Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2006 December 5

= December 5 =

List Of Latin Genus And Species
I'm looking for a list of Latin names of critters in the form of Genus species that might be used to enable a bot to italicise all such phrases and ensure that they are capitalised at, and only at, the beginning. --Username132 (talk) 00:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

human pathogen sizes
I'm comparing the diffusion of various pathogens and am not able to find the sizes of these bacteria.
 * 1. Is there any way to find out the size of the largest human pathogen ?
 * 2. Is there any place online where I could find some indication of size for various human pathogens (like an online book that would just list them with indication of sizes )
 * 3. If the previous 3 can't be answered, where could I find indications of sizes for some (ideally all) of these?


 * Salmonella
 * Staphylococcus aureus
 * Streptococcus pneumoniae
 * Streptococcus pyogenes
 * Helicobacter pylori


 * 4. is there anywhere on the net where one could find the diffusivity of the largest pathogen or any of the pathogens mentioned above ?

teo


 * The largest pathogens (if looking at all disease causing things) are parasitic worms. As for your bacterium sizes, I can't find many. I'll be looking, but so far, I can't find any good answers.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In terms of 3, you could take a look for photomicrographs of the bacteria with scale bars Nil Einne 17:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a range of sizes for each of the organisms, depending on factors like growth conditions and strain. But here are some representative sizes from the web.
 * Salmonella 2 microns by 0.5 microns
 * Staphylococcus aureus 0.7 microns
 * Streptococcus pneumoniae 0.8 to 1.0 micron
 * Streptococcus pyogenes 0.6 to 1.0 micron
 * Helicobacter pylori 1 to 5 microns
 * E. Coli 2 microns
 * As a suggestion, try a Google search with the organism's name and "microns" and in most cases you'll see some answers. - Nunh-huh 21:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

When did Laodicea (or area) discontinue shipments of Collyrium?
Background: It is well established that a collyrium (eye salve) was manufactured in Laodicea. The New Testament -- Revelations 3:18 refers to this  collyrium or eye salve. The city had a medical school and was a banking center.

"This Pheygian powder was apparently applied to the eyes in the form of a doughy paste". Varrious texts and other books provide varrious details. The books which I have looked at so far give very, very little further information.

Present Quest: I am preparing a history of the development of this product. Can you add to my store of knowledge?

disease/sickness
what is hydrocaphlus? (something connectting to the brain)


 * Consult our article on hydrocephalus. Come back if there are any questions you have that are not answered in the article. :) --Username132 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Another term for this is : Water on the brain but the cure is a little more complicated that a 'tap on the head' 8-)--Light current 01:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Genetic similarity between the sexes
Hi,

I know that chimps and humans are (genetically) 90-something percent similar, but how similar are human males and females, genetically? I know that males have an X and a Y chromosome while females have 2 X's, but how much in percent would that be? Does it even make sense to ask how similar males and females are?

Thanks (74.96.217.202 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC))


 * I think it depends on the definitions you take (percentage of matched nucleotides or percentage of matched genes). The article on X chromosome says that an X chromosome is worth 2.5% of the human genome. Since guy are usually lacking one X chromsome, might we say that there is a 97.5% "match" (in terms of genes, not alleles (since alleles wouldn't make sense)) between men and women? Then again, since men do have one X chromosome with all its associated genes, maybe we should be looking at what the women lack, the coveted Y chromosome! The article tells us that the Y chromosome has a piffling 83 genes compared with the X chromosomes 1000. At about 8% of the 2.5% of the X chromosome we have 0.2% of the total human genome - which I would like to propose as my final answer. :) --Username132 (talk) 02:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (added after edit conflict with Username132) All the chromosomes that men and women have in common – all but the Y chromosome – are identical in men and women. (Okay, they're not strictly identical&mdash;there will be some differences from one individual to another.  Different alleles of particular genes will be inherited, there will be the odd mutation, etc.  But looking solely at those chromosomes, there's no way to tell if they came from a man or a woman.)


 * On the other hand, the X and the Y chromosomes are an unusual pair. Since only men have the Y chromosome, there cannot be any genes absolutely necessary for survival on it.  The Y is a tiny, stubby little thing&mdash;it only makes up about 0.38% of the total DNA in a (male) human cell.  In other words, even if it had nothing in common with the X chromosome, there would still be very little difference between male and female DNA.


 * As it turns out, the Y actually contains a handful of genes that are duplicated from the X, so the genetic difference between men and women is even smaller than you might expect. (The remaining genes are mostly involved in driving the assembly of the male reproductive apparatus.)  Now, because the X is quite a bit bigger than the Y, women have more total DNA per cell than men (about 2% extra), even though that DNA is in an extra, redundant X chromosome.  So I guess the answer to your question depends on how you want to measure that difference.  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the prompt replies!!! 74.96.217.202 05:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * However, there may also be genes in other chromosomes which are male or female-specific, being triggered by some protein produced by the Y chromosome that says "I am male", or the lack of such a protein, meaning "I am female". If we convert the genetic code into computer code (and have a bit of fun in the process), it might look like this:

IF (MALE) THEN MOVIE_PREFERENCE = "Car chases and big explosions" ELSEIF (FEMALE) THEN MOVIE_PREFERENCE = "Whining about relationships for two hours" END


 * StuRat 08:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Note that even though females have two X chromosomes, one is inactivated in most cells. Take a look at X-inactivation and perhaps also Tortoiseshell cat for a striking visual example of this Nil Einne 17:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, nit-pick: Sex is not always clearly defined by whether or not you have a Y chromosome. There are numerous articles here on Wikipedia that describe conditions where a person can have an XY pattern and still be female, or where a person can have patterns of XXX, XXY, et cetera. Obviously the 'rules' may vary. ~ lav-chan @ 18:33, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Red blood cells
Do red blood cells have organelles? If so what are they?


 * Read about red blood cells. They do have organelles, but mammalian red blood cells don't have nuclei.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Er, a minor quibble&mdash;as far as I know, mammalian erythrocytes lack an endoplasmic reticulum and mitochondria, as well as a nucleus. Do you know of any organelles that are retained?  TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, and supported by the red blood cells article, all organelles are lost. Of course, we're only talking about mammalian and mature cells here Nil Einne 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of sexes
Would it be possible for some hypothetical organism to have more than two biological sexes? If not, why not? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that a third sex would be strongly selected against, though I can't remember why and might just be pulling this out of my ass. I checked sex, evolution of sex, and sexual reproduction, but it was nothing doing. 24.11.177.133 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting question. Nature generally likes doing things in pairs, it provides redundancy without over compensating, it provides balance and symmetry, there are many reasons to do things in twos. Most animals have two sexes because it mixes the gene pool, we tend to be attracted to people who's genes compliment our own. Finding a partner to reproduce with is a biologically demanding activity. For most entities (including most humans) it takes up a majority of their effort. It would be beneficial NOT to have to find a partner to reproduce, but obviously mixing the gene pool is a BIGGER benefit. Having to find a third partner compatible with you and the second would add a magnitude of complexity, for that reason I don't think it's really a possibility. But I guess I haven't really disproved that it CAN'T happen and therefore I haven't given much evidence why it has never been witnessed even is some strange plant somewhere or something, I suspect there might be a more fundamental reason…Vespine 04:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Would there be then a three-fold cost of sex for organisms with three sexes (for example)? If so, is this just too high a cost then for the organism to be recompensed by the advantage conferred by the creation of genetic variation (which I think is basically what Vespine is saying)? 24.11.177.133 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The primary benefit of sexual reproduction is that it gives a chance to recombine genes, which greatly increases the rate at which advantageous mutations can be separated from harmful ones. Having three (or more) genders doesn't really provide a lot of extra benefit, but it sure would make it harder to find compatible mates.  --Dgies 06:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Why not? For a fictional account of such a situation, see The Gods Themselves by Isaac Asimov. B00P 07:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read The Gods Themselves. What I'm wondering is if such a situation could only occur in a fictional account, as it were. I haven't really gotten a straight answer yet. --24.11.177.133 12:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There are shrimp that have two different kinds of females. Then there are ants that have two different types of males. For both, reproduction requires only one or two individuals. But for the ants the colony as a whole requires three sexes to survive. (Just googling for three sexes...) Weregerbil 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A Star Trek Voyager episode had something where there were 3 sexes, and the third was heavily discriminated against. Crisco 1492 07:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some real organisms do have a multitude of sexes. This is described in some detail in the book The Mathematics Of Sex, which I've just read. I forget the author - Clio somebody I think. Its a slim popular paperback so you don't have to have any maths skills to read it. As far as I recall they were things like slime moulds and fungi. I think she also implies that a third sex might be evolving in humans. 81.104.12.52 20:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

blizzard of 1993
What was it like during the blizzard of 1993 for htose who were there and will this likely occur again in the next fifty years since the environment is fragile right now. Dragonfire 734 02:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is the environment fragile right now? There are blizzards and record cold every year. There has been no significant difference in the amount of intensity of storms over the past 100 years.  --Tbeatty 04:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So is global warming "bad science?" What effect would actual global warming have on storm intensity? Edison 15:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mosquitos - How they benefit humans and the environment
Do they? Or are they completely vile creatures that can only improve the world by their extinction?


 * They don't benefit humans at all; they only annoy us and help spread disease. However, animals like frogs may depend on mosquitoes as their main diet.  --Bowlhover 04:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They don't benefit humans directly, but they are the primary source of food for a huge number of other animals, including many species of birds, amphibians, other insects, etc. Anchoress 04:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * But birds can eat a lot of other insects, no? Would they really become extinct if mosquitoes were gone?  --Bowlhover 04:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but I didn't say they would. Just read my post, I didn't mention extinction either way. Anchoress 04:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the mistake then; I meant to say "would their numbers really dwindle by any significant amount?" If not, how do mosquitoes indirectly help humans?  --Bowlhover 04:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, banning DDT allowed the mosquito population to flourish which greatly reduced the poverty rate in sub-saharan africa by killing millions of the poorest people on earth. Then by banning cheap refrigerants, millions more starved to death. The Kyoto treaty should wipe out poverty as we know it. --Tbeatty 05:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Those are some pretty bold assertions. Care to provide a reputable reference for them? --Dgies 06:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hereis the DDT one. The Freon reference is Scientific American in 1997 as well as other places.  It's also a simple logical conclusion. --Tbeatty 14:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Be careful with the DDT-is-good story. It seems to originate from industry-backed thinktanks - More: gmwatch Arakrys 02:28, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Controlling our population? That's about all I can think of. | A ndonic O Talk 16:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Indirectly, I would argue mosquitos have had an effect on scientific research and also human development (as with other problems, many populations/countries have had to develop ways to deal with the problem). Whether this has been good for us or not is up for debate. In terms of the environment, I would argue anything that kills humans is good for the enviroment Nil Einne 17:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why your argument is so silly. --Tbeatty 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A gamma ray burst from a relatively nearby star would kill all humans. I fail to see how it would do the environment any good though. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) &bull; 01:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Unit
Is there a name for the unit kg times m/s ? Deltacom1515 04:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops, found it, looked at this table incorrectly. Sorry. Deltacom1515 04:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * (In either case, it should be Newton-second). --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

scientific termn for...
parents? is there any?. :|. --Cosmic girl 04:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well progenitor, which is my answer, redirects to ancestor. Anchoress 04:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It's "parents." B00P 08:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

any other than progenitors or @$$holes? (sorry)... any other than progenitors?...--Cosmic girl 15:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * My my it sounds like you have issues, but I guess you are a young adult... :-P Anyway I don't think there is any other commonly used term other then parent or progenitor. Note that parent is used in various context in biology, for example parent cell or parent plants (not parents). You also have a daughter cell (but no son cell). Even in spermatogenesis. Nil Einne 16:47, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

aww 2 bad... haha.thank u anyways, sorry for the random question.--Cosmic girl 00:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Helium
I know the question how many bolloons would it take to lift me up has probabely been asked a million times but I need to know how to calculate how much helium it would take to lift a given weight like one pound?67.125.159.101 04:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * According to lighter than air, helium and hydrogen both have about 1 kilogram of lift per cubic meter of gas at room temperature and sea level pressure. --Wirbelwind ヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just for fun, see also cluster ballooning and "Carried Away".--Shantavira 09:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you that was extremly Helpful.

SOCIAL SCIENCE
Hello, I would like to know if social psychology can or cannot explain all social problems.


 * That's a big question. I would say that, no, they can't, in that social problems can't be reliably predicted using existing models of social behavior, which often conflict with each other. StuRat 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That's easy. Social psychology cannot explain ALL social problems. 220.239.110.225 09:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * IMHO it depends if you're talking theory here or practice. In practice, social psychology cannot and is unlikely to ever be able to explain all social problems. However in theory, social pscyhology can explain all problems. However this would also apply to virtually every area we study so I guess it doesn't really say much. Of course, I'm agnostic and don't believe 'God' has any relevance to us Nil Einne 16:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this question had already been asked above and appears to be a homework question Nil Einne 16:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Normal flora
Why is it that the immune system does not attck normal flora? Thanks.


 * Those are normally outside the body, so not subject to the human immune system. Although counterintuitive, the contents of the digestive tract are considered to be outside the body, since they must traverse the intestinal walls to enter the body. StuRat 08:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The gut contains numerous M cells that take antigens in the gut lumen and present present them to lymphocytes of the gut-associated lymphoid tissue, overcoming that problem. A number of commensal bacterial species are pathogenic and can result in opportunistic infections in immunocompromised individuals. The actions of the M cells to constantly sample the luminal antigens, present them to GALT lymphocytes, and elicit antibody secretion, keeps these pathogenic species at bay. --David Iberri (talk) 12:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Some diseases may involve immune system response to the normal flora, for example: evidence continues to mount that the indigenous commensal flora of the gut is the target of the immune response in IBD. --JWSchmidt 14:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cracking Achilles
Sometimes when I get out of bed I have a bit of tension in my ankles. My Achilles tendon basically just feels a little tight. If I squat down just a couple inches by bending my ankles and knees, I'll hear and feel a pretty loud crack. Like cracking my knuckles but louder. The cracking sensation comes from the area of my tendon though I'd expect it to come from the joint. Why is it that I feel it in the tendon and what is it that's cracking? Dismas|(talk) 08:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure, but I suggest you stretch very slowly, to avoid a potentially serious injury. StuRat 08:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Might it be a similar phenomenon as when you 'crack' your hands by interlocking fingers then bending with plams outward?--Light current 08:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Like I said above, "Like cracking my knuckles..." Is this an American expression that maybe I should have explained?  Light, you and I are talking about the same thing.  Although with my ankles it doesn't feel like it's coming from the joint whereas it does if you crack the knuckles of your hands.  Dismas|(talk) 08:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No its not the joints in your hands either its the tendons stretching/moving/sticking in their 'tunnels'. Just had one then in my thumb. Not the joint!--Light current 14:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought it had to do with the joints. So we were talking about the same thing, I just had the wrong part popping!  :-)  Thanks, Dismas|(talk) 14:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The mechanism is the same as in Cracking joints, and likely to be harmless. In my own case it is not the Achilles tendon, but rather the tendons from the lower leg to the side of the foot, running over the side of the ankle, that cause a crack when they jump from the front to the back of the lateral malleolus. If you feel carefully, it is often possible to locate the place where the sound is generated - but remember that a "repeat pop" is usually not possible for quite a while, so you have to place your finger before moving the joint. -- Seejyb 15:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Mushrooms
what is the nutrient quality of mushrooms? how much protein, carbohydrate and fat is in a mushroom? The King of Spain&#39;s beard 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * See here: . StuRat 10:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the best nutritional value of mushrooms is if they replace less healthy foods in your diet. For example, a portobello mushroom "steak" is far healthier than a beef steak. StuRat 10:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC) For all these nutritional questions one can go to the What's in the Foods You Eat - Search Tool page of the US Dept of Agriculture site, enter "mushrooms" (or whatever food you wish to find data for) in the search box, select the type/method of preparation and the mass/volume, and you will be presented with a very detailed analysis of what the food contains. I suspect Stu's site uses the USDA data (which is of course not copyrighted, so Wikipedians may find the tables useful). Stephanie Ingram's article is a classic reference, but the figures are not tabulated, nor so detailed. -- Seejyb 15:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Remember, there are numerous types of mushrooms. Each will have their own nutritional values. - Mgm|(talk) 11:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Including some with some rather nasty toxins which will kill your liver Nil Einne 16:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

taking growth hormone, side effects?
Hi all can someone please tell me whether taking growth hormone has any detrimental effects. i mean taking it as an adult as a means for incresed muscle mass I know taking anabolic steroids has a definite detrimental effects after one stops taking, like less testosterone, reduced gonad size,increased risk of cancer, etc, but what are the side effects of taking HGH?

thanks

Nixon Chan
 * See Growth hormone. –m y s i d ☎ 12:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Moon
Is the moon in the sky just as often in the daytime as it is at night? TimBuck2 12:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, because the Earth rotates. See moon for more details.--Shantavira 13:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The trick, of course, is that when the moon is full (away from the sun), it can only be seen in the night sky and when it's new (near the sun), it can only be seen in the daylight sky but, but without reflected light, only becomes apparent during solar eclipses. But between the instants of being absolutely full and absolutely new, the moon can be seen in the daytime sky during at least that portion of the day between moonrise and moonset.


 * Atlant 17:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Your question is silly. Are you talking about a 24 hour period? In which case, a simple demostration would prove your assertion wrong. In Antarctica during summer, daytime is 24 hours and nightime is 0 hours. Therefore the moon in the sky more often in daytime than nighttime. QED. 202.168.50.40 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, the question may be "elementary," but it is not "silly." It was a simple Yes/No query answered by Shantavira. Done. B00P 23:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think most people understand that if you say daytime without specifying anomalies like Antarctica during summer which maybe 0.00000001% of the population have ever experienced, daytime means AVERAGE daytime. ;) To which the answer is YES. Vespine 00:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * more than 0.00000001% of the population have experienced Antarctica during summer. (If you assume 6 billion people, your number comes down to less than one individual) :) Lukas 00:35, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't be at all surprised if the sun's gravitational field perturbed the moon so that it spends slightly different amounts of time directly above the day and night sides of the earth. And 202.168.50.40 has a point: to answer the question we need some kind of average. We can't average over any given day. But what is "average daytime"? We can't average over any given year either, since the solar and lunar cycles aren't commensurate. And you can't average over all time, since the orbit of everything is constantly changing.
 * So I think a more precise answer than "yes" would have to be "it almost is, if you average over all possible positions of the moon and sun but fix everything else, which doesn't quite physically happen, although it almost does". Melchoir 01:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're making it overly complex. A simple question deserves a simple answer. StuRat 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it really a simple question, though? If I'm asked if the moon is really usually out at night, as it may appear, then the answer is just no. But if I'm asked if the moon is out equally often at night or at day... well, is it? Ideally one would spend the time to quantify the asymmetries to get a feel for how insignificat they are, but that would take a lot of effort. Melchoir 04:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Unless they indicate they need that level of precision, an approximate answer will do. For example, in problems dealing with train speeds, distances, and time elapsed, we can assume we will ignore the answer being different depending on the frame of reference, due to relativity, unless they specifically ask for us to discuss such effects.  Newtonian physics would be entirely adequate for such an answer, by default. StuRat 13:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, okay, but trains mostly appear in toy problems. They're kind of like boy-or-girl questions in elementary probability: you're expected to assume the base probability is 50-50, and if I objected that it's slightly different, that would just make me a wiseass. But here the question isn't about figuring out the mathematical consequences of some commonly assumed symmetry: it's about whether or not that symmetry physically exists in the first place. If someone asks "are boys just as common as girls?" then it's perfectly appropriate to talk about the genetic and social factors that skew the result. Melchoir 18:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Note that the reason it doesn't seem like the Moon is up as often in the day is that it's often hard to see, being much less bright than the Sun. This is particularly true on a cloudy day, where it can be impossible to spot the Moon during the day, while the moonlight visibly lights up the clouds at night. StuRat 01:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Weakness and Numbness to the Leg
Recently, my leg would turn weak and numb all of a sudden while running. This happened before, but it went away after a while. Should I go see a doctor? By the way, my leg is not swollen.BlueLighter 14:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Always wise to see a Doc, just in csae 8-)--Light current 14:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Sciatica, but you should see a doctor. From personal experience, this is something that is difficult to get a handle on, and has as much chance to go away by itself, as doing a massive therapy program. At the very least, you should see a physiotherapist, and do the recommended stretching. --Zeizmic 16:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If only so that you can rule out such serious possibilities as Deep vein thrombosis, you should definitely see a real doctor, not a Wikipedian.


 * Atlant 17:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Turns out, it was just some repetitive position for too long, aka. sitting in a bad position... so i'll live :DBlueLighter 09:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What is science?
I looked at the Science article. It gives a purely tautological, hollow description. Does anybody know what Science really is, or really is about?

The only thing I am sure of is that a scientist is someone who is paid for their work.

If this is regarded as a troll, please delete it immediately. Theavatar3 17:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * To quote the first sentence: "Science in the broadest sense refers to any system of objective knowledge." Seems pretty straightforward to me. DMacks 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Science is (among other things) a set of methods. Maybe Scientific method would help explain?  Friday (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, the second sentence of the article. Theavatar3, what in particular actually confused you when you read that first paragraph? DMacks 18:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * If I had to take issue with only one word, it would be 'objective'. I personally feel like the very word 'objective' is objectively useless.


 * Objective is necessary here - the alternative is subjective knowledge - see my comment below about marbles; the colour of the marbles is objective knowledge, my favourite marble ie the BEST one is subjective knowledfe - science doesn't do subjective I think..87.102.32.250 20:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * One might be tempted to read that as a suggestion that science itself is useless. It is manifestly not at all useless! Refrigeration is truly a wonderful thing, and a product of science.


 * Perhaps what I am getting at, is that science is the new religion. You cannot blaspheme against it. Or maybe I just did. Enough said. :) Theavatar3 18:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You can 'blaspheme' science (whatever that means). However as with any argument, you have to have a reasoned argument otherwise people will just point out the flaws in your argument and say your stupid. The difference with religion is that with religion, your can't really argue with it because it's based on belief. While many religioi people try to use emperical logic, ultimately,they all rely on belief since that's the basis of religion. Nil Einne 18:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - if you've ever been in the situation to notice that a 'scientific fact' - eg printed info. is wrong or suspect and try to raise the issue you would know why some people describe science as the new religion - and what it's like to be a 'scientific heretic'. Despite that science is supposed to be provable - try to point out an error in the body of collective scientific knowledge and be greater with inertia/blank stares/people questioning your authority etc.


 * If you can come up with (objective) evidence that a scientific fact is wrong and the evidence provided can be independently reproduced by others then at the very least, even your enemies would have to conclude that There is reason to suspect that the scientific fact is wrong. 202.168.50.40 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you'd be interested in studying the Philosophy of science DMacks


 * My view is that there is a fundamental difference between science and religion - in that scientific theories are evidence based; the currently accepted explanations - the scientific facts - are observed to fit the evidence in repeatable experiments. That does not mean, necessarily, that the explanations are always correct - just that they do fit the evidence - and that, if you have the necessary equipment, and method to follow, that you'd be able to reproduce the results in your own experiment. Now it may be that new observations come in which call into question the accepted explanation - but that's fine, since this is science and a new theory might be needed to explain the discrepancy. As long as these new observations are repeatable in experimentation (by anyone with the right equipment), then you'll not be branded a heretic in serious scientific circles by raising it. In religious views, as far as I can see, the accepted explanations seemingly cannot be called into question and seem to be based on little evidence other than centuries old manuscripts.Richard B 13:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


 * the description is a bit hollow - if I classify my collection of marble base purely on measurable quantities - size,colour,material,surface,opacity - is that a science of marbles - seems so.87.102.32.250 18:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup. DMacks 20:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Just checking. I think the first paragraph of science is an excellent description of it.


 * The only thing I am sure of is that a scientist is someone who is paid for their work.
 * Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. A scientist may be paid for his/her (scientific) work. But someone who is NOT paid for their scientific work can still be a scientist. 202.168.50.40


 * If two wrongs fail to make a right, how about three wrongs? Theavatar3 00:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. They're often called "grad students" :) DMacks 22:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A scientist is any entity(or human) who (genuinely) attempts to add to the known scientific body of knowledge by utilizing the scientific method. An entity who does this successfully is known as a successful scientist. 202.168.50.40 22:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Scientists use The Scientific Method" does not work, since no single scientific method exists.  In fact, if we could define which methods were scientific, then we would have also defined what "science" actually is.--Wjbeaty 01:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Defining what is "science" and what is not "science" in a rigorous fashion is quite difficult. See demarcation problem for some discussion of the difficulties involved. Broadly speaking what we mean by science today is a community of systematized research guided loosely by philosophies of rationalism and empiricism. That's not a precise answer, though, and doesn't cover a lot of fields that we would normally consider to be "science", and it would include a lot of things that we might be skeptical of calling "science". But it has been known for a very long time that there is no single scientific method, no single scientific approach to a problem, and no historical definition of science which applies equally well across time. Science in the early 21st century is quite a different thing than even the early 20th century, though the primary aspects of what we'd today recognize as science became solidified in the late 19th century. There is little distinction between what we'd call "science" today and the more generic category "natural philosophy" or "natural knowledge" in the periods before that. In non-European cultures the distinction does not come about primarily until after contact with Europeans. --24.147.86.187 00:59, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * As an aside, one should be as cautious in asking scientists what "science" is as one would be in asking a priest what "religion" is. There are entire academic disciplines which look at science in ways different than the scientist normally would (history of science and technology, history and philosophy of science, philosophy of science, anthropology of science, sociology of science) and they are good to consult if you are looking to get around some of the very generic idealisms that scientists employ in discussing their field in broad terms. Not meaning this to disparage anyone, of course, but natural scientists are experts on nature, not science itself. --24.147.86.187 01:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason this (and other similar querstions) are hard to answer is that they include a subtle logical loop, like this:


 * Consider a concrete object ("chair") and the symbol attached to that object (the word "c-h-a-i-r" in English, or "c-h-a-i-s-e" in French or whatever). We have consensus over the object "chair", because we can all point to it, locate it, and broadly agree it exists as we understand "existance". But words like "science" do not have any existance independent of the fact we define them based upon other words. There is no object we can all point to and agree is "science". Its a notion, a symbol, a token; it signifies what we define it to signify when we create the language that includes the token "s-c-i-e-n-c-e" as a valid token.


 * So the problem we have is, science means in a sense, precisely what we define it to mean. it doesn't have objective existance beyond that. It is a symbol, used to define a methodology or approach, and as we define it, that is what it is. The problem is that like other notional words ("love", "god", "free-will") we each think we use the word the same way but we in fact probably do not, we do not have one definition but a myriad of broadly agreeing definitions.


 * So the real answer is this: There are approaches of studying the world and what we find in it, that attempt to exclude that which cannot be obeserved or tested independently, which require evidence that can be replicated, that looks for patterns and rules. And by and large such methodologies work in this world, and many people follow variations on that theme in exploring the world, whatever term they use. But when you ask "what is science", you yourself define the word "science". As you define it, thats what it means.


 * Hope that makes sense! FT2 (Talk 05:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Auto Rickshaw
Are there any Auto Rickshaw (Tuk-tuk) dealers in the continental United States?70.239.214.42 18:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't that about the same thing as a golf cart ? One major diff is that a golf cart has four wheels, which I believe is required for stability.  Also, golf carts are electric, and generally only have two seats, but you could probably find a four seat version somewhere. StuRat 18:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * From a quick Google and  Nil Einne 18:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

predominant power source
Isn't it just like the Federal government to travel all the way to the moon to establish solar power as the predominant power source when there is no air or water there to breath, drink or pollute instead of making it a priority to establish solar power as the predominant power source here on Earth first? 71.100.6.152 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There is no wind, fossil fuels, wood, hydroelectric, or geothermal (lunathermal ?) power on the moon, so that pretty much leaves just solar power or possibly nuclear, if you bring the fuel yourself. StuRat 18:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A better answer would reference Colonization of the Moon, and remind the questioner that it is not appropriate to call for speculation on the reference desk, as I just did. RDWarrior 18:34, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * While that link is useful, it doesn't address the question directly, which is why different energy methods are preferred on the Moon. The primary reason is that many terrestrial energy sources are absent on the Moon, which I addressed with my answer. StuRat 01:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also it has been pretty much proven that grid powered from solar panels actually can't be made without fossil fuels. This is because the amount of engergy a panel produces in its lifetime does not match the amount of energy needed to make the panel and make a energy container such that power can be supplied at night. They are only made today because cheap and easy fossil fuel. In other words, like using Ethenol in fuel, it is only helpful to a certain degree but is ultimately not a solution for global replacement of all coal power. The power source on the moon has nothing to do with establishing a new power source. Solar power is just the cheapest way to get power on the moon since otherwise you would have to bring all the fuel with you. The point of the moon base isn't to use solar power, its to do many other experiments etc and hopefully perhaps it can lead to new ways to make better solar panels because at the moment the ones we have are not close enough to being realistically possible to power a grid without nuclear/coal power.


 * I know about the energy in /energy out equations, but whither the "can't be made without fossil fuels"? Do we have a reference for that? -- Seejyb 05:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Certainly nuclear power or some other source of energy could be used, but perhaps, if made of plastics, some petroleum is needed to build solar cells. Also note that the "it takes more than X units of energy to produce a solar cell capable of producing X units of energy" argument also applies to fossil fuels.  That is, to produce X units of energy, you use up X units (by burning the fuel) and also some extra for the extraction, refining, and delivery of the petroleum.  I suspect that, once the "energy lost" by burning the fossil fuels is factored in, solar cells have the potential to use far less petroleum than burning petroleum does, especially if they were mass produced on the same scale. StuRat 13:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also is this fossil fuel to make solar energy relation consistent for non voltaic panels such as thermal concentrators? 71.100.6.152 07:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that passive solar energy, like heating your house with sunlight, is far more economically viable than active solar energy, where you create electricity. However, the application of passive solar energy is limited mainly to heating things.  You can't easily run a radio with it, for example.  (I suppose you could heat water in a steam engine, generate electricity with a dynamo driven by the steam engine, then run the radio off this electricity, but such a process would be even less efficient than generating electricity from solar cells.)  So, it would make sense for the moon base to be heated with passive solar energy (point a few large mirrors at the base, painted black, for example) and then use solar cells to produce the electricity needed. StuRat 12:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Carbon Dioxide Tax
Is it a good idea for the government to introduce a tax on carbon dioxide emissions for places like factories that are producing excessive amounts? If so could they do this by putting carbon dioxide meters inside the factories and if too much carbon is produced, the factory pays a certain amount of tax dependent on how much excessive carbon was produced? thanksHerbynator 18:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, except for who has to decide what "excessive" means. I'd just charge a constant rate for each kg of emissions.  Those plants that pollute less would pay less.  Use the proceeds to finance alternative energy programs.  Gradually increase the tax until the most polluting plants are forced to clean up or close.   StuRat 18:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A better answer to this question would reference Pigovian tax, as I just did. RDWarrior 18:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That article is somewhat relevant, but it's not specifically about carbon dioxide emissions, and doesn't address the tax being on all emissions versus only "excessive" emissions. Had they asked about the general practice of using a tax to change behavior, then that would be more relevant. StuRat 00:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Any taxation with technology has to be reliable, accurate, cheap to maintain (ideally cheap to install) and a period of time to allow for pre-tax law changes would only be fair. If you have a firm that goes from previously paying nothing for it's output to £3m a year then this could make a major change in profitability, thus any new tax-policy has to look at the effect it would have on companies/workers/the country's economy as a whole. It is somewhat worthless reducing CO2 if the nation survives doubly impoverished, the battle is in reducing CO2 whilst maintaining the living standards we have today. ny156uk 18:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's possible to have a tax that's high enough to change behavior but not high enough to "cause pain" as it's that "pain" (loss of profitability) which actually motivates change. If the tax is less than the substantial cost to reduce emissions, the plants will have no economic incentive to clean up their act. StuRat 00:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks guysHerbynator 18:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

No. Breathing produces too much CO2 to tax reasonably. --Tbeatty 04:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Breathing is something we can't stop doing without dying, so it shouldn't be taxed, but we do have the Kyoto protocol to decide the meaning of excessive. Unfortunately, the biggest polluter of all (United States) didn't sign that agreement. - Mgm|(talk) 10:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Kyoto Protocol is simply a wealth redistribution scheme, not a serious environmental improvement treaty. Kyoto does nothing to define excessive as it exempts certain countries. What it does do is create a non-existent commodity that otherwise poor nations will just magically obtain: carbon credits.  It gives them an exportable commodity that they can sell.  You may think this is good, but it shouldn't be hidden in a veil of "helping the environment".

Nurses uniforms
While watching scrubs.. I realised that the nurses wear different uniforms. For example, Carla wears red, pink, purple etc coloured scrubs whereas Laverne wears multicoloured blouses, as do some other background nurses. Does that stand for anything or is it a matter of preference?

A good description of scrub coloration can be found at Scrubs (clothing). RDWarrior 18:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It depends on the facility. Sometimes people who work in certain areas wear certain colors and at other facilities there is more freedom or complete freedom.  For instance, lots of pedes nurses wear patterned scrubs with cartoon characters. Since the Korean War, green scrubs are worn in O.R. because blood looks not so red against it as it does on white. -THB 20:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the replies. In Scrubs though, waht Laverne and some of the other nurses wear aren't exactly scrubs. They wear trousers with some kind of almost floral blouse. Could it be used to show the difference between the types of nurses? I am not familiar with American Nursing systems, but using British nursing - Carla could be the equivilant of a matron and a sister etc? I don`t meant to be trite here, but, whether or not "Scrubs" complies with normal convention or not, you have to remember that this is, after all, TV. Maybe many/most/all of their choices are simply to make color-TV a bit more interesting! Just could be. Dave172.135.3.189 00:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops! I think I did a booboo up above. My sincerest apologies to whomever I might have 'deleted'. I`m still a neophyte here. I hope someone can 'fix' my mistake.  Sorry again! Dave172.135.3.189 01:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * One issue with scrubs is that they need to be washed rather thoroughly to sterilize them. They used to be all white, as chlorine bleach was used which would fade any colors, anyway.  With the use of non-chlorine bleach, whites are no longer necessary.  However, some color transfer is still possible from a hot water washing using non-chlorine bleach, so it's a good idea to have them all be the same solid pastel color, to minimize this effect. StuRat 00:41, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Every hospital tends to have its own uniform dress code for nurses, with some exceptions as mentioned above, e.g. Paediatrics. In the theatres where I work everybody wears blues and the hat colours are used to tell people apart, e.g. blue for medical/trained theatre staff; white for students/untrained staff; green for visitors/patients. From memory, one of the "Scrubs" DVD collections (?Series 2) actually has ?the director talking about the choices for the different colours of scrubs.Mmoneypenny 21:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Green Hand-Drying
In the toilet of the pub I was in yesterday (yes, I am a Brit), there was two methods of hand drying equipment, disposable paper towels and a mains powered hot air machine. Which is likely to cause least environmental damage? The towels appear to be recycled. Cheers, Situationist 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * The hand-drier would have the smallest 'environmental' impact because once installed it requires purely electricity and maintenance to run. The paper-towels will need to be made, delivered, collected (used), recycled, made, delivered, collected and so on. So in the long run the energy costs of a hand-drier are cheaper than all that transport/movement of goods to and from the toilets of our great land.


 * Personally I prefer paper to hand-driers because you have to stand at a hand-drier for quite some time to get any worth from the experience and, well, many of the public toilets i've had the misfortune to need to visit are not what I would call environmentally pleasing to behold. ny156uk 21:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the towel machines that actually dispense and collect a reusable cloth roll for drying purposes? Assuming they are dispatched, collected, and cleaned in great quantity, they should be even more eco-friendly than either of the others.  Of course ALL this is speculation since we don't have real figures to work with.  --Jmeden2000 22:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't know the actual figures but the ones here in NZ are touted as an eco-option. Also, I would say they are the most commonly available hand drying method in NZ (don't know about pubs specifically tho). Personally, I prefer the cloth roll drying thing, followed by paper towels. I don't really like the blow drying equipement because I like to wet my face and using my hands to dry my face doesn't work very well Nil Einne 11:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't like the hand drying machines for two reasons:

1) They often seem to have been mounted by dwarves, forcing me to bend over and hurt my back to use them. The sinks also were mounted by dwarves, but I don't have to bend over them for several minutes, at least.

2) I need a piece of paper towel to open the bathroom door...there's no way I'm going to touch that door handle directly. If need be, I will go and grab some TP to use (as a "fecal matter shield") when touching the handle.

As for the cost of hand dryers, note that it's more than twice as high in summer, as the heat generated puts an additional load on the A/C. Thus, one kilowatt hour of hand dryer machine operation requires a bit more than one kilowatt hour of A/C (due to the lower efficiency of A/C). In the winter, the hand drying machine actually reduces the load on the furnace slightly. 00:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is (fortunately) not at all true! Air conditioning actually has an coefficient of performance greater than 1; in the US, new residential units have to have an efficiency of approximately 324%, and 224% is already commonplace (this from the SEER article).  This means that the economic penalty of venting heat inside an air conditioned area is something like $$1+\frac1{300\%}=\frac43$$, which is not so bad.  And in the winter, I personally calculated one year that it cost me twice as much to heat with electricity (possibly in the form of, say, a computer) as with the natural gas the dedicated heater used; therefore electricity then is effectively half-price because it will save an amount of heating that would have cost half as much as the spent electricity.  Of course, there are ways not to get this, like having an incandescent lamp so close to a window or vent that it dumps a noticable amount of its energy directly to the outside without heating the room, or (for the air conditioner) putting a heat source next to its thermostat so that it runs unnecessarily (and thus increases the rate of heat input through the walls).  On the whole, however, the story of the interaction between HVAC and electric appliances is a happy one; 1/2 and 4/3 certainly don't average to even 1!  --Tardis 16:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm missing the units so there's no way i can check your figures. Besides, making electricity is not 100% energy efficient so you should add the loss of energy during production and transporting. Arakrys 02:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * A further possible issue is that if you're going to air-dry your hands, you need to wash more to get the same level of cleaning. That's because washing and rinsing never removes quite all of whatever it is you're trying to wash off, and some of it will be in the water remaining after the last rinse. So you'd rather remove the water along with that part of the residue rather than evaporating it and leaving the residue behind. Admittedly this is a minor issue; it's not as if you were trying for total sterility or something. --Anonymous, 05:40 UTC, December 6.

Toothpaste foaming
I use BlanX toothpaste. Sometimes when I brush my teeth it fails to foam up but still becomes a liquid. I think this happens with other pastes too. Why? I can tell you that this happened after consuming cheap Tesco-brand gingerbread (the orangey hardish thin kind); I think it happens after eating other sugary foods too. Vitriol 22:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Certain materials can act as antifoams - preventing foaming - notably some fats - that could be part of the answer.87.102.32.7 23:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You are advised to wait some time if you can after eating, before you brush you teeth to allow the pH of your mouth to return to normal. I think it was on a chewing gum advert. I never like to brush my teeth too soon after eating but I might use an apple to hasten the process! --Username132 (talk) 23:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * By any chance did they also say that their gum neutralised the pH of the mouth? Vitriol 23:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oral bacteria thrive in more acidic conditions, and therefore would be less likely to occur in a basic mouth. Many toothpastes try to raise the pH of your saliva, as well as provide oxygen to the bacteria, as they are anaerobic bacteria. As for toothpaste not foaming, yes, that sometimes does happen for me. Just put more on the brush.--Russoc4 05:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree -- trans fats are to be avoided if you like foam(ing). Theavatar3 18:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How Many Trees?
How many trees are used to print the yellow pages?


 * One, if it's big enough! *ba-dum tish* Vitriol 23:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There are two issues here:

1) The total amount of paper used.

2) The percentage of recycled paper.

I don't have the numbers on either, however. I personally think the phone companies should give customers the option to "opt out" of getting the paper copy, if they choose to use an online version, instead. The yellow pages are so packed with ads, though, that they may actually make a profit on them, so may be unwilling to offer an "opt out" option. StuRat 23:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the point of the Yellow Pages? Vitriol 00:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As with many questions, the first thing you need to decide is WHICH Yellow Pages. All the ones in the US (apparently there are many)? Every single one in the world? Of course, if you want to consider the environmental impact of the Yellow Pages, you also have to consider other factors. Even if all the paper used is non-recycled, if the majority of old Yellow Pages are recycled, then this would arguably reduce the impact considerably. Obviously printing and transport/delivery costs need to be considered as well (in NZ we get new ones every year delivered to each house). Of course, for a proper analysis you'd also need to work out the subsequent cost of the Yellow Pages. Does it for example save people from driving around looking for something? Or does it encourage people to buy something or whatever which they won't otherwise (this can be good or bade depending on what they do) Nil Einne 10:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)