Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 November 14

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.

November 14

How do medical professionals treat transgender people and gender-variant people?

Although transgender people may identify themselves as the opposite gender and gender-variant people may avoid the gender binary altogether, does this just apply to how medical professionals (doctors, nurses, therapists, etc) address them, or does this also apply to the reference ranges for typical men and women? If a patient identifies as female but has a male body, and as a result of the anatomy, her parents raised her as a boy and gave her a traditionally masculine name, would the medical professional treat the patient as male or female? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Not about this topic, but in general terms: In my experience, when you fill out the forms at a doctor's office the first time you visit, it asks how you want to be addressed, such as title or first and/or last name. And, obviously, the doctor or other medical professional needs to be informed about anything relevant as regards your mind and/or body. Their job is to treat, not to judge. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Doctors typically do what the money tells them. This can include not prescribing birth control because their corporation is bought out by a Catholic corporation, or more germane to our point, turning away transgender patients. Wnt (talk) 13:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, the last answer should be qualified by saying "In the US" doctors typically do what the money tells them. It wouldn't apply in countries that have a state funded health service. Richerman (talk) 10:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Wnt's comment is leftist bee ess. Doctors treat patients. As a person of gender I have indeed had a doctor refuse to make eye contact with me twice, once because of a (rather benign) heterosexually contracted STD and the second time because of his religious beliefs once I mentioned I was not purely hetero. But neither refused to treat me given their obvious disdain. And had they been reported to the medical board for not treating me, or at the worst, not providing a referral, they'd have been sanctioned. μηδείς (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

What a true atrocity!! Kyrie, eleison! I am SO sorry that a stranger was not personally comfortable with you while serving you. This is OBVIOUSLY why we need social justice and communism--Sıgehelmus (Talk) |д=) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that would depend on what you mean by treat. If you mean in a behavioral sense, that would probably go on a case-by-case basis, some docs/nurses might be a bit weird about it while others would be fine(although they really should act professionally). But in the "medical" sense, I think they would treat a patient by their biological sex - male, female, or whatever stage in the transgender process. This should be obvious why - a pre-transition trans man is still anatomically female and so still has all their female bits, and so if a trans man were to have abdominal pain, doctors would still take into account that the patient has ovaries, could be pregnant, etc. Cannolis (talk) 20:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have also had plenty of primary care physicians refuse to write various prescriptions, to the point that I have had to pay for out-of-network treatment. That is simply how healthcare works in the US. (BTW, the doctor I wanted to see was in network until the advent of Obamacare. This loss of coverage had nothing to do with anyone's Catholicism.) μηδείς (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Do the human body break down salt?

1. Do the human body break down salt before excreting it? As in, does it leave the body as NaCl or does the body break it down and the sodium and chlorine leave (either separately or together) in the form of other chemical compounds?

2. I vaguely remember having learned that salt exists the human body mostly dissolved in the urine. Is this true? 731Butai (talk) 03:16, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Sodium chloride in solution is almost entirely dissociated into Na⁺ and Cl^-. So in that sense, the body doesn't have to "break it down" because it's already "broken down". --Trovatore (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. I'm asking whether the body ever separates the Na⁺ and Cl^- ions and possibly incorporates them into other compounds (that's not NaCl). 731Butai (talk) 04:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

2) (I take it you meant "exits".) Yes, most salt normally exits in urine, but if it's hot and you sweat a lot, you can lose a lot that way, too. StuRat (talk) 05:18, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Your body uses the sodium and chlorine ions separately – one obvious use is in the hydrochloric acid that dissolves things in your stomach (even in there, there's Na+ floating around, but there's less of it than there is Cl-). On a molecular level, the sodium channel on cell membranes moves Na+ in and out of cells, which is especially used in nerve cells to control how active they are, while the chloride channel (which is less understood) seems to have more to do with muscles. As Trovatore says, it's a bit meaningless to talk about compounds when you've got dissolved ions. Boil down urine, and you'd probably find molecules like potassium chloride and ammonium sodium phosphate, but these are formed by the ions combining outside the body. There are no amino acids containing chlorine or sodium atoms, so the body can't build proteins with them. (If you meant "salt exists in the human body mostly dissolved in the urine", that's probably incorrect. The body is 0.4% NaCl, which suggests a 50 kg person contains 200 g of salt. Given that you only need about 5 g a day of salt to stay healthy, that suggests that only about 5 g a day of salt - 2.5% - is excreted in urine/salt on a given day). Smurrayinchester 08:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As soon as you expose NaCl to water, it disassociates into Na+ and Cl- ions (unless the solution is saturated). The only "breaking down" that directly done by your body is if you ingest pure salt, in which case it disassociates as soon as it hits your saliva. As for their role in your body, their main function is as electrolytes, free ions in solution that are used to carry electric charge. Some ions are used as enzyme cofactors, but sodium and chloride don't appear to be. But there is one other neat thing your body sometimes uses chloride for. In a respiratory burst, white blood cells produce hypochlorite to kill pathogens. You might know hypochlorite as the ion in household bleach. Greenish pus is caused by the presence of myeloperoxidase, the enzyme involved in this. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I can't see an answer to the OP's question above. The answer, I think, is that Na and Cl are basically handled independently after they dissociate, but the charges always have to balance. So if positive ions are excreted, an equal quantity of negative ions have to go along with them. But if for example you ingest sodium chloride and potassium bicarbonate, it would be possible to excrete potassium and chloride, leaving the sodium and bicarbonate behind. Looie496 (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that "the charges always have to balance", although that statement is a bit vague. Have to balance in what context? It's not true at the level of individual cells; cells have a membrane potential, which they maintain by constantly using energy to pump ions in and out of the cell. It is true that, if nothing is done, osmosis will eventually equalize the potentials on both sides of the cell membrane; that's why cells have to use energy to maintain it. And I don't think it's true at the level of your entire body either. The kidneys have a lot of control over the amount of electrolytes excreted in the urine. Here's a good primer on how the kidneys function. What aspect of the original question hasn't been answered, in your view? --71.119.131.184 (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The part of the original that was not clearly answered (unless I missed something) is whether it is possible for the sodium and chloride to leave separately. And in spite of what you wrote there, it's still true that the charges have to balance. No part of the body (except the hair) can maintain more than a tiny electric charge relative to the rest of the body. The urine definitely can't be electrically charged. Looie496 (talk) 17:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

MacLeod prints

A very old textbook (c 1910) I have discusses on one page experiments requiring high vacuum. It refers to readings off "MacLeod prints" as needing to be under 1/1000 mm - could mean below 1/1000 mm mercury pressure?? What are MacLeod prints? 60.228.193.237 (talk) 08:53, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Presumably something to do with the McLeod gauge. Could prints be a typo for points?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ahah! That will be it. Thanks, Shantavira.60.228.235.225 (talk) 15:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this the place to ask about an outer vest made from coyote fur?

How appropriate is coyote fur for such an application? Would you consider it suboptimal? I bought one for $400 and am wondering if I should return it. 69.22.242.15 (talk) 14:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't consider it suboptimal at all. In fact I wish I had $400 to get one. For years I've been longing to upgrade from my opossum fur vest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.94.61.22 (talk) 15:34, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you will find many opinions on "appropriateness": you can start by reading about North American fur trade. In many places in the United States, coyote is considered a "pest" and coyote-hunting is often very liberally allowed. This means that its fur is neither rare nor particularly valuable, and is very probably legal in most places in the United States. Compared to other animals who are hunted or farmed for fur, coyote is neither considered "fine" nor "luxurious." Mink, otter, and beaver, for example, all have denser and more durable fur; you can read list of types of fur for some more information. Whether your particular garment was legally or ethically produced is beyond the scope of our website; and whether the price you paid is appropriate ultimately depends on local economic condition. Ultimately, whether you consider it "appropriate" to wear its fur is really a matter of your personal and ethical considerations; and whatever applications you have.

I spend a large amount of time outdoors, and in snow; I would rather use a synthetic material like nylon or Gore-Tex to stay dry; and wool to stay warm. Fur smells bad when wet; and when you're out in the muck, they can find you if they can smell you.

Nimur (talk) 16:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree, for $400, you could certainly stay warmer and more comfortable with synthetic materials. Another issue is that fur isn't very durable. On the animal, it would be continuously replaced with new fur as the old fur falls out, but not so once it's a coat. So, it will get thinner and thinner over time. StuRat (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A Google search for coyote fur vest suggests that $400 is on the high-side. eBay has much cheaper prices available (less than $50 for a full coat, albeit used). As noted above, optimization is going to depend on what you want to do. 99.235.223.170 (talk) 14:15, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

File:NewWHS.png

Yes it's a picture of a high school, but it's some stuff in the foreground which interests me?

What's the not quite raised "lane" in front of the sidewalk?, Also is there are reason for the different paving on what i assume is a crosswalk ( crossing)? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That must be a bike path by the pavement on the road. 69.22.242.15 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

This is an example of tactile paving, for the assistance of blind and partially-sighted pedestrians. Tevildo (talk) 16:01, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

More of a bike lane, I'd think. In the USA, "bike path" often means a route that doesn't allow motor vehicles, and a lane is what we call it when bikes have a lane on the road used primarily by automobiles. The crosswalk appears to have originally been paved with brick, i.e. Pavement_(architecture)#Paver, which was later painted over, perhaps for higher contrast. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Historic elements

On page 227 of The Progress of Invention in the Nineteenth Century by Edward Byrn, there's a list of "Elements discovered in the nineteenth century". Most of them appear in the current periodic table, a few have been renamed since their discovery (Columbium, Glucinium), two aren't elements (Didymium and Cyanogen), and Coronium is highly-ionized iron. This leaves three entries, all from 1898 - "Metargon", discovered by Ramsay and Travers, "Monium", discovered by Crookes, and "Etherion", discovered by Brush. What (if anything) are these elements called today? Helium (which doesn't appear on Byrn's list) is an obvious possibility, but confirmation will be needed. Tevildo (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

"Metargon" is probably either an experimental error, or a real element known today as a different noble gas, perhaps krypton, for which Ramsay and Travers were known, and for which Sir William Ramsay was awardee the 1904 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. I am still reading the details in On a new constituent of atmospheric air (1898) ... there is a mention and parameterization of an as-yet unidentified gas, but the authors apparently already have the name for krypton - and the given parameters don't match krypton (or any other noble gas). Perhaps the "metargon" discovery was even an experimental error.

Metargon (1898), published in Nature, seems to concur that this compound was not an element, and that the experiment found argon contaminated with carbon.

Nimur (talk) 17:51, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

A quick search turns up a news article on etherion [1] - truly it is a wonderful substance, said to be capable of tremendous heat conduction, and... "Tho molecular velocity of hydrogen at the temperature of melting ice is 5,571 feet a second, while tbe molecular velocity of the new gas is 657,100 feet, or 105 miles a second." It is said to be obtained from crushed glass, charcoal, other substances. It notes that he stops short of calling it an element. Oddly, the McLeod gauge mentioned a few topics above is mentioned, and that article describes ways in which it can trick the unwary if a vacuum contains a gas that can condense ... I wonder if that actually has some role in this, but I don't know at all. Wnt (talk) 19:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the information so far! I see that the etherion article lists "argon, helium, neon and metargon" separately; krypton is on Byrn's list, so neither it nor helium seem like good candidates for metargon. I also now have to ask - what is "molecular velocity"? We don't have an article, although it seems to be a quantity which could be measured precisely in 1898. Tevildo (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

That would be one way to represent temperature, normalizing for molecular mass. It can also be derived from the speed of sound or the Young's modulus. We have more on the topic at particle velocity. It is a characteristic, average velocity of the ensemble - the velocity of any individual particle might fall along a Maxwellian probability distribution. Nimur (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

The key thing here is that in the Boltzmann distribution/Thermodynamic temperature (sorry, these articles are spread out in dribs and drabs ... wish someone would organize the concept better) leads to every particle having a translational energy (motion, not rotation) of 3/2 k T. This is true no matter how big they are - you picture a gas, well, sometimes a big particle coming slow bounces a little one off at huge speed, or vice versa. The relation there is kinetic energy = 1/2 m v². That means that the square root of the difference in velocities is the ratio of the mass, which is to say, the particle has an atomic mass of sqrt(5571/657100) = 0.092 amu. This is why I tend to view this as an unusual report. :) Wnt (talk) 15:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks again, but I'm still not quite sure what quantity Brush was reporting. It seems reasonable to assume that it's the √(2kT/m) of the Boltzmann distribution, but Brush seems to be measuring something (the thermal conductivity?) which gives him v_p to a fair number of significant figures, from which the molecular mass could be calculated; he doesn't appear to have measured the mass by more direct methods. Tevildo (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Monium turned out to be a mixture of gadolinium and terbium. See p203 in:

Fontani, Marco; Costa, Mariagrazia; Orna, Mary Virginia (2014). The Lost Elements: The Periodic Table's Shadow Side. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780199383344.

a book that is overall all about various elemental non-/mis-/discoveries. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Monium (element) probably won't ever amount to more than a few-sentence stub, but if there are a few secondary refs (mine talks in some detail, not sure what Tevildo's says), it's clearly not the topic that Monium might elsewise mean. DMacks (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Excellent book, sincerest thanks. It also reports Ramsay's disclaiming of metargon as an experimental error (page 180) and Marian Smoluchowski's identification of etherium as water vapour (page 424). My main question is answered, and my intellectual pleasures satisfied for the immediate future; I don't think that we really need articles on these elements (although the facts are available), I was mainly wondering if suitable redirects could be created - probably not, based on the information we now have. I'll leave the "molecular velocity" question open from personal curiosity, though. Tevildo (talk) 23:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks also for the monium addition. For the other two, metargon is probably worth mentioning in Argon. We have an article Ethereum (some sort of ersatz Bitcoin thing), and "Etherium" is the name of a (presumably-NN) video game, but I don't think any further action is necessary - perhaps a footnote in Charles F. Brush would be a possibility. Tevildo (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is Ramsay's disclaimer, in which he identifies "metargon" as carbon monoxide. Tevildo (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The way I read it, it sounds more like Ar contaminated with CO₂: "This gas [metargon] subsequently turned out to be argon in the main, but to contain carbon dioxide, owing to the use of an impure specimen of phosphorus containing carbon in removing the oxygen; but it gave us a great deal of trouble to make sure that it was not a new individual." Double sharp (talk) 13:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

• @Tevildo: This book, The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance, and Distribution may not directly address the subject, but all interested in the elements and their origins should read it. μηδείς (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Agile wallaby? See Dingo

In the Dingo article the term "agile wallaby" is used twice. Is this just adjectival overkill, or are agile wallabies a class unto themselves, as opposed to lummox wallabies? Thanks, and pinging @JackofOz: and @Iryna Harpy:. μηδείς (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Agile wallaby. It's linked at first use in the dingo article. Deor (talk) 23:10, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The genus 'wallaby' is extremely diverse and range in size from that of a small kangaroo to very, very small. This makes the smaller species prime targets for predators like the dingo. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

This brings up a bigger point. Should the Dingo article say 'Agile wallaby'? That is the proper name for that species. I ask because a while ago, somebody with a bot went through the Rena oil spill article and changed instances of 'Little penguin' to 'little penguin'. See Little penguin. His bot may have done the same to the Dingo article. He cited some WP policy, but to my mind it's bad policy, since it causes this ambiguity when the proper name is formed from an adjective. Akld guy (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Here is the relevant guideline. This is something that has been debated on Wikipedia hard and long over the years. I wouldn't advise bringing it up again. Deor (talk) 10:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. You'll note I said the term was used twice, but it is actually used three times, with the usage I skipped linkified to Macropus agilis. μηδείς (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)