Science desk
< December 22	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 24 >

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.

December 23

Transplant an artificial heart?

Recently, many media outlets claimed that French doctors transplanted an artificial heart. Is it right to say transplant? Shouldn't it be implant? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can sort of see where they're coming from, but I would agree that 'implant' is indeed the better term. While components within the heart have been sourced from living tissue – valves and membranes are from bovine heart tissue [1] – I am disinclined to use the term 'transplant' as the heart was not simply transferred from one living creature to another intact, but rather sliced and diced and modified and assembled within a mechanical framework. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 12:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this brings up the question: Can an artificial heart be transplanted? Say a person with an artificial heart dies of a non-cardiac cause, with the heart still functioning perfectly. Could it be re-used in another person? Rejection should not be an issue since the heart is inorganic. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:39, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This field is so new I would suggest it's difficult to say much, it would depend on how tailored the heart is to the person it came from. However intrinsicly it would seem to be possible. Whether it's likely it another matter. Many far simpler body parts like hip or joint implants or heck since we're talking artificial hearts even pacemakers with adequet battery life are currently not routinely reused nowadays [2] [3]. There is some push towards it but this is primarily the reuse of such parts for those in developing country who couldn't otherwise afford them [4] [5] [6] [7], not their reuse in developed countries where it often isn't even legal. I

f you're talking a transplant, as in, a partially living heart that needs to be quickly moved from one body to another or it will no longer function, it seems unlikely this would happen considering the barriers. Which leds me to the other point, according to the description given by TOAT, it doesn't sound like the heart discussed is totally inorganic so your comment is a bit confusing.

An artificial heart could be totally inorganic but we're getting in to even more speculative territory there. If you are talking about such a device, it could potentially be even more tailor made reducing opportunity for reuse but on the flip side it seems that it wouldn't really need to be transplanted (so I'm not sure of why this was mentioned). Rather such a device could be re-used similar to other artificial body parts. In other words checked and potentially sterilised before being transport for eventual reuse without worrying about the heart dying. Although the effort required to implant such a device is going to be far more significant than a pacemaker or artifical joint or hip meaning that you would need to have the medical personnel time somehow.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Shroud of Turin - ethnicity of image

I'm not sure if this query would be better posted in the humanities section or not, but here goes: It is my understanding that some time ago a "new" physical depiction of Jesus of Nazareth was created based on a Palestinian skull which suggests that Jesus would have the physical appearance of a Palestinian rather than a Caucasian (as he is traditionally depicted). This makes sense to me. However, the image on the Shroud of Turin looks more Caucasian to me. Is there any commentary on this or this this just something that no one has considered important (as compared to the authenticity of the Shroud and/or the mysteries of it's creation)? 173.35.158.194 (talk) 13:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose they didn't create a depiction of Jesus, but a depiction of how the average Palestinian would look like back then. BTW, the shroud, for non-believers, although of unknown origin, is certainly not as old as 2,000 years, so no authenticity expected. For the race of Jesus, or actually about how Jesus was depicted along the centuries, check Race and appearance of Jesus. OsmanRF34 (talk) 13:47, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at our images in Shroud of Turin, it appears to have a Roman nose (European ?), straight hair (non-African), thin lips (non-African), and prominent, high cheek bones (usually thought of as an Asian feature). So, about the only thing I can tell for sure is that the person in the image isn't a black African. Other than that, they seem to have a blend of European and Asian features, which sounds about right for somebody from ancient Israel. StuRat (talk) 14:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since when are Palestinians not Caucasian? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the meaning to be "Northern European", not what's generally considered "white". Nyttend (talk) 14:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, you have to be white as milk to be Caucasian? Well, even then some Palestinian are in this category. Just look at Mahmoud Abbas. In English the word means white people in general (whatever that is). Read Caucasian race for reading all about it. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure to whom you're responding, Osman. In 2000, our "official" definition in the USA, gave "white" as being A person having origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa. It includes people who indicate their race as "White" or report entries such as Irish, German, Scottish, Italian, Lebanese, Near Easterner, Arab, or Polish. The IP address is from metro Toronto; I'm unaware of whether Canadians and Americans have generally the same idea of "whiteness". Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was answering to you Nyttend. I agree with your def of white, but Caucasian is not just a subgroup of white, like tall and blond. It's white in general. OsmanRF34 (talk) 15:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're badly misunderstanding me then, since I'm not arguing for anything even close to "you have to be white as milk". Please be more careful. Nyttend (talk) 18:02, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you say it. But you say " the meaning to be "Northern European", " I was just asking whether you have to be white as milk to be caucasian. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would help if you would stop making ignorant replies. My comment was directed at the original statement, "physical appearance of a Palestinian rather than a Caucasian". Kindly stop ridiculing my statements immediately. Nyttend (talk) 21:09, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly Nyttend, after so many wikipedia years, you should have learned to indent correctly, and to admit mistakes in general. OsmanRF34 (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in the article you cited, Caucasian is a lot more than northern European. Even the darkest-skinned Indian people are technically considered "Caucasian", as far as I know. The subgroup including the darker skinned Caucasians of southern Europe, western Asia and northern Africa, is typically called the "Mediterranean" subgroup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a topic that I've followed closely, but I believe that in a lot of the literature on race, the dominant "races" were considered to be Caucasian, Semitic, Mongoloid, and Negroid. In that categorization, Palestinians would mainly fall into the Semitic group. Looie496 (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's a Semitic language group, and the notion of a Semitic ethnic group followed on to that, but there's no Semitic "race". They are part of Caucasian. And there is or was another large group called Australoid. Race (human classification) indicates Semitic as a subgroup, which makes more sense. (Assuming one can make a lot of sense out of these groupings.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, I've never before heard anyone speak of a Semitic race. Pretty impressive, putting the Arabs together with the Ethiopians but not the Europeans; probably they would have been very surprised to learn that the classification "worked out" that way. Nyttend (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

but they did speak of it: Racial_antisemitism#Concept_of_a_Semitic_race. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:30, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the ridiculousness of the concept of race in the first place. Semitic is ethnolinguistic group (to which Arabs, Palestinians, North Africans, and Jews belong to). It is separate from the Indo-European ("Aryan") ethnolinguistic group (South Asians, Central Asians, including Persians, and Europeans). While it's only an ethnolinguistic grouping, both groups once diverged enough genetically to evolve their own different languages. Although due to later migrations, invasions, etc., near eastern Semitic-speaking peoples have more Indo-European genetic inflow than others.

But to the person who coined the term Caucasian in the first place (Johann Friedrich Blumenbach) and most early "scientific racists", Semitic-speaking peoples were not white enough to be part of his Caucasian classification. They were considered Mongoloid or at least with Mongoloid admixture. Hence Hitler. On another note, the ancestors of Semitic-speaking peoples stayed in Mesopotamia and never set foot in the Caucasus.

The shroud of Turin itself is almost certainly a medieval hoax. Remember that during that period, nails and pieces of wood from the true cross were being sold by the bushels to pilgrims.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 16:41, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Before Sandra Bullock Gets Inside the ISS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-l7MM9yoxII (3:47)

The two perpendicular Soyuz docking ports both demand parallel to flight direction separation. If the ISS requires last minute emergency evacuation, what can they do to leave the ISS immediately? -- Toytoy (talk) 15:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can they leave it immediately? A Crew Return Vehicle was proposed, but I have the impression that evacuating has to be planned a long time in advance. OsmanRF34 (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is always a Soyuz capsule docked for emergency evacuation. Rmhermen (talk) 23:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the awful overacted mess that was Gravity got pretty much every single technical detail wrong. 94.212.132.191 (talk) 08:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't like the movie? Silly to say "EVERY single technical detail wrong". HiLo48 (talk) 09:09, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought the acting was appalling. None of them would never have gotten within an AU of NASA in real life. And I said pretty much every detail, not every. Getting from a 600 km 28° to a 400 km 56° orbit with a EMU (type thing)? Must have near infinite delta V then. Give me a break. 11:46, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.132.191 (talk)

Yes, I think they pretended that the various craft involved were at virtually the same altitude. I can accept that, because it's fiction. But I saw a lot of other technical aspects that were fairly accurate. HiLo48 (talk) 23:19, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Polysaccharides

Why does cooked vegetables have less fiber?... Chemically, what happens to the Polysaccharides in them? Will be thankful for your help :). Ben-Natan (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All of these links were gotten by using Google with your exact first question: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Note that some of these reports show that cooking vegetables may be better than eating them raw, depending on how you define "better". This study here looks at the effects of cooking methods on potato fiber specifically. --Jayron32 01:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did the same search, but none of the results address: "Chemically, what happens to the Polysaccharides in them?" ~E:71.20.250.51 (talk) 02:01, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What i look for a simple answer for what happens to the PS, what happens, and at what temperature, to the molecules\Chemical bonds of the PS. that's it. Ben-Natan (talk) 15:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does viral filter defends on the caregiver?

In the CPR the EMTs use with a viral filter in the Resuscitator. What is the purpose of these filter? Is it fore the caregiver or for the patient? 5.28.165.141 (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either, depending which one might be sick. Also filters bacteria. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]