Science desk
< April 12	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 14 >

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

April 13[edit]

High-resolution topographic maps of European countries[edit]

I'm looking for high-resolution topographic maps without any labelling, no indication of cities or other human footprint, etc. - just the plain topography of the country, if possible with the biggest rivers. [Longitudes and latitudes would be welcome, but aren't necessary.] The maps are to be printed on 30 x 40 cm or similar, depending on the shape of the country. For smaller countries, e.g., Netherlands / Belgium / Luxembourg, I don't mind one map with all of them together.

I've found one huge map of France by random internet browsing, but no others yet. Any ideas where to look?

(It's to expand a sort of quiz game, in which players have to guess where cities, landscapes, and mountain ranges are; only the mountain ranges are visible though. German version: de:Deutschland: Finden Sie Minden.)

Thanks for your help, Ibn Battuta (talk) 09:23, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This map here may be helpful. There's a variety of layers you can switch through and turn on/off. It may meet your requirements. Not sure. But it's one option I have found. --Jayron 32 12:21, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, some of the layers look great! (no rivers, but apart from that: perfect!) I'm just not sure how to download from the site, let alone in high resolution? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 12:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most computers and/or phones have a screen capture function, and any image-editing program should have the ability to crop an image. --Jayron 32 14:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a conventional keyboard, press the "print screen" (or "pr.scr") key. Then you can paste it where you want. Alansplodge (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cropping isn't quite the issue :-) ... I am looking for maps the size of about 30 x 40 cm, sometimes probably 40 x 40 cm, and my screen size is a fraction of that. So I'm afraid mere screen capture isn't doing the job. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One option is to paste different screenshots together. Alansplodge (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience that hardly ever gives the same smooth transitions and correct proportions as a genuine picture. And printed at high resolution, that would be visible. So as a poor solution if everything else fails, yes, that's an option... but I would hope there are simply decent, download-able maps out there at this day and age? --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2021 (UTC) PS: Besides, sometimes the colors get mangled up that way, even though I'm not quite sure why. At least that was my experience when screen-capturing and stitching this map years ago; no idea where my file went, but it was far worse quality than the one linked here... --Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC) PPS: Just for the record, you may be talking about conventional stand-alone keyboards. All laptop keyboards I've seen in recent years need key combinations to capture screen shots. Or software solutions. Although I believe to remember that even some stand-alone keyboards require those...? Anyways, thanks for the suggestions, I know how to get a screen shot when I want one. :-) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WHO Age range classifications[edit]

So, there is a "feel good story" sort of viral thing that has been going around the interwebz lately that references a World Health Organization classification of age ranges for various phases of life, and that recently the WHO had adjusted the age ranges as shown below:

0-17 years old: underage
18-65 years old: youth/young people
66-79 years old: middle-aged
80-99 years old: elderly/senior
100+ years old: long-lived elderly

Some examples of the stories that carried the above table, credited (but not directly cited) to the World Health Organization: [1], [2], etc.

I've been looking for the source documents from the WHO with these classifications, but can't find them anywhere. Is anyone else having any more luck? --Jayron 32 16:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

These numbers are plainly wrong. You should have used reliable sources. Ruslik_Zero 17:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They aren't my numbers, I was doubting their veracity and looking for a source. Thank you for providing one. Problem solved. --Jayron 32 17:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Biologically there is evidence that aging has 3 phases, one of which reaches the person at around age 34, one around age 60, and one at 78.[3] 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 05:41, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to buy some vitamins[edit]

Hi. I am looking for some help and maybe some insight. I am trying to buy some vitamins. I found these: [4]. And I found these: [5]. The first ones cost about $20 for 300 pills. The second ones cost about $15 for only 120 pills. Seems like a big price difference. The products seem to be essentially the same or very similar. Am I missing something? I don't want to throw money away, buying the more expensive ones (the "second ones" at $15 for 120). But, I don't want to end up with "junk", buying the cheaper ones (the "first ones" at $20 for 300). Am I missing anything? Why such a big price discrepancy for nearly identical items? This (the Science Help Desk) seemed the best place to post. But, I am not seeking a "real scientific / technical" answer ... just common sense / consumer perspective. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The price you pay for a product is only very tangentially related to its value, if at all. Wikipedia has articles on Pricing and Pricing strategies, but what it boils down to is that a company will set the price of a product at the exact point it thinks will maximize its revenue from that product. There is no magic perfect price, and there are lots of ways in which the complexities of human psychology run into pricing and marketing in unusual ways (i.e. Veblen goods, where the demand increases the more expensive it becomes, and Giffen goods, which has a similar effect for different reasons). The basic principle is that there is very little way to tell why two largely identical products will be priced differently, NOR can one tell whether or not one product is better than another (for any given definition of "better") than by price alone. It's... complicated, which can be seen in the article's I have cited. As an example of the insanity of pricing what (is actually) identical products, by visiting only 2-3 stores in my area, I can find a gallon of ordinary, nothing different, cow's milk priced anywhere from $1.39 per gallon to $3.99 per gallon, and these are not "special, organic, wagyu milks" or anything like that. This is your ordinary, run-of-the-mill plain plastic gallon of milk, and the price range for the most expensive gallon is almost triple the least expensive gallon. Pricing is weird. I'm sorry I can't help you figure out which (if either) of your vitamin pills is "better", but price is not necessarily a good way to figure that out. --Jayron 32 18:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd note that the second one actually has 250 for $24.99 so while there is still a price difference (50%), it's not as high as you suggest. Beyond the points Jayron32 made, buying products in smaller is often more expensive for a variety of reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Jayron32 and to User:Nil Einne: Thanks, both, for the input and insight. As I was reading the replies, it occurred to me that two other considerations gave me pause (that is, my reluctance to buy the cheaper ones). One: there are quite a few of these products out there; most (if not, all) are priced in line with the higher-priced item. So, it seemed like the cheaper ones were either a great bargain; or some type of rip-off / scam. Two: I thought that maybe the price differential was due to form (soft-gels versus capsules)? But, I can't imagine that that distinction is such a big deal? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's also worth noting that many such brands are not produced by companies with a large degree of vertical integration, meaning that many steps of the process of producing the pills might be outsourced. Indeed, MANY modern products are essentially 100% outsourced, where the brand you see on the label means nothing about who produced the product, and where everything from the raw materials to the form factor to the packaging are produced at different companies, and the company who's name and brand are on the label had nothing to do with getting it into your hands. For any given product, there are often far less factories producing that product than there are brands; many brands are produced at the same factory meaning that paying extra for a specific brand name is literally just paying for the name; the product is identical to a less expensive alternative. This is not always true, and there's no guarantee that it is true for your specific vitamins, but it is often enough true due to the economics of supply chains and production; it is simply cheaper for companies to outsource most steps of the production process and simply sell you their name than it is to produce such products themselves. Famously, something like 94% of laptop computers are designed by a small number of Taiwan-based companies, and they are all physically built in a small number of factories in mainland China, mostly around Guangdong. A company you've never heard of, like Compal Electronics or Quanta Computer, likely made the computer you're working on now, regardless of its brand, and it was likely designed and made to be functionally identical (other than certain inconsequential aesthetic elements) to computers priced at vastly different price points. Many, many products in the modern world work this way. This is called white label production and it happens in many industries, often without any obvious way of telling. Another one that comes to mind is liquor; while many companies still produce in house, you'd be surprised how many brands don't anymore, even legacy brands. Diageo owns a number of famous and well-known liquor brands, and much of their production has been shifted to a single distiller, Midwest Grain Products. I could keep going on and on, but suffice it to say that the economics of this is complex. --Jayron 32 11:32, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced and off topic medical advice when such medical advice was not even solicited

~~People who take vitamins die sooner. AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)~~[reply]

Please don't make blanket statements, especially health related advice like that, without even bothering to do a citation. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 21:31, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you've got any concerns about vitamins, see your doctor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up,
Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Vitamins and Supplements May Lead to Earlier Death," Life Sciences[6]. It's been know for 40+ years AboutFace 22 (talk) 23:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the article you quote also states "Both studies showed an association, not a cause-and-effect link.". and "Part of the reason ... may be that taking vitamins or supplements that include more iron or copper than the body needs are harmful for health,... though more work is needed to show this."

note: Emphasis mine and I tried to shorten the quoted text without altering its meaning Rmvandijk (talk) 09:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, AboutFace 22's initial summary, although without a citation, sounds quite correct regarding the article: "People who take vitamins die sooner" = no cause-and-effect link, but an association. Nonetheless good point to stress this fact to readers... :-) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Small, because we are going off-topic; The article does say that, but the research they base it on is more cautious. As an analogy, people who take hay fever medication probably suffer more from pollen ^{[citation needed]}. Saying that people who take hay fever medication have runny noses more often is a correct but useless association.

I think it is an important issue. I see even here there is a fog in the answers. I would like to tell you a story without giving any references. It is too bothersome to look for them. Strictly speaking the statement "people who take vitamins die sooner" is not correct individually. It is a statistical phenomenon. If you take two groups of people, let say 1000 strong, give one of them vitamins and leave the other one without, you will find after some years that the mortality in the first group is higher. Why. About 50 years ago one brilliant mind decided to try to treat cancer patients with vitamins. Their cancers accelerated and they ALL dies sooner. The experiment was stopped. So, the reasonable explanation why the 1000 strong group with vitamins had higher mortality is that some of them had occult malignancies. Malignancies feed on vitamins (it has been proven) and the cancers accelerate. It has nothing to do with any impurities in the vitamins. There is another sobering fact associated with it. As one physician said: "vitamins cannot make healthy person healthier," and this is true. Obviously there are special situations: Scurvy [7], Vit 12 deficiency that leads to Megaloblastic anemia[8], etc. For that you should talk to your doctor. :-) AboutFace 22 (talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm afraid that isn't good enough. A half-remembered story about a "brilliant mind" is not something you should be sharing without some way for people to follow up on your story and read about it for themselves. This is the reference desk it is not the "stuff I kinda remember desk". Please provide references for further reading, or keep your stories to yourself. --Jayron 32 16:44, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Getting back to the start of this thread, I agree with Bugs' earlier response, if worried, ask a doctor! Rmvandijk (talk) 12:08, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, pricing may be an issue; though pricing also often reflects a value, just not only of the product bought--e.g., fancier stores often cost more rent, more interior design, more hours of sales clerks, maybe even more hours for the cleaning staff etc.; so it's not just about brands or marketing, but also about what is paid for apart from the product (incidentally, in industrialized countries, these are often values provided in the country, hard or impossible to outsource; the product itself may be imported; some consumers then complain about outsourcing, but are unwilling to pay for such nationally provided values in the stores, let alone for costlier national production, etc. ...).

That being said, the original question was whether the two products are different. I'm afraid nobody here will know. But maybe worth mentioning that there can exist differences between food supplements. Iron supplements are known to differ in how well consumers tolerate them (some people throw up when taking certain--usually cheaper--pills). I know anecdotal evidence from a doctor about different absorption rates of magnesium pills (a certain low-priced product with high dosage seems to have, among some patients, a lower absorption rate than a more expensive product with lower dosage). A pharmacist even claimed that some (cheaper) products have supposedly inefficient quality control about their dosage as opposed to the more expensive products from medical products (all of them over-the-counter supplements). No idea if K2 and D3 may have similar issues, but I wouldn't rule it out. The problem is, you're unlikely to find a scientific comparison of just your two choices.

Generally, why would you want to take them? Do you have a medical condition, so is anyone checking if you really need them and how well you absorb them? Or do you just believe that K2/D3 might be beneficial to you, without any medical supervision/indication? You will know that generally, too many (unnecessary) food supplements are taken in many industrialized countries; a healthy diet with vegetables and fruit plus regular time outdoors (when the sun is sufficiently high in the sky, e.g., in winter around noon time) is in most cases all we need. That being said, if you have reason to assume you're lacking important vitamins, consider checking with a doctor to find out if the pills you're taking are actually necessary and sufficient. In the long run, that may be cheaper than economizing on Amazon. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without getting into all that economic theory, I'd just say anything on amazon is likely to be fake or worse. I've been happy buying basic supplements and OTC medicines at Costco. They are so much cheaper than places like drugstores that it's worth some extra travel and so on. For example, I take generic loratidine for seasonal allergies and at Costco it's around 3 cents per pill. The name brand (Claritin) is over 10x as expensive, and even generics are at least 3x as expensive at other places. 2601:648:8200:970:0:0:0:1A5F (talk) 05:46, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]