Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 March 23

= March 23 =

How did Queen Elizabeth (the first) survive smallpox?
Obviously… not just her. Wiki says 30% mortality rate; some (articles) say 60%.

Did the disease disappear (in a survivor) because the body developed antibodies?

If so, why can't the antibodies be breathed (or fed or bled) into others? In the womb?

PS: There's some (on smallpox) in ref desk archives 24 February 2019. I'd link to it but I've forgotten how.

MBG02 (talk) 07:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * How to:
 * 1. Go to the reference desk home page.
 * 2. Click on Archives.
 * 3. Find the appropriate year; within that year, find the appropriate desk and click on the appropriate month: in this case Science &mdash; Feb 2019.
 * 4. Find the appropriate date (assuming you know it, as here); within that date, find the appropriate thread:
 * It'd be WP:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 February 24.
 * --184.147.181.129 (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * "One of the first methods for controlling smallpox was variolation, a process named after the virus that causes smallpox (variola virus). During variolation, people who had never had smallpox were exposed to material from smallpox sores (pustules) by scratching the material into their arm or inhaling it through the nose. After variolation, people usually developed the symptoms associated with smallpox, such as fever and a rash. However, fewer people died from variolation than if they had acquired smallpox naturally".
 * CDC - History of Smallpox. Alansplodge (talk) 09:20, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Did the disease disappear (in a survivor) because the body developed antibodies? For bacteria and viruses (that self-replicate), yes; they do not stop "on their own" (how could they know when to stop?).
 * why can't the antibodies be breathed (or fed or bled) into others? They can be "bled" into others: see antiserum. This has of course strong limitations: you need a more or less continuous supply of antibodies to replace "in-house" production, and I guess that there are tons of immunology tricks that makes this suboptimal. Tigraan Click here to contact me 09:41, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There's a 2020 blog here from Dr Rebecca Emmett, Lecturer in History and Archival Practice at the University of Plymouth. Looking at the Elizabeth I article the exact date of her illness does not seem to be mentioned, or sourced. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Saw that. I got stuck at the opening screen. (Seemed to want money). Site(s) say she was 29.
 * I still don't understand it (enough); and I'm "sure" [no citation needed!] that the "principle" applies to lots of diseases. MBG02 (talk) 12:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That's unfortunate. It's wholly accessible to me in UK. It concentrates more on the cosmetic consequences of her illness; but it does say this: "Elizabeth also enjoyed the ministrations of the doctors of the court, who subjected her to the ‘red treatment’. A Japanese treatment, in use in Europe since the twelfth century, it involved wrapping the Queen from the neck down in red cloth. It was believed that the cloth would prevent severe scarring of the skin, which Elizabeth feared greatly." And also it says that she fell into a coma. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Science of photography: How is this photograph taken with visible galaxies as background?
How is this photograph taken with visible galaxies as background? Rizosome (talk) 14:50, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I doubt there are any visible galaxies there (excluding the Milky Way). If you think the "dust" looking is galaxies then no, a galaxy would be a tiny dot. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:26, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't there so I can't tell for sure how it was done, but I hope this article gives enough hints to explain at least some things the photographer certainly took into account before (and during) making the photo: 9 night photography techniques to capture detailed scenes with limited lighting. More hints can be found at night photography tips. --CiaPan (talk) 15:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

If it's not galaxy, then what is it? Rizosome (talk) 16:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Milky Way. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

So how is this photograph taken with visible galaxies as background? Rizosome (talk) 16:29, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Milky Way is one galaxy, the one we live in. The photo just shows Milky Way stars (possibly also a few airplanes/satellites/planets but I have no idea where they might be). It's possible the band of Milky Way is in the "dust" but I don't know enough to judge that. A photo could make stars appear hazy for several reasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:33, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * What makes you think those individual dots are galaxies rather than stars? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:38, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * You were already told those in background are not galaxies, so stop asking a question you already know is wrong. If you insist, then the correct answer to it is:
 * It was not. The photograph was NOT taken with visible galaxies as background.
 * For more insight at a childish level see the StarChild Question of the Month for November 1999 at NASA/GSFC: Can you see other galaxies without a telescope?.
 * The answer begins with: Yes, you can see a few other galaxies without using a telescope!. Please note: a few. Not the full background. --CiaPan (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a second galaxy visible in the image. At the upper right corner of the building, you can see the Large Magellanic Cloud. A bit higher up you can see the star Canopus, to the left of the building is the Southern Cross and below that α and β Centauri. The building belongs to the VISTA. You can see Cerro Paranal with the VLT in the background. PiusImpavidus (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * See High-dynamic-range imaging. In general, one uses different exposures to get to such pictures. With long exposures or higher ISO the Milky Way becomes bright enough to be visible, but bright stars and certainly the foreground would be totally overexposed. On the shorter exposures the brighter objects are better visible. One then has to combine the different exposures using an appropriate tone mapping to compile the HDR image. A problem here is that when an object is overexposed by a large amount, a large number of pixels in the immediate vicinity of the object become affected as a result of electrons leaking from the overexposed pixel to the neighboring pixels causing these to get overexposed as well, causing electrons to move to pixels that are farther away. This is what causes overexposed objects to get "blown". This will then hide the faint details right next to the object. These details must be uncovered from the lesser exposed pictures, but this increases the noise. So, to a first approximation it's not all that difficult to get to a HDR picture, there is a lot of software available that will do this automatically for you. To do it in a professional way where you don't want any artifacts to appear right next to bright objects requires a lot of work and a large number of exposures. Count Iblis (talk) 19:53, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Are you sure it's not simply a long exposure? Without the HDR processing? The foreground is completely unlit except by starlight, so I'm not sure you're correct that it would be overblown. (Of course it couldn't be too long, or the stars would shift.) ApLundell (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Count Iblis has answered the question. Long exposures and/or HDR photography.
 * But just to make sure we're not missing the obvious, the Milky Way, and the other interesting stuff in that photo is pretty visible to the naked eye if you're standing someplace with clear skies and no light pollution. (Which is exactly the sort of place where observatories are built, of course.)
 * City dwellers sometimes don't realize this, but it's not like that image is some sort of trickery, just good photography techniques.
 * ApLundell (talk) 03:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're right, of course. And the photo actually has some galaxies in background, Anyway, it certainly has no 'galaxies as background', it just has the Galaxy as background. Best regards, CiaPan (talk) 07:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)