Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 May 1

Science desk
< April 30	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 2 >

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.

May 1

Abortion pill, surgical abortion, and natural abortifacients

While there is an ongoing debate about the abortion pill and surgical abortion, I wonder whether people have considered natural abortifacients to be just as dangerous. "Brewer's yeast, vitamin C, bitter melon, wild carrot, blue cohosh, pennyroyal, nutmeg, mugwort, papaya, vervain, common rue, ergot, saffron and tansy. Animal studies have shown that pomegranate may be an effective abortifacient." Some of them seem to be common household ingredients that can be purchased at the grocery store, and there aren't bans on those things. Anyone can go out and buy yeast, vitamin C tablets, bitter melon, nutmeg, papaya, and pomegranate at a supermarket. Does this mean that a pregnant woman who want a pregnancy have to watch out for those ingredients to make sure that they don't accidentally abort a fetus? SSS (talk) 03:51, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No. Basically, once you cut out anecdotal evidence (both modern and ancient), "natural health" websites that are only pretending to present science, and studies of feeding rodents simply infeasible amounts of concentrated food extracts, there is no evidence that any of that crap works. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There certainly are effective plant-based abortifacients. There is any active disinformation campaign by religious loons to sow doubt and confusion about them. It seems that you are either one of them, or have been fooled by them. Abductive (reasoning) 07:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have never heard of this "disinformation campaign"; perhaps you have a source to share? I think not just people religiously opposed to abortion, but also mainstream physicians, will advise against self-administering "plant-based" abortifacients. A number of deaths have been attributed in particular to pennyroyal (Mentha pulegium), which may well "work", but only in doses that are dangerous to the woman as well. --Trovatore (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A lot of things can likely cause abortion if ingested in sufficient quantities. Unfortunately they tend to kill or sicken the mother as well. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A little, maybe, but many of those things only have an abortifacient effect in very high amounts, more than anyone would likely ingest normally. It's probably a good idea to stay away from loosely regulated things like herbal supplements, especially those with ingredients that lack much quality research. Approved abortifacient drugs are reasonably safe, and certainly much safer than attempting an abortion with untested and dangerous methods. (Of course, I recognize many women are driven to the latter by desperation if they can't access medical abortion.) Let's not forget that pregnancy is fairly risky in itself. A lot of overblown claims about these drugs' dangers come from anti-abortion activists who want to scare women away from considering an abortion. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 04:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

A significant percentage of pregnancies result in Miscarriages anyway. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"nutmeg"

Its effectiveness as an abortifacient is rather questionable, but nutmeg may cause poisoning and has psychoactive effects:

• "In the 19th century, nutmeg was thought to be an abortifacient, which led to numerous recorded cases of nutmeg poisoning. Although used as a folk treatment for other ailments, nutmeg has no proven medicinal value."
• "In low doses, nutmeg produces no noticeable physiological or neurological response, but in large doses, raw nutmeg has psychoactive effects deriving from anticholinergic-like hallucinogenic mechanisms attributed to myristicin and elemicin. Myristicin, a monoamine oxidase inhibitor and psychoactive substance, can induce convulsions, palpitations, nausea, eventual dehydration, and generalized body pain. For these reasons in some countries, whole or ground nutmeg may have import restrictions except in spice mixtures containing less than 20 percent nutmeg."
• "Nutmeg poisonings occur by accidental consumption in children and by intentional abuse with other drugs in teenagers. Fatal myristicin poisonings in humans are rare, but three have been reported, including one in an 8-year-old child and another in a 55-year-old adult, with the latter case attributed to a combination with flunitrazepam."
• "Nutmeg intoxication can vary greatly from person to person, but is often associated with side effects such as excitedness, anxiety, confusion, headaches, nausea, dizziness, dry mouth, redness in eyes, and amnesia. Nutmeg poisoning is also reported to induce hallucinogenic effects, such as visual distortions and paranoia. Although rarely reported, nutmeg overdose can result in death, especially if combined with other drugs. Intoxication takes several hours before maximum effect is experienced. The effects of nutmeg intoxication may last for several days."
• "Nutmeg was once considered an abortifacient, but may be safe for culinary use during pregnancy. However, it inhibits prostaglandin production and contains hallucinogens that may affect the fetus if consumed in large quantities."*
• "While the spicy scent of nutmeg may be attractive to pets, there is potential for toxicity if large amounts are consumed."

Due to my interest in causes of death, (in and out of Wikipedia), I have come across a few cases of nutmeg poisoning. See also this article in a minor American newspaper, The New York Times, concerning nutmeg poisoning cases in Illinois (32 cases) and California (119 cases). Dimadick (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Information about abortifacient herbs in the U.S. has been corrupted by the effects of the blatantly unconstitutional but highly successful Comstock Law, and likely others abroad. (This was resisted by revered American anarchist Lysander Spooner, whose delivery service was put down for political reasons but made it possible for a more primly Mormon outfit like UPS to fight its way to legality) Attempts to recover lost witchcraft and folk traditions are ongoing, but it appears that abortion by herbs was probably not very safe or very sure ([1][2][3], from a PubMed search for pennyroyal abortion). But competence is the first casualty of censorship, which often stops the best aspects but never the worst of what it complains about. Wnt (talk) 12:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Remember folks, laws only stop beneficial things, and if its been regulated by the government, that's because its the best thing ever, and if the government only didn't regulate it, the entire world would be healthier, happier, and would never get sick or hurt ever again! --Jayron32 16:21, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Jayron32: Anyone interested can read Comstock Law and decide for himself. Although the stock value of freedom is plummeting fast, and would be given a Sell rating by any competent broker, I don't think the world has fallen quite so far so fast that many others would stick up for this yet. Wnt (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

OK. --Jayron32 01:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Sunlight amplification by glasses

Do corrective lenses amplify the sunlight (particularly in summer), akin to burning glass, thus somewhat hurting the eyes? Not seeking a medical advice. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

If the lens is convex, it will focus light toward the centre, but the eye or face will be too close for the focus to a small area. Looking at the Sun is not a good idea in any case. For concave lenses the light is spread out, but then the skin just outside the shadow of the glasses will then get a double done, direct sunlight and light spread by the lens, and then get more solar damage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:42, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• They don't "amplify" it, as that would need some additional source of energy to be added (see laser).

They can concentrate or focus it though. This is a recognised source of potential fire risk, often when people leave their reading glasses on a sunlit desk, or on a car dashboard. Corrective glasses are of broadly two types: to correct short sight (myopia) or for long sight (hyperopia). These require a change in the focussing power of the lens, so can have this focussing effect. Glasses for short sight are concave and so have a divergent effect - they will not focus light and act as a burning glass. It's glasses for long sight (or reading glasses) which are convex and so can act as a burning glass.

As far as staring at the Sun goes, they make it no worse than it would be for a perfect non shortsighted eye would be. Yet that's not itself a good thing, as the eye naturally focusses on the retina.

There's a famous blooper in the novel Lord of the Flies wherein a group of shipwrecked schoolboys includes "Piggy", a stereotypical fat, nerdy kid, who wears glasses. These glasses are part of a power struggle on the island, as their means of starting a fire. Yet Piggy is short-sighted, so his glasses would have been no use for this. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I remember trying to convince my English teacher of that error, being a shortsighted thin nerdy kid, but had to wait for a sunny day to prove my point. Alansplodge (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

The same error occurs in an early episode of Doctor Who: the Doctor's spectacles ignite some papers, and it is implied that this was the beginning of Nero's fire. —Tamfang (talk) 05:16, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

• Corrective lenses merely cause the incoming light to be focused on the retina as accurately as the natural lens of the eye focuses light for a person that has perfect vision. Thus, the corrective lenses may increase damage, not not beyond the damage a person who does not need them would get. The glasses will in fact also filter out some of the UV, reducing total damage. -Arch dude (talk) 19:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Dinosaur skeletons

On many dinosaur reference pages, photographs of the "dinosaur skeleton" are labeled as "reconstructed skeleton." This is inaccurate! A real "reconstructed skeleton" would contain all real, fossilized parts. Most skeletons in dinosaur displays around the world (and pictured in Wikipedia) are man-made materials with very few original fossilized bones included (maybe a leg bone or two, and a vertebra or so). In fact, many of them are only scientific guesses at what these creatures looked like! I believe it would be more appropriate to refer to these as "Concept skeleton including fossilized components." Does anyone else agree?Palw49 (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid this isn't the right venue to seek help with this issue. The correct place to ask would be at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs, which is where you will find editors interested in Dinosaurs who can respond to your question. I would just ask the question there rather than here. --Jayron32 16:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] You are incorrectly restricting the word "reconstructed" to only one of its accepted meanings. For example, it is common to refer to crime reconstruction, which does not require either every single fact about the crime (which if available would make the exercise unnecessary), or recommitting the crime in question! {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.218.14.51 (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Yep. Palw49's complaint would go likely nowhere, since a quick perusal of the paleontological literature shows that "reconstruction" is used in a much broader way than Palw49 would like it to be. Wikipedia matches the vocabulary used by subject-matter experts, even it it offend's one reader/writer's preferred definitions. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

There was a news story yesterday about someone finding a fossilized horse on their property, intact except for the head. It's reasonable to suppose that when or if the fossil is displayed in a museum, they would include a plastic model of its skull in order to make an attractive exhibit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Too bad if it was a Unicorn. Akld guy (talk) 00:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Anti-anthropogenic return to our natural greenhouse

If earth's human society catastrophically (or miraculously) instantly stopped emmitting greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, how long would the earth take to resume normal (pre-human intervention) atmospheric insolation (Is that the right word? It might not be.) conditions? I'm not asking about a return to normal climate because things like ice caps, which effect climate would take ages to recover. (I imagine the recovery would take as long as the damage took - perhaps centuries?)

Posed differently, what if a social or biological or economic upheaval relatively instantly interrupted all or, let's say, all significant anthropogenic greenhouse gass emmisions, what would happen to the atmosphere then and how quickly?

I think I remember a geography professor once telling me that the correct answer could be measured in weeks.

Order of magnutude answers gratefully accepted.Hayttom (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Read this. --Jayron32 17:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I nearly wish I hadn't: "If we stop our emissions today, we won’t go back to the past. The Earth will warm. And since the response to warming is more warming through feedbacks associated with melting ice and increased atmospheric water vapor, our job becomes one of limiting the warming. If greenhouse gas emissions are eliminated quickly enough, within a small number of decades, it will keep the warming manageable and the Paris Agreement goals could be met. It will slow the change – and allow us to adapt. Rather than trying to recover the past, we need to be thinking about best possible futures.". Ack! Hayttom (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Some of the CO2 will last forever on the scale of human history, but it's a relative blink of an eye in terms of Earth's history. Half the excess CO2 will be removed in 30 years, and another 30% within a few centuries. The rest will linger for thousands of years[4]. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

• Because CO₂ stays in the atmosphere a long time, warming will continue but stay in the arbitrarily-defined "acceptable" range if we stop emitting it now. To get back to pre-human levels of CO₂, we would need to actively remove it from the atmosphere, via Carbon sequestration of some sort. Note that "pre-human" is lower that "pre-industrial", since humans have been adding CO₂ via deforestation for a long time. -Arch dude (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

It's not really "arbitrary"; it's based on what is likely to keep warming to a relatively manageable amount. Beyond that, the effects of warming get worse, and there's increased fear of triggering feedback loops that would push the temperature even higher. I mean, okay, yes, 2 degrees versus 2.1 is kind of arbitrary, but you have to pick somewhere. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 00:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

It seem arbitrary to me. I Have no confidence that a 2-degree warming will be manageable. we have no way of knowing that it will not kick off an feedback loop. The only way to find out is to try it which is a lot testing your food for poison by eating it. -Arch dude (talk) 04:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, the word you're looking for is naturogenic. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2018 (UTC)