Science desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

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.

January 2[edit]

Same Path for the Small Intestines in (most) Humans?[edit]

Other than cases related to Situs inversus does the small intestines in people follow the same pathway? (i.e. something like from the Duodenum, travels right to the edge of the intestines, then toward the back, then down, etc, etc)Naraht (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The articles anthropomancy and haruspex imply that there's enough variation to be noticeable, although those "arts" also looked at the color and other characteristics besides just the shape and alignment. Animals with abnormal innards were also forbidden as sacrifices, including at the temple in Jerusalem. In humans, many abnormalities are simply not discovered unless they have some effect. My sister-in-law did not know she only had one kidney until they did an ultrasound during her pregnancy. A search at google gives these results for "configuration of the small intestine". μηδείς (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.Naraht (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501: passengers found strapped in[edit]

Re: Indonesia AirAsia Flight 8501. I read in the news today that "most of the passengers were found strapped into their seats". What is the significance of this fact? What would it lead investigators to conclude? My initial reaction (which may be incorrect) was: "well, of course, they would be strapped into their seats!" No? How is this significant exactly? I assume it must be important on some investigatory level. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that they have found any in seats but if the aircraft was flying through bad weather and turbulence then it would not be unusual for them to be strapped in. MilborneOne (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If they weren't strapped in, that could mean several things:

1) There was a sudden incident, giving them no time to strap in, such as an explosion or collision.

2) They survived the crash and were evacuating the plane when they died.

3) They were forced out of their seats, as by hijackers. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reason 1 is out of date for airlines in the parts of the world I've been in (which, however, do not include any part of Asia). Airlines now always ask passengers to keep their seat belts fastened when seated, in case of unexpected turbulence. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 19:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My (limited) experience with a few airlines, all in the Asia region albeit not including Air Asia, is the same. I believe compliance was fairly high, although some may loosen the seatbelt. Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

High speed with high incident angle to the sea and the seat belt can tear the body in half. TWA flight 800 recovered many bodies as upper and lower torso. If they survived impact, I suspect most would unbuckle themselves unless they were unconscious. Those not buckled or braced properly may submarine under the seatbelt possibly leaving limbs or clothing behind. --DHeyward (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have an article on medical cross-sections ?[edit]

Meaning a cross-section of a tissue sample, which is then examined on a slide. StuRat (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe histology is what you are looking for. If not, that article has links to some other related things. Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tomography, in medicine, nowadays tends to refer to radiological methods; but the word "tomography" refers to studying images of slices. See also, microtome (the machine used to slice samples for clinical histology or research purposes). Nimur (talk) 18:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, generally speaking you tend to run into microtome sections of paraffin embedded tissue samples, cryotome sections of OCT embedded samples, and electron microscopy of sections embedded in an epoxy resin using a diamond knife or freshly broken glass knife (ultramicrotome). This need not be an exclusive list but I can't readily think of anything else smaller than a steak knife. Wnt (talk) 03:24, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the Visible Human Project which has to be the ultimate in cutting tissue cross-sections, although you would need humongous slides to mount them. Richerman (talk) 11:21, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point, though it is a very different process - apparently gelatin and water were used and the sample was ground down, destructively, to the surfaces photographed, leaving no slides behind. So I guess technically it fails the OP's criteria... still, wish I'd thought of it. :) Wnt (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Theroritically can EDTA administrated into the body?[edit]

or it's only for tubes? 194.114.146.227 (talk) 19:54, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PLease see Ethylenediaminetetraacetic_acid#Medicine. --Dr Dima (talk) 20:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note that chelation therapy is real; however, it is also a quack magnet, and for every mention of sound medical practice by a skilled practitioner there are a hundred lunatics pushing for people to treat their bodies like test tubes. Whenever someone cites nothing but theory to support a treatment, some apparently logical deduction based on chemistry, skepticism is appropriate - because biology doesn't know theory. Until someone actually tries the treatment on a test population and comes back with statistically significant results, you know nothing - and neither do they. Wnt (talk) 03:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]