Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 July 7

= July 7 =

Does hypoalbuminemia causes decrease in oncotic pressure or osmotic pressure?
Does hypoalbuminemia causes decrease in oncotic pressure or osmotic pressure? I have red two different sources which everyone says something different, one says it decreases oncotic pressure and one says it decreases osmotic pressure. Who's more correct? --2A02:ED0:6D6D:F300:E469:6A54:1B75:3955 (talk) 01:26, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you re-read the article Kwashiorkor that you linked in your next post, you'll see that it says in parts:
 * "Proteins, mainly albumin, are responsible for creating the colloid osmotic pressure (COP) observed in the blood and tissue fluids. The difference in the COP of the blood and tissue is called the oncotic pressure."
 * and:
 * "The typical swollen abdomen is due to two causes: ascites because of hypoalbuminemia (low oncotic pressure), and enlarged fatty liver."
 * So, to answer your first query; hypoalbuminemia doesn't cause a decrease in oncotic pressure, it is a low (decreased) oncotic pressure. To address your second query; both are correct – the oncotic pressure is the difference between the two osmotic pressures, so if you alter one of those osmotic pressures, you will by definition alter the oncotic pressure. Hope this helps. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.220.213.151 (talk) 06:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No, that's a badly written article, because hypoalbuminemia and low oncotic pressure are not quite the same thing. Hypoalbuminemia results in/is one cause of low oncotic pressure. Low oncotic pressure is a manifestation of hypoalbuminemia. Or put another way, decreased serum protein results in decreased oncotic pressure. Oncotic pressure is a gradient between two different environments; low albumin on one side of the gradient will increase the size of that gradient. And since albumin is synthesized in the liver, an enlarged fatty liver may be the cause of the hypoalbuminemia. As to the second question, oncotic pressure is one kind of osmotic pressure. So referring to it either way is fine, though oncotic is more specific and more ususal. - Nunh-huh 14:39, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Why in starvation there is mainly ascites rather than edema?
After reading the article Kwashiorkor I have noticed that in photos of people (especially children) in starvation always have bloated abdomen as if they are fatty but according to the mentioned articale (as well as more articles) this is due to hypoalbuminemia. Now my question is if hypoalbuminemia causes to leak of fluid into the abdominal cavity (ascites) due to changes in osmotic / oncotic pressure, then it should be anywhere in body (edema) rather than ascites only. Isn't it? But always in photos of starvation we see only bloated abdomen so it says that there is something special in the blood vessels in the abdomen (which causes to this phenomenon in the abdomen only) that in other vessels there is no, and I don't understand what it is. 2A02:ED0:6D6D:F300:E469:6A54:1B75:3955 (talk) 01:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * From kwashiorkor: The typical swollen abdomen is due to two causes: ascites because of hypoalbuminemia (low oncotic pressure), and enlarged fatty liver. I suspect the fatty liver may exacerbate the ascites by causing portal hypertension. Note in the image in kwashiorkor the child also has pronounced edema of the feet. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, re: the section title, kwashiorkor is only one type of starvation: lack of protein, but sufficient energy intake. Marasmus is the more common situation of altogether inadequate nutrition, and produces the emaciation commonly associated with hunger. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * [Edit Conflict] The edema in Kwashiorkor does not occur only in the abdomen, it also occurs markedly in the ankles and feet, as the article clearly states and illustrates, and may be less prominently present elsewhere. The edema article makes it clear that different parts of the body exhibit edema more, or less, according to the underlying cause: if you want to delve into the reasons for this you probably should be consulting specialist medical texts rather than a general encyclopaedia.
 * You say "always in photos of starvation we see only bloated abdomen", but such photos are usually taken by photojournalists for journalistic purposes, not by trained medics attempting to provide diagnostic data, and will naturally emphasise those signs which lay readers will most notice. {The poster formerly known as 87.81l230.195} 90.220.213.151 (talk) 07:15, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hæmatophyte (plant blood parasites)
I found this page through Wiktionary's list of dictionary-only words. It contains citations about unicellular plants (described in one entry as either fungi or algae) that infect, or live in, the bloodstream. What is this actually referring to? Are there actually algae and fungi living in the bloodstream, or do the citations refer to something else that was incorrectly classified as such? 169.228.156.220 (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the last paragraph of the lead in Bacteria suggests that bacteria were formerly thought to be unicellular plants of the class Schizomycetes. The second quotation on that Wiktionary page, saying that hæmatophytes all belong "to the fungus- (or alga-) group of schizomycetes" would seem to indicate that bacteria in the bloodstream are what was meant. Deor (talk) 14:12, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The dictionary cited was published in 1920, at a time when life was organized broadly into just "plants" and "animals". Even bacteria were so divided. Entire bacteria phyla were mistakenly assumed to be more closely related to macroscopic plants and animals based on whether those bacteria were themselves more "plant-like" or "animal-like" in behavior, diet and/or appearance. You can read more at Kingdom_(biology). Someguy1221 (talk) 14:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

A claim in an alternative medicine book
Hulda Regehr Clark wrote a book and I'm wondering about the claims in it, and I took pictures of 3 pages, can somebody tell me what's true/false in there. For context, she claims a "zapper" can use the frequencies listed to kill the organisms in the body - https://imgur.com/a/UedEOC9 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1A4F:C500:6D01:67CD:2E19:D18D (talk) 08:21, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Quackery. DroneB (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm hoping for a scientific explanation and rejection, as I'm trying to convince somebody it's false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1A4F:C500:3157:2F30:FB6D:D91D (talk) 10:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't the foggiest what kind of silliness they are doing but my guess is they are measuring the resonant frequency of slides with whatever has been stuck onto it. Which would mainly depend on the slide and how much gunk was stuck on the slide. If they're thinking that has anything to do with what's on the slide or that this frequency is specific to an organism or kills it, they're in the area of pyramids and crystals and orgone energy and suchlike stuff. Dmcq (talk) 14:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If people aren't convinced by understanding the importance of the null hypothesis then they cannot be convinced by anything. "Reasoning will never make a man correct an ill opinion, which by reasoning he never acquired..."-- Jayron 32 14:22, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm going to begin by noting that the point that Jayron raises about null hypotheses cannot be over-emphasized.  Anyone who believes the word soup psuedo-science babble that is found on those three pages you shared without understanding why it's not in the same universe as anything resembling empirical rigor is so lacking in basic analytical training that you are likely to be facing a steep uphill climb in combating a probable corresponding confirmation bias.  I'll give what general information I can on the underlying biophysics here though.


 * First, the author generally treats "frequency" as a force, like a life-energy, which can be depleted over time. This is patent nonsense.  Frequency never refers to a physical force but rather a rate of occurrence across a period of time.  For your friend, you might try pointing out the etymology of the word here and connect it with common vernacular uses; the frequency of their doctor's visits, from example.  In the case of biology, the frequency we are talking about will generally refer to a wave, which brings us to patent nonsense point number two; the idea that there is one single "frequency" which defines all biological life.  In reality, there are hundreds of different types of application of the word which may refer to different aspects of an organism's physiology. Any form of radiation which is generated by our interacts with tissue has its own frequency.  As Dmcq pointed out, various forms of biomass will demonstrate different wave patterns under spectrometry.  Brainwaves have a frequency, as do action potentials (actually they have two, the frequency of their firing and the wave which propagates across the axon). Even the beating of the heart can be expressed as a frequency.  The idea of one single master frequency that is more important than any other or which comprises all others is nonsensical.  If you said "there is a positive correlation between long life and the quantum inhibitability of cross-flux semi-habitual nano-factor impressions" it would make exactly the same amount of sense (which is to say, none)--one is merely more easily recognizable as pseudoscientific nonsense.


 * Additionally, there is no correlation between age or good health and a general increase or decrease of all frequencies in an organism. Most frequencies relevant to a biological process will vary over time, and some will either increase or decrease with ill health or death.  And even if an organism dies, not all wavelengths will flatline; some of the matter that made up the body will continue to exhibit the operation of wavelengths relative to its physical properties.  Lastly, the author doesn't even seem to have a self-consistent notion of what they mean by "frequency"; sometimes they treat it a measurement (which is at least accurate in the general sense) and other times they use it as quanta, which makes no sense in any context.  In the first few sentences of the passage, they use it for both in the same extended thought!


 * Honestly, I could go on for days; so far we've only tapped into the misuse of nomenclature, but there's also the volume's-worth of commentary you could make on their methodology (or lack thereof) for this "scientific inquiry". In short, not only is this not good science, but I have doubts as to whether the author could pass a secondary school course in biology with a very patient instructor. Snow let's rap 12:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll show them what you wrote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8000:1a4f:c500:3177:c7b9:7c56:7efe (talk)  08:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done. I clicked the link but honestly couldn't make my way past the first paragraph. "Not even wrong" doesn't do it justice. Matt Deres (talk) 15:17, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is a rare hybrid of "very wrong" and "not even wrong". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Did the eating of crabs and anchovies originate in South America?
Article List of food origins lists anchovies and crabs as food that originated in South America. I'm a bit skeptical. I'm not questioning the fact that people in South America may have eaten anchovies and crabs for millenia but I'd tend to believe people in other parts of the world did not have to wait for the discovery of America to start eating them. What's the story? People do tend to insert nonsense in that article (I've had to remove "rice" as food originating in Central America!) but here I'm not entirely sure. Basemetal 14:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Anchovies have been eaten in Europe since ancient times. Looie496 (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * An IP made a bunch of edits last October, including this one. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Most, if not all of it, seems to be BS. That page has got 42 watchers. Great job guys. Basemetal  18:59, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Would it make sense to revert back to just before the IP went wild, and then add back anything that might be factual? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that's a bit drastic. Besides I know nothing about this topic. Do you? Maybe the best thing is to see what that guy's edits were and to take out what seems presposterous (after checking WP articles that they are indeed so). His was IP 167.57.164.2 and his edits were all made between 01:30 and 04:25 on October 11 2017. Btw, not all of his edits seem to be wrong. But, from a quick look, the ones in the "Sea food" section seem to be, most of them. Basemetal  19:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm getting a hunch as to why the 42 watchers didn't do anything about it. Too much work. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs on the article's Talk page. Akld guy (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thus ensuring it will remain as it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)


 * " the discovery of America "
 * Please tell me you're not dating that to 1492... Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Within the context of the question, what else makes sense? Matt Deres (talk) 15:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Per Stan Freberg, et al, it could also be said that in 1492 America discovered Columbus. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Just to add to the story, there is extensive evidence of Aboriginal Australians having eaten crabs for tens of thousands of years. One source (out of many available) is https://australianmuseum.net.au/food-from-the-sea-shellfish-crustaceans. Will have a look at List of food origins to see how I can help there. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Just skimming that article now. I note that it lists Eucalyptus as a food of Australian origin. Sure, eucalyptus trees are from Australia, but the only mammals I'm aware of which can digest the leaves are the Koala and the Wombat. The caterpillars of some insects eat them. Maybe ants too. I suspect humans would become very ill from eating them. Termites eat the wood, of course. I wonder which of those the writer had in mind when listing it as a food? HiLo48 (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not exactly a food, but eucalyptus tea has been used medicinally for thousands of years. Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? I've never heard of it. (But there's a lot of things I've never heard of.) I see now on the web that it exists, but it's the "thousands of years" bit that interests me. Got a source? HiLo48 (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No. But it is a traditional medicine for the aborigines, and for them, a thousand years is a short time. Looie496 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm just a little bit sceptical about it being a traditional medicine for aborigines. Not saying it couldn't be, but I have worked with, lived with and studied Australian Aboriginal people and their culture a reasonable amount, and haven't heard of it. Hence my asking for a source. HiLo48 (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * According to this, eucalyptus tea can be consumed, while the oil should only be used externally. Maybe that's what the user means by it being used as a "medicine". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:44, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Eucalyptus oil is certainly very popular in the traditional medicine of Indonesia where it is known as id:minyak kayu putih for the treatment of various ailments, but particularly id:masuk angin. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I know about eucalyptus oil being used as an external medicine. That certainly is a traditional use among Australian Aboriginal people. But I still have my doubts about the tea. That sounds to me more like a modern, yuppie fashion. HiLo48 (talk) 08:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)


 * That was added about 9 1/2 years ago, by a user who has been inactive since 2011. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd note the lead of the article mentions that a lot of types of seafood and crabs is one it singles out, were often eaten on every continent. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Romans loved a fermented fish sauce called Garum, which was most commonly made out of anchovies. They used it as a condiment like soy sauce. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  03:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)