Science desk
< February 13	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 15 >

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.

February 14[edit]

Earth's axis of rotation[edit]

For this question please ignore continental drift or assume it doesn't exist. I know that the Earth's magnetic poles move around over time. I am wondering, does the same thing happen with the geographic poles, that the axis of rotation runs through? Like if you sat down in New York City and waited long enough (millions of years), could you find that NYC is the new North Pole? I know that the axis precesses by a few degrees but I'm looking for a larger effect, like swapping the Northern and Southern hemispheres. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precession is in the constellations, the few degrees of axial tilt change superimposed on that is also in the stars, polar wander on the ground is mostly continental drift (apparent polar wander) and true polar wander. And the constellations themselves scatter like cockroaches after only a few wavy 26,000 year precession circles. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So the short answer is no. If you set up camp at the South Pole, its location will still be at the South Pole millions of years from now. The solid Earth globe "wobbles" together with its axis of rotation, just like a fast spinning top tends to do; check out the first image in the article Precession. --Lambiam 10:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's Chandler wobble. --Wrongfilter (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The South Pole ice flows downhill to the sea at 10 yards per year, much faster than continental drift. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks, true polar wander was what I was wondering about, and those articles have some numbers, which were smaller than what I needed to account for what I was thinking about. Re constellations: SMW, are you saying that if I sat in New York for a mere 100K years or so, the night sky would look completely different? I mean not just slightly perturbed? Interesting. Thanks. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying, in millions of years, Earth might get hit by something with exactly the attirbutes to make (the ruins of) NYC its new pole or swap 'North' and 'South' (relative to the solar system?). Stars and other references for orientation can all shift somewhat. GeorgiaDC (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pregnant woman questions.[edit]

Let's say a pregnant woman suffers something where her brother or boyfriend is killed in a car crash, or is murdered. What affect does the stress have it on the future fetus, let's say for 2 scenarios, where it is 9-months pregnant, or where it is just a zygote. Which case has it worse for the fetus? Did the fetus have a high or low probability of turning out abnormal? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 11:38, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Your (or her) best option is asking the question to the doctor. Internet fora (including Wikipedia's Teahoure or Ref.Desk) are definitely not the right place for seeking medical advice. --CiaPan (talk) 11:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the event that these may be known cases. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 11:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Nope. No two cases are the same. Read a leaflet attached to any medical product – each of them lists some side effects. Some happen in one case per 100, some in one per ten thousands, some may happen once per the whole history of mankind.

Every accident may end differently. Some people cut their finger off, then get it sewed back and live happily, while some other may scratch it slightly, get infection and die from sepsis.

Some people loose their dog and mentally break down forever, while some (most?) experience a loss of their parents and – even though traumatized – live normally.

Some catch flu or Covid-19 and seem healthy back in seven or ten days, and some stay in hospitals for weeks and go back home with severe pulmonary dysfunctions.

Nobody in the internet knows any special details of physical, mental and social health of the specific person. All you can possibly get here is information about some average scenarios – but you never know if an average scenario applies, because in reality nobody is average. So, even if you meet five proffesors of medicine here, they won't be able to give you a professionally reasonable answer. The only sensible way to obtain a safe advice is to go see your doctor.

By the way, please see Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer:

WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE.

Best regards, CiaPan (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I'm not asking for solutions to counter it. 67.165.185.178 (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

If OP said "I'm thinking of murdering someone by tampering with his car but worry about the effect on an unborn close relative," that would be seeking medical advice. —Tamfang (talk) 03:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is probably a good question in there, along the lines of "does stress during pregnancy cause problems for the mother / for the embryo/foetus?". Mixing up the cause of stress itself is not helpful and is probably why you got hit by the medical disclaimer.

There seems to be some evidence that stress can increase the risk of miscarriage (link to review found from Talk:Miscarriage), but nothing definitive yet. Considering that miscarriage is a well-defined endpoint with a fairly high incidence rate, I would speculate that if we are not sure yet about that, we probably don’t have enough data for the impact of stress on birth defects (which are more rare, more varied, and more or less pronounced). Tigraan^{Click here for my talk page ("private" contact)} 15:19, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a scientific question rather than a medicalone. Medical advice would be to help someone actually in that situation, which doesn't seem to be the case here. This web search gets a lot of matches that might be relevant. You could also look at our article on epigenetics for how some of these effects can persist across generations. 2602:24A:DE47:B8E0:1B43:29FD:A863:33CA (talk) 03:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where does paper from US and Europe come from?[edit]

In the U.S., does paper come from trees of South America? What about for Europe? And is there such a thing as tree-farms. As in, farm acres of land, to cut down trees strictly used for paper, and once cut down, space is immediately used to grow more trees to cut for paper. The species being the fastest possible -growing trees. And possibly in a glass-ceiling environment where CO2 gas or so is extra given? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

See paper pulp and pulpwood for answers. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tree farm. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article seems to be for cutting down trees used for timber and wood, like for furniture. Then is paper not made directly from trees, but made from wood? 67.165.185.178 (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2022 (UTC).[reply]

If you read the article I linked to: "The wood fiber sources required for pulping are "45% sawmill residue, 21% logs and chips, and 34% recycled paper" (Canada, 2014)". So sawmill residue is bulk component. A sawmill making lumber (boards and planks) would still have waste material for making paper. 41.165.67.114 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largest Wood Producing Countries by Products (percentage of global production 2018) - Pulp for paper: United States of America (25%); Brazil (11%); China (9%); Canada (8%); Sweden (6%); Finland (6%); Russian Federation (5%); Indonesia (5%); Japan (5%); India (3%); Chile (3%). [1] Alansplodge (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are some countries so different from their percents of the world's forests? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why would we expect them to be the same as their percents of the world's forests? --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

USA 7.5% of the forest acres, BRA 15% pretty similar to its production, CHI 5% not surprising, Canada 9.5% but much less than US, Sweden 0.7% holy crap, Finland 0.6% ditto, Russia 20% too remote?, Indonesia 2.4%, Japan like 0.55%, India ~1.8%, Chile ~0.45%. Less correlation than I'd expect. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why are you expecting a correlation in the first place? I do not see any logical reason to expect that correlation in ignorance of any other variables, such as whether the trees are even varieties good for making paper, whether local economies have decided paper production is even a viable focus, and whether local populations have decided to make their forests protected or not. I really don't see any reason to expect that paper production would match forest acreage. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would've guessed Finland was 0.3 to 1/0.3 times its percent of forest acres but you're right not too surprising. I thought Scandinavia was supposed to be environmental? Given the diversity of countries presumably paper trees can be tropical, temperate or taiga and you don't need to be very industrialized but maybe Japan, Sweden and Finland has good climate or soil or species and bad species, soil or climate start near the edge of Russia. Maybe the low price to weight ratio encourages regional centers? Maybe US has heavy forestry import tariffs despite NAFTA, what do I know? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The more space is taken up by tree plantations, the less is left for natural forests; see Tree plantation § Natural forest loss. Pulpwood plantations are monocultures of species selected for growing fast. --Lambiam 21:16, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize there's a wee little country just to the north of the US with a few trees growing on it? Clarityfiend (talk) 21:04, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Finland is a major player on the European pulpwood market.^[2] Sweden is probably the runner-up; they are the leader in softwood lumber. --Lambiam 21:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the figures cited above, Sweden and Finland both contributed 6% of the global pulp-for-paper supply in 2018. Alansplodge (talk) 13:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the paper pulp in the U.S. comes from only a few suppliers, actually mostly Georgia-Pacific, but there are a few smaller players in the market in the U.S. AFAIK, nearly all of their supply is domestic. If you get paper in the U.S., it is most likely from U.S. trees. Some of it is privately-owned land, much of it owned by Weyerhaeuser, but a LOT of it is National forests, which is owned by the United States Government, managed by the United States Forest Service, and leased to companies like Weyerhaeuser and Georgia-Pacific to harvest trees. National Forests in the U.S. are multi-use: they do have a conservation and recreation function (like National Parks), but they are also used as a source of timber for building materials and paper. --Jayron 32 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]