Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 October 7

= October 7 =

Are pumice stones a rational response to a callus?
I have a question that's only technically a medical question and I hope that you will indulge me on the basis that a) it's perhaps the least threatening of all medical anythings in the history of medicine and b) I resolved mine over a decade ago. When I was about 18-19, I somehow got a callus on my foot and when I asked my doctor about it, he said I should use a pumice stone on it. I complied for a while but it was uncomfortable and I just couldn't make sense of the advice. Given that a callus is the body's response to damage to the skin, how the hell is continually damaging the skin with a pumice stone an appropriate solution? In the end I over-ruled that stupid advice and left the callus alone and sure enough, in the absence of damaging stimuli, it went away. I just want to know whether the doctor's advice had any basis in sense or logic and have only just gotten around to asking. --185.216.49.78 (talk) 06:58, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know, but I just want to congratulate you on correctly spelling the noun as callus; so many people get it wrong. This is a regular paradigm:  callus/callous, mucus/mucous, phosphorus/phosphorous &mdash; in each case, the version with -us is a noun; the version with -ous, an adjective. --Trovatore (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * As you implied, we can't (and won't) provide medical advice. We can link to articles such as callus and sources such as:
 * —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6130:AA57:396F:78BA (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:6130:AA57:396F:78BA (talk) 07:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I believe the idea is that, after the stimulus that caused the callus to grow is gone, the callus won't disappear on it's own, at least not quickly, so abrading it off can speed up the process. Since the pumice stone is only used on dead skin, it's not supposed to damage the living part of the skin, so shouldn't cause more to grow.  But if you do continue to damage the living part, say by walking barefoot on rough ground, then, yes, I would expect the callus to continually regrow.  Incidentally, this is just a form of exfoliation, but with a very thick layer of dead skin, rather than the thin layer of dead skin on the face.  Calluses that get too thick can provide fertile ground for plantar warts, crack and cause more serious problems, therefore keeping them under control is important, so that it doesn't become a medical problem.  (I use a pumice stone on my feet after taking a bath, when the skin is softer and easier to remove.)  StuRat (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Are you removing calluses, or merely dead skin? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Calluses are composed of dead skin, so yes to both. StuRat (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * If it's dead skin, I don't see why it would be a problem. Pedicurists do it all the time. My own doctor suggested it too. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * In some cases, calluses are helpful. Of course, the alternative is just to wear proper gear to offer the same protection as calluses, such as padded shoes or leather gloves. StuRat (talk) 23:10, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I recall Pete Rose once talking about spring training and "getting the calluses going", as they would have faded during the off-season. The calluses enabled a player to improve his grip and were a better alternative than blisters. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, but batting gloves would be an even better option. StuRat (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Except you can't feel the wood directly. But batting gloves (originally just golf gloves) were just starting to be used in Rose's day. They're in wide usage now. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:24, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A good set of batting gloves should give you a better feel for the bat than thick calluses would allow. StuRat (talk) 03:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How many more base hits would Rose have gotten if he had been an early-adopter of batting glvoes? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:08, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Don't know, but I'm sure he would have taken bets on it. :-) StuRat (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * I googled the subject, and there are certainly a lot of products out there. One item (sorry, I failed to grab the link) warned against overuse of pumice... while promoting their own alternative product. It's fair to suppose that overuse of pumice could be counterproductive. But if you've got personal concerns, you should consult your physician. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * WE DINNA GIVE MEDICAL ADVICE, but you might look at callus and pumice and you might even better see a podiater. Mine says my foot calluses need regular treatment and have a specific cause, but that's between him and me, and not an WP:RS.  μηδείς (talk) 22:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The main reason to sand down a callus is that once they become significantly raised they are susceptible to being torn off resulting in a painful patch of exposed skin. This scenario is much more likely to occur if you are constantly applying stress to the callused part of your body. 204.28.125.102 (talk) 20:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My problem is not ripping them off, but that due to my duck footedness I walk off my pinky-toes, and this causes stress that the cobbler could see just by looking at the red spots on the top of my outer toes. He said, "Bet them calluses are a killer!"  I just got orthotics, and now that I can walk 5 miles instead of 50 feet we shall see.  We shall see. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Electric powering a vehicle through induction
Could vehicles - real or bumper cars - get their power from the road (floor) through induction? In the same way that a cell-phone gets loaded on a charge pad? Would that be less effective than getting power from electric wires strung above (as streetcars do)? --Hofhof (talk) 10:50, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Linking relevant articles: Inductive charging and Conductive wireless charging.--B8-tome (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Due to the power requirements and the ground clearance needed, and having to place the charging coils under every place cars could drive, that doesn't sound practical, to me. You'd need too high of a field strength, which might cause other problems (like things bursting into flames ?).  However, it might be possible when parked, especially if the charger could be raised up closer to the car after parking. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * For electric vehicles, buses, trains, MAGLEV, etc. resonant inductive coupling shows promise. 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1DF7:C3BD:258E:E025 (talk) 22:19, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A Nissan Leaf or BMW i3 goes about 80 miles with a 20 kWh battery, which costs perhaps $7000. If you had a $1000 battery you could go perhaps 10 miles. This battery size would easily bridge most gaps in your inductive power system. Since you could recharge while driving, you solve the biggest problem with BEVs, which is the time it takes to recharge. However, the infrastructure for ubiquitous inductive charging would be prohibitively expensive. -Arch dude (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Electrical charging of a car tends to be really slow, taking hours, so just driving over a small patch won't recharge the vehicle. This is why I say you'd need to park over it, for this charging method to be practical.  Hopefully parking over it at night would give you enough charge to get to work, and if there's another charging station there, you could charge up while you work and have enough to get back home.  For vehicles which stick to one route and lane, like buses, electrical induction charging while running may be somewhat more practical.  It may not charge at the rate the electricity is used, but if it can extend the range to get the bus back to it's parking spot at night, where it can fully recharge, that would be good enough.  StuRat (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"Chemtrails"
How can I convincingly prove to others that so-called "chemtrails" are only jet exhaust? I know I can't prove anything directly to the conspiratards themselves because they're too stupid to look at other evidence besides their own, but how can I prove this to gullible people who may be deceived by the conspiracy theories? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:0:0:0:EA04 (talk) 12:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Chemtrails are only jet exhaust. They are also a sinister geoengineering conspiracy looking to sacrifice 1000-4000 lives a year to hold back global warming by six months and make air flights cheaper.  There is actually no contradiction...  Wnt (talk) 12:13, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Your geoengineering link is a disambiguation page. Which one were you meaning to link to? CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:09, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Presumably: Climate engineering 2606:A000:4C0C:E200:1DF7:C3BD:258E:E025 (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You can't really fight a completely irrational view with rational arguments. However, this is a good resource explaining how the conspiracy came to life: . B8-tome (talk) 12:23, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired". The answer is that people who believe that are lost as humans, and should be written off. Trying to correct them is just throwing good money after bad.  Get new friends.-- Jayron 32 20:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This excellent summary was in the Washington Post a few days ago. The comments section will provide some sense of how difficult it is to convince people that the notion is nonsense.   Acroterion   (talk)   22:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That article is remarkable in its ability to mislead. Oh, most of what they say is true - the planes nucleate clouds, and the only thing being released is burnt fuel.  That said... conspiracy theorists looking for giant chemical tanks in the plane should look for fuel tanks, which fit the bill, and disperse their contents freely.   emphasizes that you can see differences in airplane contrails depending on a chemical present, namely sulfur dioxide.  That right there is the heart of the "chemtrail" observation - people look up and they see some planes make funny looking clouds that don't seem like what they're used to.  And the reason is because the fuel, which Washington Post tries to pass off as just "kerosene", can be up to 3000 ppm sulfur - that is to say, 0.3% by weight.  If a 747 burns 36,000 gallons] in a 10-hour flight, maybe 250,000 pounds, that has 750 pounds of sulfur in it.  If the plane had a 750-pound tank of molten sulfur in the back that it was visibly spraying over the course of each trip, people would say that confirmed the chemtrail conspiracy theory.  Furthermore, as described here, the geoengineering goal of opposing climate change does factor in to policy discussions of whether the sulfur can be eliminated.  So the Washington Post is being no more honest than the chemtrail conspiracy people here, and possibly less. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * And anybody who's followed a Honda with a bad catalytic converter up a steep hill can tell that it's spraying sulfuric acid. And it's burning "just gasoline." So yes, reducing sulfur in fossil fuels is an issue for *all* petroleum fuels, as it was for diesel, notably high in sulfur, when it had to be reduced to make urea additives work (we'll pass over VW's deception for now - I had one of their diesels that they bought back). The difference between "sour" and "sweet" oils is central to petroleum chemistry and the economics of fuel products. But it's not new. Kerosene burned in airplanes is (I think) the same as it was in 1955, long before geoengineering was brought up as a solution to climate change. There are just more planes burning the same stuff they always have at 35,000 feet, completely driven by fuel price. I'd be interested in a comparison of sulfur content in jet fuel over time - has it been reduced?
 * In any case, the chemtrails folks are unconcerned with sulfur, they're looking for barium and other things that are supposed to make fallen snow look funny. Sulfur? Pah, everybody knows about that, they're looking for that special stuff that needs a special tank. They've got pictures of the tanks and everything.  Acroterion   (talk)   17:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Something has changed with jet fuel or engine efficiency, because when I watched jets taking off in the 1960s, they left a trail of black smoke behind each engine, and I don't see that now. An example of a Boeing 707: . StuRat (talk) 17:31, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The engines have changed significantly - the JT3C turbojet engines on 707s were notoriously smoky, as were their counterparts on jet fighters. KC-135s and B-52s using water injection on takeoff left a blanket of black smoke, and the few that still exist with those engines continue to do so. Russian jet engines have a reputation for smokiness too, but most turbofan engines produce little smoke. Early F-4 Phantom General Electric J79s were smoky to the point of being a combat liability, something mentioned in our article. Acroterion   (talk)   19:44, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You might mention cloud seeding, which is related. In both cases, if you seed dry air, nothing much happens, but if the relative humidity is high, it causes water to condense and form clouds.  Do they not believe in cloud seeding ? StuRat (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Well as our article says, plenty of scientists are unsure cloud seeding actually generally does much based on the available evidence albeit generally measured on the success in increasing precipitation/rain. So if flat earthers feel the same they may actually be right for a change. (There is some evidence of possible effects on cloud structure and size and also in converting supercooled liquid water to ice particles.) Nil Einne (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) It doesn't do much in terms of increasing overall rainfall, no, because it doesn't create water out of nothing. But what it can do is cause it to rain slightly sooner than it would have, otherwise.  As our article states: "Cloud seeding has been shown to be effective in altering cloud structure and size and in converting supercooled liquid water to ice particles. The amount of precipitation due to seeding is difficult to quantify. There is statistical evidence for seasonal precipitation increases of about 10 percent with winter seeding." StuRat (talk) 16:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You first statement is not supported by our article, and since you provided no other source, it's supported by nothing. The closest is the winter thing, but even if it's true, that's a different claim. It's not clear if this is happening sooner, or you're making it rain elsewhere or what. I note the winter thing is from 1998. Meanwhile you've missed (emphasis added). Nil Einne (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * My first statement was "It doesn't do much in terms of increasing overall rainfall, no, because it doesn't create water out of nothing.". Are you saying it does create water out of nothing ?  The part about not increasing overall rainfall much agrees with what you said and with the article.  I didn't miss that bit, I said I agreed with it.


 * I'm guessing that you meant my second statement is unsupported by the source. Fair enough, here's one that does support it: "This means some areas that would not have received rain often do as a result of seeding. By seeding developing clouds before they start to produce precipitation, the precipitation process is accelerated and rain falls sooner, and from smaller clouds than it would naturally.  Some redistribution of rainfall can occur within the scope of the storm itself, with computer models suggesting that regions of very intense precipitation may be slightly reduced while the total storm rain volume is increased.".


 * You seem to be missing that increasing overall rainfall substantially and bringing on rainfall slightly sooner, thus altering the distribution, are entirely different things. Cloud seeding only does the later, but that itself can be valuable, in certain circumstances.  StuRat (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean the second statement, sorry for the confusion. But otherwise I'm not misssing anything. "Bringing on rainfall slightly sooner" is by definition inducing rainfall which the quoted text explicitly said there was no evidence for. To be fair, I assumed this statement was supported by the source but it's not directly so I removed the wording. But if you read the paper  it's clear this is a fairly complicated analysis. While they were primarily trying to determine if there was an increase in rainfall, they did look at different areas and as I understand it, didn't find any increase in any area over the others. (Of course part of the analysis was comparing seeded areas from unseeded ones.) Also I'm not sure what you mean by "sooner" here, but as I understand the paper, their assumption was the seeding would increase rain on the day of seeding (although they did have a problem that most of the days were seeded) meaning I think if it rained on the seeded day when it would have otherwise rained the next day, they may have detected this. (I say may mostly because the large number of seeded days combined with the difficulty in teasing out any signal means I'm far from certain this is the case.)  This is a single paper, so isn't great evidence. But your evidence by comparison is far worse, a brochure product by a local government trying to justify their cloud seeding efforts, who's only refs are the position statement of the Weather Modification Association and a MSc thesis? I wrote the below before I read you response, but your poor evidence gives it greater emphasis.  Of course the wider point which seems clear from our article is what the effects, if any, from cloud seeding are still largely unclear despite the practice being fairly wide spread. There appear to be some limited local effects in certain select circumstances although even in these cases, the evidence is often limited. (Notably as is often the case, given the strong commercial interest it's important to differentiate between actual published peer reviewed research, and claims made by 'experts' or those with a COI which aren't back up by peer reviewed research.) A lot of the governmental interest i.e. those most likely to be able to afford (and who probably should if they're going to spend significant amounts of money) to fund research to determine if what they're doing is achieving anything, is coming from Asia (including West Asia) and these countries are only just starting to get into significant scientific output. These efforts will of course largely be aim at widescale effects, given the costs involved demostrating that you may have had an effect on a few clouds is something which is always likely to be difficult getting funding for.  If you have any actual good evidence that  Cloud seeding only does the later (let's ignore the only part), please provide it. I strongly suspect you do not because there simply is none. That's why people who surely now a lot more about this than you or I say things like  As I said, there is some limited evidence of effects in certain select circumstances. That's quite different from what you're claiming namely that cloud seeding is generally successful in "bringing on rainfall slightly sooner", or "altering the distribution". That's why plenty of people are unconvinced that China's cloud seeding efforts to try and improve the Beijing Olympics Games actually did much. Note that this isn't to say it doesn't do so, simply that our evidence for this is generally fairly or very weak and if you're going to make the claims here on the RD, you should either show that the evidence isn't weak, or make it clear the evidence is weak.  P.S. In case it's still not clear, by "good evidence" I mean peer reviewed published research, not claims made by governments to justify their efforts, nor statements made by those involved in weather modifications efforts. I'd accept publications from recognised scientified bodies like the National Research Council cited in our article as well.  Nil Einne (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. A point you seem to be missing, at least to my reading, is that altering the distribution of rain is often a key claim and a key point of dispute. Often goverments or whoever is paying for the seeding would be quite happy with simply altering the distribution of rain, since in plenty of cases, e.g. I'm fairly sure the Israel case is one example here, the governments want it to rain in certain areas and don't care if it rains in other areas. (In select circumstances they want to avoid rain in certain areas.) This can actually lead to disputes, when there's another party (e.g. different government) who suggest that the first party is "stealing" their rain. Yet there's generally fairly strong dispute that even these are actually achieving what's being claimed. And the boundary between "increasing overall rain" and "altering the distribution" isn't as clear as you seem to be suggesting. Making it rain sooner is perhaps less commonly a claim made, but still as the Beijing and Texas local government source demonstrate, this claim is also sometimes made, and frequently disputed. Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * "As I said, there is some limited evidence of effects in certain select circumstances." That "certain specific circumstances" part is exactly what I said.  Specifically, you need high enough relative humidity for water droplets to form from seeding.  But, getting away from this specific issue, was it really necessary for you to argue with every detail of my responses, in a Q that, after all, isn't even about cloud seeding ?  This Q is about "chemtrails", and I only mentioned cloud seeding in passing, so it seems rather a waste of time for both of us to look up sources about a tangent like this.  Now, for proper irony, I suppose we can spend several more days looking up my usage of the word "tangent" (and then "irony") here, if you feel that's important, too. :-)  StuRat (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Why not re-attach the kidney?
I watched an episode of The Good Doctor. In that episode, there was a woman with a tumor. It was determined that it was impossible to remove the tumor because a (healthy) kidney was in the way. In the end, the decision was to remove the kidney to be able to access and remove the tumor, thereby saving the woman's life. The dilemma was whether or not to remove a healthy kidney. It was healthy (and healthy kidneys can be donated to other people) and there would not be a risk of rejection since it was being returned to the person it came from. Other than for the purposes of drama for the TV show, what would the ethical dilemma be and why not reattach it? 76.71.156.197 (talk) 22:22, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * It's still an involved operation, with associated risks, and apparently they thought it was not worth the risk to go from one kidney to two, since one kidney seems perfectly adequate for most people. On the other hand, if going from zero to one kidney, it is worth the risk, in many cases, as lacking any functioning kidneys can be a death sentence (dialysis can keep them alive for a few years). StuRat (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)


 * @ StuRat. More than "a few years". I knew someone who was on dialysis for about 30 years and there has been a case of 39 years. Both these cases were about 20 years ago, I suspect the technique is even more reliable today. Richard Avery (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You're looking at the outliers, not the average. According to : "Average life expectancy on dialysis is 5-10 years, however, many patients have lived well on dialysis for 20 or even 30 years." So, if you plan to have a long life, you really need at least one kidney (unless you're already old, then the risk of surgery outweighs the benefit).  As far as improving survival, it seems to me we need to have a continuous wearable dialysis machine to do that, as allowing waste to accumulate for 2 or 3 days before removal will cause some minor damage, each time, until the cumulative damage kills the patient.  StuRat (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * You are technically correct about outliers, Stu, but the reasoning is post hoc, propter hoc. Most people on dialysis are sick already.  That's why they die.  It's like blaming sugar substitutes for causing obesity.  It is the obese who take sugar substitutes.  People who live 30 years on dialysis are simply not morbidly ill diabetics with 20 other things all killing them at once. μηδείς (talk) 21:56, 10 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Not everyone who loses their kidneys is sick in other ways (they can lose them due to injury, for example), and I wouldn't expect those people to have a normal lifespan, either, unless they get a kidney transplant. StuRat (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Because it's a TV Show? Five years ago, my doctor said I had 3 years to live (unfortunate for some guys).  People can do fine with just one kidney, or they wouldn't wake up in tubs full of ice.  My actuarial tables show I should live another 40 years; I lost £120 (unfortunate for others).  Two of my female in-laws were told they would never have children.  They each now have two. μηδείς (talk) 21:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)