Science desk
< June 11	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 13 >

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.

June 12

Chernobyl

Hi. After watching the mini-series and reading alot of articles on WP about the disaster, I read about Valery Khodemchuk. The list states "likely killed immediately; body never found, likely buried under the wreckage of the steam separator drums". Would there be any remains left of him, or would it all be destroyed due to the radiation? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's difficult to find factual information on the condition of one specific individual. Contemporaneous news stories reported in Western newspapers, like this 1986 story from the Los Angeles Times, are sparse on detail, except to say that the unrecovered remains will be left inside the building inside the protective concrete casing. The condition of the remains is unknown; it may have been exposed to ionizing radiation, fire, water, and debris.

From my archive of emergency preparedness, here are some helpful links:

Explosions and Blast Injuries - A Primer for Clinicians, from the CDC Mass Trauma Preparedness website
Bombings: Injury Patterns and Care from the American College of Emergency Physicians - a full course including two segments on radiological effects, and the handy pocket reference to injury patterns

These resources help medical responders know what to expect, and help first responders prepare for the logistical and psychosocial effects of a major nuclear incident.

From a more academic approach, here is a 1954 publication, Pathology of Total Body Irradiation in the Monkey. This is research from an era when ~~government researchers~~ private-sector individuals in Western societies conducted experiments to see what would happen if...

If you really want to know what happens to a body after it dies, you might start by reading about the methods of forensic pathology, so that you learn what normally happens; and then read onward to see what is unique to a highly-irradiated individual.

Even in a conventional disaster, human remains are not always locatable. For example, the fire near my home in 2018 killed more people than the Chernobyl nuclear incident, and there are still more persons reportedly killed whose remains were never located. They may be in unknown locations; they may be so severely damaged by trauma, fire, debris, or crushing, that they are unidentifiable.

Nimur (talk) 12:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:09, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Radiation could potentially preserve a body, by killing off all the bacteria that would normally decompose it (however, bacteria are resilient, so it would take a lot of radiation). That would leave dehydration/mummification as a possibility, but if enough moisture was sealed inside, that might not have happened, either. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ionizing radiation doesn't do much to the macroscopic structure of organic tissue. It's bad for living things because it damages or kills cells, but it won't turn a dead body into a puddle of goo (unless it manages to heat it to a quite high temperature, but for that you would need a substantial amount of radiation focused directly on the body, like what you'd get from chucking it into the path of a particle accelerator beam). Indeed, as others have noted, irradiation is actually a good way to preserve organic material, because it damages or kills the microbes that otherwise decompose it, and that's why it's used as a method of food preservation. When an unpreserved corpse decays, some of that is due to liberation of enzymes from tissues and organs, but most of it is microbes, and other decomposers such as insects and fungi, beginning to digest it. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 19:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many microohms of resistance do the circulating US coins have?

If you cleaned them to the bare, uncorroded metal and soldered square contacts the thickness of the coin to the rim, 180 degrees apart. The 1981 to 1909 penny must be pretty damn low as it's almost pure copper and not that big (19mm), is it thick and small enough to outconduct all the undebased silver coins? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical_resistivity_and_conductivity quotes the resistivity of Copper 16.78 nΩ·m (at 20 °C). It is difficult to make an accurate resistance measurement of a coin material by the means described and it is more appropriate to measure its Sheet resistance using Four-terminal sensing. Typically a constant current is applied to two probes, and the potential on the other two probes is measured with a high-impedance voltmeter. For details see Van der Pauw method. The composition of US penny coins from 1909 is copper 95%, tin/zinc 5%. Due to wartime shortages of copper the 1943 steel cent was struck in zinc plated steel that tends to rust around the edge, being the only regular-issue US coin that contains no copper and can be picked up with a magnet. DroneB (talk) 13:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Big Bang & Evolution

User was indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Has The Big Bang & Evolution been proven, If so, Why are they still addressed as theories? What I mean is that for a long period of time in history there has been debates about the origin of life & some people have held it that a supreme being or beings were responsible & some have held it that the universe naturally came into being through natural selection. There have been many scientific contradictions but there seems to be a favouring of natural selection. I can cite science articles, books & passages that speak for/against both sides to prove that I am not giving my own personal opinions & biases but looking & presenting the implications objectively. This is a discussion that should be had because if anything in life is sacred, the truth is...A true scientists should look at the implications objectively,be prepared to be proven wrong & be willing to accept it. Again I will stress that I am not giving any of my own personal opinions or biases but instead, offering to present evidence while also willing to accept the possibility of being proven wrong. I have no intention of deceiving, misleading or manipulating anyone which is why I will only present & address without being personally involved. I only ask that my debate opponents (no disrespect) who may be skeptics do the same because you have every right to expect the same from me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Repent.The End is Near (talk • contribs) 14:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Proof" has many different, but related meanings. In the strict mathematical/logical sense, nothing about the real world can ever been proven - it's always possible that you are kept imprisoned by an evil demon that just feeds your brain inputs that simulate a particular sense of reality. In that sense, science never "proves" anything. A scientific theory is a coherent body of knowledge describing aspects of reality, and allowing us to make predictions. If such a theory agrees with observations and if more and more of its predictions come true, we eventually consider it "provisionally true". This provisional truth of science is a much stronger level of truth than e.g. that accepted by most legal systems even in criminal cases. In this sense, evolution is both an observed fact and a proven theory (i.e. we can observe actual live evolution as well as past instances of evolution, and the theory of evolution describes how these observed instances of evolution come about). The Big Bang is a (putative) event (and quite independent of the theory of evolution) that is largely compatible with and explained by the general theory of relativity. I would say evidence for the event is a bit more tentative than for evolution, but as a theory it has a huge amount of observational support - e.g. the cosmic microwave background. Both evolution and the Big Bang have vastly more supporting evidence than any competing theory, and neither has any unsurmountable difficulties, which is why they (or some more specific versions of them) have nearly universal support by scientists. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, true scientists DO look at the implications objectively and are prepared to be proven wrong and be willing to accept it. It's religionists who are generally unwilling to do likewise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Baseball Bugs. What you are asking here for scientists to do is something that they regularly do, but in my experience is very rare when it comes to those who reject the Big Bang and evolution. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The user is a crusader, and crusaders don't last long on Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They are certainly welcome to have a civil discussion here with people like you and me though. Gnome de plume (talk) 15:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Follow their "contributions" for more insight. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"true scientist" are hard to distinguish beforehand. I even dare say there is science, that is, a way to properly do scientific work, but there are NO scientists. Remember that Newton, just like pretty much EVERY great scientist, was also a firm believer in very nutty ideas & disbeliever of very solid evidence (as we can see in retrospect; easier for us, dwarfs on giants shoulders). Richard Feynman lectures include the statement "Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts." (and by expert he meant scientists just as well). Just never trust anyone who says you must trust science and scientist, because, he is bullshitting you. Trust their achievement, trust the mechanics you see working, but don't them as "scientists" nor trust their holy scripture: this is just the very opposite of science. Gem fr (talk) 16:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing with all of the above, I would had that we trust theories insofar as they allow practical operation like, building objects, or, sailing west to reach far east place (this wont work on a flat Earth, only on a round/cylindrical one).

Evolution theory, and all its modern development, include feat like genetically modified organisms. These exist and work. This is no proof that the theory is right, but this is enough of a confirmation to stick with it, and the theory just has no real problem to justify searching for alternatives (problem of the kind physics was struggling with, before Einstein papers).

Big bang is just a mathematical development of the framework underlying general theory of relativity. We DO have lots of practical objects also relying on this theory (for instance, it is needed to synchronize clock on earth and clock on-board satellites, those having enough acceleration to produce time dilatation that must be reckoned with. There exist however legit alternatives to general relativity (see article for reason why). Gem fr (talk) 16:06, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just realize we must have tons of archived answers about this question. I regret my previous answer Gem fr (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bingo. "evolution theory proof" turns 448 results in refdesk archive. same for "big bang proof": 282. Methink we should just delete the question. Gem fr (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would mean you should include links so the OP can find them, not delete the Q. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for evolution, there's no credible evidence that the theory is completely wrong, but there is room for some "tweaks". One somewhat recent tweak is that it seems evolution is not steady, but occurs in jumps and starts, spurred on by forces like a change in the environment, such as an ice age or competition with an introduced species (especially humans). An even more recent tweak is that it seems that some of our genes change over our lifetime, and are passed down, much as Lamark proposed, in an earlier version of evolution theory. See transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. The Biblical account of the creation of the universe and species, on the other hand, has massive proof against it, from fields as diverse as zoology, botany, biology, chemistry, geology, astronomy, physics, archaeology, anthropology, linguistics, etc. The only way to make creationism compatible with science is to say that God(s) created the Big Bang and then just watched what happened. This is the Watchmaker analogy, but has nothing to do with what the Bible or other holy books say happened. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of creationists have just zero problem conciliating Biblical account of the creation of the universe and species with evidence Gem fr (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then they aren't paying attention. Taking just the first field I listed, zoology, we have ample evidence that many animal species existed for hundreds of millions of years before humans, which directly contradicts the Biblical order of creation. SinisterLefty (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where religionism fails is that they start with the assumption that their scriptures are true, and anything that disagrees with that assumption must be ignored - or, if they're really desperate, declare that any evidence that contradicts their scriptural beliefs is "the work of the devil." As one of my old math professors liked to say, "If you start with invalid assumptions, you're liable to get 'interesting' results." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, science is about following the evidence, wherever it leads, while religion is about cherry-picking only the evidence which supports your beliefs. SinisterLefty (talk) 17:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, lots of the "science" is ALSO about cherry-picking only the "evidence" which supports your beliefs. For instance, Marcellin Berthelot considered the atomic hypothesis superfluous, and, hence, to be rejected under Occam's razor; while this hypothesis was already more consistent with evidences, having doubt about it was still legit. At the opposite spectrum, string theory has believers, without any evidence it being necessary and quite a number of unsolved problems. Gem fr (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, science and religion to not cherry-pick. People do. While there are scientists who cherry-pick, and are heavily discredited for doing so, there are far more religious people who cherry-pick, and are considered more faithful for doing so. 68.115.219.130 (talk) 19:12, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being scientist Vs being religious is not between people, it is inside each an every people. People who call themselves scientist are often acting as member of sect to defend the faith in their science (which may or may not be supported by evidence Gem fr (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Science is not in any way based on faith. If you believe so, you are not referring to science. You are referring to pseudoscience - such as astrology and homeopathy. 68.115.219.130 (talk) 19:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, not exactly. Science requires the faith that we can trust our senses and our instruments to make observations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I smelled this rat. Don't we have some kind of (polite; more polite that I would be...) RTFM, to redirect questions about relativity, evolution etc. to refdesk archive, where they were asked hundreds of time? Gem fr (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's been suggested from time to time that the ref desk should have a "frequently asked questions" page, with maybe something easier to navigate than the actual archives. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:28, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why not. But I was thinking about some kind of {{see also|whatever}} message to redirect toward this FAQ or to the search archive tool, that I currently miss (unless it exists, unbeknownst to me?) Gem fr (talk) 05:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a refdesk version of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:06, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I remember inviting the editor here (before they also started using their talk page as a blog). On the other hand, it's now obvious that they only seek to promote, not learn... —Paleo Neonate – 08:44, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For responses to the common arguments against Evilution there's talkorigins.org. —Tamfang (talk) 06:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bond survivability

In a James Bond novel (title in rot13: Zbbaenxre) Bond flees from the villain through steam pipes and survives by huddling inside them while the villain blasts hot steam (not convinced that Bond is in the pipes, but as a precaution). He's badly burned, but escapes and recovers in full in a hospital. Contrary to the movies, it seems to me that Fleming at least paid lip service to realism in the books, but surviving something like this still seems like a little over the top, considering how uncomfortable is even a waft of mere 100°C steam from a coffee pot. Are the any real chances of someone surviving an (I think) 30-second blast stuck to the sides of a (presumably hot) metal pipe, and being well enough to crawl off afterwards? 93.136.9.45 (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

According to [1], human survival in humid air is limited to minutes at 122^oF, so I'm gonna take a gander that if the air was hot enough to burn him, uh, no. Not if he's immersed in it, anyway - I never read the book. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ROT13 is a simple letter-substitution Caesar cipher that is inadequate to obfuscate the 1955 novel title Moonraker. I claim the (presumed) prize for this decryption and invite the OP to pay it to the Wikimedia Foundation. DroneB (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The idea of using rot13 in these situations is to provide spoiler protection while still making it easy for someone who wants to know the details to obtain them. It's a courtesy. It's not supposed to be deeply obfuscatory. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 03:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it was just to avoid spoiling the book. Sorry, DroneB 93.136.8.179 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC) (OP) [reply]

first, while steam is hotter that water, and will release latent heat upon condensing, you must realize that it is gas, and as such as VASTLY less volumetric heat content that hot water for a simple mass question (the magnitude is ~10³ less). Steam is not the same hot scalding water. [2] hints at a few tens of seconds for second-degree burns to occurs on unprotected skin exposed to steam. If the victim has clothing (+protect his eyes etc.), surviving and even being fit to escape doesn't seem over the top to me if the exposure last a time you evaluate 30s or so (besides, we usually do not evaluate time properly, ~2-3x over/under estimate are frequent). The steam will replace oxygen, so you cannot breath; 30 s without breathing is not that a feat but is uncomfortable... Gem fr (talk) 07:35, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that sounds reasonable. Searching further I found Cave of the Crystals which says that ~60°C at 99% humidity can be endured for about 10 minutes. IIRC Bond pulled his shirt over his head to protect it, so he didn't have unprotected skin. 93.136.8.179 (talk) 19:42, 13 June 2019 (UTC) (OP)[reply]

Bond isn't noted for technical accuracy, but Fleming had served as a naval officer during WWII and did have some familiarity with steam scalding accidents. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]