Science desk
< March 9	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 11 >

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.

March 10[edit]

Social interaction and levels of cognitive activity[edit]

I read an interview with French neurologist Pierre Bustany that neural activity was greatly heightened in social interaction, much more than, say, when doing a crossword. The conclusion was that social interaction is much better for the mind than puzzle solving. That last part may be obvious anyway, but I'm not so curious about that - I just want to know if anyone can point me to any interesting references (books or key papers) that establish the claim about the level of neural activity/ excitement in social interaction, especially compared to puzzles/ games/ etc. Thanks in advance, IBE (talk) 02:09, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The entire concept of doing a brain scan, then assuming, because glucose is being used in many areas of the brain, that that somehow indicates more thought is occurring, seems like a stretch, to me. I suspect that glucose is used for other things, too, like repairing damage. Or, even when it does indicate brain cells "working", it's not necessarily useful thinking. For example, an epileptic seizure probably lights up the scan, but this doesn't indicate that quality thought is occurring. StuRat (talk) 02:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, and by all means point me to a reference on this line of thinking. It's for a PhD lit review, although there is only a marginal chance I'll be able to squeeze it all in anyway. Totally peripheral aspect, but I like to paint a broad picture, even at the risk of sounding frightfully amateurish. IBE (talk) 03:26, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm skeptical of that statement, and it doesn't seem to be a topic that he has actually worked on. As far as I know the greatest difference in brain activity is between sleep and waking, and across the range of normal waking states the variations in activity level are pretty limited. Also as far as I can see the literature, such as PMID 18381770, does not give any support, although of course there are specific brain areas that are activated by social cognition. Looie496 (talk) 03:59, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right that he hasn't worked on this area, or at least my own googling says it isn't his primary field at all. I was under the impression it was something that was maybe generally well known, but you have convinced me otherwise. At any rate, it isn't going in the "lit" review ;) IBE (talk) 04:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that any non-crackpot neurologist would draw a conclusion like "social interaction is much better for the mind", as if the mind were a monolithic entity instead of a collection of interacting components with different functions. That simply doesn't follow from "more brain areas are active". --140.180.243.114 (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It turns out I've overstated it slightly. I was just looking for a paper on it, and assuming it was some well known thing, so I wasn't too precise about it. The full quote is this (French with my Fr-2 translation, interview in Ca M'Interesse, Jun 2012):

Les cablages formes dans la jeunesse sont-ils effectifs toute la vie?

Ces associations de neurones se maintiennent a peu pres vingt ans. Apres, si elles ne sont pas utilisees, elles disparaissent.

......

Comment eviter cette impasse?

Il faut stimuler son cerveau a toute age. Pour cela, rien de mieux que les relations sociales. Avoir des contacts avec les autres impose de devoir discuter, echanger, decrypter les non-dits, les gestes, les hesitations...Et aussi d'anticiper, de s'organiser pour arriver a l'heure a un rendezvous. Tout cela met en jeu des reseaux de neurones differents. Bien plus nombreux que lorsque vous faites des mot croises! Rien de pire, a la retraite, que de quitter le lieu ou l'on a toujours vecu pour se retirer sur la Cote ou l'on ne connait personne. C'est l'atrophie cerebrale assuree.

My translation:

Are the neuronal connections formed in our youth effective throughout the lifespan?

These connections last for about 20 years. After that, if they are not used, they disappear.

How do you avoid this?

One must stimulate one's brain throughout one's whole life. For that, nothing is better than social relationships. Social contact imposes the need to discuss, interact, and interpret non-verbal cues...And also to anticipate, to prepare oneself to arrive on time for a meeting. All this activates a variety of networks of neurons. Many more than when you do a crossword puzzle! There is nothing worse, upon retirement, that leaving the place where you have always lived, to retire to the Cote (d'Azure?) where you know no one. That is guaranteed to produce cerebral atrophy.

So I had overstated it, partly from trying to weave it into my own knowledge/ interests. Does it sound more reasonable in this form? IBE (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can plants grow on lunar soil given enough water and air?[edit]

--Inspector (talk) 04:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, because lunar soil has no organic matter, and therefore no nutrients needed for growth. See [1]. In fact, even on Earth, plants will die if the concentrations of the 6 macronutrients and 8 micronutrients are too high or too low, or if the soil is too coarse/tight, or if the soil PH is too low or high.

It is possible to grow plants on the Moon if you provide the required nutrients, using hydroponics. If you plan to do that, you might as well ditch the soil, because it doesn't help. --140.180.243.114 (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to disagree with the above. --Guy Macon (talk) 09:04, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In that experiment they added bacteria to the lunar soil simulant, which by the looks of it leached nutrients from the rock. It notes that the plants "fared very badly" in neat soil simulant. Fgf10 (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also lunar night is too long (354 hours). This makes moon unsuitable for Earth's plant life. --PlanetEditor (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In places like Murmansk or Hammerfest, the night can sometimes be two months long, but does that make these places unsuitable for plant life? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:40, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The OP may find the Soil article useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening here?[edit]

what is happening here?112.209.165.87 (talk) 11:29, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's an electric fence. The first four people are insulated from the ground, so don't get shocked. As soon as the last guy joins the chain, a connection is made to earth, current flows, and everybody gets zapped. Rojomoke (talk) 13:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like very high power. Somebody told me that you have to increase the power from horses, cows, goats to sheep. The horses are very sesitive while the isolating capabilities of sheep make it hard to shook them.--Stone (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wool is a reasonably good insulator, so sheep (and sometimes goats) will push under an electric fence without feeling much of a shock. Horses and cows tend to investigate with their mouths first, so are more likely to avoid a low-power fence. Dbfirs 10:30, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try this at home, folks! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

inactive ingredients (excipients) in prescription and otc drugs[edit]

I have a question not writing an article: individuals who have celiac disease or other sensitivities such as milk allergy such as myself find it very difficult without a physicians desk reference to determine what the binders are in drugs when they are being manufactured. When researching the drug Ultram for a friend I determined per the site www.ehow.com: (I am copying and pasting)"The starch ingredients in Ultram are used in the manufacturing process. Grain Processing Corporation indicates that various starches are used for thickening and binding applications as well as water absorption. Individuals with allergies could have an adverse reaction to tablets containing starches. One example is patients with celiac disease, an allergy to gluten that results in intestinal inflammation. According to Steven Plogsted, clinical pharmacist, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration is not as strict about inactive ingredients, called excipients. They dictate which ingredients may be used but do not stipulate the quantity and type. Lactose, milk sugar and microcrystalline cellulose from fibrous plants are also used as filler." I cannot find any information on wikipedia any information re excipients in any drugs or information re any binders. Can you suggest a better way for me to search your site for further information. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.61.198.89 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a medical condition which requires you to be careful about excipeints used, do not trust Wikipedia regarding that information. Any information we have could be out of date, not applicable to the particular pills you're interested in, or just plain wrong. Instead, talk to your pharmacist. Since they're the ones handling the pills, they'll have the best information regarding inactive ingredients, and may be able to talk to the manufacturer if the desired information is not listed. -- 71.35.100.68 (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When a drug is given federal approval, the company must submit a product monograph to the national pharmacopeia. In the United States, this is the United States Pharmacopeia, and in Canada it is the Compendium of Pharmaceuticals and Specialties. These monographs must conform to the pharmacopeia's standards, and include information about excipients. Any pharmacy will have a copy, and sometimes community libraries will carry a copy. Drug companies may also post the full product monograph on their websites. Ashleyleia (talk) 15:48, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Terms in QSAR / medicinal chemistry[edit]

Hello. I am struggling with a scientific paper in the field of medicinal chemistry, and would be happy to get basic explanation and/or links to websites that explain about the the terms "matrix of biological response", "score matrix", "block matrix", and about the use of the regression methods MLR,PCR,PLS in the context of QSAR. Thank you! 94.159.214.106 (talk) 19:13, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a homework question. Therefor follow this link [2]--Aspro (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote explicitly it is not a homework question but an attempt to understand basic terms in a paper that I am not familiar with. I did search in Google and other sources and did not find anything. I wrote that I would be happy to get a simple explanation and/or references. It is the declared aim of this page. You would probably notice all that if you would read my question properly, but apparently your "answer" is only an excuse for this stupid, not funny link. 94.159.214.106 (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

science so far outside experience / experiments that no one bothers[edit]

can you suggest areas of science that are so far outside of experience, experiments, or the subject of current theories that nobody has really bothered to do all the science and therefore it is relatively easy to be first to truth and nab a nobel. For example, in biology maybe nobody has thought about Evolution on the scale of organisms evolving to deal with the Heat Death of our Universe, simply because it seems like it's something that can wait. Still it's bound to happen, so this has to come up sooner or later. This is the type of thing that I mean, and I was prompted by the fact Einstein thought of relativistic speeds at a time when even cars were pretty slow if not outright horses. No rockets or GPS or anything that needs relativistic effects, still he thought of it. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 22:08, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How about you give that 'heat death of the universe' thing a try, and then get back to us with your results? Seriously, the Reference Desk is here to help find sources of information to solve specific problems; we're not a chat forum. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:16, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As above. The advancement of science is everybody building up in little increments on what has been discovered and been explained before. Even Professor Einstein drew on what was already known but in his case he was just too stupid to realise it was too difficult to formulate in mathematical terms -so he went on and did it anyway. In other words there is no short cut. --Aspro (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought maybe there were references like a list of problems no one is working on because they don't seem relevant to anything. 178.48.114.143 (talk) 23:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think such a s list exists. There are not so much unsolved problems but areas of wonder that scientist have on their back burner... that they would develop if only they had the time and funding. An astronomer said to me in passing, that the most useful letter he received back as a child from writing to 'famous” astronomers was to look at part of the sky where there was nothing to see (!). The Hubble telescope has now seen billions of galaxy in that part of the sky. If it had been simply a dust cloud obscuring that part of the sky that niggling little thought would not have played on the mind. But one has to have a thorough understanding of the subject to inquire into these thing and that requires much preparation. A 'problem' is where the 'knowns' don't add up and thus there are often many other scientists working on that same 'problem'. That makes one's own chances at solving it not good. It seems (too me) that the big jumps in knowledge comes, from long study of a subject that comes to ignore the 'next problem' and the enquire thinks: Uhmm!!? There are several thing that don't add up here. Very often it come with the benefit of cross pollination from other scientific disciplines that give the key to the back-burner puzzlement. Lets go back to Einstein. He was a patent examiner in his day job. He was not a specialist. He was exposed to many different ideas, theories, and hypotheses. He made interconnections. A scientist has to feed his family (yes, some times -believe it or not- they find time to have sex and end up with children to feed and wives that want new dresses etc.). If he should get an inkling of an a promising avenue of research, he ain’t going to breath a word to anybody else. He'll want to keep it to himself in the hope that he can get funding. So, from that point of view he would not add to such a list. Blame the American's, they have turned universities into patent generators where every professors have to justify their jobs by publishing as many scientific papers as possible, regardless of the quality. If you want a Noble forget the academic rat-race.--Aspro (talk) 00:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the question is without much substance, but the OP might like to check out Ig Nobel Prizes for a bit of amusement. It was originally awarded for achievements "that cannot, or should not, be reproduced", although this has changed a little. IBE (talk) 02:04, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]