Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2009 October 26

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.

October 26

Does acid hydration work with enones?

If so, what caveats should be issued? Now the alkene bond has a polarity -- right? What does that mean for how Markovnikov's rule is applied, etc.? John Riemann Soong (talk) 00:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Markovnikov's rule is a load of crap, a crutch (albeit a convenient one) to teach one basic pattern of reactivity. It is never the "cause" to be applied, but only an observed way certain reactions go. Consider why they go that way...look for carbocation stability. DMacks (talk) 03:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well yeah I know about carbocation stability. (I use Markovnikovity as an indicator of "default thinking".) Basically, the alkene bond is now polarised, isn't it? Enones are Michael acceptors? So H might want to add to the nucleophilic carbon? (Which also happens to be an alpha carbon?) Is it enough to drive the reaction to be anti-Markovnikov, if the reaction occurs at all? John Riemann Soong (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"α to carbonyl (Cδ )" is usually more electronically significant than most 1°/2°/3° alkyl carbocation effects. Googling for "hydration of acrolein" says that 3-hydroxy is the product. DMacks (talk) 04:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to know about hydrogenation of conjugated pi systems. Will LiAlH4 react with conjugated systems, but not sodium borohydride? John Riemann Soong (talk) 04:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

short snooze hunched over, always wake up with tremendous amounts of gas in my stomach

Preface - if directly answering the following breaks the No Medical Advice rule, I'd appreciate someone instead directing me to the most appropriate anatomy page on Wikipedia.

For as long as I can remember, if I fall asleep hunched over - say at a desk or low table - when I wake up I have a tremendous amount of gas in my stomach. I'm talking like an almost immediate 4 or 5 second sustained belch. I've often wondered at the physical processes at work here. Given my posture, I suspect there's some sort of relaxing of the throat? Or contortion of a sort that alters the position of that flappy thing (the name escapes me at the moment) which controls trachea vs esophagus entry? But even if the entry to the esophagus is partly ajar while I slowly respire, what draws such a large amount of gas into my stomach? 218.25.32.210 (talk) 01:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The flappy thing is your epiglottis. And I'm like you in that if I fall asleep with my head on my desk, I have a long "exhalation" of gas from my stomach too. Dismas|^(talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Girls born first

How come it is usually girls born first, then boys born second?--Mikespedia (talk) 06:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It isn't. The sex ratios of first borns is not particularly different from that of subsequent children. Some studies have found a very slight female bias, but its marginal and still near 50:50. Rockpocket 07:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be so in certain families because of random chance - just like the family I heard about on Paul harvey's news back in the 1990s or so where one brance hadn't had a girl born in a century or more. But, if that's what you're seeintg, it would be observational bias; a normal condition where you expect to see things one way becuase that's how they may be in each situation you've experenced.209.244.187.155 (talk) 12:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

etiquette Gzuckier (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It might also be associated with a the weight of their father at the time of inception.--yousaf465 08:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

plant viruses.

what is the mechanisum of viruses to infect a plant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.144.162 (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article, amazingly enough, called Plant virus. That should answer your question at a superficial level, if you have more detailed questions, do come back. Rockpocket 06:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Jones oxidation to COOH

I read that Jones oxidation will oxidise aldehydes to COOH by relying on a geminal diol intermediate (hydration of the aldehyde). The problem I have with this is that some aldehydes might not be very hydratable, even at catalytic level, and also, isn't the alcohol more acidic than an C-H proton? (I'm looking at http://www.organic-chemistry.org/namedreactions/jones-oxidation.shtm). Basically, wouldn't the chromate possibly complex to both alcohol groups, thereby becoming "stuck" most of the time? John Riemann Soong (talk) 07:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Some aldehydes are indeed not very hydratable, which makes them not easily oxidized under these conditions. Maybe that's why your ref notes "The oxidation of primary allylic and benzylic alcohols gives aldehydes."? The alcohol is much more acidic than a C-H, but that is already covered in the mechanism: the OH does react first, and only later does the C-H get removed. And your ref even illustrates it as a cyclic mechanism, so it is not literally "C-H acting as an H donor". But if it were (and some refs list an acyclic mechanism in which an external Lewis base removes that H ), Cr(VI) is very electrophilic, which makes it an excellent leaving group in a simple E2 mechanistic sense. Having a Cr atom complex both O at the same time is unlikely: 4-membered ring. But even if it did happen, it would still not prohibit an elimination mechanism leading to a carbonyl with loss of Cr off one of the O (would leave it on the other O, as some sort of a carboxylate/chromite mixed anhydride). DMacks (talk) 07:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In theory

What is the largest ball of absolutely pure iron that can be formed and at that point or beyond what would happen if more iron were added? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 08:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe that at a critical mass the ball would collapse into a neutron star. It seems that before that however, it would tend towards pure Iron-56. Jkasd 08:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case would it begin to spew protons and electrons into space or form more neutrons from them? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 09:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

According to Degenerate matter#Neutron degeneracy, the protons and electrons form into neutrons through electron capture, although some "normal" nuclei may be present near the surface of a neutron star, including iron nuclei according to Neutron star#Structure. Jkasd 09:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So the conversion would follow a normal decay path from an atom of iron back through the lighter elements overcoming the stable isotopes back finally to a bunch of neutrons? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 10:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The neutron star#Structure says that heavier and heavier more neutron rich isotopes form, and a point is reached where neutrons drip from the nuclei. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating semi-related trivia: at one point geologists thought it possible that the inner core of the Earth consisted of a single crystal of iron a bit smaller than the Moon. --Sean 14:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) A large enough ball of iron, if created on Earth, would almost certainly (I haven't calculated this) break through the lithosphere and plunge towards the center of the Earth before it turned into a neutron star. Also, I wouldn't imagine that you could get more than a very small amount of "absolutely pure" iron without having some impurities. Awickert (talk) 02:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Titan or Mars

Is it possible to place Titan or Mars into a solar orbit within the Habitable zone 180 degrees from the position of Earth? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 08:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that any one of the five Lagrange points would do nicely, if you could figure out how to move such a large object. Perhaps with a gravitational tractor? Also see Counter-Earth. Jkasd 09:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking perhaps more in line with the idea of a lot of rocket motors on one side of the planet. 09:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.9.185 (talk)

Well both ways would take a long time to complete and enormous amounts of energy. Of course, there's also methods that push the boundaries of physics such as worm holes or something from the Breakthrough_Propulsion_Physics_Program. Jkasd 09:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Also keep in mind that both Mars and Titan are rotating, so the "one side" of the planet the rockets are on is always changing. Although this website is intended to be humorous and not technically accurate, it might lead insight into the enormous difficulty of moving a planet (or moon). Jkasd 10:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

only two of the lagrange points are stable. Gzuckier (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

L3 is unstable. Just a small deviation from the exact position (which would be inevitable) would result in it moving away from the point. There would be a good chance of it colliding with the Earth. That means you would need active station keeping, which would be just very difficult for the same reasons moving it in the first place would be difficult. Even if you could overcome that, there is another problem - Titan and Mars are much smaller than Earth. The ability of a planet or moon to hold into an atmosphere depends on its mass (more gravity means more atmosphere, fairly obviously) and its temperature (hotter gas moves faster and is therefore harder to hold on to). Mars might be able to hold onto a reasonable atmosphere (if you could find a way to give it one) for a long time on human timescales (it would probably escape on geological timescales) but Titan probably couldn't. Titan is less than twice the mass of our Moon and our Moon doesn't have any atmosphere at all (apart from a little outgassing, I guess) at the same distance from the Sun as you would be moving Titan to. (This is also a problem for the idea that we could all move the Titan when the Sun turns into a red giant - while it might be a nice temperature by then, it wouldn't have an atmosphere.) --Tango (talk) 13:25, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mars is already in the habitable zone. If it had a nice blanket of atmosphere - preferably with some CO2 or methane to help trap the sunlight - then it would be a pretty habitable place. Even without that - the equatorial temperatures vary between about −40°C and −5°C - that's warmer than a lot of inhabited places here on earth. In Alaska, for example, winter temperatures go well below −50°C. The problem is entirely one of atmosphere - not distance from the sun. Water vapor makes a good greenhouse gas - perhaps one could extract water from wherever it's currently hidden and inject it into the upper atmosphere. SteveBaker (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We have an article: Terraforming of Mars. There are many suggestions for how to produce the necessary atmosphere and warm it up (the two go hand in hand, as you say). Mars is probably too small to hold on to its atmosphere for geological timescales (it seems it used to have one and already lost it) but if we can get the atmosphere there it should last long enough to be useful to us. We should be able to do some low level replenishing, although doing so on a large scale after colonisation might be difficult if we want to use one of the more violent techniques (bombarding the polar caps with asteroids, for example). --Tango (talk) 14:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong interaction and distance

The article Strong interaction states "The strong force acting between quarks, unlike other forces, does not diminish in strength with increasing distance, after a limit (about the size of a hadron) has been reached. It remains at a strength of about 100 000 newtons, no matter how far away from each other the particles are, after this limiting distance has been reached." This threw me for a loop. There is a force that does not diminish with distance?!? Could someone explain why the strong force doesn't diminish in strength beyond that distance? I can understand complicated answers but don't have a background in quantum physics. Wikilinks to related concepts in your explanation would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. 152.16.16.75 (talk) 09:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The color confinement article contains a brief (and no doubt hugely over-simplified) explanation. In short, the particles that carry the strong force (called gluons) also have a colour charge themselves. So if two quarks are separated, the gluons that are exchanged between them to create the strong force interact amongst themselves, creating more and more gluons, which tend to be attracted to one another. This creates a force field which is concentrated into narrow tubes, and so the force does not diminish with distance. By contrast, photons, which carry the electromagnetic force, do not have an electric charge, so (a) the photons exchanged between two particles with electric charge do not spontaneously create more photons and (b) these photons are evenly distributed in all directions, so the electromagnetic force between the particles decreases with the square of distance. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The Meissner effect is related. Superconductors prefer to exclude magnetic fields. However, if you put a magnetic monopole (ignore the fact that they don't exist, the important thing is that the mathematics works) inside a superconductor, Gauss's law implies that the magnetic field has to escape to the outside, so it can't be completely excluded. What happens is that the field passes through the superconductor in a narrow "flux tube", so that it's excluded from as much of the superconductor as possible. If you put two opposite magnetic monopoles inside a superconductor, they will be connected by a constant-width flux tube like the ones in this picture. The energy of the tube, obtained by integrating a function of the field over all space, increases linearly with the length of the tube. Therefore (because force is minus the gradient of the potential) there is a constant force between the particles that's independent of distance. -- BenRG (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

sure. anything that's directional doesn't diminish with distance. even a laser pointer. Gzuckier (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A minor quibble — a laser pointer's (or any laser's) beam does diverge, just very gradually. If you take some reasonably careful measurements over an extended distance, you'll find that the beam width increases steadily as you move away from the source. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

over population control

Could doctors without our permission or knowledge splice GMO's capable of rendering us sterile until we paid the government a large fee for a deactivator spray to have children or as a means to create a "master" race? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No. Dbfirs 10:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Why not knowing how Monsanto handled farmers over GMO flax, soybeans, corn and peanuts? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 10:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

One of the skills embodied in scientific skepticism is assessing ideas like this one, to find a reasoned position as to whether the idea is more likely to be sound or unsound. One example of an unsound idea is the conspiracy theory. Conspiracy theories sometimes can be shown to be unsound because they rely on large, disparate groups of people all acting in concert to hide vital information and promote unethical behaviour. Individuals, and even small groups, often act unethically but the larger the group the less likely it is that every member of that group will conform to the group agenda. The larger the group the more likely it is that some of them will rebel, break ranks, talk to the media etc.

In the question above it is proposed that a large group of professionals ("doctors") would know about the use of GMOs capable of rendering a population sterile for monetary purposes, but that the population would not know about it because not one member of that large group would spill the beans, talk to the media, whisper to friends and family members, challenge the group's leaders etc. Sounds to me like a classic conspiracy theory.

I recommend that everyone develops at least a little skill in scientific skepticism. Dolphin51 (talk) 11:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

All countries have secrets, which they keep secret by common bond, indoctrination and having a realistic and agreed upon goal. The potential benefit offered by GMO as opposed to possible opposition based on tampering with God or His creation beyond what God approved (see Genesis 1:28-30). Monsanto may not be put out of business by the NON-GMO project just yet but I ask why does the NON-GMO even exist if what you are saying is universally applicable? Their are evil people and groups in the would capable of hiding behind medicine or food which led me to ask the question. I think your answer a bit naive. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Could they ? Perhaps, although probably not with current technology and knowledge (and, in any case, the public water supply would be a much more effective means of distribution). Would they ? No - not because of any ethical scruples, but because it would be economic and political suicide. Monsanto, like any commercial company, have economic incentives to exploit their market as much as they can get away with. A country that introduced non-voluntary reversible sterilisation of all of its citizens would see its economy collapse immediately. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ever hear about the fog that jumped out of the boiling pot of water while his companion fell asleep in the ever increasing temp of the water in the pot he was in? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we have an article on it, actually. But hey, if you're convinced it's likely, don't let us dissuade you. But you're probably not going to convince us here. It sounds very science fiction and far-fetched for a number of reasons. It presupposes much closer cooperation between the government and large biotech companies than exists, where both would mutually be willing to let the other one take on activities of such risk that they could kill millions and lead to political revolution. This is rather improbable. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 12:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

71.100, please do not ask a question only so you can debate the point or try to convince others of your views. This is not what this place is for. —Akrabbim^talk 12:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article on boiling frogs has a wonderful line in it : "German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated that a frog that has had its brain removed will remain in slowly heated water, but his intact frogs attempted to escape the water".APL (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

71.100 needs to learn some "Critical thinking" skills. Before you open your mouth and start talking - stop and think for yourself for a moment about the likely problems with the idea. Such as:

• What could possibly be offered to doctors (who are a normally caring section of our population who have sworn the hippocratic oath) to do such a heinous thing?
• Is it possible that not even a small minority of doctors would go to the media and publicise the story - citing as proof the GMO 'injection' process and materials provided to them to do the work?
• How could you cover up the massive manufacturing processes necessary to prepare all of the treatments?
• How would you get every adult member of the population to submit to the treatment without their knowledge?
• Why on earth would the government want to engender open revolution by doing this? Can you imagine how long the government would survive if they did that?
• Who is the "the government" anyway? They are a bunch of relatively sane individuals - not some secret organization.
• Even if they were conspiring in this bizarre way - can you imagine that none of them would think "Hmm - if I go to the press with this - all of the other government people who are pushing the idea will go to jail - and I'll be able to step into the power vacuum thus formed and take over the country!"
• When the people find out - and maybe get the magic spray - what happens next? They go back to being normal people - or they storm the government buildings and bloodily murder every single one of them?

Really - can we please try to stick to relatively sane questions here on the Ref Desk? Thanks. SteveBaker (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Its Monday morning. I don't want to ruin the week by starting an argument. Let me just say this: GMO has enough unknowns to put us at risk. This makes suspicious the government refusal to require GMO products be labeled as such. On top of that the government requires in its place certification to label non-gmo, organically grown crops. That simply does not make sense for a government run by the people instead of Monsanto to do. Have a great week.

71.100.9.185 (talk) 13:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

:::Nope, it's not spoiling my week. It would take more than a half-baked, unworkable conspiracy theory to do that! Richard Avery (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The US government's position on this is pretty straightforward. They place the question of regulation on the end products, not the method of producing them. That means GMO corn is treated just like regular corn. Now, we can disagree with this, and in fact many do, but there is no conspiracy theory there. It's explicitly meant to be something that will encourage innovation in new techniques of development, with the goal of making "GMO" a separate regulatory category. Now a lot of (non-conspiracy theory) people think this is not a great regulatory approach. But it isn't because there is a secret cabal to sterilize people. It's of note that as of yet there is zero evidence that GMO corn affects people differently than "regular" corn (that is, corn that was genetically modified by artificial selection over hundreds of years—the "regular" corn isn't "natural" in the sense of "not modified by humans). Now, maybe, you say, they should take a more precautionary approach to unknown risks (like Europe has). That's well and good.... but is not the same thing as "the government has decided that Monsanto should run the country, and will sterilize us." Do you see the leap into crazy-territory here? Jumping from "something is regulated in a way to favor industry" to "industry is evil and wants to enslave us all"? Anyway, I do think this question is about done—you don't seem to have a genuine question, just a viewpoint that you are unhappy we do not agree with. That's not what we're here for, sorry. If you would like to find a forum of people who agree with you, there are plenty of those out there, though you will note that they will also probably agree with anything, no matter how crazy, as long as it involves evil companies and evil governments. Such is not the way of critical thinking. Monsanto wants to make profits. That doesn't mean they'll always do the right thing, at all. But it does mean that they'll probably only do things that will increase their profits. Does sterilizing the world increase their profits? Not really, and it entails huge risks. If I were the CEO of Monsanto, that is not how I would try to pay for my yacht. There are plenty of easier ways to make a dollar. --98.217.71.237 (talk) 14:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez.. I was hoping I could withdraw the question instead of making it part of Halloween. First of all I resent being turned into a guinea pig. It took 20 years for the link between lung cancer and smoking to be statistically exposed. (see [1])Even then the tobacco companies fought it tooth and nail. I don't care if the CO2 in the air that ended up in the product was produced by GMO. What I do care about is that we have accurate statistics to determine if there is a link early on. By failing to require labeling and there through be able to maintain a paper trail what good is being a ginny pig going to do any of us. You may not care if you have the right and the data to decide if you are a guinea pig or not but the rest of us do. Besides you can always pay for your yacht by doing what DATEK did. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

So now you're changing your argument from "Monsanto is trying to sterilize us" to "GM food might be unsafe and not enough data exists to ensure it's safe"? Just to be clear. I think you'd have an easier time convincing anyone of the latter than the former. However, in the original vein, there was a policy in many industrial countries of sterilizing people deemed mentally handicapped, and this went on until the not so distant past in the full "light of day". See eugenics and Sexual Sterilization Act of Alberta. TastyCakes (talk) 15:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the original question was out of curiosity as to the ultimate implication of the failure of the government to require GMO's be labeled. That question is based on the implication that there is good enough reason to require labeling for tracking. Its also the argument for legalization of at least Mary Jane. At this point though you know the issues and can takes sides for yourself. Income from GMO's you will no doubt side with Monsanto justlike income from cigarettes. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 15:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. The original question was about doctors and the government imposing birth control on the population. It was not about some over-generalized possibility of risk due to GMO study and usage. You cannot simply rationalize your question to mean something completely different from what is printed right there on the screen. -- kainaw™ 17:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Then you resent life. Nothing in the universe is known. It's only in recent times that people have lived long enough that the sort of chronic diseases you're worried about were even an issue, so even "traditional" foods that have never hurt anybody are suspect.

Example: People have been grilling food over open fire since we were still hunting woolly mammoths. It's now known that preparing food (meat or vegetable) in that way represents a small, but measurable, cancer risk.

Perhaps there were cavemen who were worried about this issue and were angry that the tribal chief was using this unproven technology to cook their food, and if they were alive today, I suppose they could claim to be vindicated. But, personally, I like to imagine that they were all eaten by saber-toothed tigers. APL (talk) 15:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I think GMO's should go through strict health tests like drugs, doing silly things like moving a peanut gene into wheat could cause untold harm. Over thousands of years people have adapted to things like drinking milk but it's better nowadays to eliminate a problem before it gets to survival of the fittest. But overall I'm on the baddy side as far as you're concerned. I approve of Wikipedia letting terrorists send messages to each other via coded messages that look like vandalism on Wikipedia so we can study their interactions, oops silly me let the cat out of the bag. Nope there almost certainly is a couple of spooks here but by far the vast majority of the editors are just straightforward guys or gals or whatever. Dmcq (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't read the original question or any of the answers, but whatever the subject, the answer to "What could possibly be offered to doctors (who are a normally caring section of our population who have sworn the hippocratic oath) to do such a heinous thing?" is money, and lots of it. 92.230.70.133 (talk) 17:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Some people will do absolutely anything inluding the selling of their soul for money and I think that there are circles of virtually unlimited wealth that have made seeing what they can get such people to do a very interesting game. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

then my question is, if a million years of eating berries and pigs has not put any berry or pig genes into our genetics, how are we going to acquire a gene from a GMO by eating it? and if that were possible, wouldn't we then have cures for a zillion genetic diseases by putting the correct gene into a GMO carrot and feeding it to the afflicted? Gzuckier (talk) 19:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Before we knew that scurvy was a vitamin C deficiency or that certain plants or animal skin contained enough vitamin C to prevent scurvy we did not include such food as part of our sea rations and so we got sick and died. We know that there are a great number of compounds in natural foods but so far their importance is not recognized. What GMO is saying is the heck with these compounds and that all we really need is what we already know like we can GMO corn to maximize starch production to make HFCS which as it turns out is killing us by making us fat. Some GMO is used to produce insecticide for a more abundant yield. In small amounts it might not harm us but maybe a cosmic ray will GMO the GMO and thereafter even smelling the flower bud will kill you. But this is not what the original question addresses. The original question is addressing whether or not we could be injected along with our next flu shot a GMO that would cause us to become reversibly sterile meaning that without the state‘s physical approval we could not reproduce and the ultimate direction of the state deciding not on the basis of overpopulation but on the basis of the concept of creating a superior race. The answer seems to be that money will buy anything including the nurse and everything that came before her injection of the shot. ~Happy Halloween. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 20:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

But there you go - not thinking critically again. Where does this money come from? To apply some kind of treatment to 600 million Americans (for example) would take tens of thousands of doctors. You'd probably have to give them each at least a million dollars each to push past their ethical boundaries - so somehow you have to hide many billions of dollars of expenditure. Then, won't someone notice that suddenly all of the doctors are suddenly and mysteriously a lot richer? Are you sure that you could spend enough money to have 100% of all doctors sell their souls for cash? After all, if just a few percent of them either didn't need the money or stuck to their moral principles, there would be literally thousands of doctors going to the media and saying that the government tried to bribe them to do this terrible thing - that would be very tough to cover up! Won't the IRS want to know where all of this money came from? If they are a part of the conspiracy then you have to pull in thousands more accoountants, tax appraisers and bankers and all sorts of other people. What about the families of these suddenly rich people? Don't they want to know how there is suddenly a million dollars in their bank account? How do you stop them from blabbing to the press? More money? By the time you're done fixing all of the possible 'leaks', I'd guess that maybe 20% of the US population (doctors, doctors assistants, accountants, IRS people, bank tellers, wives, ex-wives, grown up children and close friends of those people, etc, etc) have had to be bribed to keep their mouths shut! Now you're into the tens of trillions or hundreds of trillions of dollars! The effect on inflation alone would be noticable around the world.

If you think this is even remotely possible - then you simply cannot have thought through all of the steps along the way. In short - like most conspiracy theorists - your critical thinking skills are broken. So - like I said - stop and think carefully before you talk. Critical thinking requires you to say "What could possibly go wrong with what I'm about to suggest". Most conspiracy nuts go the other way and merely think about all of the things that might seem to confirm what they are saying. Until you learn to analyse these kinds of situation critically you'll simply fill your head with complete crap. SteveBaker (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You have a good point Steve but that is not really how the thing works. Only the vaccine maker is privy to the knowledge along with a selected other few. In other words it is secret. Under guise of manufactured sterilization you go to a specialist to seek help for your apparent sterility and he tell you there is fertility treatment available. How many kids do you want. Only the manufactures and the government are privy to the fact that the cause and effect are not natural but manufactured. Only certain persons get paid off not everyone in the whole chain. This is were secrecy is critical. It saves a ton of cash. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can give you a good deal on the deactivator spray right now. Cuddlyable3 ([[User talk:Cuddlyable3|talk]]) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay. What's her name? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 10:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the vast majority of doctors who _weren't_ in on the scheme would notice the correlation between loss of fertility and the new "vaccine", especially if it was as effective as you describe. And the eugenicists would have to arrange that only those suitable to breed the master race got the effective antidote - how would they do that, without having every doctor and pharmacist on board? But, this is a sensible approach to the issue, and therefore inappropriate. Tevildo (talk) 21:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me approach this from a different angle. As gene therapy will attest, human gene therapy is still a field without much success (and nearly all current efforts are focused on the somatic line). It's also a field with a lot of interest and a lot of money to be made, and that's even from simple single gene therapies. The idea that's there's some super secret group who have had major success with a very likely multi gene and highly effective germ line therapy and are keeping it secret in the hope of some super secret way of making money in the future (but are more likely to be murdered by an angry mob) when they could be making bucket loads right now is clearly nonsense. Furthermore, what on earth does 'splice GMO's capable of' even mean? This sounds like the sort of thing someone who has no understanding of the various issues and terminology would say. Do you even know what a GMO is? Or how genetic modification and gene therapy work and how they differ? Perhaps the greatest flaw in the plan is if you really did have your goal being mass sterilisation, it would make much more sense to just work out some sort of chemical agent which you could very likely do for a lot less money and a lot more successfully then some nonsense human gene therapy solution. BTW on the issue of GM vs plant breeding do you actually know what is commonly done in modern, non GM plan breeding? A read of our articial should be informative if you don't. It's quite common that chemical mutagens, radiation and other methods to induce mutation are used. I like these sort of images of a gamma irradiation field [2] (these aren't necessarily typical but are IMHO illustrative) although I couldn't find a better one. If you think plant breeding is just crossing naturally occuring varieties of plants, you have no idea. And we have no real idea what is produced in these plants. No testing is required unlike with GM plants (which are usually already occuring varieties and the primary change is the addition of one or a few genes). I'm not saying they're harmful but if you're under the mistaken impression humans have been eating everything that's in modern plants for thousands of years, you're mistaken. Incidentally the shit we've done to that plants over those thousands of years even without all these methods is also illustrative [3] [4] [5]. If you are open minded enough, I suggest (for a layperson view) (for a more scientific analysis) (both rather old now but still relevant) Nil Einne (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously the conspiracy theory element is ridiculous, but I think we should ignore that. If this guy wants to argue about a ludicrous world view don't enable him. Pretend he is discussing the plot of a Bond movie. Assume the doctors and politicians are on side and that all practical barriers are removed.

Could you use food to deliver reversible sterility? I think the answer is probably yes.

You could chemically contaminate the food with birth control hormones as one easy method (and thus allow the cabal to sell clean food). I cannot think of a chemical agent of any kind that could cause permanent but REVERSIBLE sterility can anyone else? Food could definitely be used as a population control measure though - it would be as simple as poisoning the food, killing people directly rather than waiting for them to die.

What about something more advanced? You could infect the food with a virus (modify the food so that it expresses a surface receptor identical to a human surface receptor, allowing cross-infectivity) and do whatever you like inside the virus. Have it synthesize and secrete chemicals to induce docility or sterility in addition to synthesizing new viruses. Have it attack and destroy reproductive organs. Could this be done reversibly? Yes - you could sell anti viral drugs at inflated prices I guess. Anyone else have anything better? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.168.39 (talk) 22:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Even as an SF plot, it's not very credible. Of course, the idea of a state using drugs to keep its population docile or otherwise in control is a very common plot element - but a state with such power wouldn't have to be clandestine about it. It could implement its eugenic ideals by - er - the traditional method; it would be an unnecessary waste of resources to create the illusion that it wasn't being done, or was being done for "health reasons". There might be some official euphemisms in the paperwork, but anything else would be superfluous. Tevildo (talk) 22:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with much of the opposing points. However, that leaves the question of why GMO based products are not labeled in light of the 20 year delay for long cancer to be correlated with smoking (1918-1970 increase in consumption/lung cancer studies NIH). Consider that despite the correlation tobacco is still sold legally due to the money it brings in. Lung cancer victims could say yes they smoked. Potential GMO victims can not say yes we ate GMO food. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 05:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Biological plausibility is a big part of it, IMHO. While there were reasons for concerns about tobacco smoking (albeit muted substantially by ignorance of cancer pathogenesis in that era) - tobacco smoke is an obvious irritant, there's no biologically plausible scientific basis for concerns about GMO based products. I find it amusing that the same people who raise concerns about GMO foods, and avoid many mainstream medications, will go to a "nutrition" center or somesuch and buy "natural" products about which they know almost nothing yet have been shown to harm people time and again. Every plant, every thing we eat has the potential to be hazardous - but back to your original point, I think the notion of conspiracy among physicians etc is just silly. People in the medical field watch anxiously for any chance to publish something that would get them attention. -- Scray (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

After a couple of flu deaths in the neighborhood most people will opt for the vaccine without knowing what else it contains. Several years ago my doctor asked me if I wanted to try a new shot that was a cocktail of about three different drugs. Hell, why not I said feeling like if it got that far it was probably safe. Later he told me I was part of a test group for the pharmaceutical company testing the drugs. The difference is that with GMO no one every asks and no one ever tells. Not only is knowledge and permission absent but statistical record keeping to provide an alert before everyone falls victim. Again once you GM a cow DNA to make milk with an antibody you have to take into account what a natural mutagen might do to the new configuration of genes accomplished by GM. A natural mutation of corn or flax GMed to produce a mild insecticide might turn human consumption deadly but without a paper trail it could take an unacceptable amount of time without a paper trail to find out what was doing the killing. A natural mutation of a GMO is where the problem lies and if Monsanto continues to not face that fact then the non-gmo boycott will rightfully continue and grow. Biggerbannana (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

What about the thousands of potentially deadly products of genes produced by intentional mutation in plants that you eat every day, plants that have never been tested? Nil Einne (talk) 08:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ascetic acetic acid

Sorry for so many questions but when they come it doesn't just rain it pours.

My question is since a wart soaked in 5% ascetic acid solution for about two weeks will be killed has this ever been used to treat malignant cancers caused by viruses that produce malignant cancers? 71.100.9.185 (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, which I may well be, viruses cause cancer by altering the DNA of a cell and making it malignant. Once this is done, the virus is no longer important to the cancer, and killing any such virus probably won't kill the cancer. Falconus^{p t c} 11:23, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming that after the virus is dead that when the body recognizes there is a problem the immune system will kill the altered cells without worry of the cycle repeating. This seems to be the wart killing mechanism. Kill the virus (by penetrating cells) so the immune system can kill the altered cells. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 11:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is incorrect. Once you have cancer cells they reproduce indiscriminately on their own and the immune system can't do much because they are your own cells and it is very difficult to tell them apart from the rest of your body. --Tango (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Pedantically, NB The difference between Ascetic and Acetic. --Dweller (talk) 13:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction... 71.100.9.185 (talk) 14:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Any of these cures for warts might work: Find a smooth rock and rub over warts then bury it in a secret place, this must be done during a full moon. Rub a wart with a bean pod then bury the pod secretly - as the pod rots in the ground the wart subsides. Chop off the head of an eel, drip blood from the severed head onto the wart, then bury the eel head. Wear a live toad in a bag around one's neck until it dies. Rub the wart with a snail and then impale the snail on a thorn. Rub the wart with mud from the boots of mourners at a funeral and chant "Wart, wart, follow the corpse". Rub the wart with grains of wheat, tie up the wheat in a small bundle that one takes to crossroads and flings in any direction taking care not to see where they land. Whoever picks it up will get the wart. Wash away the wart with the blood of a mole. Even more cures! Cuddlyable3 (talk) 16:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Great! If you ever get cancer just tell your doctor you have the cure. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget that even if acetic acid could be used to treat cancer it has to reach the cancerous cells, and not the non-cancerous cells. To treat an internal cancer would require some way of targeting acetic acid molecules. It is very easy to kill cancer cells. The problem is generally making sure that your treatment only attacks the cancer cells and does not attack the healthy cells. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.168.39 (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree and if you look at a wart after a few hours of absorption you will find the normal cells unaffected except by the exposure to liquid and the wart cells totally white. Whether acetic acid can penetrate the a normal membrane to reach abnormal cells beneath I'm not sure unless the membrane is damaged. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

2,3 bond rotation in diacetyl

I understand that the electron delocalisation is not as great as in an amide since O is a worse species than N , but doesn't the C-C bond have partial double bond character? (Maybe 1.2, 1.3?) Is free rotation around the 2,3 bond allowed in this molecule? What is the energy barrier to rotation? John Riemann Soong (talk) 15:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone ... help? I don't have experimental data. John Riemann Soong (talk) 03:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try GAMESSing to see the bonding situation... DMacks (talk) 04:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Minimized using RHF/6-31G basis set with a cartesian coordinate set starting with the carbonyls anti, I get a C2-C3 bond order about 10% less than that of C1-C2, and less half that of the C-O. By eyeballing the phases of the C2_p and C3_p atomic orbitals that are parallel (i.e., the ones that would form the double bond there), there is a occupied molecular orbital with antisymmetric (π*) phase several energy levels below the HOMO (it's the MO with the two carbonyl π antisymmetric to each other); the LUMO is the one that has C2-C3 π alignment (the two carbonyl π* but symmetric to each other). DMacks (talk) 04:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, 10% less bond order (as opposed to more) ... well it does make sense because both carbons carry a partial positive charge, but I don't know how that shows up in MO. John Riemann Soong (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Bacterium and damage

Can a damaged bacterium repair itself? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Stress, like heat, can cause a bacterium to turn into a spore as a means of protecting itself from destruction. I think. 71.100.9.185 (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That depends on the nature of the damage, but I would answer with a qualified 'yes'. Thermal or oxidative stressors can trigger the expression of the heat shock proteins in some bacteria, which help to repair or prevent damage to proteins. Damage to DNA is repaired by a number of processes, many of which are similar to those in mammalian cells (see, for example, RecA and SOS response). The resistance of particular bacterial strain to a given stressor or type of damage varies widely.

Possibly the hardiest (and almost certainly the most famous) bacterial extremophile would have to be Deinococcus radiodurans — sometimes referred to in jest as Conan the Bacterium. It is resistant to cold, dehydration, vacuum, acid, and ionizing radiation. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

When I read your question, I immediately assumed you were referring to commensal/pathogenic bacteria that have some sort of direct relationship with humans on a clinical basis. While extremophiles are certainly able to handle wacky environments and situations (hence their name), less exotic species vary in their hardiness. Certainly, certain damage is irreparable, such as lysis, DNA degredation, etc. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Magnetic Resonance

How exactly can the Fermi contact interaction and the polarization mechanism contribute to spin-spin couplings in NMR and the hyperfine interactions in EPR? Thanks for any help. 188.221.55.165 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

OK. It would seem that no one knows the answer to this......GRRRRRR 3rd Year MChem sucks ass 188.221.55.165 (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I would say that you question may be a tad bit too specific for this page -- one really needs to be studying your exact field to be able to answer a question on Fermi CI and NMR/EPR. I know professors are often full of pretensiousness instead of information, but surely there's one professor in your department who knows his/her stuff. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 12:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

heat reflection of CD/DVD

Is there a correlation between the light reflectivity and heat reflectivity of an object? More specifically, CDs and DVDs reflect a certain amount of light. However, how efficient/effective are they at reflecting heat? Could used CDs and DVDs be reused as heat reflective materials? There doesn't seem to much that they can be reused for . . . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

A materials scientist should be along shortly to answer this definitively, but as a layman, I'd say "no way"; for example, most metals conduct heat very efficiently, whether or not the metal is polished to a very light-reflecting, mirror-like surface (like polished aluminum). Comet Tuttle (talk) 19:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, but there you're thinking of conducting which is a different kettle of fish to reflecting. Remember that heat is transmitted by conduction, convection and radiation. Polished metal reflects radiated heat, as it does radiated light. Radiated heat and light are both electromagnetic waves. The design of a thermos flask relies on this. Polished metal will still conduct heat.

I would expect there to be a correlation between light reflectivity and heat reflectivity, since something that reflects electromagnetic radiation of one frequency will likely reflect a broad range of frequencies. However, there are probably exceptions. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 20:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The reflective layer in a pressed CD or DVD is aluminium, which has a reflectance spectrum like this (see the red curve). "Heat" does not have a single defined wavelength, but if we take the term to mean infrared radiation in general, then aluminium is a pretty good reflector for all IR wavelengths. --Heron (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. And, to the original question on "is there a correlation between the light reflectivity and heat reflectivity of an object" the answer is "usually, yes". Here's why. (1) Both reflectivities are governed by the same properties of the object (namely, its dielectric permittivity and surface shape), but at different wavelengths (visible vs infrared light). (2) Good conductors, like Al, tend to have good reflectance both in visible and in IR. (3) The correlation is not always there because some materials have strong absorption at some wavelengths but not at others. --Dr Dima (talk) 22:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Bear with me as I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed. Is a CD/DVD efficient at reflecting heat or primarily light? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.77.185.91 (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Both. By the way, a simple aluminium foil (sold in most supermarkets) is cheaper and may work just as well as a light and heat reflector. --Dr Dima (talk) 03:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What's odd about CD's and DVD's is that although they are mostly aluminium - they have those teeny-tiny pits in them that are so small that they cause interference in the light bouncing off of them. You only have to look at a CD to realise that they are splitting the incoming light by frequency and reflecting that light at different angles. Infra-red is no different - it's going to get scattered off in its own unique direction. So for a large area diffuse source of infra-red, it's going to generally reflect it much like untarnished aluminium does - but for small point-sources of heat - the reflectivity will be really strange. So I don't know what the answer is - but it's not as simple as has already been suggested. SteveBaker (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to 86 for correcting my wrong answer above. Makes sense; but is all radiated heat an electromagnetic wave? Comet Tuttle (talk) 23:18, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Essentially, yes. Electromagnetic waves are what carry energy from place to place. It's not "heat" until it hits something that absorbs it - heat is molecules jiggling around. If you think about a red hot chunk of metal - it's emitting energy as red light as it cools off. Hotter metal emits yellow light. But cooler metal emits light which is too low in frequency for our eyes to see - Infra-red light. So yeah - infrared light carries energy from one place to another. Heat can be transferred in other ways - but not over distances. The jiggling molecules in that hot chunk of metal will jiggle the molecules of the air that are touching it...so the heat kinda spreads by conduction and convection - but over longer distances, it's electromagnetic radiation that carries the heat energy from a hot object to a cooler one. SteveBaker (talk) 03:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

While aluminium does reflect IR wavelengths they are too long for reading the discs with higher data density. A 650nm red laser reads DVDs but a 405nm blue-violet laser is needed to read Blu-ray Discs[6], hence the name. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Eyesight in animals

Can animals other than humans be shortsighted or longsighted? If not, why not? Chaosandwalls (talk) 17:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Eyes are pretty much the same in all mammals, so I would be very surprised if they can't have similar problems to ours (and Google finds several reliable sources that mention myopia in animals, I'm sure the same is true for hyperopia). As for non-mammals, I have no idea - their eyes sometimes work quite differently, so could have different kinds of problems. Those that have a focusing mechanism can probably have an imperfect one. --Tango (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of courseros. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and they can be so even just metaphorically. Imagine Reason (talk) 01:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Winter view

███████████████████████
█░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█
█░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█
█░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█
███████████████████████
█░░░░░░░░░░█░░░░░░░░░░█
█          █          █
█          █          █
█          █          █
█          █          █
█          █          █
███████████████████████

This is the view through my window in winter. The sky is overcast and the garden is covered in snow. How can the snow look brighter than the sky when the sky is the only source of light? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Things only look bright when light comes from them towards your eye. The sky provides diffuse, indirect lighting, very little of which comes at you. But it does reflect off the snow at you. DMacks (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How does the snow know where I am? My neighbours see the same thing. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The air transmits light from the sun to the ground. Very little of that light gets scattered by the air toward your eyes, so the air does not appear bright. If you look at the sun, that's bright because the air let the light through. With snow on the ground, the light hitting the ground gets scattered in all directions. There's so much light coming from the sun that even the scattered light looks bright (from any direction). -- Scray (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)You will find that at lest part of the sky is brighter, usually the sun makes a bright spot on the overcast sky. The snow scatters the light in all upwards directions. (speculation on) If you could arrange light to be just directed into your pupil you could have some highly efficient lighting, just needing under a milliwatt! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Probably as you stand looking out the window, the sun is behind you. You're looking at the darkest part of the sky. APL (talk) 21:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

No the overcast sky is grey in all directions, I cannot see the sun and an upright post has no shadow.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Is there snow right up to the skyline? If not, then will be very difficult to accurately compare the brightness. We measure brightness relative to other nearby things (see Same color illusion). You may therefore being seeing the snow as bright because you know snow is bright and the overcast sky dark because you know overcast sky is dark when actually they are the same brightness. --Tango (talk) 22:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there can be snow as far as the horizon. I have photographs that show the sky darker than the snow too. When skiing I have experienced Snow blindness but never "cloudy sky blindness". Cuddlyable3 (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I doubt you've had snow blindness under a cloudy sky, though. I've had snow blindness, but only when it was sunny. At that time you would get even more blind by looking at the sun. --Tango (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that the sky is uniformly the same shade of grey. IT's all grey yes. But looking straight at the sun, through the clouds, will still be brighter than looking at the snow. See Same color illusion. If you were to get the sun and the snow near your feet in the same image, I'd bet that the sun would be brighter (or at least as bright). Grey skies or no.APL (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Snow flakes are really rough - there are teeny-tiny little flat facets pointing in all directions - with a gazillion snowflakes piled up everywhere - there are little shiney facets pointing in every direction. So sunlight comes in from one direction - but gets bounced around in all directions. Very little of it is absorbed - so no matter which direction you look at it from, the snow looks bright. On the other hand, sunlight passes through the air pretty freely - some is absorbed and some of the blue light is scattered to make the sky look blue - but nowhere near as much is scattered as is reflected by the snow. Hence, snow brighter than sky. White snow, blue sky. SteveBaker (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Overcast != blue sky, Overcast = grey sky. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 12:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems impossible that the sky could be uniformly dimmer than the snow. Do you have any photos of this? Rckrone (talk) 03:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

30 seconds in WikiCommons produced many photos of overcast skies with brighter snow. How about this one...it matches the OP's ASCII art pretty closely! SteveBaker (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

In this image, the sun is certainly out of shot above the top of frame. It looks like about noon, the sun isn't close enough to the horizon to be in-shot. (Notice the shading on the Golden Arches, and the weak shadows under the kids.) If this shot was reframed so that the sun was in-shot, I'm pretty sure you'd find that the snow near the camera was not brighter than the obscured sun.

The sky is almost never uniformly gray. It looks like it because of an optical illusion, but there's always a bright patch where the sun is. [7] APL (talk) 17:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Steve. Here's another image. The only shadowing I see in these pictures is consistent with evenly spread hemispherical illumination from the cloudy sky.

When the sun has shone on fresh snow and melted the topmost layer that freezes again, larger crystals are formed with facets that glint in direct sunlight. But here we see diffuse lighting of fresh snow that somehow looks brighter than the sky. Obviously there is really no light amplification. I guess this involves polarisation of light. Light from the clouds is incoherent and adds power-wise. Perhaps the snow reflects the same light but rotates it all to the same polarisation so that it all adds vector-wise and we see double the light amplitude. My understanding is that when a light beam hits an ice crystal surface, it splits into a reflected beam with a particular polarisation and the refracted beam which continues into the crystal. The crystal is transparent and in a complex mass of crystals which give ample opportunities for the second beam also eventually to be reflected out. If by then it has the same polarisation as the first reflected beam then they add vector-wise. A test of this theory (that I have not tried) is to rotate a polarising filter in front of the scene. The theory predicts that when seen through the filter only the snow brightness would change with rotation but not that of the cloudy sky.Cuddlyable3 (talk) 19:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think that you're making this very complicated for no good reason.

Besides, if your new theory was true, snow would (often) look black through polarized sunglasses. While I've certainly noticed the sun shining through a completely overcast sky on many occasions, I have never noticed snow turning black when I put on sunglasses.

Well, I suppose there's no convincing you, but next time you get enough snow to try your polarization test, do try actually going outside and looking up, will you? I'll bet you one pretend internet dollar that if you get the Sun (or the spot where the sun should be) AND the snow in the same photograph, the sun will be of the same or greater RGB value. APL (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah - I don't buy the polarization argument at all. I think the truth is that an overcast sky is never even close to being totally uniform in brightness. You may think it is - but at least in part that's because you can't see all 180x360 degrees of the sky at once - and as you move your gaze around, your pupils are adjusting to the changes in brightness as you move your gaze - making it appear pretty uniform, even though it's probably varying by at least an order of magnitude in brightness. The snow (with random facet orientation and near 100% albedo) averages out that brightness - so you are seeing all of those tiny mirrors reflecting microscopic bits of sky all shuffled up and mixed together. So unless you can somehow arrange to see the snow and the sky in the direction of the sun at the same time, you'll assume that the clouds are uniform in brightness and that the snow is uniformly brighter. When you do see sunlit clouds and snow at the same time, the sun would have to be very low in the sky - and probably, you wouldn't say that the snow was brighter than the sky - but the complications of sunrises and sunsets would confuse the issue considerably. SteveBaker (talk) 03:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

In the picture Steve provided the snow is brighter at the center than the lower corners. Unless this is just lens Vignetting we are seeing glare from the snow that would indeed be filtered from view by these or similar that have Polaroid lenses. The polarization argument only requires small areas of snow i.e. what is focussed on single eye retina cells to have constant polarization, not the whole snowfield. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Years of college

How many years of college does it take to be a broadcast meterologist?Accdude92 (talk to me!) (sign) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The BLS' good old Occupational Outlook Handbook has a pretty comprehensive description of what would be required to get a job with the federal government (i.e. NWS). I would assume that the qualifications for a TV meteorologist would be a bit different, depending on a lot of factors including which market you wanted to work in (e.g. maybe a bit lower if you wanted to work for KTVQ, but higher if you were shooting for a job at WEWS). The best advice to specifically answer the question is to ask the current meteorologist at a station you would like to work for. Xenon54 / talk / 20:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This site says you just need a B.S. degree. (I'm guessing you are talking about the US, since you say "college", but I expect it will be the same anywhere.) --Tango (talk) 20:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Without being perhaps overly glib, the correct answer in the US is, "zero, if you are sufficiently hot." Comet Tuttle (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Would not a speech and drama qualification be what is needed? You would have to read accurately, sound good and look good. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The OP said "broadcast meterologist". That is someone that actually does the forecasting (and often the broadcasting). Some weather forecast reporters just read forecasts made by others, but many are qualified meteorologists that make their own forecasts. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's my understanding based on discussions on wikipedia in other areas then the RD that in the US the term 'broadcast meterologist' is commonly a synonym for weather presenter (where the term may be regarded as offensive or demeaning) and not all make their own forecasts or have any training in meterology. [8] Of course a weather forecaster is not necessarily a meterologist anyway. From various things I've read, this may be changing, for example the AMS require a degree and a test for the Certified Broadcast Meteorologist program [9]. Incidentally I don't think drama and speech 'qualifications' will definitely be needed for a weather presenter, experience or good performance in auditions may be enough. Nil Einne (talk) 23:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that some of them are meterologists because during tornado season, here in Texas, they often talk through live weather radar feeds as they change - sketching fronts and other information onto the computer display 'live'. They are also identifying features that could be tornadic and so forth. It's possible that they are being prompted by an expert through their earpieces - but it really doesn't seem likely - especially when they are sketching paths of tornadoes and such. So I assume that they do have at least some training as meterologists. On the other hand, it's abundantly clear that others are merely presenters who are speaking the lines given to them by the people who are really doing the work. Small TV stations certainly don't have meterologists on-staff anyway - they get their weather data from other feeds. Having on-staff forcasters with all of the necessary computer gear, access to sensor data, etc would be a gigantic expense for just a few minutes of broadcasting each day - and only the largest stations can afford to do that.

So evidently the answer is: It varies from station to station and (probably) from place to place. SteveBaker (talk) 14:36, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Manganese

Does its name come from manga? --76.194.200.126 (talk) 21:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What does our Manganese article say about it? DMacks (talk) 21:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

And Manga tells where its name came from too. Totally different. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Basically, no. They come from totally different roots 188.221.55.165 (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be helpful to consider that Manga "The word first came into common usage in the late 18th" whereas Manganese "The origin of the name manganese is complex. In ancient times, two black minerals from Magnesia in what is now modern Greece were both called magnes, but were thought to differ in gender. The male magnes attracted iron, and was the iron ore we now know as lodestone or magnetite, and which probably gave us the term magnet. The female magnes ore did not attract iron, but was used to decolorize glass. This feminine magnes was later called magnesia, known now in modern times as pyrolusite or manganese dioxide. This mineral is never magnetic (although manganese itself is paramagnetic). In the 16th century, the latter compound was called manganesum (note the two n's instead of one) by glassmakers, possibly as a corruption of two words since alchemists and glassmakers eventually had to differentiate a magnesia negra (the black ore) from magnesia alba (a white ore, also from Magnesia, also useful in glassmaking). Michele Mercati called magnesia negra Manganesa, and finally the metal isolated from it became known as manganese (German: Mangan)" in other word manganese greatly predated Manga Nil Einne (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Human subspecies

Are different genetically delineated groups of humans considered to be subspecies of homo sapiens? For example could you refer to ethnically Japanese people as belonging to the Japanese subspecies?

What about groups that diverge more visibly like the Mbenga pygmies of Africa, who are genetically divergent from other human beings?

I am looking for an answer based on genetics or on cladistics mostly. I am not trying to justify any racial theories here, so please keep political stuff to a minimum. I ask because I was talking about animal subspecies with my girlfriend who is of a different ethnic background, and she asked if we were of separate subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.168.39 (talk) 21:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The idea that there is any significant biological difference between different races is pretty much completely rejected by science. It is very difficult to define when something is a different subspecies, when it is a completely species and when it is just part of the same subspecies. Homo (genus)#Species has some information about subspecies of Homo sapiens. --Tango (talk) 22:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

It's possible to be overly politically-correct here. There are definitely features of natively Japanese people that are inherited from parent to child that provides a distinctive appearance. Without doubt that is a genetic difference that could (in principle) be measured. Clearly this marks a genetically distinct grouping. Whether you wish to apply the term "sub-species" or "race" or "breed" or "national character" or to merely sweep it under the carpet is simply a matter of linguistics. It doesn't prove anything either way. The term "species" certainly doesn't apply here because that is generally taken to mean a group of creatures who are unable to interbreed with others within their genus - and we know that's not the case with Japanese people. So it has to be some kind of name that is less general than that. Our normal biological classification system (life/domain/kingdom/phylum/class/order/family/genus/species) does not descend below "species" - but that's an arbitary choice. When we talk about dogs (for example) which are all of the same species - we do indeed talk about "breeds" because great danes are genetically distinct from spaniels even though they can (with some degree of 'geometrically induced' difficulty) interbreed. So - this is a question about linguistics - not science. SteveBaker (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that if we were to look at gene pools and approach it scientifically, quite beyond the issue of the fuzzy edges meaning lines drawn between the groups are pretty arbitrary, we wouldn't end up classifying people into anything like the 'races' that people talk about. People talk about 'black' as a race, which bears almost no relation to the distribution of genes. An African-American, some of whose ancestors came over on the slave ships, and a Kikuyu person in Kenya are both classed as 'black' when people talk about race, but the African-American is likely to be genetically more similar to you (Steve Baker, a white American) than to the Kenyan.

We can talk about Great Danes as a separate breed from cocker spaniels because people have specifically bred them to be distinctively different, in a process involving a lot of inbreeding. The gene pools of pedigree dogs are kept pretty isolated, even with the interference of responsible breeders. Human gene pools are rarely that isolated, not for long. 86.144.144.110 (talk) 20:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Our article Race (classification of human beings) has a lot of material on this topic, including several sections on the "subspecies" question. Comet Tuttle (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone understand that section on subspecies? It's all double dutch to me... --Tango (talk) 22:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I agree. It seems to avoid getting at the meat of the issue. As far as I can see it seems to actually say that race and subspecies are the same thing, sort of, but that the term subspecies is almost as vague and meaningless as the term 'race'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.168.39 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

To give a non-human example of the difficulty in determining just what a subspecies is, you need only compare birdwatching field guides from different publishers, or different decades. Some guides will go into great detail about the subtle differences between regional subspecies of sparrows, while others will just lump them all into the main (and accepted) species group and note regional variation. What is "enough" to call something a subspecies, and what a subspecies really even is, are open to wide interpretation. 61.189.63.162 (talk) 22:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the term "subspecies" is arbitrary (to a degree the term "species" is as well, but we can come up with some better definitions of it). The danger in referring to human races as "subspecies" is that in most people's heads, it implies some sort of hard biological divisions between human groups, which just don't exist. --Mr.98 (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)