Science desk
< January 5	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 7 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science 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 6

Life or death determination

When is a potato dead? Edison 02:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely dead when it is cooked, completely rotten or dried up. Death as a concept is not easily applied to plants as most plants can regenerate from a few cells. Animals can be cloned but it is not the same as regeneration and so cloned animals are not considered a continuation of the life but a new life. --- Skapur 02:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable. The Wikipedia Google Queen 02:29, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Also note that each potato is only a small part of the root system of the plant, which may very well still be alive (depending on the farming method). StuRat 02:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a plant is only dead when the cells die. Even when plucked the cells in a plant are alive, although, in the case of leaves they will begin to enter the senescence program that leads to death. For a potato it is alive until it rots since it is sustaining meristems in the eyes that can form new shoots and roots. It rots, due to bacterial infection i.e. Erwinia carotovora. In fact, the potatoes are not attached to the root system but a stolon. David D. (Talk) 19:16, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So then that's like asking when an apple is dead. Once you "pick" it, so to speak. Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 05:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I'm not so sure. You say if you pluck a potato from its plant, the rest of the plant may still be alive, but the potato is dead. But if that potato happens to have an "eye" on it, and you slice off that "eye" and put it in water, it will begin to grow. So it must still be alive. Or not? — Michael J 17:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If a cut rose is placed in water and a root system develops and the plant is perpetuated as a new rose bush, then was the cut flower dead? If cells from a dead animal are cloned and the clone lives, then was the animal still alive? Edison 19:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an interesting point. You are now bringing in the distinction between brain dead and physiologically dead. This does not apply to plants but is clearly relevant to animals. Check out the following links Clinical_death and Brain_death. David D. (Talk) 19:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By a dead animal I mean one which has experienced Clinical_death and Brain_death and has perhaps been run over, sliced and diced. Edison 21:22, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you now entering the realm of science fiction. But you may be interested to read about Craig Venter's new company. http://www.syntheticgenomics.com/about.htm David D. (Talk) 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struggling Butterflies

A friend on MySpace posted this story on my bulletin:

"A man found a cocoon for a butterfly. One day a small opening appeared, he sat and watched the butterfly for several hours as it struggled to force its body through the little hole. Then it seemed to stop making any progress. It appeared as if it had gotten as far as it could and could go no farther. Then the man decided to help the butterfly.

He took a pair of scissors and snipped the remaining bit of the cocoon. The butterfly then emerged easily. Something was strange. The butterfly had a swollen body and shriveled wings. The man continued to watch the butterfly because he expected at any moment, the wings would enlarge and expand to be able to support the body, which would contract in time. Neither happened. In fact, the butterfly spent the rest of its life crawling around with a swollen body and deformed wings. It was never able to fly.

What the man in his kindness and haste did not understand, was that the restricting cocoon and the struggle required for the butterfly to get through the small opening of the cocoon are God`s way of forcing fluid from the body of the butterfly into its wings so that it would be ready for flight once it achieved its freedom from the cocoon. Sometimes struggles are exactly what we need in our life.

If God allowed us to go through all our life without any obstacles, that would cripple us. We would not be as strong as what we could have been. Not only that, we could never fly."

Is this true? I ask for the sake of spiritual enrichment, because as a student of "A Course in Miracles" I tend to believe that suffering is unnecessary for spiritual development, but because this idea is so implanted in the collective conciousness, we "make" it. It probably doesn't matter, because the natural world does not reflect the spiritual in many cases, but I am curious. Thank you for your time.

24.88.54.247 03:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC) Sarah Ray[reply]

Hi, Sarah. First, you should know that the WP Reference Desks are not the ideal location for a spiritual/philosophical discussion, but welcome. Second, you said the word 'suffering', but the story you told used the word 'struggle'. Who says that something that is hard is also a source of suffering? I am familiar with The A Course in Miracles, and (sorry to be giving unsolicited advice) I think that as long as you are conflating challenge with suffering you will be stalled in your spiritual development. Anchoress 03:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we had no obstacles in life, we would lack the skills necessary to solve problems and get ourselves out of emergency situations. However, if there were no problems or emergency situations to begin with, we won't need those skills. So if there is no suffering in the world, the world would be better, not worse.

In your case of the butterfly, is it not possible for God to distribute the fluid while the puppa is still in the cocoon, so that it doesn't need to struggle to come out? --Bowlhover 04:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible. But God made them animals, not puppets. BenC7 07:57, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But God can change the life cycle of the butterfly to eliminate the need for struggle. He doesn't have to personally help every single butterfly. --Bowlhover 10:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading Letter to a Christian Nation by Sam Harris. It's short and highly illuminating. This whole issue is actually moot. Religion cannot be constructively applied to science, hence the confusion. Richard Dawkins has much to say on this subject as well, though most religious people consider him infamous. Good luck! Jeeves 08:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I agree with the OP. If there were no struggles everything would be easy and noone would acchieve anything. And if everything was done for us, we would never learn from our mistakes. Also if I was like the butterfly, I wouldn't want any gods to help me and make everything better, as then I wouldn't be me any more. Unless it was a very serious problem, of course.Hidden secret 7 21:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's not what the original poster is saying. She is saying that in her belief system suffering is not a factor. Anchoress 05:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Butterfly technical question

Reading this has sparked my interest. Don't suppose there's anyone around here knowledgable about butterflies and would like to tell me whether the bit about the butterfly in the story is true? As in the bit about the fluid going from the body of the butterful to the wings? because it all sounds....a bit suspicious to me. --`/aksha 10:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've split this off into a separate section. I too am curious about the science – if any – behind this, and I'm hoping that the entomologists in our readership will come out of the woodwork to comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article on butterflies says this: "A newly-emerged butterfly needs to spend some time inflating its wings with blood and letting them dry." From the sound of it, most of the inflation occurs after it leaves the cocoon. In fact, if the cocoon is really that hard to get out of, it would make sense that the wings should be kept as small and uninflated as possible. Strad 00:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note this is unreferenced WP:OR, but the story interested me:-): I have just been over to our local butterfly breeder (not an trained entomologist, but 20 years breeding experience) to ask. Her comments: She thought the story was a joke, a fanciful fable thought up by some one who has never seen a butterfly emerge from a pupa. A normal butterfly does not struggle to get out of the chrysalis (only moths have silk cocoons). The splitting and emerging from the pupa takes "shorter than it takes you to skin a banana" - quick, simple, easy, no struggle. The pupa bursts it is not "gradually worked open". An animal that cannot expand enough to split the pupa skin is sick. An animal that cannot move sufficiently to exit from a split pupa is sick. Infection apparently does this, the animal gets stuck and dies halfway in the pupa, simply because it is too weak to move normally. She doubts if a healthy normal butterfly can get stuck in a pupa, the covering bursts for a good distance from the bottom almost to the top, and there is no "struggle to get out", rather a clumsiness in executing the first "baby steps" out of a patently open shell, to get going. She has "helped" only one specimen when she happened to be there to see it struggling (tweezers), but would not do it again, since she believes a struggle is a sign that there is something wrong with the butterfly. The "swollen body and shriveled wings" is normal; they always look like that on just emerging; that fluid (probably hemolymph, not blood) helped split the pupa, and will be pumped into the wings to expand them, and then returned to the butterfly's body when the wings have dried. As far as cocoons go (moths), she does not breed moths, but she makes the pertinent point that silkworm moths emerge normally from cocoonless pupae, so cutting the cocoon should make no difference. I would love to see a trained entomologist's angle on this. --Seejyb 05:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Love and P A I N

I'm in love with someone I probably can't get. I'm very curious as to why this psychological state causes actual, physical pain. Specifically, a burning feeling in my chest when I think about that special someone. I guess it's pretty mild compared to, say, cutting a finger open, but still. Has anyone figured out why this happens? Pain means nerves must be being stimulated, yet my body is wholly intact. I imagine this is why love historically came to be associated with the "heart", though the blood-pumping musculature is obviously not directly involved. What gives? Thanks. 24.95.48.112 07:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats gives me an IDEA (not IKEA). Love Sickness can be Cured, lol. Sorry for my jokes but this is the best question I have ever seen on the Reference Board. Oh yeah and I have the same symptoms too, the anti-depressants: Celexa, Wellbutrin don't seem to be working for me. --Judged 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It resembles the same pain as for anxiety. --Zeizmic 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to non-cardiac chest pain associated with emotional stress there is also research on Pathophysiological processes underlying emotional triggering of acute cardiac events. --JWSchmidt 23:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The question, I believe, is why is depression associated with the heart? --Judged 04:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess, neurotransmitters trigger hormonal stress that triggers raised blood pressure and adrenaline rushes and general tension, and increased heartrate. That could all trigger acute cardiac events. Though the above links will be much more informative and authoritative than this guess of mine, which should be seen as a way to explain things in simpler terms. Oh, broken heart might help as well. Also acute coronary syndrome and panic attacks. Carcharoth 06:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

:From the above analysis you all relate it to stress, which acts directly on the Heart? How can you compare that with sadness in which there is no stress? --Jones2 11:20, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me break it down for you, the neurotransmitters affect the whole body not just the brain. For example lack of neurotransmitter Dopamine, causes movement disorders eg. Parkinsons disease. So these neurotransmitters affect the chest region some how, I am guessing this part though, someone want to back me up? --Foundby 17:14, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore we know that neurotransmitters affect the mood in the brain esp. depression, anxiety, alertness, happiness, rage etc. --Foundby 17:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scientifically speaking Alcohol

Scientifically speaking Alcohol makes a person sick? --Delma1 08:30, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In excess, yes it can. Ethanol#Metabolism_and_toxicology --Joel 11:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything in excess can, but that's where the definition of "in excess" is. Vitamin C won't though! X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 03:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Vitamin C, that is not completely true. For example, there is a case report about a guy with acute renal failure taking 5,000 mg of Vitamin C per day to fight off an upper respiratory tract infection. It resulted in the guy going to the hospital and was found to have tubular necrosis with massive oxalate deposition. The report goes on to say, "Our patient’s course and our review of the literature again support the contention that vitamin C ingestion may cause significant morbidity and mortality. Vitamin C should therefore not be viewed as a benign, water-soluble drug but rather as a drug that is potentially toxic, not only for diseased kidneys, but also for normal ones given the proper circumstances." - Dozenist talk 15:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does alcohol make you vomit? --Delma1 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vomiting is a "reflex" that eliminates ethanol from your stomach so your liver does not have to metabolize it. -Michael 04:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well how is this reflex activated due to alcohol consumption? --Delma1 14:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say with any certainty, but I'd assume that the body reacts to the presence of the toxin in sufficient levels by activating the vomiting center of the medulla, either by the vagal system and enteric nervous system being stimulated by the presence of ethanol or via the action of ethanol on the brain's chemoreceptors (by the action of the ethanol metabolite acetaldehyde perhaps?) This is an educated conjecture, but I'm not an expert, so I can't say with 100% certainty. Wintermut3 22:46, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type of Science

What the name of the type of science or job that looks for ways to help people from natural resources? Such as the African clawed toad, it has healing abilities. Or using snakes venom to create anti-venom.

Natural medicine? But it is not typically classified as a science, since it includes a number of areas that are pseudo-scientific. Science is also based on repeatable experiments (well, mostly) - and I doubt any experiements on a toad would show that people are healed by it. Possibly some chemical that it produces may be synthesized and be used for beneficial purposes. But then that's a chemical, not the toad itself. BenC7 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe... Bioprospecting --Zeizmic 13:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Medicinal chemistry and pharmacology. The majority of new drugs are still being derived from natural substances, even if the molecules are altered to improve the kinetics. alteripse 15:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaerobic respiration

I understand that the anaerobic pathway of respiration produces harmful waste products such as lactic acid. This causes fatigue in humans. How, then, can an anaerobic organism survive having lots of these waste products inside them? 86.147.210.9 12:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anaerobic waste products are excreted by anaerobic organisms, just like any other waste product. As you can read in the article on anaerobic organisms, there are many anaerobic chemical pathways, but they all result in at least one waste product. For instance, yeast, which undergoes fermentation to produce the waste product of ethanol, excretes the alcohol to get it out of its system. In fact, if you put yeast in a bottle with some water and carbohydrates, it keeps producing alcohol until it dies because there's too much alcohol around. Then you have some nice grain whiskey, or whatever. --Bmk 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on second thought, I dont' think the yeast population dies because of the concentration of alcohol - I think the yeast population dies because it runs out of sugars to ferment. Sorry! --Bmk 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on the initial concentration of sugar, and on the type of yeast. With a lower concentration of sugar, fermentation proceeds until the sugar runs out; with high sugar concentrations, the alcohol concentration will get high enough to kill the yeast. (In its most extreme form, this comes into play in the making of certain late harvest and icewines, where extremely concentrated grape juices are used to generate a very sweet final product.) To produce alcoholic beverages more potent than about 15% to 20% alcohol by volume, one needs to concentrate the beverage after fermentation using a physical process like distillation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is sleep apnea ?

Hi - we have a large article on that subject called sleep apnea (link provided). Please try using the search box before asking here - it will be much quicker. Also, the instructions at the top of this page should be useful - they will tell you how to add new questions. --Bmk 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herpes?

I am a 22 year old male, and the other day I noticed this purple thing on my thigh. It is was like a blister bigger than my thumb-nail, and I put a needle through it and a lot of blood came out, and then i squeezed and all this white stuff (the same stuff that comes out of pimples) came out, a lot of it too. Now Ive read about herpes before, and I saw pictures, but it looks different, it doesnt look the same at all. But i'm worried, is it just a pimple? Thanks

Please direct medical questions to your doctor. In the mean time, you may want to read boil. -- mglg_(talk) 21:19, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pimples aren't purple! "The same stuff that comes out of pimples" would be sebum. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 03:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sugar

What would happen if someone was on a diet consisting almost entirely of sugar, and very sugary food.Hidden secret 7 21:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Start first with Sugar. Then, here's an article. [1] Seems that you'll rot your teeth and get diabetes. I've known of many young girls that go 'vegetarian', but end up as sugar-aholics. --Zeizmic 22:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd also get serious deficiencies in the foodstuffs you weren't eating like fats, vitamins, aminoacids, fluids, etc, etc. - Mgm|^(talk) 23:38, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My Answer was kind of long so I put it on the user's talk page. See the answer here. Sifaka ^talk 00:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's a good thorough answer. X [Mac Davis] (DESK|How's my driving?) 03:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If they didn't eat any protein with their carbohydrates/sugar, they might get kwashiorkor. --Uthbrian (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Immunizations

Does Mexico require that school children be immunized before entry to school? What immunizations are required? What percentage of school age children are immunized? Thank you, pb

Here's an article from 2002 that says "Mexico more effective than U.S. at immunizing children: Mexico's paternalistic approach has led to a 96% vaccination rate for children ages 1 to 4, compared with 79% of American 2-year-olds." You can see Mexico's immunization schedule here (it's a .pdf file). - Nunh-huh 22:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do cats and dogs understand tv?

Can they understand that the 2D image represents a 3D scene? I've heard that they often watch a front-loading washing machine, what about tv?

Dogs really can't see very well, but they can detect motion. [2] It looks like 3d is just a dream to them. --Zeizmic 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, my cat seems very interested in ball sports on TV, such as soccer, but ignores all other programmes. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another anecdotal data point, my dog will bark when it sees other dogs on TV (but never normally on the tv just because of motion). Other people describe this too, however I've not studied it closely enough to decide perhaps if perhaps the dogs bark as well and this is what are setting them off. But I'm pretty sure if you just showed a dog running on TV with no sound he does bark. (One Man and His Dog being an example) 217.43.184.59 00:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Every breath very probably has an air atom also breathed by Julius Caesar

I recall reading that this is true. If that's the case, does the breath I'm breathing now contain an air atom breathed by every human who's ever lived (allowing for the time it takes for air to travel across the world and so on), plus the dinosaurs? Just how many atoms are there in a lungfull of air? Most atoms must have been breathed over and over again by many different people. Does anyone have the calculations that give rise to this belief?

I don't have the calculations, however here is guidance for them: the number of molecules in a certain volume can be calculated by the ideal gas law. You can also, by the information (volume per breath, breath frequency) in the article breathing calculate the total number of molecules breathed during the duration of a human life. Then you need the number of molecules in the atmosphere. There is several ways to get this number - the obvious idea is to try to find the volume of the atmosphere, and use that together with the ideal gas law. However, this solution is non-trivial (the atmosphere has different pressure on different heights). I would use the information on pressure at sea level in the article earth's atmosphere and the information on surface area in the article earth to calculate an approximate mass of the atmosphere instead. Combined with a weighted average molecule mass (calculable from the data in earth's atmosphere), you'd get the total number of molecules in the atmosphere.

Possibly you'll get really obvious numbers from this, but preferably you'd use some statistical hypothesis testing to hopefully confirm the hypothesis. TERdON 00:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't somebody ask a question similar to this a while back? Splintercellguy 00:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, they did. This very issue is discussed on the book Innumeracy by John Allen Paulos, along with the calculations demonstrating the high probability of it. It is, however, highly unlikely that atoms of the air would travel half the world in, say, a year. — Kieff 00:37, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's more impressive than that. From what I've heard (and yes, shame on me for not working it out), each breath we take contains, on average, two atoms of each breath that everyone has taken. (If this turns out to be very wrong, I reserve the right to remove my sig). Bunthorne 00:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would be possible. Atoms don't move around the earth that quickly. Chickenflicker---♣ 07:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's have a go. For purposes of this rough estimate we can ignore other substances and pretend the atmosphere is all nitrogen with a molecular weight of 28 -- oxygen is only a bit heavier and other gases are in small quantities). According to air, the total mass of the atmosphere ignoring water vapor is 5.14e18 kg. One mole of air (really nitrogen) is 28 g = 0.028 kg, so there are 5.14e18/0.028 = 1.84e20 moles of air. Each mole contains Avogadro's number of molecules, or 6.02e23, so there are 1.11e44 molecules of air altogether -- rounding to 1e44 will be close enough.

Now, breath says adults breathe 500 to 700 ml at a time. Say 600 ml or 0.6 L. One mole of any gas occupies the molar volume of 22.4 liters at standard pressure, so one breath is 0.6/22.4 = .027 mole, which is 1.6e22 molecules -- again, rounding to 1e22 will be close enough. (That's molecules; the original poster asked how many atoms in a breath, which will be twice that.)

So we have the coincidence that the total number of molecules in one breath is juts about the same as the number of breaths in the atmosphere. So yes, on average each breath you take will contain one molecule -- two atoms -- from Julius Caesar's last breath or any particular previous breath. (Assuming that there has been time for it to mix, of course; obviously it doesn't apply to a breath just taken by someone in a different city.) One complication I have ignored is that atoms get removed from the atmosphere and others added into it over time; I don't think this affects a substantial fraction of the atmosphere over a mere 2,000 years, but I could be wrong.

--Anonymous, January 7, 100% 2007, 06:52 (UTC).

600ml sounds like a lot for just one breath. Or I could just be breathing less than everyone else. Is there any way to find out?Hidden secret 7 11:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could just have no concept of how large your tidal volume is. You could get an actual value by taking a pulmonary function test, though it's probably going to be a bit expensive if taken just to satisfy your curiousity. - Nunh-huh 17:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A plastic bag and a juice pitcher with a volume scale on the side would be cheaper. --mglg_(talk) 22:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]