a system of colour-coded plastic trash bags has been introduced: GREEN for biodegradeable kitchen waste, BLUE for recyclable plastics and WHITE for remaining wastes. A cost/benefit factor being investigated is COST of producing special bags (offset by sale at an attractive price to consumers) contra the BENEFITS of easy automatic sorting of the trash categories by optical means and of straightforward Recycling of the already isolated plastics (including the blue bags themselves). Over time another benefit will be reduced and less heterogenous landfills. Note that no banning or enforcement is involved here, only willing participation by environmentally conscious Norwegians. DriveByWire (talk) 15:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC website given above answers most of the questions and seems to suggest that Ireland's bag tax is the most effective solution, but the one thing it doesn't mention is that plastic bags are made from petroleum. According to http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/plastic-bags-and-oil-consumption/ (which isn't perhaps the most reliable source but it does give its own sources) "it takes about 430,000 gallons of oil to produce 100 million plastic bags, and the U.S. goes through 380 billion of them a year...more than 1.6 billion gallons of oil are used each year [in the US] for plastic bags alone." You could reduce the carbon footprint in the manufacture of alternatives by using renewable energy sources but you can't get away from using oil to make plastic bags. Richerman (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A huge part of the problem is that bags are given away. The customer feels he didn't ask for the bag. It is more of a nuisance than a value. It has almost no reuse value, and for every one he does reuse there are a dozen more ugly ripped bits of trash cluttering up the place. He is basically invited to litter.

There are various solutions. One solution is a return deposit. You can't find an empty soda bottle on the streets of NYC for the life of you. They bear a 5c deposit and even if the causal user throws his away a homeless person will collect the empty can before it reaches ambient temperature. Or store should be required to charge for bags up front. A local discount grocery I use does not give free bags but they do sell sturdier plastic bags at 5c a piece. Customers tend to reuse these and I have yet to see one littering the street.

Simply giving plastic bags away for free is indirect littering by the business. If a store were to give away free bananas and the streets were littered with peels and cars windshield were belted with fruit by children we wouldn't argue that the store has a free-market right to give them away--we would hold them responsible for the nuisance. Plastic bags should be treated the same way.

μηδείς (talk) 00:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic bags are used in my house (well, outside it really) for collecting dog poo. A perfect second use. I note, of course, that the supermarkets will sell me plastic bags for this very purpoonese, but why would I bother? HiLo48 (talk) 01:05, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning future paleontologists are going to wonder why those coprolites came surrounded by petroleum derivatives? I hope your dog only uses a very small fraction of the number of bags I suspect might come into a household daily. I have to fight not to be given a bag when I purchase a gallon of milk in a plastic container with its own handle. μηδείς (talk) 03:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When I rock up to the checkout with three items, I say to the checkout chick, "I don't need a bag. I got these this far without one." HiLo48 (talk) 03:34, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What gets me is how they insist on putting the meat (which is already completely sealed) in a separate plastic bag, and the milk/dairy products (ditto) in a separate plastic bag, and the laundry/bathroom items (ditto) in a separate plastic bag, but then they also sometimes ask would I mind if they put these things in the same bag if there's not many items in total. Why would I mind? They were all together in the shopping trolley, so why would one be worried about having them together in the same plastic bag? It's insanity gone mad. -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Bring your own bag, dammit. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What's your bag made from? What happens to it when it wears out? HiLo48 (talk) 05:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic. When it wears out, my supermarket are obligated to replace it for free, in exchange for which I have to give them the worn out one, which they recycle.

This comes back to the whole point that plastic bag bans are indeed generally not "worth it", and indeed are extremely rare. The question of what material is used for the bag is irrelevant. The point is to eliminate the mass waste and pollution that is caused by supermarkets giving out free disposable bags (plastic or paper or anything else) which are generally only used once. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:04, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I still remember "the good old days" when everyone had their own string bags. Sure, there wasn't the range of items available that we have nowadays, but shopping for a family of six was still a major operation. But our families managed very well, ate very well, and plastic bags didn't exist, let alone be a massive environmental problem. Can't we turn the clock back? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 12:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A strict plastic bag ban would not be justifiable, since there are too many things for which a plastic bag works best, as plastic is waterproof, durable, takes up little space, and cheaper than alternatives.

When plastic bags are compared to paper bags for ordinary use at checkouts, their relative desirability depends on what's going to happen to the bag. If the bag becomes litter, the paper bag is far more desirable, since it will decompose quickly, while the plastic bag is long-lasting, unsightly, and harmful to the environment. If the bag is to be properly disposed of in a landfill, however, the plastic bag's advantages come to the fore: It has consumed fewer resources in manufacture, it takes up less space in the landfill, and while it will not decompose in the landfill, neither will the paper in this anaerobic environment. However, this also means that paper is the more effective form of carbon sequestration. John M Baker (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are reports that unwashed reusable bags are carrying E. coli and Listeria. μηδείς (talk) 18:35, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not at your link, at least. What you find there is pure speculation - not even a complete anecdote. That does not mean it cannot happen, but it does not seem to be a significant problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warmth from friendships[edit]

[2] is what's said in this article scientifically verifiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.196.132 (talk) 09:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article says "They found people felt up to 2C (3.6F) warmer" (my italics), not that they became warmer. That word is crucial; I doubt whether they could scientifically verify those people's feelings.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 12:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A report on the average subjective response from a population can be scientifically verified by a new survey where one has documented steps to lessen the influence of the prejudices and unintentional physical cues on the results (the placebo effect, observer bias, and experimenter's bias). Random assignment of the subject to the experimental or control group is a critical part of a double-blind trial. The key that identifies the subjects and which group they belonged to is kept by a third party and not given to the researchers until the study is over. DriveByWire (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two types of experiments that could be done:

1) Check whether their actual core body temp changes by that much. I can tell you right now, though, that it won't. A slight temp diff due to having another warm body near yours radiating heat might exist, as might burning energy while talking, etc., but the temp diff they gave would put you in the fever range.

2) Check to see if they would adjust the thermostat by that much. This is possible, although that still seems like a bit much, too me. StuRat (talk) 20:04, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weight training science[edit]

Whats the scientific difference between doing low weights and a lot of reps, and high weights and less reps. Whats the difference in what happens to the muscles, physically and chemically? 176.250.196.132 (talk) 10:18, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of reps with low weights may qualify as aerobic exercise, which is good for cardiovascular health, and may also help muscles grow, while a small number of reps with heavy weights is more of your classic weight training, which develops big muscles, but is not good for cardio. StuRat (talk) 19:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually quite a difficult question to give a good answer to, and there are several theories. Our article on muscle hypertrophy makes an attempt at explaining what happens -- basically the story is that the two types of manipulations affect muscles in different ways, but nobody knows for certain why. Looie496 (talk) 20:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It also affects recovery time, which in turn affects frequency. Dru of Id (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't tightrope poles go much lower?[edit]

Like at least 10 feet below the wire, maybe with weights at the end if it's not already too heavy. It would be more of a pi or uppercase omega shape instead of "somewhat bended horizontal stick". Or would that make it too easy? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you want a high moment of inertia about the axis parallel to the wire, through the CG of the tightrope walker. This makes for the best counter balance. To make this as high as possible, while keeping the weight of the pole manageable, you want a long horizontal pole, possibly weighted at the ends. The bending down a bit at the ends may either be to bring the pole down to their CG point or just because making the pole stiff enough to resist bending under it's own weight would make it too heavy. StuRat (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Our tightrope walking agrees with the moment-of-inertia idea and also with lowering of center-of-gravity. If you lower the CG enough, say to the level of the wire or lower, it certainly becomes trivially easy. The unicycle-on-a-wire variant with a heavy below-the-wire weight (for example, [3]) is damn near impossible to tip over even intentionally. DMacks (talk) 20:16, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chemistry in cooking and baking[edit]

Do cooking and baking involve chemical reactions? 65.92.7.168 (talk) 23:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thousands of them. It's a major branch of chemistry, and hundreds of books and thousands of articles have been written about it. See our article: Molecular gastronomy. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More broadly, food science would be a good place to start. Molecular gastronomy refers to weird, modern cooking techniques using odd chemistry. Actual cooking chemistry is covered in food science in general. One particularly important set of chemical reactions in cooking are the Maillard reactions. --Jayron32 01:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The reaction of baking soda with an acid to produce bubbles that make bread fluffy is another big one (yeast is another way, but that involves many chemical reactions, being a living organism). StuRat (talk) 01:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As is the simple process of boiling. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling is not a chemical reaction.--Srleffler (talk) 03:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boiling is not a chemical reaction but it can drive chemical reactions and especially irreversible processes like the denaturing of proteins. μηδείς (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that. Plasmic Physics (talk) 04:48, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If a hen egg is heated, don't chemical changes occur, in that the protein molecules reform into longer chains somehow? Edison (talk) 03:52, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not longer chains per se but more cross-linked. I am surprised you didn't read the link I provided directly above which not only addresses your question but shows a cooked egg.μηδείς (talk)

You are "surprised" that another editor did not automatically know that "denaturing of proteins" is what happens when an egg is heated, so that if interested in eggs he would read the link? It is backward logic. One does not necessarily read every single link that everyone else puts up, when it has no obvious connection to one's interest. Edison (talk) 20:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't technically more cross-linked, but the chains change from wadded up in nice little balls to extended chains, and when extended, they tangle with each other far more. Ergo, the egg white becomes stiffer. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:01, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Au contraire, they do indeed become more cross linked at points such as where sulfur bearing amino acids like cysteine and methionine allow bond substitutions. That is why hard boiled, well fried, burnt, and rotten eggs smell of the released sulfur. It is complicated and depends on the heat achieved, but while the chains themselves may unwind they don't grow in length, just tangle and perhaps crossbind. μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Translate the French, please. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 04:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are other sites on the internet, you know... -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 15:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"On the contrary" or "to the contrary." Plasmic Physics (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Browning (food process) involved many well-studied (and not-so-well-studied) chemical reactions. Yeast causes rising by the chemistry of metabolism. DMacks (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]