Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 May 10

= May 10 =

Are there places on Earth where no practical amount of clothing and fast walking will keep you from discomfort?
Let's say you're of average build, not with a body built for it like Eskimos (correct terms: Inuit, Inipiat and Yupik). You could have gigantic downy outer shoes and un-stiff enough clothing inches thick and huge mittens over gloves but I imagine that eventually your eye holes will hurt. So you'd need goggles but if it'd take so many nose-less balaclava layers that it'd be uncomfortable to breathe and so you'd need added oxygen and near airtightness and two helmets and a personal heater like an astronaut and that's when it stops being clothing anymore and more like a spacesuit. If it would require a wind too strong to not tumble in then then I guess that for all practical purposes it never gets cold enough because you physically couldn't go out without bouncing downwind for miles. There should be two answers to this, one with traditional clothing materials and one with all the stuff that modern technology can manage like all those Uniqlo-type thin products or mirror coating on all skin touching surfaces or whatever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.177.161.150 (talk) 10:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * The short answer to the question exactly as posed is probably "yes, the inside of a Swedish sauna or Turkish bath". However, assuming the questioner specifically has cold environments in mind, the answer would appear to be the colder parts of Antarctica. See, for example, Ranulph Fiennes' reports of his expeditions. RomanSpa (talk) 12:04, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The lowest temperature recorded at Vostok Station in the Antarctic winter is -89.2°C, colder than dry ice, so very likely to be "uncomfortable" even with actively-heated clothing. Tevildo (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You can use the Coldavenger face mask, which moistens the air you breath in using the moist in the breath you exhale.Count Iblis (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * As in stillsuit? μηδείς (talk) 20:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Misconceptions about hiv
Why is there a misconception that people with HIV are unhygienic looking, overweight and unattractive? When in reality none of these factors are proportional to the likelihood of a person having HIV? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.246.106 (talk) 14:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you provide any evidence that significant numbers of people actually have such a misconception? {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195) 2.218.13.204 (talk) 15:21, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Such a misconception seems very out of place, since in Africa (where it is most common) I've read that in some places the virus is literally called "thin". And of course, for sexual transmission the more attractive individuals would find it easier to end up in risky situations.  But I suppose crusted-over injection site infections on a drug user would be a bad sign. :) Wnt (talk) 17:56, 10 May 2015 (UTC)


 * See the Complex question fallacy to understand why we cannot answer your question meaningfully. Your question is functionally equivalent to "When did you stop beating your wife"?  The original question presupposes a supposition (That there is in fact such a misconception) which has not yet been shown to be true.  It could be.  It could not be.  We don't know.  But you can't assume it to be true, so any question you do ask assuming it to be true is therefor unanswerable.  Please present evidence of your first supposition, or the rest of the question is unanswerable.  -- Jayron 32 00:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Misconceptions about HIV/AIDS is a short section. Many elements of physical attractiveness correlate with health and lack of disease, and "attending to these factors increases reproductive success", so it is understandable that some people might be inclined to naively assume that a potential mate who appears attractive is less likely to have any particular disease, and many elements of full blown AIDS, such as pneumocystis pneumonia, severe weight loss, and Kaposi's sarcoma, are quite unattractive.  Public health campaigns which emphasize these symptoms in order to frighten people in to practicing safe sex run the danger of reinforcing this misconception in populations which do not fully understand the long clinical latency typical with HIV infection.  Over the last few years I have seen public health advertisements in Thailand, South Africa, and Brazil which emphasize the fact that young, attractive, healthy looking people can still carry and transmit HIV.  I had hoped to link to some but my google-fu is weak today.  Most of the "HIV Looks Like Me" campaigns (such as this well done Does HIV Look Like Me? SwazilandYouTube) seem to be centered around destigmatization, though they might teach the "you can't tell by appearance" lesson better than those ads I saw which specifically targeted it. -- ToE 01:26, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


 * (no offence to anyone intended) TBH, in my homeland, the idea that HIV+ people are pale, skeletal figures with open sores seems to be quite common. Just speaking from my limited personal observations of other people's opinions of whether someone 'looks like they have AIDS/HIV'... I don't really think that the immediate assumption that HIV+ person is likely to be a heroin addict or promiscuous homosexual with the 'well, you brought this on yourself, didn't you, son?' thing has ever really gone away either... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:35, 11 May 2015 (UTC)