[[Abdominal pain]] discusses the causes of abdominal pain, but not the origins of the pain itself. When something happens in your stomach or your intestines that leads to abdominal pain (e.g. you ate bad food, and you're about to have a sudden loose bowel movement, respectively), how does the pain get produced? Do we have a lot of pain-sensing nerves in both places? I suppose I might be able to find this kind of thing with a Google search or a scholarly-journal search if I knew the terminology, but with my layman's understanding, all I'm finding is the websites that discuss conditions that can cause pain, not the mechanism by which the sense of pain arises when those conditions exist. Of course, I understand that cancer can cause pain if a mass is pushing up against a nerve; I'm thinking of situations when the underlying cause is an ordinary minor illness or not an illness at all, when the contents of the food canal are the only issue. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 05:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
[[Abdominal pain]] discusses the causes of abdominal pain, but not the origins of the pain itself. When something happens in your stomach or your intestines that leads to abdominal pain (e.g. you ate bad food, and you're about to have a sudden loose bowel movement, respectively), how does the pain get produced? Do we have a lot of pain-sensing nerves in both places? I suppose I might be able to find this kind of thing with a Google search or a scholarly-journal search if I knew the terminology, but with my layman's understanding, all I'm finding is the websites that discuss conditions that can cause pain, not the mechanism by which the sense of pain arises when those conditions exist. Of course, I understand that cancer can cause pain if a mass is pushing up against a nerve; I'm thinking of situations when the underlying cause is an ordinary minor illness or not an illness at all, when the contents of the food canal are the only issue. [[User:Nyttend|Nyttend]] ([[User talk:Nyttend|talk]]) 05:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
:If bacteria are the cause, the inflammatory response can cause pain. [[Special:Contributions/2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B|2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B]] ([[User talk:2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B|talk]]) 08:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Revision as of 08:10, 28 March 2017
Welcome to the science section of the Wikipedia reference desk.
The best answers address the question directly, and back up facts with wikilinks and links to sources. Do not edit others' comments and do not give any medical or legal advice.
To disinfect with alcohol or not after a bite from dog?
I've listen to lecture today where the professor said that it's forbidden to disinfect the location of the bite with alcohol (in case of suspicion for rabies). As for the reason he wasn't really clear. Moreover, by googling I found that in the site health minstry of Israel they recommend to disinfect with alcohol. What's going on here? Apparently one of them is not right. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WHO and other sources [1][2][3] recommend thorough washing and flushing (10-15 minutes) with soap and water immediately and before any cleaning/disinfecting with alcohol. If no soap is available just use water. Nil Einne (talk) 04:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forbidden? There is no legal legistration any where in the world where it is legally forbidden to clean a wound with alcohol. Perhaps the professor is refering to Islam where it is forbidden to consume alcohol but even then consume means to drink and it does not mean you cannot use alcohol for medical disinfectant purposes. Look at this link [[4]]. No wonder your professor thinks that alcohol is the most evil "thing" in the world, where even touching or smelling a little bit of alcohol is enough to turn you into the spawn of satan. 148.182.26.69 (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Doc, I plan to taunt the neighbor's pit bull then jump over the barbed wire fence, into his yard. How should I treat the bites, if I survive ?" StuRat (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Or, "Doc/nurse/receptionist, I'm curious whether a dog bite can or should be treated with rubbing alcohol?" "Have you been bitten?" "No, but there's vicious-looking Chihuahua living nextdoor, and I want to be proactive." ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 08:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The general medical advice is not to use alcohol or other antiseptics to clean open wounds, as they can actually cause more damage to the tissue. The NHS website - http://www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/1054.aspx?CategoryID=72& - says to use cold water, saline solution, or a non-alcohol wipe. If you are dealing with someone else's wound, then you might use a bit of alcohol to sterilise your own hands before touching the wound. Wymspen (talk) 11:56, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. And as far as rabies is concerned alcohol has little effect on most viruses. Just do what is said there, the bleeding while you're washing it out gives a far better chance of getting rid of anything - a dog's mouth isn't a very clean place at the best of times. Dmcq (talk) 12:15, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the virus, doesn't it? I have the notion that viruses dependent on a viral envelope can be killed ("inactivated" if you prefer; I don't) by alcohol. Specifically that's supposed to be why hand sanitizers are useful in limiting the spread of influenza. I think. Let me know if I have that wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 20:57, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry yes you're right and rabies is enveloped - however I see that even though isopropyl alcohol can kill rabies ethanol isn't very effective - since hand sanitizers can use either or something else one can't depend on them. The WHO advice is best. Dmcq (talk) 23:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right, although isopropyl alcohol being much more toxic, is not recommended to put directly in contact with large wounds (also inadequate for mouth rinse). It also has other properties, it can even be used to wash off glue residues and various types of persistent inks, which ethanol is not particularily good for... PaleoNeonate (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is it "much more toxic"? I mean, it is orally, sure — causes "gastric distress" as it says on the label. But on a wound? I'd never heard that. Do you have a link? --Trovatore (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want to be putting 140-proof grain alcohol on too many mucous membranes either. --Trovatore (talk)
Hmm so unless those tables are wrong, ethanol would have an LD50 (oral, rat) of 7060 mg/kg and isopropanol would have an LD50 (oral, rat) of 5045 mg/kg. Although this shows that it is more toxic, it's not as different as I had anticipated, and of course there are other factors, metabolization being complex... [5], [6], Median_lethal_dose. PaleoNeonate (talk) 02:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the best part is that to treat wood alcohol poisoning, giving the patient grain alcohol works in a pinch. One of the toxic metabolites of isopropanol is rate limited and the presence of ethanol slows the production of the toxic chemical. Giving them a beer can mean the difference between blindness and sight. --DHeyward (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Right idea, wrong alcohol. Wood alcohol is actually methanol; that's the one that makes you go blind. Isopropanol mostly gives you a tummy upset, I think.
Methanol gets metabolized to two nasty substances, formaldehyde and formic acid. I'm not sure what happens to isopropanol, but if it follows the same pathway, it seems like it should turn into acetone, which isn't that bad (it's part of some normal metabolic pathways anyway). --Trovatore (talk) 04:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually maybe DHeyward meant to type "methanol" but typed "isopropanol" by mistake because it was under discussion. That would make the comment make perfect sense. --Trovatore (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disinfect is overrated. Dog bites hurt and that is a two shot minimum. Wait 30 minutes and if there is still pain, throwback another 2 shot. Continue until pain is resolved. --DHeyward (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Old Medicine, it's down right barbaric! Dialisis, Chemotherapy, drillin' holes in peoples heads, it's like the Goddamn Spanish Inquisition!"PaleoNeonate (talk) 01:02, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Friends, thank you for your comments. I would like to add that the professor is not Muslim but he is Christian, anyway he's not against alcohol as someone said here. If I understood him correctly then he said that when alcohol is applied on the place of the bite, then the alcohol has an effect of immunosuppression and interrupt to kill the viruses. But I'd not think that he's the best professor to study from him. I found already some mistakes in his things in the past and that's why I came here to ask. 93.126.88.30 (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently no one linked our animal bite article. See the "Treatment" section. Note that antibiotics are recommended for dog and cat bites of the hand, and possibly other bites if there is a high risk of infection. Also tetanus prophylaxis may be indicated. You should see a medical professional for anything more than a superficial bite. As some of the above replies have noted, the general advice for non-major wounds has shifted towards just cleaning with soap and water. Antiseptics like alcohol don't appear to be any better, and may cause more complications. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 23:41, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The use of alcohol as a disinfectant is not not necessarily forbidden in Islam "the Muslim Judicial Council of South Africa has issued written permission regarding the use of alcohol not produced as a result of fermentation for the specific purpose of disinfecting the hands. In addition, due various health concerns during Hajj (religious pilgrimages to Mecca and Medina), in 2002 the World Muslim League in Mecca issued a fatwa allowing the use of alcohol based hand sanitizers. During this year’s Hajj, Saudi Deputy Health Minister Dr. Ziad Memish reiterated that Saudi senior religious leaders deem alcohol-based sanitizers acceptable" [7]. Richerman(talk)00:15, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It does not appear to have a set date. The sources note that the actual vote will occur sometime during the World Health Assembly in May, 2017 (see here for one example). The World Health Assembly is a parliamentary body, so elections held in that body probably follow along with standard rules of order, whereby a candidate would be nominated via a motion, seconded, the floor opened for debate and then a formal vote held, and the motion either passes or fails. There does not appear to be any published schedule yet on when the plan to make the formal motion is, there may not yet be. The closest we have is here which notes the next World Health Assembly will occur 22-31 May 2017. --Jayron3217:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Winter seems to be the worst time to grow food. It's too cold and snowy. Why can't humans hibernate during the winter and feast on as much food as possible during other seasons like squirrels? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[Edit Conflict] Because humans evolved in Africa, quite recently in evolutionary terms, where there was no 'winter' corresponding to your description, and where in any case they did not grow food, being hunter-gatherers.
After spreading out from Africa, they did not live long enough in latitudes with significant winter seasons to evolve hibernation before their burgeoning intelligence and culturally preserved learning enabled them to combat winter conditions by other means (for example clothing, use of fire, shelters, seasonal migration); some of them also evolved physically to withstand colder climates better. Once agriculture was invented, they became more tied to remaining in one place, but also learned to stockpile food to sustain them over the winter.
Hibernation has drawbacks as well as advantages, in that hibernating individuals may be very vunerable to predation – if you're rare, large and/or fierce when awakened, or well hidden like squirrels your species can survive, but humans became too numerous and to findable by intelligent predators in the shape of other humans for this ever to be viable. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.12.80.28 (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At Hypothermia#Signs_and_symptoms there is mention of a few states some of which are also associated with hibernation. But indeed we're not adapted for it. Also, other than predation, even for hibernating animals, there is an increased risk of death, they still must face a type of shock. Unfortunately I didn't find information about this latter part in the current hibernation article with a quick look. But I remember that some domestic animals which can hibernate in natural conditions can also enter stupor torpor if the temperature is slightly too low. Sometimes they don't recover. PaleoNeonate (talk) 10:10, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tree squirrels behave like many of us humans in that, when the weather is particularly bad, they stay warm and dry in their dray and perhaps eat some of their stored food, but that isn't hibernation or even torpor. Dbfirs16:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution is a random process and different species survive by evolving different strategies for survival. As an example, the Polar bear and the Arctic fox both live in Arctic but Polar bears hibernate and Actic foxes don't, so even if humans had originally evolved in a cold climate they wouldn't necessarily have evolved into a species that hibernates. Richerman(talk)00:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But can we say that evolving in a cold-winter climate is a necessary, although non-sufficient, condition to result in a hibernating species? We did evolve in Africa, so not a single chance that we would be hibernating. --Lgriot (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Let's have a look at the actual science. The fact is that, regardless of people's belief, a high-carbohydrate diet is incompatible with our Paleolithic genome. It causes epidemics of obesity, hypertension, diabetes, and atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Out diet should be consistent with our hunter-gatherer genetic legacy. [8]
The Case Against Sugar is a book which gives a detained outline of the misguided dietary beliefs. Sugar industry paid scientists to blame fat [9][10][11].
A reference: "Any fat not used by your body’s cells or to create energy is converted into body fat. Likewise, unused carbohydrate and protein are also converted into body fat... Too much fat in your diet, especially saturated fats, can raise your cholesterol, which increases the risk of heart disease". National Health Service - Fat: the facts. Alansplodge (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Add to this that fat has loads of calories per weight unit. Sugar does not lack far behind. Eating 100 g adds 387 calories to your diet in the case of sugar, and 541 in the case of fat. Hofhof (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So you formed a opinion based on reading one pop science book, and your question is why doesn't the entire medical establishment share that opinion? ApLundell (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And there's a big dubious supposition in the need of a citation needed tag: "why does the medical establishment blame fat." Does it blame fat? Hofhof (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Salt, sugar and fat are poisons that we're addicted to. The salt, sugar and fat industry have made propaganda for more than a century to sell the idea that what they produce is healthy. The medical establishment consist of people who are not immune to indoctrination, it's quite similar to the issue of smoking in the late 19th century when there was evidence that it was harmful. The attitude of the medical establishment at the time was:
"In the mid- to late-19th century, doctors determined that lip and tongue cancer rates were higher among smokers of pipes and cigars. Despite this link, major medical journals mocked those who opposed smoking. The Lancet, the leading journal of the time and still one of the most important medical journals in the world, wrote in 1879, “We have no sympathy with prejudices against … tobacco, used under proper restriction as to the time and amount of the consumption. ... A cigar when the mood and the circumstances are propitious [is] not only to be tolerated, but approved.” Moderation, not abstinence, was the order of the day."
Now, fat is bad because we're using large amounts in refined form, just like sugar is bad when used in that way. And salt is very bad for health too. The human body has evolved to take in about 0.1 grams of salt a day, and sugars and fats from whole foods found in nature, e.g. from fruits and nuts. The reason why refined sugars and fats are bad is that we use a lot more of it than our bodies are designed from and in refined form it enters the body much faster than if you consume the same quantities from whole foods. Also, your body needs a lot of nutrients like vitamins and minerals, refined oils and sugars yield calories without those nutrients. So, we're then at risk of falling short. Now overt shortages casing diseases like scurvy is easily avoided, but we don't know how much we need for optimal health. Heart disease at old age may be considered to be normal, but it could also be that the normal intake of oils and refined sugars leads us to a suboptimal intake of nutrients leading to diseases that would otherwise not occur. It's unfortunately not the medical establishment that is making a big deal about such issues.
There now exist a lot of evidence that suggests that about 90% of the health care expenditure in Western countries can be accounted for by lifestyle factors. If everyone consumed only whole foods, limited meat intake to small amounts and would do a lot of exercise, then the rates of heart disease, strokes, common cancers, type 2 diabetes etc. would be an order of magnitude lower. It's probably just a matter of time before governments will start to take measures to force people to stick to a healthy lifestyle. A possibility is that insurance companies will be allowed to offer lower premiums to people who agree to their health and lifestyle to be monitored. People like me who already stick to a healthy lifestyle will then switch to such insurance companies and pay a lot less, other people who are addicted to eating Big Macs will finally see the real price of their bad habits. Count Iblis (talk) 19:39, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Near starvation diet does improve biological parameter: blood pressure, BMI, blood sugar, at least temporary, before the subject dies of course :-) however on a large scale the food really has nothing to do with obesity. If the reverse were true we would not see slim and even skinny people around, everyone would have been fat. Look at documentaries shot around 1900, almost everyone had been slim or at least of normal proportions and nobody, nobody suffered from the lack of food back then, nobody starved. So, why so many people are obese now. Obesity is a biological, evolutionary phenomenon and can be blamed on progress of medicine. Before modern era, until Pasteur demonstrated that some diseases are caused by bacteria, and in the era of epidemics, out of 10-12 children only 2 or 3 survived and those who died could have become overweight or obese had they grown to adulthood. Their immune system could not manage the challenge of measles, scarlet fever, mumps and other infections. Overweight and obese start with the skeleton which is typically wider. You can see it in their pelvis and shoulders. Overweight people need more food to maintain their fat mass which is much larger, otherwise they are hungry all the time. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 20:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The obese people I have encountered don't eat a lot, way less than I do calorie-wise, but they eat a junk food diet and they don't exercise. While they eat more than what they would eat had they been slimmer, their higher energy needs for carrying their fat mass around doesn't compare to my energy needs due to heavy exercise every day. One hour of fast running will burn more than 1000 Kcal, the metabolic rate needed to sustain this on the long run needs to be a factor of 3 to 4 higher than this, which is why I eat 4000 Kcal a day and still have a low body weight of about 55 kg. The healthier you are, the more you'll look like Frank Medrano. Count Iblis (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This Wikipedia article [12] states otherwise, refuting the Count Iblis's claim. I quote: "The view that obese people eat little yet gain weight due to a slow metabolism is not generally supported.[6] On average, obese people have a greater energy expenditure than their thin counterparts due to the energy required to maintain an increased body mass." The obese people may eat moderately in public but make up with additional food at home and they also eat more frequently. They really need more energy. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone up there says: You are obese because you don't exercise. This is ridiculous. Many slim people don't exercise at all or do it sporadically. On the other hand try to load yourself with 50 pounds of extra weight and go running. I want to see how far you will go. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree with these facts, they do eat more because they need to support their larger body mass. Now, given that if I were obese, my larger energy intake would be balanced by me having to carry more bodyweight around, I choose to burn that and a lot more energy by exercising hard. So, I can be at a low bodyweight despite eating 4000 kcal of healthy foods. Also, I have yet to see someone who is obese who doesn't have an obvious medical problem causing that (e.g. thyroid problems) and who only eats healthy foods like I do (at least 1 kg of fruits and vegetables a day, at least 70% of calories from whole grains etc.). Count Iblis (talk) 21:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the paleo diet, there would have been a lot more gathering than hunting success, so more carbs than fat, especially if much of the fat burned off when cooking the meat over the fire on sticks. However, prior to the invention of milling, grains were not very edible, so those carbs would have largely been from root vegetables (starches) and fruit (sugars). Also, the animals that were killed and eaten would have been far leaner than modern, corn-fed cattle and hogs. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Count Iblis comments rings a bell ! Obese people appear to have trouble feeling long term satiety. Their body wants those things that are missing in their diet, so the individual feels very quickly hungry again but eats the same food that that causes the hunger in the first place, regardless of the calorific value. Thus, caught up in viscous circle. A ancient prophet once said you can not live on bread alone. Yet some modern humans are trying to go against this ancient wisdom. Leaves them with little 'motive' energy to run up the stairs (which is quicker) instead they wait for the elevator - which gives them the chance to pause, to think, about how hungry they feel... Eat a balanced diet.--Aspro (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One reason the medical establishment originally "blamed fat" was a failure to distinguish between different types of fat, like unsaturated fat, saturated fat, and trans fats. Of course, at the time, food products, in the US at least, were only labelled with fat content, and did not break it down by type. So, if that was all the info you had, then avoiding all fat wasn't a terrible strategy, since there was so much trans fat and saturated fat you couldn't otherwise avoid. StuRat (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do they have to do with the documentaries of the United States cities we see in the channels? Nobody kept the documentaries of famines of peoples in the Soviet States. Current obesity epidemic has nothing to do with abundance of food. --AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:22, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. Abundance of food = dirt cheap prices = overeating. And, in particular, unhealthy food is cheap in the US, because of government subsidies, aimed at things like meat, potatoes, and milk, rather then berries, nuts, and veggies. StuRat (talk) 01:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"A high carbohydrate diet of rice, plantain, manioc and corn, with a small amount of wild game and fish – plus around six hours’ exercise every day – has given the Tsimané people of the Bolivian Amazon the healthiest hearts in the world."
"“This study suggests that coronary atherosclerosis [hardening of the arteries] could be avoided if people adopted some elements of the Tsimané lifestyle, such as keeping their LDL cholesterol, blood pressure and blood sugar very low, not smoking and being physically active,” said senior cardiology author Dr Gregory S Thomas from Long Beach Memorial Medical Centre in the US.
“Most of the Tsimané are able to live their entire life without developing any coronary atherosclerosis. This has never been seen in any prior research. While difficult to achieve in the industrialized world, we can adopt some aspects of their lifestyle to potentially forestall a condition we thought would eventually effect almost all of us.”"
Carbohydrates are not essential for human nutrition [13][14] Despite this, the medical establishment supports the pseudoscientific theory of balanced diet that 50 to 60 percent of your total daily calories should come from carbohydrate. Is not this view similar to the view of the astronomy community 500 years back that the Sun revolves around the earth? --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[citation needed] for your claim it's pseudoscience. As others have said you can't rely on popscience books, flawed evolutionary explainations or simplistic 'well it's not essential' ones to make such bold claims, that's not how science works, nor is it logical BTW. This is the science reference desk, not the Daily Mail science pages. P.S. As for funding issues, if you think the various vegetable oil industries, the meat industry, the dairy industry etc aren't extensively involved in funding research, you need to do a lot more reading. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is full of fallacies. "Popscience" is a faulty generalization, you need to look at the contents, not on stamps. The Case Against Sugar is reviewed in leading mainstream newspapers like NYT, Guardian, FT etc. By your reasoning, Cosmos (book), The Naked Ape, A Brief History of Time are unreliable books. And don't make use of irrelevant comparisons like Daily Mail. No one is talking about Daily Mail here. And the "flawed evolutionary explanation" statement is an argument by assertion. --IEditEncyclopedia (talk) 10:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am referring to the contents. It's not a book which looks at the totality of research, considering the quality of each study cited like a quality review does (e.g. those Cochrane reviews). Instead it makes a bunch of claims, cites a few studies and claims that this is correct. Cosmos, The Naked Ape and A Brief History of Time are interesting books but they are ultimately popscience books. Where they contradict with established research, it makes more sense to trust the research, not one authors opinion, no matter how notable that author (or the book) is. Where they don't necessarily contradict established research, but present claims where the the research is fairly limited or contradictory, it makes sense to treat it as a case where the research is unclear, not one where the research is clear simply because this popscience book presented one side. You definitely should not treat popscience books as some magic truth. And a good popscience book will make it clear where the research/evidence lies, and if the author disagrees with the research, or is only presenting one claim when the research is uncompelling or contradictory, also make this clear. Of course people will disagree on how compelling or contradictory the research it. That's why if you lack the ability to evaluate it yourself, you should read multiple different views and try to get a sense of where it's at. Note a key point here, if you can't sufficiently understand the research to evaluate it yourself, you should take great care in deciding based on what seems logical or right to you based on some popscience book. Instead you should try and get a sense from what those who do understand are saying of what the research and evidence says.
And the Daily Mail comparison is apt, because you've presented no real evidence, made several clear errors, but ignored it when numerous people have pointed these out to you.
This isn't the time or place for discussion for evolution but if you think "we have a paleolithic genome therefore we shouldn't eat significant carbohydrates" is actually a compelling argument with any actual evidence backing it up, you need to get a significantly better understand of evolution (and logic). When you've actually got a basic understanding of how evolution works, you're welcome to come back and ask questions here about the parts which confuse you. If you're unwilling ot unable to get a basic understanding of evolution before you make such bold claims without evidence, you could at least read Paleolithic diet. It's no coincidence that few evolutionary biologists embrace the idea of the paleo diet. At best, you may get them saying there are some parts of it which have some utility. At worst: [15][16]. This doesn't of course mean they are right. But when most of the people advocating something based on some supposition have backgrounds in other areas to that supposition, and the people who've actually spent most of their lives studying what that supposition comes say well actually your supposition seems to be wrong because...., chances are higher that it's the later group that are right. Now the paleolithic diet could still be better than some other diets generally for various reasons. But you've presented the claim that it's some wonderous diet and one of your key pieces of evidence is this flawed evolutionary explanation so the question comes back to what I said earlier, what's your evidence?
I've heard and read that dietary fiber regulates digestion and creates a sense of fullness. I've heard and read that dietary fat creates a sense of fullness, while sugar inhibits fullness. Okay, fine. How about eating something like an avocado, nuts, seeds, and mushrooms in a meal? Avocados, nuts, and seeds are relatively high in fat compared to carbohydrate and protein content, and mushrooms are relatively high in protein. Is satiety even measurable? Is it easier to reach satiety with a combination of both dietary fat and fiber, or is one better than the other? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can measure satiety indirectly with surveys and by recording how much more of the same item people eat after a meal. And a combo is likely better than one or the other, although, if the goal is to lose weight, the dieter may want to emphasize dietary fiber over fat, since it had no calories. StuRat (talk) 22:30, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder how the researchers would deal with confounding variables. One participant may be given a high-fat food (almonds) or high-sugar food (cherry). The cherry is sweeter and may be more appetizing than the almonds that are just eaten raw and plain. Then, the researcher would probably conclude that high-fat is filling, even though it may be the taste or personal preference of the participant. The researcher could swap out the almonds for a piece of fatty bacon, but not everybody likes bacon because of the extreme saltiness. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 22:59, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
First give group A, X calories of high-fiber food, and measure how much of food Y they eat after. Then give group B, X calories of high-fat food, and measure how much of food Y they eat after. One week later, repeat the study, with the groups reversed. Not perfect, and the foods aren't going to be pure fiber and pure fat (and still be edible), but good enough to see the trend. A mixed fat and fiber group may also be added. StuRat (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its a bit more complicated yet simple. For instance, the Inuit (which I think is the pleural too) up in the far north, had a very high fat, low fiber diet, yet they had very low incidences of modern health problems until they adopted modern food stuffs. Dietary fiber does give the sensation of fullness but a high fat diet also provides satiety. Its satiety that you want to aim for. Start off with the paleo diet, then listen to your body telling you what it needs. Not what the food industry needs you to buy to incease their profits. Don't have to follow any fancy dietary régime – just listen to your body. This next bit is stupidly simple. After a meal – is your mind clear. After a meal – do you fit to take on the World. If yes to both questions, you are probably eating right.--Aspro (talk) 23:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting — I didn't know that about the singular. I did know about the mess about "Inuit" versus "Eskimo". Short version: In Canada "Inuit" is usually preferred and "Eskimo" is one of those slightly risky words, not exactly a slur but something people learn to avoid. But that's because anyone in Canada who would be described as "Eskimo" probably is Inuit. The use of "Inuit" doesn't translate well to Alaska, where it's just plain inaccurate, so "Eskimo" is probably going to stick around a while, refined sensibilities notwithstanding. --Trovatore (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is largely a Canadian issue. All the Eskimos in Canada are Inuit, but not all Eskimos are Inuit. The Eskimos of South and Western Alaska are Yup'ik, they comprise a separate branch of the Eskimo language family, and their languages are more diverse. Given there's no common native word for both groups, Eskimo serves to cover both (and a few other dwindling or extinct historically known peoples). That, say, Russains might want to be called Russians, and not Slavs, makes sense. But that doesn't mean the term Slav is inaccurate, insulting, or a needless term. μηδείς (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot the reference for the plural/singular and Inuit is preferred in Greenland as well. I'm aware of the use of Eskimo in Alaska especially after an interesting talk I heard in Iqaluit where a person from that state explained to a rather uncomfortable group of predominately Inuit that he, and others, in Alaska, didn't like being called Inuit. Until the last few years Eskimo was used from Ulukhaktok west, they preferred Inuvialuk or Inuinnaq with inuit (no capital) being the equivalent of person or human (Inuinnaqtun to English). By the way the organization that represents all Inuit/Eskimo globally is called the Inuit Circumpolar Council. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq01:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Talk to a dietician and an endocrinologist if your general practitioner recommends it. Experiment on yourself, and keep a journal. I have lost 40lbs after bariatric surgery in January. But I have noticed my hunger pattern has changed, and have had a variety of discomforts.
I used to find food unappealing before the mid afternoon, a pattern for the last 30 years. I'd then have two normal meals, usually high in carbs (back when fat was evil) and then end up binging at bedtime. When I went off carbs after being diagnosed as diabetic, I still didn't eat in the morning, but then I had two all-I-could eat meat and salad meals. Then at bedtime, a tablespoon of peanut butter or 100g of black beans would quite satisfy me.
Since the surgery, I have been on a very high protein diet, with three small meals a day, and still low in carbs and fat. The surgery made me unable (and not wanting) to eat more than 100g, usually 2/3 meat, 1/6 veg, 1/6 starch at one sitting. But since the surgery I have been waking up starving, even if my blood sugar is 140. (I discontinued all diabetes meds with the approval of the doctor, as my blood sugar didn't warrant it.) Yet 30 minutes after a meal I would be hungry again to the point of distraction, even though I was eating the equivalent of a lb a day.
The nutritionist said that getting all my calories from protein was causing the hunger, and suggested two things: avoid any protein supplements except for whey; add ground flax seed (Metamucil until I go grocery shopping next) and eat banana, rice, applesauce and toast (see brat diet). Over the last week, the constant starving has gone away, my morning eating is normal, a tablespoon of peanut butter is my bedtime snack, and the other discomforts I had been suffering are greatly ameliorated.
Because of Gluconeogenesis, avoiding carbohydrates (good idea of course with diabetes) and "getting all calories from protein" doesn't make sense, for some of the protein will be converted to glucose. So fat is usually a major component of a low carb diet for diabetes. As the OP notes, it provides satiety and is of course an essential macronutrient.John Z (talk) 05:06, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting "all my calories from protein" was an exaggeration understood in the context of our conversation, but not by far, as I was consuming non-fat protein drinks, and having only one meal a day with fat, usually one egg or two ounces of not very fatty meat. The nutritionist wanted me to eat fiber, bananas, rice and toast, none of which is famed for its fat content. In any case, calling fat a "major" part of a low carb diet is still quite misleading; I am supposed to get 20% of my calories from fat. By weight that would even be less than 20% fat in my diet. μηδείς (talk) 16:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant by fat is usually major in "low carb diet for diabetes" is something like what Richard K. Bernstein (and many others now) suggest and follow: "low carb with unrestricted fat" for diabetes - Since he is perhaps the best known figure recommending the return to "low carb for diabetes". Low carb diets which did not eschew fat were the norm for diabetes before the discovery and use of insulin and in some places afterwards. As you say, everyone is different, some people may have specific reasons to restrict some fats.John Z (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He must have been a keene devotee of the Mediterranean diet too, because apart from eating spinach he was in love with Olive Oyl. Neither was Popeye a potato. After all, he said it himself many a time : “I Yam What I Yam”... which you would agree, is a different type of tuber.--Aspro (talk) 17:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wind direction, high and low
I've asked this before, but still don't get it.
This says the wind is going from east to west (an east wind). This (click play) says the wind is going from west to east (a west wind).
From what I remember being told, the first link reports ground level wind, and the second reports higher wind. Is this right?
If this is right, does that mean Haikou is now getting its weather from Vietnam rather than Hong Kong?
Many thanks, and sorry to bother you all again with this.
A pollution record and forecast are about where people live, which is close to the surface. In this case the wind direction should be the surface wind direction. There are a number of different ways to derive wind data from satellite data, see for instance NOAA wind products. But if in your second link you simply mean the apparent wind direction as measured from cloud movement, then yes, clouds move according to wind at cloud levels. It is often the clouds that determine the general pattern of weather, so the satellite animation would be a more accurate view of where recent weather came from. --Mark viking (talk) 00:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so, so much, Mark. This has been driving me nuts for ages. I find it astonishing that the wind here at ground level is so often opposite to the direction of incoming weather. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See epidemiology. A pathogen spreads by any sort of contact. It may be macroscopic contact (you touching a doorknob) or microscopic contact (you breathing in water vapor from someone's sneeze). Your body attempts to fight these foreign invaders and builds immunity so that you don't get sick again. 50.4.236.254 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Common cold notes that there are over 200 viral strains. Your question is similar to what I've always understood. Although the article doesn't say it, the immunity you develop for a cold is supposedly to a specific virus. So if you get exposed to another cold virus sometime later, you could be vulnerable. People seem to get fewer colds as they get older, and one theory I've heard is that each time you get a cold, your immune system checks off another strain. However, as the article notes, colds are caused by exposure, and kids seem to get exposed a lot more often. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 23:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here's something the NHS do every year, an annual report. Page 22 will demonstrate that one or maybe two viruses are prevalent at any one time. Vaccinations usually work against a handful of variants (see this CDC page) so there's always a significant chance that the wrong virus strain will be that which dominates against researchers best efforts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anecdotally, when my mother worked in preschool, she would get at least 3-4 colds/other bugs every winter. Since she retired 5-6 years ago, I think she's been sick once. Kids are germ factories. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 00:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are total germ factories! They're all jammed (jambed?) together in schools and have a lot of physical contact. Speaking of jam, their hands are always sticky, and if you ever let them have a sip of your drink, hold it up to the light after. It will be filled with an enormous amount of backwash particles, even if they've had nothing to eat. Try it and see. Extraordinary! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A good argument for teleteaching, especially if the anti-vaccination lobby gets more converts and the diseases become deadly.
I've had back-to-back colds (a week apart, say) over the holidays, especially from my niblings visiting. It's actually become somewhat of a morbid family joke, asking what symptoms we should expect a few days after their arrival. But otherwise, I've certainly gotten sick far less often as I've aged, and the severity of the colds is much less. Can't remember the last flu I had; probably the late 80's, before I started getting the shot. Bronchitis is what I dread, but that's bacterial.μηδείς (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this already. There is no confrontation, just a precise explanation that the medical advice given here is completely incorrect. That does not belong on a user talk page, the OP needs to know that they are being given false medical advice. Saying that something is "absolutely wrong" is clear statement of fact, especially when backed up reliable sources which demonstrate to the OP that some users here are providing false and unreferenced medical advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure you are right, but I usually get white patches and am put on antibiotics when I get throat infections. Those are definitely bacterial. μηδείς (talk) 22:21, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No, it's not me, and this is a good example as to why sources are important. It's the NHS that says that most of the time bronchitis is viral. And when did a throat infection == bronchitis? Your claims, and StuRat's unreferenced ramblings are harmful here as they purport to tell the truth whereas they are nothing like that, just unreferenced anecdotes. Particularly harmful when making claims about medical conditions. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:24, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
μηδείς has a point. Our article on bronchitis says that that the color of the phlegm is no indication. Who writes this rubbish? If the phlegm is yellow or green it indicates a bacterial infection. Not saying that antibiotics are always needed, because I think they are over prescribed but for an older person, not in good health, they might be a life saver. Most people don't go to their doctor with viral bronchitis, because all they have is a bad hacking cough – but they do - when they cough up green phlegm, because it is more severe than the average bad hacking cough. Therefore, most people only know that they have bronchitis when it is bacterial and their doctor diagnosis it as such. So, think Rambling man is just rambling. --Aspro (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TRM likes to draw blood. (And seems not "And when did a throat infection == bronchitis?" to know Greek ([ http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bronchial&allowed_in_frame=0]) My comments are indeed anecdotal, but the last time I had a "sore throat" (this last December) I went to a very nice Polish doctor and asked her to examine me, since I had surgery pending. She said I had bronchitis, and prescribed azithromycin. I asked whether I needed an antibiotic (I avoid them, knowing the problem of their abuse) and she replied it was indeed bacterial. So had I said "bacterial bronchitis" in my earlier post I could have avoided provoking this virulent response. μηδείς (talk) 00:12, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he likes to draw blood, that I suppose makes him a closet phlebotomist. Anyway, I digress... Used to suffer bronchitis every late November, then it suddenly stopped. Maybe, because I was no longer working in a office breathing in other people bugs, or my immunity built up, or I was unconsciously compensating for the lower light levels at that time of year producing less vitamin D. Had a big change in diet starting at that time and began eating properly (because I now had the time to prepare my own food). This happened before I heard that Vit D is suspected of being important in maintaining the immune system. Makes one think though, if it was the latter or a mixture. --Aspro (talk) 01:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aspro far from rambling, I'm actually using reliable sources (e.g. the National Health Service) to refute the incorrect and unreferenced claim made above that bronchitis is caused by bacterial infection. In most cases this is simply not true. It's time the reference desks started taking responsibility for giving out such incorrect medical advice. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's not a matter of "not to know Greek", a quick glance at our own article on Bronchitis tells us that "Bronchitis is inflammation of the bronchi (large and medium-sized airways) in the lungs." and is not a "throat infection". Please refrain from offering incorrect medical advice to readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As you're so keen to quote from the NHS so will I. It mentions sore throat more than once here: NHS Choices, Your health, your choices: Bronchitis. The term is derived from classical Greek used to describe infections such as encephalitis etc. If you had learned classical Greek you will understand that it simply means inflammation of the bronchi (βρόγχος) & -ίτης rather than its cause. As I pointed pointed out above did-I-not, that viral inflammations often don't need treatment so goes undiagnosed. Where am I saying 'most' are bacterial?!! So please don't pontificate. Because the score on reliability so far appears to be μηδείς 3 TRM 0. Oh, and I will throw this one in for free as it may not be RS. [17]. Maybe the etymology could be added to the articles to bring clarity?--Aspro (talk) 16:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your logic. Bronchitis is not a throat infection, its inflammation of the bronchi, we don't need Greek to tell us that. I'm not sure I ever said that you said "most" bronchitis is bacterial, it was Medeis who made the plain statement "Bronchitis is what I dread, but that's bacterial." which is patently untrue. The throwbacks to Greek are all very interesting but are of no use in this discussion, in which false medical information has been presented to the readers on numerous occasions. This isn't about "scoring", it's about failing the reader time after time after time, because so many people fail to use reliable sources and make false statements based on personal or anecdotal information. This is particularly hazardous when relating medical information to our readers. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I've explained this clearly at least twice, if you still don't understand there's not much more I can do. I'm done here, but for a final request, please stop giving our readers unreferenced, incorrect medical advice. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think making a request to here to ensure that incorrect medical advice is not provided to the OP is perfectly acceptable. The OP should know what value to place in the various unreferenced and anecdotal responses here. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, at this point, because you, Baseball Bugs, can't leave well-enough alone, the conversation is inappropriate. Me to, for that matter. But the initial note that TRM left was, is, and will continue to remain appropriate and any further similar notes should be encouraged to let the OP know that a shit answer is a shit answer. The rest of this I am boxing up presently. --Jayron3219:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) No, it is inappropriate to leave incorrect and unreferenced answers uncommented on here, lest the OP actually believe them. We exist to serve the OP, and where a user gives an unreferenced answer, the OP should be told to ignore the answer, and WHY they should ignore the answer. When someone provides an answer which lacks utility, they should expect the answer to be flagged as such directly under the useless answer so the OP knows why it is useless, not buried on some talk page where such warnings of the uselessness of the answer would go unnoticed. Simply put, if you don't want your answer flagged as lacking a source, don't provide answers which lack sources. --Jayron3219:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The right way to respond to Medeis' apparent factual error is, "According to the Bronchitis article, nearly all bronchitis is caused by virus." And that's it. No drama, just facts. Throwing barbs at other users is the wrong way - which is why we had that discussion on the ref desk talk page. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 19:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The OP went on to ask: “ But you build an immunity to that exact bug, right? So how come you don't just get another bug. There are lots of them.” which I don't think has been fully answered. Both cold and influenza virus tend to mutate very slowly (OK there are sometimes exceptions). Once the body has acquired immunity to one virus strain, it can normally cope and adapt to close variants picked up through normal contact. Meaning, that the new virus strain is only present in small quantities, too small to evoke an illness. So the immune system can update itself in small doses. Preventing another cold etc. Working in a germ factory (say a school) overrides the speed that the immune system can update. There are some little bacterial horrids too, like cholera, tenuous, anthrax, botulism etc., that are ubiquitous in our environment but they don't cause problems unless the victim is exposed to too many of these pathogenics at once. --Aspro (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not quite true to say the immunity is to the exact bug. Your immune system "learns" to recognize (by producing an antibody for) a specific antigen on the surface of the virus, and react accordingly (OK, it's a little more complicated than that, but this is just a first-order explanation). So it's possible for the virus to mutate in a way which preserves the antigens your body uses to recognize it, and you would still have immunity to that strain. This was actually the basis for the first vaccine, as smallpox (deadly) and cowpox (inconvenient) share enough common antigens that the immune system can recognize smallpox if it has been previously exposed to cowpox. Therefore, infecting people with cowpox deliberately prevents them from contracting the much worse smallpox infection later. Of course, if the virus mutates to no longer show the same antigens, then your body does not recognize it, and you get a new cold or flu. MChesterMC (talk) 09:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a good way of putting it. The viral RNA may be slightly different from the last virus but immune system recognizes the common protein coat (capsid) on the new virus as not self and attacks it. Or perhaps another way of putting it ( because the way immune system works is very complicated) The foreign protein is not self meaning that the immune system sees it as potential food. This is because it part of the immune systems function to examine all the food stuff particles which permeates through the gut wall and convert it into food for the body. --Aspro (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can food be made to be suitable for both dogs and humans?
I was checking this ad about Rachael Ray's Nutrish Dog Food. It had chicken, rice, fruits and vegetables. This made me think what would happen if a human just prepares a meal with chicken, rice, fruits, and vegetables, cooks it, and then feeds the meal to the dog. Assuming that the dog is treated like a human family member with specific food needs (such as no garlic or salt or sugar), can food be prepared in a way that would be suitable for both human and dog? How much overlap is there between the nutritional requirements of human and dog? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a bit of overlap. But the question is if there is anything vital to one which is deadly to the other. Assuming not, there's still the issue that a dog diet is mostly meat, and that's not the best diet for people. If that's the only issue, you could have dog food plus something extra for the people (more fruits, veggies, onions, beans, nuts, mushrooms, etc). Also note that some foods that might not harm your dog might cause undesirable effects, like beans and onions. StuRat (talk) 02:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am old enough to remember when it was quite common to feed one's pet dog with leftovers from meals. The concept of packaged pet food in its infinite varieties is relatively new. One didn't see too many obese dogs then. Richard Avery (talk) 07:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Cats definitely need Taurine, which is not found in many human foods other than Energy drinks. And I certainly do not recommend giving energy drinks to a pet! (I don't think pets handle Caffeine well). Do dogs need Taurine too?
Also, note that chocolate and onions can both be toxic to dogs. Chocolate is toxic to cats too, but I believe that most cats, unlike dogs, tend to turn their whiskers up when offered chocolate, whilst dogs are more likely to actually eat it. I stand to be corrected.
Also, junk food is bad for dogs too, ok? So skip those sausages and burgers, they tend to be packed with salt and saturated fat. I don't think they're good either for you, or you dog? Eliyohub (talk) 19:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
it's not a case of onions and chocolate can be toxic to dogs, they are both extremely toxic to dogs, as is garlic. Onions and garlic both contain thiosulphate which causes hemolytic anemia, characterized by damage to the red blood cells.[18]Richerman(talk)22:36, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Richerman is correct but it is important to realise it is the type of chocolate which determines whether it is toxic. Several companies have developed chocolate treats for dogs which are not toxic - try a Google search with "chocolate for dogs". DrChrissy(talk)22:48, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Theobromide would be the culprit compound. It's interesting that dogs would like chocolate. Am I correct that most cats don't care for it? I think cats are believed not to be able to taste sweetness? It's not really part of their diet. Am I correct? And are dogs different in this regard?
No, it is not essential in a dog's diet, but it IS essential in a cat's diet. Dogs can synthesise taurine in their own body, but cats can not.[19] However, in some conditions, a dog may require Taurine supplements. DrChrissy(talk)23:10, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cats and sweetness Cats lack the gene for detecting sweetness, so it is rather unlikely they will be attracted to it.[20]. The articles states cats are the only mammals lacking the gene - which I find rather surprising. DrChrissy(talk)23:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cats are obligate carnivores, eating plants only medicinally, while most other carnivorans are predominantly but not exclusively carnivorous. Given this, cats have no need to taste sugar, so their having lost the ability may have happened randomly, but failed to be a disability, so the sweetblindness simply spread since there was no advantage to maintaining the ability. The same phenomenon seems operative in primates. Since primates eat fruits and greens, they have lost the ability to synthesize vitamin C, since their diet is full of it. Humans are the only primates who have moved out of areas and into niches where they have to seek out vitamin C.
Cats and dogs have smaller livers (by body weight) than humans, with less of an ability to deal with alkaloid plant poisons. We would die too from coffee or chocolate if we consumed it in similar quantities by weight and could not metabolize it with our very large livers. μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to reconcile two apparently contradictory pieces of information: (1) Cats regularly get killed by licking up ethylene glycol-containing antifreeze, which they do because it's sweet; (2) cats can't taste sweetness.
I fairly doubt anyone has actually developed chocolate for dogs. As our article says chocolate implies you have cocoa at least cocoa butter for white chocolate. While admittedly cocoa butter doesn't have much theobromine, it's still not generally recommend for dogs.
And in any case, if someone refers to a chocolate treat for dogs, they aren't generally referring to white chocolate but some form of brown chocolate i.e. which should have cocoa solids. And while it's true that if you use minimal solids you won't have that much theobromine so the actually level the dog has to eat may be high enough it's really unlikely to be a problems, you'd really want to breed it out of the cocoa if you really want to give non white-chocolate (i.e. something containing cocoa solids) to dogs.
Much more commonly people sell treats that are like chocolate but aren't. E.g. carob is a common one for dog treats. Other ones like this [21][22] don't really say what they use and I doubt meant people have eaten them so who knows if they even really taste like chocolate.
This isn't simply a matter of semantics. While it's true that some chocolate milks and ice creams etc barely have any cocoa solids, generally speaking chocolate implies cocoa and since it's best to avoid giving anything with cocoa to dogs (and cats), it's far better to stick with treats which are actually clear what they are rather than claiming they are chocolate when in fact it's better if they aren't chocolate.
This also avoids the confusion of people thinking some chocolate is okay for dogs when it's best to think no chocolate is okay for dogs and treats for dogs which are okay simply aren't chocolate. (Whether using carob or some artificial flavours known to be safe dogs.)
I think people may have a slightly exaggerated notion of how toxic chocolate is to dogs. My brother-in-law's small dog once found a hundred bucks worth of See's and had at it. If I understand correctly, he did leave his stomach contents lying around in inconvenient places, but was fine after that.
For God's sake this is supposed to be the science reference desk. It depends on the amount of theobromine consumed per Kg. It is toxic in quite small amounts, >20mg/kg is toxic, 100mg/kg is probably lethal, see [25] and obviously there would be many factors to take into consideration. What was the concentration of theobromine in the chocolate? How much of it stayed in the dog's system and was absorbed rather than being vomited up? What was the long term effect on the dog's health? Richerman(talk)22:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I don't know any of those things. Just the same there is a bit of a panic atmosphere about chocolate that is not really justified. Theobromine has harm potential because it's a stimulant. It has a longer half-life in dogs than in humans, which as I understand it is the main reason it's more dangerous to dogs. Don't go feeding it to your dog on purpose, but if he licks your bowl after you've finished your chocolate ice cream, call the vet if you like; he/she knows better than I do. But my prediction is you'll be told not to worry. --Trovatore (talk) 22:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eliyohub, you obviously glanced at taurine, but stating that it's "not found in many human foods except energy drinks" is completely wrong. It is found in most meat products, including chicken, fish, mammals, etc. Matt Deres (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I worked in a market, one lunchtime a boy on the next stall (who had a reputation as a joker) offered me a tin of luncheon meat. I opened it up and began eating. After a few seconds I spotted the words "dog food" on the label and that was the end of the meal. 86.169.56.176 (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Did it taste bad? I mean, worse than canned meat ordinarily tastes? I'm thinking, if it won't hurt the dog, it probably won't hurt you either. --Trovatore (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Getting back to the OP's question, yes, you can feed chicken to dogs (and cats), however, it is highly recommended that you do not give them cooked bones.[26] Cooked bones have a tendency to splinter and may perforate the gut. DrChrissy(talk)21:18, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of interest to OP may be Yaff bars. They are an energy bar that is safe for both humans and dogs. They're made by Mudd and Wyeth. I'd link to their web site but it doesn't seem to load correctly for me. They're predominantly made as a snack during hikes and such. Not as a major nutritional staple.
Why don't they make non-hybrids with 2 or 4 internal combustion engines?
Each driving half or 25% of the wheels and a computer doing everything the mechanical linkages like differentials used to do. Smaller engines have higher power to weight ratios. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:56, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure that smaller internal combustion engines are more efficient, including all the connection lines and hoses for spark plugs, fuel lines, air supply, cooling, controls, etc ? I don't think of small gasoline engines, like lawn mower engines, as being very efficient. Small electrical engines, on the other hand, do seem efficient, so having one drive each wheel does seem like a viable option. StuRat (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I speculate that IC engines are not responsive enough to support sufficiently precise control of torque and RPM to eliminate the differential. In addition, an IC engine is efficient over only a small range of RPM, so the engines will all require gearboxes, and this negates most of the potential gains. By contrast, electric motors are quite responsive and do not need to shift gears to maintain efficiency. -Arch dude (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would waste energy. Only a fraction of the energy consumed by an automobile's internal combustion engine actually goes to the wheels. See: File:Energy flows in car.svg, [27], [28]. If you have two engines, now you're wasting twice the energy. Actually it's even worse than that, because you have the added weight of the extra engines, plus you would need to design the cooling systems, drivetrain, etc. to accommodate the multiple engines, which adds even more weight (not to mention more stuff that can break). Electric motors are a lot lighter, more efficient, and generally provide much better torque than an ICE; that's why multiple electric motors can make sense. Compare this breakdown of electric vehicle losses to what I linked before. --47.138.161.183 (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If they do this anywhere, certainly it will be with those mining trucks that have tires the size of houses. I'm no expert, but I'd look there, for the same reason that large dinosaurs often had secondary ganglia to handle impulses too far from the brain. μηδείς (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As OP didn't say this is about road vehicles, what about diesel-hydraulic multiple units? Every car (or maybe 2 out of 4 cars) has its own diesel engine to power the axles of that car, as it's not feasible to have mechanical power transmission from one car to another. Diesel-electric multiple units may use a single engine with electrical transmission to other cars, or multiple engines for reliability or space considerations: multiple small engines can be put under the floor, a single big one needs an engine compartment. Although a single big engine is somewhat more efficient. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is difficult to arrange, but has been done. Mostly it's an issue for petrol engines. Petrol engines are throttled to control their power, so they are inefficient at part-throttle. The situation is much better for diesel engines, which are controlled by their fuel supply.
A few vehicles, mostly larger ones, have used multiple prime movers, switchable individually. Larger ones have more fuel to save, more scope for the "overhead" of the switching and may need multiple power units anyway, just on the size basis. On railways the British Rail Class 55 Deltic (diesel-electric) could do this, as could the diesel-hydraulic Class 52 Westerns, both with two engines. The Deltic could drive all of its traction motors in such a case, the Western only drove a single bogie. On ships, an electric transmission is often used to arrange this control from multiple engine-generator units.
The claim that "petrol engines... are inefficient at part-throttle" seems very odd in view of the standard advice that using the highest possible gear for the circumstances—thus, throttling the engine down as much as possible—produces the greatest fuel economy when driving a car. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 11:53, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(1) The linked article does say that, but it also says "citation needed". (2) If it's at a low rpm, it's not near full throttle. Full throttle refers to the condition when it's throttled as little as possible, developing maximum power. (3) By the way, please link to Wikipedia articles using wikilinks rather than external links. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
using the highest possible gear for the circumstances—thus, throttling the engine down as much as possible: incorrect, that is the other way around. At constant vehicle speed, a higher gear will use a lower engine speed and higher engine load, hence less throttling (generally speaking). Engine noise which "tells" you to switch to an upper gear is related to engine rotation, not torque. TigraanClick here to contact me15:03, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may be a vocabulary confusion. "Full throttle" refers to the throttle setting and corresponds to maximum power. "Throttling" refers to the throttle's action, which is to reduce power by restricting the supply of fuel and air, so there is less (not more) throttling at full throttle. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 05:02, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that by "near full throttle" I meant near maximum power i.e foot down, "pedal to the metal" (which is quite different from "throttled down"). That understanding should have been obvious from the context, except apparently to IP user 76.71.6.254. That IP user might usefully register and thereafter try to supply referenced answers instead of treating this desk as a forum for belittling other posts. Blooteuth (talk) 18:56, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That (and the point above) are a separate approach to a separate problem, that of matching rotation speeds. There is still an underlying problem, which is that some engine types (petrol rather than diesel, but especially gas turbines) have efficiency at part load that's much worse than their best efficiency at optimum load. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Biology shows that the most efficient engines are of molecular size, you can then extract a large fraction of the maximum possible work which is the difference in the Gibbs energy of the fuel and its combustion products. If larger engines were more efficient then after hundreds of millions years of evolution, animals with large combustion chambers would have evolved. Count Iblis (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The last point is a non-sequitur. Not all "perfect" solutions can evolve, since there are physical impossibilities or the intermediate steps don't work. Otherwise we'd have animals with wheels instead of hooves, of course. μηδείς (talk) 20:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lithium-ion batteries exploding from a short-circuit
I asked an earlier question about the hazards of Lithium and Lithium-ion batteries. They're far more dangerous than I had ever thought. Particularly given the difficulty of extinguishing them, given that oxygen starvation does not work very well, if at all.
My question is, how much power would a lithium-ion battery need to be holding, to explode or catch fire purely from being short circuited? I'm talking about a continuous short-circuit, not a momentary one. Is this something measurable? Have any studies or estimates been done? What would be the calculations? I aint doing any actual lab tests of this myself, thank you! (I don't want to need to be calling a HAZMAT team!) Is there any "formula" for calculating this? Is there a specific temperature at which a lithium-ion battery self-ignites? And can the rate of heating from a short-circuit be calculated, if you know the battery size and power, and how much charge it holds? Would heat loss (insulation, ventilation, or lack thereof) also come into the picture? As this is a known hazard of modern batteries, I assume studies and calculations would have been done on this? Eliyohub (talk) 19:26, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great question, but I'm not sure how much can be answered in the general case: each battery vendor, each mechanical packaging process, each chemistry, has different parameters for thermal coefficients, energy density, peak theoretical discharge rate, and so on. It's a lot easier to answer a related question: what standard model(s) and equation(s) do battery engineers use in their design? Then we could apply those standard models to a specific case. Unfortunately, "I don't know"... but I can look around and see if I can find a good resource to get the interested readers started in the right direction.
I did find this product safety data sheet from major battery-retailer Energizer. It refers you to contact your sales-representative for further technical documentation - which isn't a straightforward path for the casual non-industrial researcher! The batteries in your standard modern electronic toy aren't even likely made by them or their affiliates - your average toy contains a batter that's probably made by some unnamed third-party vendor by way of some further-anonymized wholesaling vendor via some contract manufacturer - it's quite difficult for an end-product consumer of a retail electronic device to follow the supply chain upstream and get real technical information on the parts they have in hand!
We also need to distinguish between simple cells and complete electronic products. Simple cells are extraordinarily dangerous - they are basic bags of raw chemical. Batteries that you find in most finished-product retail-quality batteries - even in all their various standard and non-standard shapes - usually also contain a built-in battery management system and protection circuitry. You can short the package terminals together, but the safety-circuit prevents you from short-circuiting the actual battery cells. This is called overcurrent protection and a zillion standard methods exist to implement it. We can find whole books analyzing the design and practice of such circuitry - and with enough analysis, we could also consider failure-modes of the protection circuit, including circumvention of the protection by inducing external mechanical, electrical, and thermal damage.
These sources look like they could be of interest [30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37]. You'll probably find more by following the various links (I actually found the 3 after the 1st from what were 'recommended'. I didn't read them that well but a quick look at the first suggests they found a full charged (to 4.2V or higher) LIP with 260 mAh or higher capacity was at risk of thermal runaway. You'd note that several of these deal with internal shorts. This is probably because, as the last refs somewhat emphasise and mentioned by Nimur, most finished products have protection against external shorts. Even many simple loose 18650 cells that people sometimes use for torches etc often come with simple protection (generally for short circuits, over discharge and over charging), although this isn't to suggest there aren't also a lot of unprotected ones too (they are used by people reconstructing battery packs for example). Nil Einne (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I question the OP's terminology, i.e., "How much power.." A more reasonable question in this case is "How much energy..." Power is not the same as energy. Edison (talk) 02:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
March 27
Are there places with invasive species(es) that like its climate better than anywhere in their native range?
Are there any such species from continents instead of islands (which often have endemic clades that can't leave if a land bridge closes then climate goes downhill (end of the last ice age maybe?)) Of course they might also evolve to be weak against thing(s) they're now sheltered from (like losing fear of predators) and do even worse on the mainland even if the climate suits them better. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Invasive species normally do better in their new environment due to a lack of predators, competitors and diseases or parasites that keep them under control in their native environment. I am unaware of any invasive species that are said to do better in a new climate, since most species already occupy most of the climate and environmental range they can tolerate (and where they are not excluded by competitors). The Gypsy moth became a widely problematic invasive pest in the Eastern US. It was controlled by spraying of Bacillus thuringiensis, a natural parasite of the moth imported from its native Eurasia. μηδείς (talk) 20:45, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OR alert I'm not sure if the question relates to introduced species, but if it does, I wonder whether the Cane toad in Australia is a candidate. DrChrissy(talk)21:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hedgehogs in New Zealand. Kudzu and wisteria across North America. Rabbits in Australia. The "invasive" part of invasive species implies that the species does too well in the new environment. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 22:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on what branch of engineering. Project management is very sensitive to trends and fashion, but these aren't consistent across disciplines. If the engineer went somewhere that gave them experience of a narrow skill they would find useful in the future, and whichever discipline that was, then this would be valuable. But production line management, or software project management, would help far less if they went into civil engineering. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the local fashions, but that sounds worthwhile. Often it's about the size of budget - projects with similar budgets share similar approaches and the experience is transferrable. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually just the definition of the center of mass (for discrete masses). There's no way to prove something that is defined without using the definition itself, which is circular. - Lindert (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can't prove the definition, but you can prove that it is useful. Using ordinary mathematics, you can prove that the center of mass formulation can be made to appear in calculations of the effects of gravity or torque on a system of rigidly connected masses, simply based on first principles. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) I agree you can't prove it, since it's the definition of center of mass. But - depending on why you want to "prove" it, and how rigorous you need to be - if you accept it's true for 2 masses, you can convince yourself it's true for 3 masses, m1, m2, and m3, by using (a) the center of mass for masses m1 and m2 as a first term of a new equation, and (b) mass m3 as the second term of that equation, and then substituting. This can be extended as often as needed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:08, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How close are nerves to the skin?
I have a mole on my ankle that a doctor wants to remove, I know from previous ankle surgery stories that the sural nerve is close by and that if it is jabbed by the needle from the numbing injection or the scapel it will cause nerve damage. I am wondering how close to the skin the sural nerve is. --Sara203040 (talk) 20:54, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can an apartment building grow enough food to feed its tenants?
I recently watched a YouTube video about a plant lady whose apartment was covered with plants. She always bought soil, pots, and new plants and filled her apartment with plants until it became like a forest. Sometimes, she played music for her plants and talked to her plants. Extrapolating this story to all apartment dwellers, if each apartment dweller were to fill each liveable apartment with native, edible plants and make the flat roof of the apartment a garden of flora and fauna, is it possible to feed every tenant in the apartment building? How much space (horizontal and vertical) is needed to grow food (plants and animals and maybe some edible mushrooms growing nearby on top of dead organic matter) in order to feed one human per year? How much time and manpower are needed to invest in subsistence farming? And what to do about crop protection from bugs and vertebrate animals? 50.4.236.254 (talk) 00:37, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on what answer you want. Examples: John Jeavons studied how much land would be required to support a single vegetarian back in the 70s. His research settled on 4,000 square feet of farm land and another 4,000 square feet of supporting land (walking paths, storage, etc...). A more recent study from Colorado State University claims only 100 square feet is required and makes no assumptions about supporting land. Because there is no consensus about the amount of land required, and the ranges you will find go from a single room to a city block, you can get any and every answer you like and it will be supported by someone. 71.85.51.150 (talk) 00:53, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Abdominal pain discusses the causes of abdominal pain, but not the origins of the pain itself. When something happens in your stomach or your intestines that leads to abdominal pain (e.g. you ate bad food, and you're about to have a sudden loose bowel movement, respectively), how does the pain get produced? Do we have a lot of pain-sensing nerves in both places? I suppose I might be able to find this kind of thing with a Google search or a scholarly-journal search if I knew the terminology, but with my layman's understanding, all I'm finding is the websites that discuss conditions that can cause pain, not the mechanism by which the sense of pain arises when those conditions exist. Of course, I understand that cancer can cause pain if a mass is pushing up against a nerve; I'm thinking of situations when the underlying cause is an ordinary minor illness or not an illness at all, when the contents of the food canal are the only issue. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
