Humanities desk
< January 16	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 17

Has anybody done anything except stand on the moon? Kneel, sit, lay?

Curious.2.102.186.137 (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Several have driven on the Moon... †dismas†|^(talk) 00:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To better answer your question, since they took rock samples back from the Moon, I would think that they'd have to kneel at some point to get them. Though I can't find pics of it after a quick Google... †dismas†|^(talk) 00:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The rocks and soil samples were picked up with tools. A couple of the astronauts jumped a little, and one famously hit a golf ball. Under no circumstances would the astronauts have sat (other than in the rover), knelt, or lain down on the lunar surface. (I assume you are referring to activity while on the EVA and not in the LM.) Even assuming that their space suits had enough flexibility in the joints to make it possible to do any of those things, unnecessary contact with the roughness of the surface would have risked ripping the suits, which could easily have been fatal. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The pressure suits worn by the Apollo astronauts restricted their mobility, particularly their ability to bend over, while on the Moon. For this reason, special tools were designed to allow them to collect rocks and soil for return to Earth."

(edit conflict)Collecting Moon Rocks Lunar Planetray Institute. --Hillbillyholiday ^talk 01:02, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep, eat, drive, golf, fall down, take communion. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, one astronaut tried moving by hopping, while saying "Hippity-hop," fell down and promptly got back up . Could have been Cernan. A fall at one fifth G is not all that dire if the space suit is not fragile. Edison (talk) 03:37, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone ever fall on their back? It seems inadvisable with all the life support equipment in the backpack. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It was easier to get up from there, as the body was raised by the PLSS and the PLSS was pretty robust. What was harder was falling forwards, as there was delicate equipment on the front of the suit, mostly the cameras, and this would have put the astronaut flat on the floor, with less leverage.

The wear portions of the suit (overboots, gloves and a patch under the PLSS) were made of Chromel-R wire mesh, so pretty tough. This is the only material where I've seen NASA quail at the price of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:42, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not on purpose, because the moon is quite dirty and the dirt is quite sticky. They had to work pretty hard to avoid getting that stuff all over everything. (Note: this is from memory. I did not look for a source.)-Arch dude (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody ever just "lays". It's a transitive verb, requiring an object. You lay an egg, lay the table, lay a blanket on a sleeping child, lay a person down in a bed, etc. It's also used to mean have sexual intercourse with, but you still need an object. You lay someone, you don't just "lay". But you can just "lie". In a bed, on a psychiatrist's couch, on the Moon. And that's no lie. Whether anyone has ever lain on the Moon, I do not know. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 05:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

False. Plenty of people lay down. Just because your English (and mine too) doesn't use that word in that way doesn't license you to make the false claim that nobody does so, Jack. --ColinFine (talk) 14:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The misuse of 'lay' in that way is still widely regarded as a malapropism, Colin. There may be an obscure variety of English where that is not the case, but I sort of doubt the OP was writing in such a dialect. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The death of Gene Cernan, the last person to have walked on the moon, was announced yesterday. 79.73.135.60 (talk) 08:43, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Though widely reported in this way, I think it's a bit confusing. Of the 12 men who have walked on the moon, the last to get there was Harrison Schmitt. Gene Cernan was the last to leave, and it's in that sense that he was last. He wasn't the last living person to have walked on the moon, either; by my count there are now 6 living men who have walked on the moon. I'd have termed Cernan the latest person to leave the moon. - Nunh-huh 21:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can tankers really take off from aircraft carriers?

Can tankers really take off from aircraft carriers[1]? Wouldn't their wing spans be too big? ECS LIVA Z (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible to design a tanker that can do this, but I think they just used buddy refueling (SeeLockheed S-3 Viking). During WWII, in one instance they launched long range B-25 bombers. See Doolittle Raid. -Arch dude (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

B25 was a medium bomber of course (wingspan ~67 ft); heavy bombers had a wingspan of ~100 ft. For comparison a modern tanker (e.g. Stratocaster) , is around 130 ft. Interesting about the B25 taking off from the carrier though- they could take off, but couldn't land back on them. O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 07:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C130s (wingspan 40 m/ 130 ft) have landed on carriers in trials. Fgf10 (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The largest/heaviest aircraft ever to regularly see carrier service was the Douglas A-3 Skywarrior; MGTOW was 82,000 pounds with a 72-foot wingspan. Several of them were modified to serve in the tanker role during the Vietnam War, before being replaced by a tanker modification of the Grumman A-6 Intruder. The A-3 remained in reconnaissance service until 1991. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy converted aircraft that they were already operating to act as tankers for their smaller carriers, in the 1960s, the Supermarine Scimitar and in the 1970s, Blackburn Buccaneers were used. Alansplodge (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is why we don't believe things on YouTube!

Also, and more to the point, carriers aren't particularly necessary in the Med as ranges are short and friendly airbases are available in other countries. A KC-135 tanker has plenty of range, even on its own fuel. There's just no need to operate them from carriers.

The US Navy (AFAIK at present) is only operating buddy tankers, on F-18s. This is a pod and some fuel tanks on an otherwise standard aircraft. I think the A-6 and S-3 tankers have gone from service now. Also note that the US operates two refuelling systems: the USAF uses booms, the Navy and Marines use probe and drogue, like the rest of NATO. It's not too hard to attach a hose reel pod to a large boom tanker, but it's harder to buddy refuel a USAF aircraft like an F-15. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why (at usa presidential election) you need 50%+1 electoral votes to win the election by usual means, but you dont need 50%+1 population votes to be the winner of some state?

Where this double standart came from/originated?177.92.128.26 (talk) 10:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No double standard... you do need 50%+1 to win each state. However, because some states have smaller populations than others you can win more states (thus winning in the Electoral college) and yet have fewer votes (overall) nationally. Blueboar (talk) 11:21, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

50%+1/almost infinity, rounded up. You don't need 50%+1 of the total or even the top two to win the state. You merely need 50% of the top two plus a fraction of a vote if they sum to an odd number of votes (with 3 votes in a state you'd just need 50%+0.5 votes). If one more person voted for the winner it'd then be 50%+1 but half a vote was sufficient. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think his point is that you only need a plurality to win most states, e.g. Trump won Michigan with 47.3% of the vote. Dragons flight (talk) 11:51, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thats right, as some example, according to politico ( http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president ) clinton got "only" 47.9% of the maine votes, yet, she got all maine electoral college votes without any extra step needed to decide who would get those electoral votes, unlike what would happen if one candidate didn't got at least 50%+1 of all electoral votes of the country.177.92.128.26 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The US constitution requires the 50%+1 electoral votes, but allows each state wide latitude to decide how those votes are assigned. Most states have chosen to give all their votes to whichever candidate gets the most votes regardless of whether they get 50% or not. Dragons flight (talk) 11:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There were ~~third-party~~ other candidates. E.g. Evan McMullin got 21.54% of the vote in Utah, according to United States presidential election in Utah, 2016, so Trump's 45.54% was more than enough. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:56, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Did this issue arise at all when Ross Perot reared his head, becoming perhaps the most successful third-party candidate ever? Did he risk denying the "winner" 50%+1 electoral votes? If he had won enough electoral college seats to deny any candidate an absolute majority (which, I gather, was at one point deemed a realistic possibility?), what would the procedure be for deciding the Electoral college outcome? Did any problems risk arising that election? Eliyohub (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the last paragraph of the opening section of Electoral College (United States). —Tamfang (talk) 08:25, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did now read it. So there was a chance of this extraordinary situation developing that time, with the House of Representatives, rather than the Electoral Council, choosing the President, thanks to Perot? Also, has this provision ("no majority in the Electoral College") everbeen used in the history of the United States? Eliyohub (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral college, not council. And the House chose the president in United States presidential election, 1824. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:13, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There was also the United States presidential election, 1800 that was decided by the House of Representatives, but that operated under a very different set of rules for the Electoral College. --Jayron 32 16:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wall Street and Bay Street counterparts

New York City has Wall Street and Toronto has Bay Street. What are their counterparts in different nations of the world? Donmust90 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)Donmust90Donmust90 (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The equivalent in London would be The City, or the Square Mile. --Golbez (talk) 17:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Hong Kong, it is Exchange Square (Hong Kong). DOR (HK) (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See the Wikipedia article titled Financial centre. --Jayron 32 17:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did doctors visit patients' houses?

Why did doctors visit patients' houses? Why don't they do it now? Why are today's doctors confined in hospitals? Do doctors need access to the medical laboratory to make tests and base a diagnosis on the test results, which may be why they need to work inside a hospital with fancy equipment? Why do pregnant women go to hospitals to give birth? Why can't they give birth at home with a trained midwife and call for an emergency where there is a medical emergency? 66.213.29.17 (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For the last question, some women do indeed still choose to give birth at home with the assistance of a midwife or doula. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 18:12, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Home visits are for when patients are too ill to attend the surgery. Doctors still conduct home visits in some countries that have a state funded health care service, because it can prevent a condition escalating to the point of requiring admission to hospital and all the extra costs that that entails. However, in a purely private healthcare system, such an escalation means more profit for the health providers. Likewise, a trained midwife knows when a mother close to giving birth really needs a hospital confinement – but that denies those, that provide more expensive 'care', from being able to bill the family for all and every birth - so they denigrate midwifes and pontificate all the dangers, whilst disregarding the fact that hospitals are not the healthiest places in which to give birth.--Aspro (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has articles titled Home care and House call to start your research. The economics of health care changed dramatically in the 20th century. The article in particular on house calls covers some of this, and deals with the historical situation. The article titled home care deals more with the modern practice of providing medical care in the home. --Jayron 32 18:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although now a little dated, the seventh episode of James Burke's excellent science history series The Day the Universe Changed covers the changes in mindset regarding medical expertise. I believe most episodes are available on YouTube. The very short version is that the shift of medicine to a more scientifically-based discipline is a large portion of the reason, but it's complicated by several factors, including profiteering, and the simple shift to include surgery with other medical studies. Matt Deres (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and it can be yours for a mere six hundred notes...!!! O Fortuna!^{...Imperatrix mundi.} 18:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here in the Netherlands many (even most?) women choose to give birth at home, of course under supervision of a midwife. In emergencies, one will have to rely on an ambulance. I'm not sure why this is (perhaps one of our "new traditions"?), obviously it's not the safest option. I believe that we're an exception in the western world. Cost is not the problem, giving birth in a hospital is still an option and it's covered by the mandatory health insurance. Jahoe (talk) 20:49, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Safe options can be a two edged sword. One is more likely to pick up an antibiotic resistant infection in hospital. Next: Too much medical interference – administration of Oxytocin can ensure that the baby comes during the hospital's day shift. Saving time: Hospital practice is to sever the cord as soon as possible. Once baby pops out it takes a few minutes for the blood in the placenta to increase the babies blood volume – sever too soon and one ends up with minor anaemia. Then there is the stress of being in unfamiliar environment of a hospital, were those stress hormones cross the placenta and into the baby. During a home delivery these potentially harmful medical interventions are absent... Anyway: Was lead to believe that in the Netherlands babies were delivered by storks not midwives? Have I been reading the wrong books? --Aspro (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why just a midwife ? Why not the full set (forewife, midwife, and aftwife) ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The word "midwife" literally means "with woman", i.e. assisting the woman who's giving birth.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or literally in dutch "medewijf", but the actual word is "vroedvrouw" (or "vroedmeester" for the rare male doing the job; the word mostly survives in the "vroedmeesterpad" (common midwife toad), a frog of which the male carries the eggs around), although it has been largely replaced by the gender-neutral "verloskundige". PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "wife" part of "midwife" refers to the woman who's giving birth, not to the assistant. Unless the Dutch have figured out how to have husbands give birth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Midwife#Definition_and_etymology disagrees. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it agrees totally with what I said: "The word derives from Old English mid, "with" and wif, "woman", and thus originally meant "with-woman", that is, the woman who is with the mother at childbirth. As such, the word is used to refer to both male and female midwives." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My reading is "The word...originally meant...the woman who is with the mother", i.e. the assistant, not the woman giving birth. Compare [3]. --Wrongfilter (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That only works if you're taking "with" as an adjective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:22, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In the Netherlands there's every few years debate in the newspapers whether the current practice should change. The hospital birth camp claims mothers should deliver their baby while in hospital. They support that by statistics showing that the neonatal mortality rate is high in the Netherlands when compared to other western countries. The home birth camp claims these statistics are biased. Dutch doctors are more likely to stop treatment and let a baby die, where doctors in other countries do everything they can to keep the baby alive with very little effect, letting him die a few weeks later so that according to statistics it's no longer a neonatal death, or that the baby lives but is severly handicapped (and probably dies before he's 5 years old). Furthermore, the home birth camp claims that the death rate amongst mothers while giving birth is exceptionally low in the Netherlands. The only thing everybody agrees on is that hospital births are far more expensive. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that going to the hospital was far more of an ordeal when it involved a horse and cart, and might cause more harm than the benefit of the doctor's visit. StuRat (talk) 22:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why should a doctor need to attend a birth? Pregnancy is not a disease ! --Aspro (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Check your family tree and see how many women died as a result of childbirth complications. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of a foreign body sounds like a medical procedure to me. :-) StuRat (talk) 00:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

As the parent of a teen-ager, I can reliably report that it will eventually turn malignant. Matt Deres (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

The parent? —Tamfang (talk) 08:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Insanity is hereditary ... you get it from your kids." - Erma Bombeck - StuRat (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I do not have a source, but note that in old time Catholic theology, God's words to Eve that "in pain, you shall give birth", were seen as not just a curse, but a commandment. Any attempt to relieve the pain of a woman in labour was strictly forbidden. ("Was a man switching to an easier job also breaking a prohibition of 'by the sweat of your brow you shall eat your bread'"? was my father's puzzled response). Jewish tradition never saw it that way - it's merely a curse, as in a reality, anything we can do to mitigate the woman's pain, we may do. Eliyohub (talk) 07:32, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As others have pointed out, in many western countries, doctors still routinely do home visits for patients too sick to attend the surgery, or when a patient develops a problem out of hours, when the surgery is closed. In my country, Australia, the public health system definitely still funds such visits, paying the doctor more than if he or she saw the patient at the surgery, to compensate for travel costs and the crazy work hours involved. It'still a LOT cheaper and more efficient for the system to have a doctor pay a home visit, than to have the patient turn up at the emergency room - or even worse, need an ambulance to bring them there. Keeping clinics open all night would probably be more expensive, as the patients in need of urgent services may be all across the city. (Routine matters, obviously, will be seen at a clinic, we're only dealing with people acutely but not dangerously unwell). But if neither of these situations applies, it's simply a matter of convenience for either the doctor or the patient (and occasionally, this may be the case, if the doctor lives nearby the patient), the system will only pay the doctor the same rate as if they saw the patient at the surgery. That's my understanding, but I stand to be corrected, I am no expert.

Also, as the OP noted, a doctor paying a home visit may have much less access to medical equipment than he or she has at their surgery - they're basically limited to what they can carry in their briefcase and/or car. If need be, you go to the patient's home, but in other cases, the resources available at the surgery may be useful, if not downright necessary. Eliyohub (talk) 05:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some North American readers might appreciate this claritication: when Aspro and Eliyohub refer to "the surgery", they mean what we call the doctor's office. (In North America "surgery" only has this meaning.) --76.69.44.144 (talk) 09:20, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those of us who used to watch All Creatures Great and Small might be more familiar with the British used of that term, than might the average American. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this was sort of implied but some of the above answers, I don't think it was directly stated yet. Even outside of home visits, doctors aren't confined to hospitals. In fact, in many countries the doctor people see most often will be a general practitioner who will often be working in a clinic of some sort with some equipment but depending on various factors, maybe not that much and definitely no where near that you'd find in a hospital. Potentially there may be no medical laboratory, and either the clinic will send samples away, or the patient will need to visit one. Nil Einne (talk) 14:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are also "clinics on wheels", which generally deliver only a small set of services, such as vaccinations or cardiac exams. They don't go to every home, but may go within walking distance of every home. StuRat (talk) 20:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]