Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 January 11

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 11

Physicists vs. Mathematicians

Am I the only one finding the new proposed redefinition of SI base units utterly hilarious ? I just can't help but chuckle when I think about what would happen if mathematicians were to convene one day and utter sentences like: ``One, 1, is the unit of numbers; its magnitude is set by fixing the numerical value of the Archimedes constant π to be equal to exactly 3.1416`` — I mean, seriously !? 79.113.235.103 (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, I've seen some intensely complicated definitions of 1 coming from mathematicians. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably categorists. --Trovatore (talk) 08:38, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Well, just look at the Principia Mathematica by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, which defines basic arithmetic in terms of extremely detailed symbolic logic and a kind of variant of set theory. Famously, it takes hundreds of pages to reach a proof that 1 + 1 = 2. Smurrayinchester 08:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Actually, the International Union of Pure and Applied Physics really did suggest in 1999 that the number 1 should become an SI unit under the name "uno", with symbol U: it's still on their website archives here. The idea was to make it easier to express dimensionless quantities in a less language-dependent way; so instead of saying "5 parts per million" (5 ppm), you'd say "5 microunos" (5 μU). The response to it was overwhelmingly negative and the idea was scrapped. As for defining 1, I think a simple enough definition would be "1 is the multiplicative identity". Double sharp (talk) 09:14, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Not so easy, as typically multiplication is defined in terms of addition, so you need addition first. There are constructions of the natural numbers, with 1 being defined as the successor of 0. I'm sure that the friendly people at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Mathematics could tell us a lot about this. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, complications arise very quickly: even in commonplace applications. For example, how is the multiplicative identity defined in non-commutative algebras? You use those every time you use matrix multiplication - and that shows up in basic tasks in elementary engineering and physics! If we define "one" as "the multiplicative identity," then our definition confusingly requires equality between the scalar value and every instance of the identity matrix. This is just one example of the semantic problem of a simple definition - we could work around it by re-defining "one" or by re-defining "multiplication" - but no matter what we try, we end up complicating the overly-simplistic original definition! Nimur (talk) 16:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think Double sharp meant something like "the one of the real numbers" or "the one of the natural numbers". There is no particular need to identify these across different structures, unless you're considering these as some embedded in others, or as embedded in some common larger structure.

There are certain structures where it is usual to identify values with their images under the canonical embeddings: Naturals -> rationals -> reals -> complex numbers, for example. We don't ordinarily distinguish between the zero of the natural numbers and the zero of the real numbers. However, when these structures are given concrete definitions in terms of set theory, the zero of the natural numbers is strictly speaking a distinct object from the zero of the real numbers. --Trovatore (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed that is what I meant, which proves that I am clearly not the one to write legalese definitions. I'm aware that strictly speaking, 1 as a natural number is different from the ⁠1/1⁠ it is constructed as as a rational, and however one chooses to define 1 based on one's preferred construction of the real numbers for whatever purpose one has at the moment. Still, they all act the same way, so perhaps a little ambiguity is fine here. Perhaps "1 is the multiplicative identity of the real numbers" might work, although I rather like (in hindsight) how my original vague definition justifies the use of 1 to symbolise the multiplicative identity of any multiplicative group or unitary ring. It probably needs some more work, though. Double sharp (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My main point of contention was the awkward `rationalization` of certain physical constants. Like forcing them onto some Procrustes bed, and shaving off their decimals. (This makes some sense when it comes to the definitions of the meter, second, and candela, because at least there we have some relatively-nice integers, but it becomes tiresome when exaggerated). Then again, by trying to make those weird `rational` values nicer, we only end up modifying the values (and nice properties) of the units in question (like the Kelvin and the kilogram). — 86.122.66.160 (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I don't think "nice properties" really count for much. Units are arbitrary and any set is as good as any other. You have to keep track of a few constants, but you're always going to have to do that. Computers don't mind, and humans mind only to the extent they do mental arithmetic with the values, which is not a very large extent in the first place, but to the extent that it does matter, you can't optimize for one area of endeavor without de-optimizing for another.

The point of the proposed SI redefinition is to get rid of reliance on artifacts once and for all. That's a worthy goal. They've chosen to do that in a slightly roundabout way (fixing the values of fundamental constants by definition, instead of expressing the units as products of powers of the fundamental constants). This approach is reasonable, in my opinion, because it's easier to see, oh right, Planck's constant is what I want it to be. I don't see anything hilarious about it. --Trovatore (talk) 20:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• There's also an important different between pi and, say, the speed of light. Pi is a mathematical constant, and its precise value can be calculated to as many digits as you like by mathematical methods. You can't change the value of the pi within the framework of fundamental axioms of mathematics (and if you do change these, you get some kind of Non-Euclidean geometry). The speed of light on the other hand is a physical constant - we can't simply derive its value from first principles, but instead have to make a measurement somewhere. There will always be uncertainty in those measurements, and in all measurements - including the ones you use to define your units (a big problem they found when using old physical prototypes is that replicas differed by miniscule amounts). What the redefinition does is recognize this and embed this uncertainty in the definition of the units themselves, rather than in the measured physical constants. Smurrayinchester 09:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

In general, I don't believe in most popular strong distinctions, and one is that between physicists and mathematicians (Here's another one, not that unrelated: believers vs atheists. The distinction is irrelevant, in that it is totally irrelevant whether god exists or not; what matters is the way one believes, or does not believe). As to mathematicians and physicists, and people in sciences in general, there is a much stronger division: people who knows their job vs people who don't. pma 11:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why does capital punishment have to be by lethal injection in the US?

All these problems with getting the lethal drugs, why not just put the prisoner to sleep then cut off the oxygen supply? Quick, easy and painless, or am I missing something? 2.102.186.137 (talk) 07:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

[1] capital punishment does not have to be by lethal injection in the U.S. The laws of the states or federal laws, depending on the jurisdiction prosecuting the crime, set forth the acceptable methods of execution.

[2] in 2014, Tennessee introduced death by electrocution as an alternative to lethal injection if the necessary drugs cannot be found.

[3] in 2015, Oklahoma introduced death by nitrogen gas as an alternative to lethal injection if the necessary drugs cannot be found. (similar, but not identical to your method)

[4] in 2015, Utah introduced death by firing squad as an alternative to lethal injection if the necessary drugs cannot be found.

[5] all of the 32 states that have the death penalty in 2017 permit execution by lethal injection. 8 states permit execution by electrocution, 11 by gas chamber, 3 by hanging, and 2 by firing squad.

In short, the legislatures legislate the methods of execution, and none have authorized your suggested method. - Nunh-huh 08:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

• Funnily enough, our article on cruel and unusual punishment#Capital punishment does discuss this as a possibility. As far as I can tell main problem is basically that so far, it hasn't been used. Therefore, if a criminal was sentenced to death by inert gas asphyxiation, they could go to court arguing that it was cruel and unusual (in violation of the Eight Amendment). It's therefore easier to just a technique that the courts have already allowed, even if it is a horrible approach. Oklahoma recently made this their back-up technique - if lethal injection is banned, they will start using that instead. Smurrayinchester 08:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Asphyxiation in a pure nitrogen or argon atmosphere is not really cruel. It might actually be rather enjoyable for the victim, given the feeling of euphoria it can induce. Double sharp (talk) 10:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Sure, but you would probably have to prove that in court since there's no precedent for its use. Courts already allow lethal injection, so it's the easier option. Smurrayinchester 11:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, the bar is not whether you or I think something is "cruel and unusual." In the United States, the policy is for the court with appropriate legal standing to make such a determination. Law of the United States is a good introduction. Most schools in our country teach the very basic concepts to all students in some form of a civics class; over the next several decade, mass-media tries to un-teach those basics by blasting abject nonsense at the citizenry. My most pointed example is the apparent refusal of most media outlets to reference American laws by their actual, correct names.

On the other hand, our president-elect has, just this morning, made a public statement suggesting that our national system of government is similar to Nazi Germany... I really cannot fathom how he expects us, the informed citizens, to parse this statement. So what do I know?

Nimur (talk) 16:31, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

For the record, the tweet-quote is: Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to "leak" into the public. One last shot at me.Are we living in Nazi Germany? (punctuation error in the original) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that as hinted by the two respondents above, simply cutting off the oxygen supply isn't as simple as it sounds. In addition, depending on how you do it, it's not clear if it won't be felt if the person isn't sufficient unconscious. As mentioned above something like inert gas asphyxiation may be relatively painless but it's unclear if this is what you mean when you refer to cutting of the oxygen supply.

More to the point, if your proposal requires putting the person to sleep (I assume you mean rendering them unconscious), you've potentially defeated the purpose of what you're trying to achieve. As our article Lethal injection mentions, the drug that's most problematic to obtain is often an effective general anaesthesia. Although these by nature can also be used in single drug protocols or as part of the lethal component in multi drug protocols, if specificallly lethal components are used, these are often not so hard to obtain. Especially potassium chloride.

You need to redesign your protocol to avoid the need to put the person being executed to "sleep" before administring the lethal part. Which inert gas asphyxia potentially achieves but simply cutting of the oxygen supply somehow may not do so, if you haven't considered how you would do so and how the body will respond.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:46, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought an overdose of insulin would be the way to go. It causes lethargy, mental confusion, then they pass out, then they die. People who almost died from overdoses of insulin didn't report any pain. And, if for some reason it needs to be reversed, like the proverbial last minute call from the governor, you can inject a glucose solution to counter it. StuRat (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I've always thought that getting rid of the death penalty, like nearly all civilised societies have done, would be the way to go. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

It's a noble theory. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

This is not the first time I heard people call shitting on the graves of murder victims "noble" and "the way to go", but that doesn't make it any less wrong! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:6CD5:FDD3:C2B8:18E8 (talk) 02:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Note I said "theory". Nations have the right to permanently rid themselves of evil individuals. Some choose to keep them alive, some don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Nations have the right to permanently rid themselves of evil individuals. - presumably you meant states rather than nations, and "the right" is a disputable choice of words here. The notion that a state has a moral right of life or death on its citizens is, let's say, controversial. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 12:30, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

There are federal laws allowing for capital punishment for certain federal crimes. The individual US states also have their own laws allowing (or not) capital punishment for certain state-level crimes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

My meat was with the word "right". Most sovereign states have a process to pass pretty much any law if enough people in the decision centers agree (excluding international treaties, maybe), so it has all imaginable "rights" in the meaning of "legal possibility to do X". But "right" also means a moral justification. In pretty much every developed country, there is a significant minority (>20%) or even a majority that thinks death penalty is not "right". The distinction is fairly old. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you'd prefer saying that governments have the power to impose the death penalty. As to whether it's morally "right" or not, that's a long-debated issue. But the US Constitution allows for it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Unless the state makes the victims itself. Bazza (talk) 12:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Massive insulin overdose might do the trick, but [1] it may cause seizures, and unattractive deaths will be militated against, and [2] it's slow, and [3] it might fail, leaving neurological damage but no death. As much as 50% of the time. And no one really knows what dose is enough to cause death because it will vary greatly. - Nunh-huh 06:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your links are missing. As for the dosage, as long as a large enough dosage will do it, we don't need to know the precise dosage needed for each individual. StuRat (talk) 16:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, there is some interesting reading at [1], [2], and [3]. And yes, we need to know how lethal a chemical is before using it to kill people, so we need to know the dosage. - Nunh-huh 22:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Some states allow doctor assisted suicide. They seemed to have a good handle on it as I've yet to hear the press report anything but perfection. What are they prescribing? --DHeyward (talk) 19:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Michael Portillo presented a BBC Horizon program on TV about this . Nothing difficult - he even underwent the lose of consciousness bit himself. v=DiEJKvbpOF0. The big problem with hanging, electric chair and gas chambers is that it upsets the witnesses to the execution. Unfortunately LI does not work to well on IV drug addicts that have damaged veins, so process can be even more protracted and distressful.--Aspro (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

There's not really much science here - killing people can be pretty low-tech. I imagine a classic Wile E. Coyote 20 ton weight would do the job quite convincingly. Also see suicide methods, as a society agreeing on means of execution is technically making a suicide pact. I think the politics should be evaluated in terms of the rational self-interest of the individual "execution experts" who sometimes make a decent living providing specialized skills and hard to get substances to those whose regulatory decisions mandate their use. Ethics is profit, profit is ethics, the rest is just words. Wnt (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Executions have two important goals:

1) Either to minimize or maximize suffering.

2) Either to minimize or maximize display (gore).

The guillotine was designed to minimize suffering and maximize display. Earlier forms of execution were designed to maximize both. Modern executions in the US are typically designed to minimize both. StuRat (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is a cocktail of drugs used?

My understanding of killing humans by lethal injection is that a cocktail of drugs is used. Why is this? I worked as a veterinary nurse to pay for me to go to university and I have witnessed many animals being euthanased. It is a simple injection of just one drug and it is so quick the animal often appears unconscious before the injection has been completed, and there never appears to be any distress. If a state must have capital punishment for humans, why can this drug not be used? DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

How do you know it was just one drug? Do you have the name of it?--86.187.171.92 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

My personal experience having pets euthanized is that it has always been two drugs. First a sedative to knock the animal out, then a lethal dose of a barbiturate. I've seen laboratory mice, however, euthanized with just an overdose of the sedative. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

e/c Apologies. My writing above was a bit sloppy. I meant a single injection. My understanding is that humans are killed by 3 injections given sequentially which causes death over a period of time (please correct me if I am wrong). The drug I have used is lethabarb which contains pentobarbitone sodium. The article Pentobarbital has some related information including the killing of a human prisoner by a single injection of the substance. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Someguy1221 There are reasons why a sedative might be given first. Some animals do not like the handling associated with intravenous injections. The vet may have given the sedative (usually an intramuscular injection which can be given extremely quickly) to calm the animal for the following intravenous injection for euthanasia. This is particularly likely if you asked to have your pet euthanased whilst you were present. No vet wants an animal to freak out at such an emotional time. Where in the world do you live? - there may be different laws on euthanasia of pets? DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Have you read Lethal_injection#Drugs ? Not sure the question is directly answered, but it has relevant information. Vespine (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Yes, I have actually just finished reading it. The article states that several US states (11 I think) do use a single injection. Maybe I am just catching up with US legislation, but it seems to me to be such an inhumane approach to use a method that might take several hours to kill a human when there is a method out there that does this in seconds - I am not condoning capital punishment in the slightest, but if a state elects to do this, it should be humane. DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Religious/political/moral pontificating is out-of-scope. DMacks (talk) 05:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Come on, Dylan Roof deserves to die. Humanely of course. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Dylan Roof deserves to die, this is an opinion, not a fact. I personally think that it isn't humane to kill people at all, even if they have committed atrocious crimes. It's either "vengeance" which I don't believe in, or "punishment" which I don't believe either. I don't believe in an afterlife, so killing someone is actually closer to "letting them get away with it" than even letting them serve a jail sentence. And I live in Australia where we don't have capital punishment and there's no real evidence whatever that capital punishment is a deterrent to criminals. The ONLY valid reason I have heard for capital punishment is that it is cheap, since housing a criminal in prison with no chance of rehabilitation for the rest of their life is very expensive, and that money is better spent on people who aren't criminals. I actually agree with that reason, I would rather feed hungry children than incarcerate terrible criminals, but to a society that is a FAR harder "sell" than just saying it's a punishment. This does not even go into the REAL reason for my belief which is more about free will, but that gets very philosophical very quickly and this is not the place for a debate about opinions so I'll leave it at that. And before you try to straw man my argument, I do not at all believe people should be allowed to do anything they want or not face dire consequences for their actions, I just don't think that we as a society have actually worked out what those "dire consequences" should be, but I am quite certain killing people ain't it. Vespine (talk) 03:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC) "He that smiteth a man, so that he die, shall be surely put to death"; "And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death"; "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea" -- God's own words regarding the death penalty! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:6CD5:FDD3:C2B8:18E8 (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC) The economic argument doesn't really hold water either, actually. Death penalty cases are significantly more expensive to prosecute than non-death-penalty cases (due to everything from extra time to death-qualify jurors, to the additional trial time for the death penalty phase, to extra trial motions and appeals) [4]; in Oregon, for example, it costs about an extra million bucks just to decide to kill a defendant. Death row inmates are also appreciably more expensive to house prior to their execution, which adds a hefty ongoing cost. A sentence of life without parole actually works out, on average, to be less expensive than a death sentence. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Only because of crooked lawyers abusing the process, not because of the nature of the death penalty itself! 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 05:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC) Roof wants to die as a martyr for his wretched "cause". While legally he might deserve death, it would be a better punishment if he were kept alive, surrounded by prisoners of different ethnic groups for the rest of his miserable life. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Note that this isn't restricted to lethal injections for capital punishment. As our article mentions, multiple drug protocol lethal injections are sometimes used for voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide. I'm not really sure what your experience is but if it's primarily with companion animals, an obvious consideration is that what works well for a 5kg cat or a 40kg dog may not work well for a 100kg human. Some dogs can exceed 100kg but these are rare so I wonder how likely it is you've experienced euthanasia with such an animal.

Our article does mention it often isn't so simple with large animals although I think it's mostly talking about significantly larger than the average human. In any case, even with similar body weights, human physiologies and metabolisms are different so there's still no guarantee it's going to work the same.

In addition, I think it's clear that "appears to be painless" and "whops that didn't work as planned" is far less accepted with humans. Also with the death penalty, assisted suicide and some forms of voluntary euthanasia there's less room for the involvement of competent medical personnel if it doesn't seem to be going as planned or especially for the death penalty, even from the beginning.

Maybe a key point is that it's not entirely clear whether the old protocol, which after all is not that dissimilar from some euthanasia protocols, is really that bad if properly administered. The cases with the old protocol that cause concern often seem to be cases where something went wrong, especially failure to to maintain an IV site or perhaps administering the wrong amounts or at the wrong time. It seems to be the newer protocols developed due to the unavailability of drugs, that are more questionable. (This is not to suggest the single drug protocol developed without consideration of drug availability is flawed. Although I think it's also clear one reason why old protocols are maintained is because they seem to generally work, it's difficult to develop new protocols given the problem of getting competent people to do it and as mentioned above there is also the risk the new protocols may be delay things due to challenges etc even if they are better.)

Although I probably should mention that as our article states, there are those who do question whether either the single drug or multiple drug protocols do actually always work as claimed even when properly administered, but this gets back what I said earlier namely that it's not clear if thing are different with other animals.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW I should clarify I'm not in any way dismissing concerns over the three drug protocol. As our article mentions one key concern is the effect of the typical additional drugs (well I don't know if I'd really call potassium chloride a drug but I digress), as they may help induce death but it's not clear whether they help with the painless etc part. So if the sodium thiopental does fail, you may still kill the person but perhaps not so painlessly. Note however the Ohio single drug protocol only uses 2.5x the typical dose for the three drug protocol [5] and our article seems to imply the same amount can be used.

This and the fact some voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide protocols use different drug combinations indicates that it's an area of active debate. Two obvious key differences between voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide and the death penalty are that with the former, the person should have made a conscious decision to accept there's a risk something may go wrong and there may be pain (and they may already have worse pain anyway) or they may wake up alive. And that carries to the second, with voluntart euthanasia or assisted suicide when they wake up it's not ideal for anyone, but they will hopefully just want to try again. Whereas with the death penalty the person who may not want to die, wakes up alive but has to accept they're still likely to be killed at some stage.

One final comment is it would seem possible to use some voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide protocols for the death penalty to help with the problem of how to develop these (although developing these can be contentious too). However I can't seem to find much evidence this has ever really been done, probably politicial it's problematic and as per the earlier point you'd need to defend these protocols and even if they've been developed by hopefully competent medical personel, they're not going to help you in court.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure I'm convinced by the size argument. Great Danes typically weigh 50-82 kg - the weight of a woman or man. To me, it would seem that increasing the volume and/or concentration of the barbiturate would solve any size/weight-related problem. Having said this, our Animal euthanasia article states some veterinarians consider the volumes required for large animals (horses and cows) to be problematic, and use drugs other than those used on cats and dogs. In looking at this, I have noticed that there very well may be a difference between UK and US approaches, with the US approach being to use 2 injections whereas the UK favours 1 (see [6]) DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

But how many Great Danes did you witness being euthanised? Note also, even without different physiologies from being different animals, you can't assume that simple increasing the amount means something is going to work the same with something as complicated as anaesthesia. In other words, if for example, something is borderline for a 60kg dog, increasing the amount given doesn't mean it's going to work properly on a 100kg dog. And yes the problem with larger animals as mentioned in our article is something I explicitly mentioned. BTW your source does mention one thing I suspect but wasn't sure namely that the same key problem with humans can occur with other animals namely inability to access a vein. That's also mentioned here [7]. This [8] mentions a personal story of such a problematic euthanasia. This [9] does sort of suggest unsurprisingly that competence can play a big part (but unlike with the death penalty it shouldn't be hard to find a vet to perform the euthanasia although in cases of high volume like animal shelters I'm not sure if this is always done). I suspect the same for here [10]. Of course even with a vet involved [11] it's not guaranteed nothing will go wrong. (And I think experience outside the death penalty tells us that IV access problems in humans aren't always to do with competence.) Nil Einne (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Well actually, I have been involved in the euthanasia of several large dogs, including Great Danes. I used to be responsible for the overnight intake of accidents and emergencies. I was never instructed not to use Lethabarb on heavy dogs. What are the physiological differences you elude to above? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

If you have been involved then I apologise, it was unclear to me if you had been. My point was that the only evidence we had that that animal euthanasia always worked perfectly was your personal experiece, but it was fairly unclear how wide this experience. Since you have been involved in euthanasia of several Great Danes weighing around 80kg, then it's probably true that body weight isn't a big issue at least at the lower end of the scale. (Although I wouldn't be completely surprised if some people being executed are 200kg+.) As for psyhological differences, consider why anaesthesiology is a speciality. While it's true an anaesthesiologist has a much more complicated job namely keeping someone sufficiently sedate for potentially hours to avoid feeling pain etc during an operation but not so sedated that you risk killing them, it does illustrate the wider point namely you can't simply assume anaesthesiology drugs are going to have the same effect even within a species, let alone between species and go only by body weight. (There are also plenty of other examples of this e.g. the Dutch requirement for a higher dosage during human euthanasia if there is bartiuate tolerance.) In many ways, this dispute over the three drug protocol is also an example of it too. As I've mentioned, most authorities (including those not involved in the death penalty) suggest the amount of first drug should be sufficient to kill by itself. The possible increase for with the one drug protocol is superfluous. Yet there remains dispute over whether it always is, and in particular whether there's some possible interaction with the other two drugs which might counteract the effect, at least of avoiding pain. (The wider issue is the question over whether the other drugs should be provided if they should be unnecessary since if something does go wrong with the first drug, while they may help ensure a kill it doesn't seem they will do so painlessly. Especially since AFAICT, there often isn't really anyone that competent monitoring the person before the other two are administred. That said, there are different degrees of going wrong, and as mentioned above one issue with the death penalty is that if it does go wrong, having to try again isn't likely to be a pleasant experience to the executee even if any pain during the first attempt was avoided.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that excellent reference. There are some strong species differences (even within mammals) in the reactions to inert gases and hypoxia. Inert gas asphyxiation is a good start for researching this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the main appeal of the cocktail of drugs idea was that one part can "accidentally" be left out or be ineffective while the rest works, ensuring that the patient would be paralyzed and in agony while not actually being anaesthetized. Remember, execution protocols are not being pitched to normal people, they're sold to killers. However the "Ohio protocol", introduced after complaints, somewhat ameliorates that (I think in part by having more anaesthesia and in part by retrograde amnesia from the midazolam, just in case!). Having multiple tubes to watch also increases the ooh-la-la factor and gives more of a sense of a solemn ceremony than if you just hit the guy over the head a couple of times with a big hammer. Wnt (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So you think people are doing this during voluntary euthanasia or assisted suicide too? Note as I said above, more anaesthesia is actually only 2.5x at most of a dose which is already generally considered sufficient to kill provided it goes in properly (which may be a big if in some cases but highlights the fact it's not entirely clear if the increase in dosage is actually doing anything useful), but possibly less than a 2.5x increase of a dose Nil Einne (talk)

Lethal_injection#History explains how we came to use the "three-drug cocktail" for lethal injections. The State of Oklahoma's Medical Examiner, working with an anesthesiologist at the state medical school, developed the first legal definition for execution by lethal injection: "An intravenous saline drip shall be started in the prisoner's arm, into which shall be introduced a lethal injection consisting of an ultrashort-acting barbiturate in combination with a chemical paralytic.". This evolved into the current "three-drug cocktail - that short-acting barbiturate first, then a paralytic agent, usually pancuronium bromide to depolarize the skeletal nerves and thus stop the prisoner's respiration, then a cardioplegic agent, potassium chloride, in sufficient quantity to stop the patient's heart muscle.

I'd like to say here that the last two steps of the procedure probably are pretty painful. My wife's brother was accidentally given potassium chloride intravenously during a procedure, went into asystole, and described it as excruciatingly painful. Since the consequence of injection with pancuronium bromide without active mechanical ventilation is also that your heart muscle stops because it's not getting oxygen from your lungs, that hurts like hell, too. You just can't scream because your lungs don't work, and you can't writhe in agony because none of your other skeletal muscles work.

Truly humane lethal injection would involve a lethal dose of a very potent opiate agonist like etorphine (used in veterinary medicine as "Immobilon" to rapidly sedate very large animals such as elephants). The median lethal dose of etorphine in humans is 30 micrograms - you can literally nick yourself with a needle contaminated with etorphine and die quickly if the antidote isn't given quickly just after you do. The problem with this is, like phenobarbital, no one in the US makes etorphine at this time. And, like phenobarbital, the US could get its supplies of etorphine cut off if the overseas suppliers (the UK and Germany) learn it's being used for execution by lethal injection. But in the current political climate, it's possible an enterprising chemist could get a permit from the Drug Enforcement Administration to manufacture etorphine in the United States to allow states to execute prisoners humanely (etorphine intoxication would be very humane, you fall asleep, then your breathing stops and you die of heart failure while still deep asleep). loupgarous (talk) 09:39, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks very much for this. I had noticed that potassium chloride was used for elephants (after the elephant is first unconscious)[12]. Is there a physiological reason for different drugs being used on different species of mammals? I would have thought their physiology was sufficiently similar (including humans) that "one drug suits all"? (By the way, this is rather good article on animal euthanasia [13]) DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Follow up: I have just read "Potassium chloride injection is not a method that is generally used in routine pet euthanasia; it is typically used in the euthanasia of horses whereby there is the possibility for the horse's meat to enter the food chain (meat that contains barbiturates is lethal to other animals that eat it)" [14]. So, potassium chloride (and possibly other non-barbiturates) might be used for large animals (including wildlife) where other animals may eat them. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:25, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Answering your question, different species have different responses to different sedatives, and this influences the method of euthanasia, along with economics and legal constraints. Animals whose flesh is to be eaten (horses are often butchered and/or rendered to recover meat, fat, and other valuable by-products, for example) are either shot, killed or stunned by a blow to the skull by a large hammer or a captive bolt "stunner", killed by exsanguination or electrocution or knocked down by administration of potassium chloride (I hesitate to call any of those methods "euthanasia" as all entail pain to the animal). You're right that barbiturates, opiate agonists and other more humane euthanasia agents are avoided when the animal's meat is to be consumed. The meat packing industry uses captive bolt stunners, electrocution or sledgehammers with rapid exsanguination by slicing major arteries open to slaughter animals. loupgarous (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I work for a university on animal welfare science so I am well aware of the range and effectiveness of methods used in the commercial slaughter of animals. I am more interested in finding out what are the physiological differences between mammals that apparently cause these differences in reactions - even apparently as an editor indicates above, differences within the same species (dogs). DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:45, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

From what I can tell, there isn't much dispute that the second two drug additions would be painful if they are felt, the bigger question is how likely it is they are felt, but also what purpose they serve since the first drug should be enough to kill in itself. Etorphine or some other opiate agonist is an interesting suggestion. That said though as I remarked before and I guess DHeyward is also suggesting something similar above, while voluntary euthansia and assisted suicide aren't uncontroversial, it's interesting that it doesn't seem any protocol uses them. (At least I couldn't find mention of one.) Whereas lethal injection protocols for these are sometimes similar to the three drug protocol even in places which abhor the death penalty. One thing I perhaps didn't emphasise enough before is that with voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide there tends to be more options including oral ones (ideal if the patient wants to be away from a clinical setting since you don't need someone to set up the IV although there are greater risks it won't work out as intended).

BTW I came across [15]. An interesting point is that they don't recommend nitrogen or nitrogen-argon given the risk of possibly distressing hypoxemia and hyperventilation. This is one of the things I was thinking of in my reply to the original question but I assumed from the other respondents that this wasn't likely with these agents. (Unlike say carbon dioxide or actually removing the gas supply where I was fairly sure it would.) But it seems there is a risk of it in cats and dogs so I wonder if it's the same in humans. Of course these effects may not be as distressing as say pancuronium bromide without sufficient sedation, so it remains complicated.

Nil Einne (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Similarly, I'd like to know how doctor assisted suicide drug cocktails are not questioned nor are they used in capital punishment. Do-it-yourself suicide kits like nitrogen asphyxia have been talked about but I dont understand how "cruel and unusual" would apply to drugs that are prescribed by physicians in states that allow doctor assisted suicide (and what are those drugs that the press always relates as "blissful" when discussing assisted suicide?). --DHeyward (talk) 19:25, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

You're mixing up two different things. In the U.S., the state is prohibited from imposing cruel and unusual punishment. But in general you are not prohibited from doing things to yourself, even if they might be considered "cruel and unusual". Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:08, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Doctors are most certainly prohibited from being cruel and the whole point of physician-assisted suicide is to allow for the most comfortable departure. I learned that the fatal prescription in Oregon is 9g of secobarbital often taken an hour after an anti-emetic. Single dose barbiturate mixed with something sweet. This seems in line with most states that use lethal injection. Secobarbital seems easy for Oregon doctors to prescribe and acquire (they've killed hundreds already in only a couple years without press descriptions of "botched" or "agonizing" deaths). --DHeyward (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Does an increase in your heart rate result in greater thirst on your part?

Does an increase in your heart rate result in greater thirst on your part? Also, if so, does this result in you becoming dehydrated if you don't increase your water intake? Futurist110 (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Didnt know you could insure against your heart rate. Anyway this is a medical question that WP dont answer.--86.187.171.92 (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I obviously meant "increase" here--not "insurance." Futurist110 (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

We don't have a policy against medical questions, we have a policy against medical advice. This doesn't seem like a request for medical advice to me. I do however think the question is malformed, I don't think increased heart rate results in greater thirst, not directly anyway, those two things are unrelated. Thirst is a response to dehydration, not a response to increased heart rate. If you increased your heart rate by doing exercise which involved sweating, that will increase your thirst but again, that's a result of hydration, not heart rate directly. Anaerobic exercise can greatly increase your heart rate for short periods of time without significantly affecting your hydration or thirst. So it's not really clear what the OP is asking imho. Vespine (talk) 00:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

You might also just in general be interested in reading our article on thirst. It does not mention increased heart rate at all. Vespine (talk) 00:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be better to give a simpler physiological explanation. If the increase of heart rate is due to anxiety or fear, the sympathetic nervous system becomes dominant. Chewing and digesting food is less important than escaping from that threat (during which the parasympathetic nervous system becomes less dominant) . To escape from such a threat (real or imaginary) the available body fluids needs to be available for the muscles. Therefore, the secretion of saliva stops (which regulated by the parasympathetic). Tachycardia does not increase thirst on its own. Once the threat subsides, the saliva flows again without the (urgent) need for re-hydration. --Aspro (talk) 14:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Decimal years

In scientific journals, what does a duration of (for example) "17.8 years" mean? Is it 17 years and 8 months, or is it 17 and 8/10 years? --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

In astronomy it is often the Julian year, 365.25 days times 17 and 8/10ths. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

If they're using base 10, .8 is ${\tfrac {8}{10}}$. I don't doubt that some people mistakenly use .8 when they mean 8 months out of 12—which is two-thirds, or $.{\overline {6}}$ in base 10—but I would hope scientists pay more attention to using the correct figures. --47.138.163.230 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. The reason for my uncertainty is that I have seen dates formatted with periods (dd.mm.yyyy), so it could follow that a period be used as a year & month delimiter. --2606:A000:4C0C:E200:C03A:9D20:31EF:82F7 (talk) 05:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No. The dates and periods are two completely different things. — 86.122.66.160 (talk) 11:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)