Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 November 10

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.

November 10

Urinary tract infections messing with the mind

I've known multiple elderly individuals who, when experiencing urinary tract infections, became quite confused and temporarily appeared to have dementia while fighting the infection. Their doctors don't generally seem to be surprised or alarmed by the mental issues, so I assume that this is a common symptom of such an infection. Why does this happen? I can't quite see why an infection of the lower body would so mess with the mind. Nyttend (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Without wanting to delve into medical advice, infections lead to fever and high fevers can lead to temporary impared cognitive ability such as delirium; such problems are likely magnified in the elderly. Many people have had a bad flu at sometime in their lives, and can attest to some level of cognitive imparement during especially bad fevers. I suspect, though could not say for certain, that this is what is going on. --Jayron32 03:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I can also see the reverse happening, that dementia might cause urinary infections, especially in females, due to poor hygiene. StuRat (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to pile on the WP:OR, I've observed itcorrelation of UTI and temporary symptoms of dementia/delirium' in both males and females. DMacks (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Fever induced delirium or dementia induced urinary tract infections? If the latter, how do you know the cause? --Tango (talk) 04:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for vague antecedent. Fixed. DMacks (talk) 05:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Acute worsening of mental status (a change from mild dementia to frank delirium) is frequently associated with infections of all kinds. UTIs seem to be a particularly frequent cause in the elderly (possibly for reasons stated above). From delirium:

"...there is an interaction between acute and chronic symptoms of brain dysfunction; delirious states are more easily produced in people already suffering with underlying chronic brain dysfunction. A very common cause of delirium in elderly people is a urinary tract infection, which is easily treatable with antibiotics, reversing the delirium."

The typical pattern seems to be: dementia --> UTI --> fever --> delirium --> antibiotics --> resolution. However, you don't necessarily need dementia for the pattern to start. --- Medical geneticist (talk) 13:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The obvious way to break the link of dementia causing UTIs is proper care. If the patient defecates in their pants, it should be immediately detected and cleaned up, using a disinfectant, so there's no opportunity for the UTI to develop. StuRat (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the doctor would have minimal concerns about the person's mental state because he knows (as do most experienced care staff) that once the infection is dealt with the chances are very high that the person's mind-state will return to normal. Just because the seat of the infection is in the urinary tract does not mean that the associated toxaemia will not spread through the body and affect other parts - like, for instance an already partly disabled brain. If the person has a temperature this will further compromise the oxygenataion of the struggling brain with consequent mental confusion.

Cleaning the soiled area after faecal incontinence is a help, but many urinary infections are caused by lack of proper hydration and infrequent voiding of the concentrated urine. Dehydration is a major problem in people with dementia (and other mentally incapacitating conditions) in hospitals or nursing homes. It is not unknown for care staff to be less free than necessary with liquids to avoid the urinary consequences. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OR I've had elderly relatives admitted to hospital with dementia, and the UTI was not diagnosed until after discussion with the carers. The conversation would go somethign like this: "Your mother/ mother-in-law's been admitted to hospital. Can you tell me if she's confused normally?" When I said she wasn't, then she'd immediately be started on antibiotics and her urine tested for an infection. This has happened to me about 3 times, and I still can't understand why confused elderly people aren't routinely tested for UTI's as a direct cause of confusion. On all 3 occasions, the patient had had no problem with incontinence, either urinary or faecal, nor had she had problems with dehydration, as she had up until that time been caring for herself at home. There must be some research on this as the first instance I'm talking about happened about 15 years ago: however, I'm no longer able to access the relevant medical libraries to confirm this.--TammyMoet (talk) 16:23, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Port transportation and inventory cost with lead time consideration

Can Wikipedia help in finding journal papers relevant to Port and Modal Elasticity study by Robert C Leachman? The link for this paper is: http://www.metrans.org/nuf/documents/Leachman.pdf

Since I am new to finding relevant journal papers, I have difficulty relating papers. Few example papers and other suggestions for relating and searching relevant journal papers will be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.10.121.178 (talk) 06:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are others, but Google Scholar springs to mind as a search engine which focuses on academic journals. --Jayron32 06:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

For example, typing "Port and Modale Elasticity" into Google Scholar returned this search. I have no idea how helpful this one search is, but you may be able to play around with the search terms and find what you are looking for. --Jayron32 06:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Blood Donation and Alcohol Consumption

I need an urgent advice. Somebody asked me to donate blood. Even as they asked I was sipping a sixty ml of White Rum. Nothing more than that. Not a drop yesterday. In other words only sixty ml in 48 hours. Will the docs rule me out? What complications can occur if I hide the fact? Urgent information sought. --117.204.82.26 (talk) 07:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

We definitely can't provide medical advice here (especially since it could potentially affect your health as well as X unknown others who receive your donation). But also, the exact qualifications vary from place to place. Best to call the donor center and ask...you can usually do that anonymously. I won't get on my soapbox and tell you what I think about doing something that you suspect may put someone else at risk. DMacks (talk) 07:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You will find lots of information here, including a long list of restrictions on who can give blood. Interestingly, alcohol doesn't seem to be mentioned, so presumably it is not a big deal for them.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

That would be because only a small portion of the donated blood will end up in any individual patient, meaning that the alcohol will be well diluted. Still, if you were dangerously drunk, I'd expect that the amount of alcohol the patient receives might be enough to feel some minor intoxication effects. If you were so obviously drunk, then they might refuse the donation just because of the risk of you injuring yourself or others during the donation process. StuRat (talk) 13:46, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I have donated blood a number of times, and they asked me extensive questions each time. Whether or not I had consumed alcohol was never an issue. To be on the safe side, when you go to donate blood, explicitly say that you just drank X amount Y time ago, and ask if you can still donate blood. — QuantumEleven 13:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Donated blood is not blindly dispensed to patients straight from storage after receiving from the donor. Extensive testing is done to determine quality, type and safety: [1] 10draftsdeep (talk) 15:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've also donated blood several times (in the UK) and I don't remember alcohol being mentioned at all. Pretty much everything else you can think of, but not alcohol. --Tango (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

From what I've heard of binge drinking in the UK, they might be concerned that blood with too low of an alcohol content would be a shock to the system of the recipient. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Guide to the preparation, use and quality assurance of blood components, 14th edition 2008, Europeean Directorate of Medicines & Health Care:

"Persons clearly under the influence of alcohol should be deferred until sober." (page 61).

The main concerns with people not being sober when donating are (1) increased risk of the donor not being able to reply accurately to the questions asked about risk factors etc., and (2) the possibility of increased risk of injury to the donor after donation. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:15, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Help identifying a bird

File:Ys cover.jpg What kind of bird is depicted in the cover of Joanna Newsom's Ys? Thanks! 189.15.180.169 (talk) 07:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like it could be a chough. It is the only corvid I know with a beak and legs of a yellow/orange colour. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 07:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Knowing Newsom, there is probably quite a lot of symbolism or possibly wordplay going on here. Sickle, sphinx moth?, Ipomoea, a cherry, the strange perspective which almost seems like it could be an allusion to a work or artistic school (early experiments with perspective?). Maybe the humanities or entertainment reference desks could get you further on these fronts? It's possible that the bird isn't modeled after any species in particular but then again she does pay close attention to her specimens. -Craig Pemberton (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Or maybe she just likes the way chough is pronounced. It is an odd one. Assuming it is a corvid that gets you down to 120 species, quite simple. Caesar's Daddy, how do you tell if it is a corvid? -Craig Pemberton (talk) 08:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Experience mostly. Reading books, looking at birds, watching wildlife films. Most, but not all corvids are dark or black. This particular bird is easily recognisable by its beak and legs and resident in the UK, among other places. It's a bit like recognising a parrot, when you've seen a few species you can recognise what your looking at. Most importantly it is not a perfect system. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 08:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Energy stores after exercise

I've looked at many of the relevant articles and I'm sure the answers are there but they get quite technical. After aerobic exercise, glycogen levels are lower than normal. How are they replenished if one doesn't eat afterwards? I believe the energy can come from fat stores or proteins - but is there a mechanism that would perhaps favour one over the other? Thanks, Zain Ebrahim (talk) 11:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe that energy is normally restored from fat, with protein only being used when this method fails (such as in a person with no fat reserves remaining). StuRat (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Biology) Attraction to super-natural features?

I've spent a while searching for this topic, but I guess I'm using the wrong terms, or framing it badly or something. What's the word for the (sexual?) attraction to features that are exaggerated beyond their natural limits? The classic example I always heard is that human males are more attracted to freakishly red lips (colored with lipstick) than to naturally red lips. I vaguely remember reading about animal studies where they reacted more strongly to an artificial, exaggerated stimulus that the researchers came up with, than to the natural stimulus. Maybe it was rats with artificial sweeteners? I'm not sure. Any idea what I'm talking about? Indeterminate (talk) 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

This "more is better" attraction also seems common in our diets, where we crave more sugar, salt, and fat than our bodies can actually handle. In this case, the reason is that those items were scarce when we evolved, so the problem of excess quantities was so rare we didn't need a way to deal with it. Similarly, if women with excessively red lips were showing a sign of some common disease, then we might have developed an aversion to them, but this isn't a common problem, so we didn't. A lack of red lip color, on the other hand, could show several health problems, such as anemia, which would make such a woman a poor choice for a mate. So, to be safe, the woman with the reddest lips is chosen. StuRat (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the main reason men have evolved to be attracted by lip appearance is because it's an indicator of fertility. Redness, thickness and eversion of lips peaks in a woman's mid-twenties, when she is most fertile.[2] Red Act (talk) 18:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Boob jobs in humans might be a similar phenomenon. Edison (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Supernormal Stimuli--Digrpat (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

...with supernatural stimuli meaning people who are turned on by an alien with an anal probe. :-) StuRat (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the term, and in this case, that which is subject to sexual selection. Imagine Reason (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Dissociation

Hi,

The way I understand it, if one dissolves salts in water, then ions dissociate, resulting in a soup of ions. Say, I dissolve some NaCl and $CaCl_{2}$ in water, there appear

$Ca^{2+},CaCl^{+},Na^{+},Cl^{-},H^{+},OH^{-},CaOH^{+}$,

right? Is there a study showing relative concentrations of the ions at the equilibrium of reactions like the following?

$Ca^{2+}+OH^{-}\rightleftharpoons CaOH^{+}$

I am most interested in concentration of ions of valency 2 or higher, like $[Ca^{2+}]$ or $[SO_{3}^{2-}]$. Is it reasonable to assume that concentrations of these ions are negligible comparing to the ions of valency 1? (Igny (talk) 14:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Not necessarily. Metal ions of charge 2+ or higher are often quite adept at binding hydroxide, thereby lowering the pH of an aqueous solution. Someone with a good textbook in inorganic chemistry close at hand can probably put some numbers to that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:43, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to make this clear. Concentration $[Ca^{2+}]$ is negligible compared to $[CaOH^{+}]$ and $[CaCl^{+}]$? (Igny (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC))

Mis-information about the "Great Pyramid"

Below is a copy of a letter sent to the History Chanel with specific reference to the Great Pyramid.

I am an engineer that has done research on work within the "Great Pyramid" as part of a National Geographic team. It is high time that someone check the facts on some of the conjecture that is being presented as fact on your programs. For starters, this particular program keeps referring to the "Great Pyramid" the actual pyramid that is depicted and as the center of focus is actually the Pyramid of Khafre It is a MISTAKE, a common one but still it is highly inaccurate. I can also tell you straight out that as an MIT educated engineer that all the claims about everything being in "perfect" alignment and the "perfect" alignment with this or that is a lot of horse hockey. There isn't enough of the pyramid in tact to tell for sure where it is aligned and it is painfully obvious to the trained eye that there are many parts of the stone work that are far from "perfect". It is high time that all this crap cease to be presented as fact by people that I can only guess are as full of horse hockey as the statements they are making. If you are going to present something as "fact" then somebody needs to check what the facts really are. If there is this much mis-information about the Great Pyramid in this program then the rest of the program is highly suspect. I love Si-Fi but you are suppose to be the "History" channel.

67.142.161.35 (talk) 14:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK. --Sean 14:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there a question involved? Googlemeister (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess linking to The Great Pyramid, Pyramid won't help? Also it's probably not worth noting that The History Channel and Wikipedia are not (at least to my knowledge) part of the same organisation so problems about the accuracy of one isn't going to be resolved by informing the other. Or do you want to know if the comments in the letter are correct? 194.221.133.226 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to assume good faith on your part, but you may want to exercise caution with regard to misrepresenting your credentials. MIT has an extremely high standard for its students' English and writing skills; you are doing no justice to your institution when you write malformed and angry letters to the general public that are replete with spelling errors and poor grammar. If it turns out that you are not actually from MIT, they will likely track you down - they have had a lot of recent bad publicity with respect to misrepresented credentials. Nimur (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

No misrepresentation at all. Graduated BSME class of 94. And your credentials are??? I don't know how many engineers you have ever dealt with but most of them have language proficiency far below mine. MIT tracking me down? Only if they want a contribution to the alumni fund.

Just basically wanting to vent. I spent about 10 days working inside the "Queen's Chamber" and do have first hand experience. In truth, I did not walk the entire perimeter of the pyramid but I can say for certain that on at least 3 sides that I did look at that there is not enough of the original stone work in tack without considerable damage and erosion to tell for sure where it is pointed. As far as interior stone goes, other than the stone work inside the king's and queens chambers, there is very little of it that can be considered "high precision".

Just one point that is of particular interest are the claims that the shaft exiting the south side of the Queen's Chamber is at a very specific angle and points to such and such. The shaft in fact takes a left hook part way up (about 10° at a guess) that is very obvious from video that we took on the project I was involved with. This information has never been published or released to my knowledge.

My point is just not to believe everything that is published as "fact". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.161.29 (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The OP only says they are MIT educated, not an MIT graduate, so they haven't,strictly speaking, claimed any real credentials. --Tango (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my initial response. Nimur (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

As for your actual claims, while much of the surface stone has been removed from the pyramids, they are still substantially intact, unlike the earlier mud brick pyramids that are now in total ruins. So, by measuring the alignment of the interior blocks, one could determine what, if anything, they are aligned with. The claim I'm familiar with is that they aren't aligned with the north star of today, but rather with it's position when they were built. I do tend to agree with you that The History Channel, The Discovery Channel, The Biography Channel, and even PBS, often do a poor job of reporting facts, being more interested in entertainment (and the funds this brings in, either through advertising or pledges) than education. Still, you have to grade them on a curve, meaning that anything is better than the crap on the rest of the TV stations. StuRat (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I share the OP's love of Sci-Fi. About a year ago I received the following in an e-mail from another pyramid enthusiast.

The contents of Cheops include ( there is some evidence, and some legends,) the Ark of the Covenant, the Emerald Tablets of Hermes, the 42 Books of Toth, the archives of the predecessor civilization, and three entombments. The keys to consciousness lie within. Which is also to say the keys to immortality. Not an immortality that simply means one never dies, but an immortality that eliminates the need for biological birth to come and go in the matter world, and this Earth plane, at will.

The entrance to Cheops and the entrance to the Hall of Records have a common vestibule.

Humans are naturally immortal. The teachings of the Mystery School at Giza were how to control it. Belief had nothing to do with it.

I have kept this closely held. I am taking a chance in telling it to you. Please just file it in your head and watch and see what happens. Nobody in the west takes me seriously, but the Egyptians know me as a dangerous revolutionary. I am watched and guarded when I go there. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Response to the OP: The History Channel exists to make you watch commercial advertisements. They do this by creating little bits of entertainment which are interesting enough to keep you watching and not changing the channel to find some other show to watch. Now, here's the important bit. The deal is, "stuff that the majority of authorities believe to be true" tends to be stuff we already learned in school, so that stuff is unlikely to hold a viewer's attention. There was a time when the History Channel ran shows which spent time teaching people about the accepted view on historical events; i.e. exactly the same stuff you could learn from most history books and the like. It turns out that, since people are already fairly familiar with this viewpoint, they don't watch the shows as much as when you run a show whose theme is EVERYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT THE WORLD IS WRONG!. When people see that as the theme of the show, they get much more interested in watching the commercials in between the segments of the show. Being that the History Channel is intersted in staying in business, they have shifted from showing shows which tell you stuff everyone believes to be true to showing stuff that only a few insane nutjobs believe to be true because the latter tends to cause more people to watch commercials. Such is the way it works. --Jayron32 03:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

I've even seen some of this on PBS. For example, they had one nut-job on there giving his theory of how ancient Central and South American stonework was done by carving the stones with light. They did thoroughly debunk this by having reputable scientists tell us how ridiculous that would have been (by requiring a precision-ground mirror the size of a football stadium, which we couldn't even build today), but they still felt the need to give this nut a forum to present his wacky theory. And when pledge week comes around they bring out their own nuts, like Wayne Dyer and Gary Null, who seems to think that it's unhealthy to have poop in you colon. StuRat (talk) 14:52, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Around these parts, we just get a WIKIPEDIA FOREVER banner and the usual Reference Desk population-at-large... Nimur (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

For over two centuries, deluded nutjobs have made sensational claims about "precise alignment" and "exact dimensions" of the pyramids, such as the claim that its sides were integral multiples of the Pyramid inch, with precision of 8 decimals. But the face stone or finish stone was long ago removed for other monuments, and the crude underlying stone has eroded. Where should a surveyor place the instrument to check the "precise alignment" or measure the "exact dimensions?" The "precise" results depend on arbitrary placement, which later researchers decided was off by a couple of feet. Edison (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Organ donation system in the US

Is it even remotely feasible (outside of movie plots) for a person in the US to be identified as donor-compatible by some genetic characteristics (blood type, DNA fingerprint, Genome sequence, etc.) and as a result be killed so that their organs might come to bear on the transplantation exchange, and end up being given to a designated beneficiary? Following the logic, it would require that the beneficiary of the perpetration be already at the 'top of the list' of compatible recipients to even have a shot at receiving the organ, so a follow up question would be, are these lists very closely guarded as a matter of policy? The final question would be (probably something for the humanities desk), how large of a pool of murder victims could go undetected by investigators (presuming that the beneficiary is not at the top of the list, and multiple compatible people must be killed to increase the probability of success) so as to not reveal the ultimate motive?

I pledge that I am not researching this for any ulterior motive than to explore the possibilities (for a factually correct work of fiction, perhaps.) I would gladly accept any articles related to this topic, in lieu of specific answers. Thanks! --Jmeden2000 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

One flaw in that concept is that the murder victim's organs would mostly be unusable if the body is just left out until somebody happens to find it. Usually organs must be removed shortly after death to be viable, which typically only happens if the person dies in a hospital, although some organs last longer than others. And if piles of murder victims start showing up at the entrance to the organ transplant unit with their donor cards taped to their foreheads, somebody might catch on. :-) StuRat (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Well in one book I read, the murderer stuck the dead guy in the fridge and tipped off the cops so it was found quickly. That sounds like an option. Googlemeister (talk) 17:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, deaths from murder are "unnatural" and reported to the coroner. With murder, the coroner will invariably perform an autopsy. Thus the organs would be unusable for donation. With road traffic accidents, if the death occurs in hospital (usually the intensive care unit), the organs may be salvaged for donation, as long as the cause of death is clear. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is a comment about the situation in NSW Australia. Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:16, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(Edit Conflict)There are persistent rumours that, in various parts of the world, "involuntary donors" are identified, abducted, murdered and the required organ(s) harvested on commission from rich and unscrupulous transplant requirees. Only a couple or so criminal/suborned individuals within the medical establishment carrying out the transplant (probably including one of the surgeons and someone involved in the donation documentation process) would be sufficient to bring this off. Since, like the rest of the world, the US has its share of unscrupulous or subornable individuals the scenario must be at least possible. Such a conspiracy would easily be able to dispose of the victim's remains without detection. Since so many people go missing annually, and since there need be absolutely no connection between victim and perpetrators, a low level of such activity might well go undetected for at least a while - my own opinion, FWIW, is that it probably does. The concept has been treated fictionally by the Science Fiction writer Larry Niven (who coined the term "organlegging" to describe it), medical techno-thriller writer Robin Cook (I believe), and doubtless others. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a variation on blood libel or penis panic. --Sean 19:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

"Since so many people go missing annually" --Is there a basis for this claim? Unsolved (but confirmed) murders do not count in this case, as we have worked out that the likelihood of organ donation from such an incident is nearly 0. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 19:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to the Missing person article, there were about 109,000 active missing-person cases in the US at the end of 2005. I'm not sure how many new cases annually that would translate to (the article may give relevent reference sources), but clearly it's enough in which, say, a dozen annual cases of murders-for-organs could lurk. Understand, I'm not asserting that they actually happen, but addressing the OP's question as to whether it's feasible. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

That very same article goes on to say that the list *shrunk* by 10,000 names in 2005, so we apparently found more than we lost... the time sensitive nature of a missing person case no doubt makes it very hard to track, so those numbers aren't really any good for this purpose. I need to know the statistical rate at which a name is added to the list, never to be removed. --Jmeden2000 (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Our article on Autopsies seems to suggest that it is generally required when the cause of death is suspicious or subject to debate, not necessarily any situation that is "unnatural". Are there any references to US or UK law (or other nations) that clarify this? Is it presumed that the time the body would sit waiting for the yes/no verdict by the coroner would ruin the organs? --Jmeden2000 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Jmeden2000, you are correct. In the UK, all unnatural deaths must be reported to the coroner. If the cause of death is obvious and there is no suggestion of foul play, the coroner may choose not to conduct an autopsy. However in cases of murder, the coroner will invariably conduct an autopsy. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like there are three possible scenarios: 1.) Causing a natural-looking death (e.g., a car accident) when you're at the top of the list; 2.) Murdering someone and making sure that the corpse is found soon (or better even: dies at a hospital) and the needed organs are not needed by the coroner... probably riskier than [1]; and 3.) Murdering someone and letting the corpse disappear... although it seems to require a lot of taste for conspiracies to like a book about this third scenario. :) - As for the lists, to my knowledge candidates for transplants are well-informed about their position on the list (and the time it usually takes before they may get a transplant). After all, it's often pretty vital information to them... Finally, the number of murder victims obviously depends on your choice of scenario. It also depends on your location--murders in close proximity will clearly be suspicious much faster; and when you mention the US, you may even deal with different jurisdictions (different states), which should further obstruct fast detection. I'm sure by the time they catch on, you'll have left the hospital with your new liver in place. ;) --Thanks for answering (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Surely it would be easier to murder the people in front of you on the list? Obviously you'd still need to get away with that, but presumably these are pretty ill people: who'd look to closely if a few of them seemed to die of complications of their disease? And a couple could have accidents, not too close together obviously. Oo, you could have some sort of 'organ donation' awareness event, or support group gathering for the people on the list, and a single terrible thing could happen to a load of them. Then all you need to wait for is the one person with your organ to die in a desirable way, without you needing to do anything to them: donors must come up fairly often, and avoiding the queue seems like the main problem. 86.142.230.196 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC).

Don't forget, the transplant list isn't just a long list of names and when the person at the top gets their organ everyone else moves up one place. You need a good tissue match, similar age, similar size, etc. (there are different requirements for different organs) to receive an organ and tissue matches aren't transitive - Organ A may be suitable for Patient 1 and Patient 2 and Organ B suitable for Patient 1, but that doesn't mean Organ B is suitable for Patient 2. That means the transplant list is actually extremely complicated. Trying to work out where a particular patient is on the list and who is above them is therefore very difficult. What it means to be "at the top" of the list is that you are close enough to the top that when an organ becomes available you might be the highest person that can receive it. It doesn't mean that you will definitely get the next organ to come up. --Tango (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

blood type

Do other mammals have blood types in the same manner as the human ABO +/- ? Googlemeister (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Naturally, we have an article. From the point of view of pure biology, humans are just another mammal, so it's not surprising that they are like mammals in this respect as well as almost all others. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

(EC) We live in hope that this is covered at Blood type (non-human). One imagines that Rhesus monkeys, in particular, would be most pissed off to find that they did not. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

While the Rhesus antigen was discovered in Rhesus monkeys that doesn't necessarily mean they have it as a blood type. It is only a blood type if some Rhesus monkeys have it and some don't, otherwise it is just an antigen like any other. (At least, that is now I understand the term "blood type".) Are there any Rh- Rhesus monkeys? (Our articles don't seem to say.) --Tango (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Our Rhesus blood group system article needs a lot of work! Purist blood group serologists never talk about the "Rhesus" blood group system. They talk about the Rh system. I believe this originally was done to avoid confusion with the Landsteiner-Wiener blood group system, which was what the original "Rhesus-antibodies" reacted with. The Rh molecules are believed to be ion transporters. People who totally lack Rh antigens get a syndrome of hemolytic anemia and spherocytosis, so the molecule is not absolutely essential for survival. I assume that healthy rhesus monkeys have homologous molecules, since such structures are found pretty much throughout the animal kingdom (see [3]), but as Tango says, to function as antigens to other rhesus monkeys, they also need to be polymorphic, and whether that is the case, I do not know. --NorwegianBlue ^talk

SPC wants you

an any one help me with a mathematical relation between nose radius and feed of a SinglePoint Cutting tool.

See Speeds and feeds, and this textbook entry that's linked from it. Tevildo (talk) 22:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Science and Technology?

What is the relationship between technology and science? Are technology and science the same? <(^_^)> Pokegeek42 (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be a good start to look up technology (simplified, the hardware) and science (equally simplified, the software). You are welcome to return with any questions which are still confusing you. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 19:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The original distinction goes back to the Greek concepts of episteme (knowledge) and techne (craft)—knowing vs. doing. In practice, the distinction is quite blurry, and things that look like "science" in one context look like "technology" in another and vice versa.

The relationship between them, in practice, is complicated. New science can lead to new technology; new technology can lead to new science; new science can have no relation to new technology; new technology can have no relation to new science. --Mr.98 (talk) 19:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

science c.1300, "knowledge (of something) acquired by study," also "a particular branch of knowledge," from Latin scientia "knowledge," from scire "to know," probably originally "to separate one thing from another, to distinguish," related to scindere "to cut, divide," or Greek skhizein "to split, rend, cleave". The modern sense of "non-arts studies" is attested from 1678. The distinction is commonly understood as between theoretical truth (Greek episteme) and methods for effecting practical results (tekhne), but science sometimes is used for practical applications and art for applications of skill. The sense of "body of regular or methodical observations or propositions concerning any subject or speculation" is attested from 1725; in 17c.-18c. this was called philosophy.

technology 1615, "discourse or treatise on an art or the arts," from Greek tekhnologia "systematic treatment of an art, craft, or technique," originally referring to grammar, from tekhno- + -logia. The meaning "science of the mechanical and industrial arts" is first recorded 1859. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd say that technology is applied science. Vranak (talk) 19:58, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Except there is a lot of technology that emerges wholly outside of scientific understanding of what is going on with it, and there is a lot of science that derives from creating new technology. It is a much more synergistic relationship than that. --Mr.98 (talk) 20:32, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

@Mr 98: I have difficulty thinking of "a lot of technology that emerges wholly outside of scientific understanding". Granted, there are various examples of serendipity from boomerangs to the microwave, but most "chance" dicoveries happen in science itself and not in technology. --Cookatoo.ergo.ZooM (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You're only looking at recent technologies. Some of the most important technologies we use, like fire and agriculture, were certainly developed long before there was any scientific understanding of what was going on. StuRat (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Right, that's in particular what I have in mind. There is also a very long tradition of "tinkering" that is done without reference to theoretical knowledge, deep understanding, etc. Edison's choice of the filament for the light bulb was not because he tried a thousand of them (or whatever the number is), not because he really understood which theoretically which one would be best. (Which is not to imply that Edison's "anti-theoretical" aspects aren't somewhat mythical, as they plainly are. But I think it illustrates the point trying to be made.) The Wright Brothers did not have a deep understanding of the physics of heavier-than-air flight. There is quite a lot of technological development that is about engineering "know-how" and not scientific knowledge.--Mr.98 (talk) 01:10, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You have an extra "not" in your reply which confuses your meaning: "not because he tried a thousand". StuRat (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

In the 1870's there was no "Big Book Of Filament Science" from which Edison could have looked up formulas and design principles for lamps. There was basically dustbowl empiricism. Ditto for carbon telephone transmitters. Ditto for the plastic invented to make "Blue Amberol" cylinder records. There was little valid aeronautical science for the Wright brothers to base their aircraft designs on. Science (the leading scientists) claimed that "subdividing the electric light" to allow a small one in each room was impossible just a couple of years before public demonstration of the first practical electric light. Edison (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

And it is worth noting, as it is implied above, that answering this question will have a historical dimension. In different times, and in different areas of study, the relationship between science and technology has been somewhat different. (Consider that vast period of human history in which scientific knowledge was if not patently wrong then awfully confused by modern standards.) --Mr.98 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Another good example of technology without the underlying science is the "contagion theory of disease", which allowed people to implement quarantines and other safety measures (like filling in contaminated wells), long before the specific bacteria or virus was identified. Leper colonies, for example, existed back in Biblical times. StuRat (talk) 14:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rhesus antigens other than D

There are five antigens in the Rhesus blood group system: C, D, E, c and e. Most of time people only talk about the D antigen (that is the one "Rh+" or "Rh-" refers to). Why don't we worry about the others? Do people without those antigens not produce antibodies to them for some reason? Our article doesn't seem to address this issue. --Tango (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

There are, actually, many more, but those are the common variants. The D antigen is special in that it is a more immunogenic than the others, and much more likely to cause hemolytic disease of the newborn, but people get immunized against C, c, E and e as well. If they receive blood with the antigen that they're immunized against, a hemolytic transfusion reaction is likely to occur. Pretransfusion testing (for patients that may need blood during their stay in hospital) includes screening against all common blood group antibodies. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so a full cross-match will involve checking for all the antigens, but D causes bigger problems so if you only have time to worry about one you worry about that one? --Tango (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Trauma centers etc. have a small supply of O Rh(D) negative erythrocyte concentrates that may be issued in emergency situations, before the blood type is known and antibody screening and/or crossmatching have been performed. If the patient has an anti-c, that can cause problems, because O Rh(D) negative blood is almost always Rh(c) positive. However, in such emergency situations, not getting the blood in time may be a greater threat to the patient than the transfusion reaction. --NorwegianBlue ^talk 21:38, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It's basically been said above, but here are links to relevant articles, in case anyone is still interested:

hemolytic disease of the newborn

hydrops fetalis

Rh disease

Rho(D) immune globulin

--- Medical geneticist (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)