Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2018 June 21

< Wikipedia:Reference desk‎ | Archives‎ | Science
Science desk
< June 20 << May | June | Jul >> June 22 >
Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.


June 21

edit

Please Help me find a botanical term and an existing page

edit

Originally published in Teahouse (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Please_Help_me_find_a_botanical_term_and_an_existing_page) and I was guided to reference desk.

There is a terminology for when due to secondary growth a tree engulfs surrounding foreign objects . But I forgot the term and can't recall it back. There was an Wikipedia page about the term; which contained an image of a tree engulfing a barbed wire fence; upto best of my recall. (The image was from side view, and not from oblique view). Today I searched a lot of page; but could not find the page. Please help me to find the term and the page. Thanks in advance.

If I've asked the question in an inappropriate location or formatting then please do necessary guide/correction.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is the right place, but I haven't found it yet. In the mean time, look at these: [[1]]. -Arch dude (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That site asks at one point: "Is it possible there are items entirely consumed by trees that we don't know about?" I can confirm from personal experience (yeah, OR) that this is so. About 5 months ago I had a tree felled at the bottom of my garden which had grown too large (approaching a yard/metre thick at the bole) for its surroundings. The fellers discovered that it had entirely engulfed at least one metal fence post that had originally marked the garden boundary – they broke some chainsaw teeth when they unexpectedly hit the metal. Outside of the tree so few remnants of the fence remained that I (resident 27 years) had no idea it had once been there. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've found a few words, but none that are quite as specific or correct for "engulfment of foreign object". For example, burl (found where this question was asked at Talk:Tree archives and did not receive an answer), engulfment, inosculation, espalier, pooktre, edaphoecotropism. DMacks (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is such an image here but it doesn't seem to be used in any other articles.--Shantavira|feed me 14:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty more pictures at commons:Category:Ingrown things in trees. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spiders looking like ants

edit

I've heard some spiders and other bugs appear like ants so they can sneak around among them and then eat them. That's right, isn't it? I've actually seen some bugs like that.

So, if ants cannot see well, why is looking like an ant so important? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Batesian mimicry seems to be more about evolving to protect yourself not infiltrating other species communities. Ants rely very heavily on pheromones for communication (as stated in Ant) It would seem unlikely that looking like an ant but not smelling like an ant would be a successful strategy. And remember there are hundreds of ant species and most of these do not rub along too well together. So the answer to the original question is - no, that's not right. Richard Avery (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the Large blue butterfly, the caterpillars are mimicking the ant larvae rather than the adult ants, but this broadly fits your scenario. The first article Richard Avery linked says, in the lede: "Some arthropods mimic ants to escape predation (protective mimicry), while others mimic ants anatomically and behaviourally to hunt ants (aggressive mimicry)" [my italics], and cites a paper. In all such cases physical resemblance will be necessary but not sufficient – the mimics will have to smell and move similarly to the ants as well, which means they will have to be mimicking a specific ant species and perhaps even a specific colony population. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. Thank you for clearing that up. And thank you for taking the time. It is appreciated. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mandatory swim caps

edit

Is the mandatory swim cap thing baloney? So what if hair gets into filters? Isn't that what filters are for? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this rule in place. It's not in my little corner of the world - Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The idea would be to prevent too much hair from getting in the filter and clogging things. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:47, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably a health and safety issue [2], [3], [4]. In one case, a young woman was only saved when a bystander who had been in the bar the previous evening when a huge knife was delivered for cutting ice cubes rushed to get it. He handed it to the father (who had been attempting to cut her loose with a penknife) and with one slice she was free. 86.132.186.246 (talk) 10:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's also quite unpleasant while swimming to suddenly get a faceful of floating hair that has been shed by others and has then clumped together. I myself tend to gag if I unexpectedly get one of my own hairs in my mouth. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 11:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all. Good points. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Anna Frodesiak: Having worked extensively with swimming pool filtration in my younger days, I'll say that pool filters are best at removing particulates (dirt, bugs, leaves, and other solid materials). Hair, on the other hand, isn't friendly. It's like trying to suck a string through a pump. What gets through the first stage basket gets tangled around the pump impeller and shaft, and accumulates. Short hair doesn't present a problem. But long hair (or thread or string) doesn't just get caught in the first stage basket or the final stage filter, it gets caught in the machinery. And if there's enough of it, the only way to get it out is to take apart the machinery, which is a lot harder than simply backwashing the filter or cleaning the removable components.
The UK Health and Safety Executive lists compulsory swimming caps amongst Health and safety myths; "There is no health and safety regulation which requires people to wear hats in swimming pools". I recall caps being compulsory in some public pools in France and Luxembourg a few decades ago, on the stated grounds of hygiene. Alansplodge (talk) 09:14, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I see no hygiene reason to require swimming caps. I think the reason is more practical: Keep hair out of the machinery. Also there may be an added benefit to keep hair oil (if people use it) from scumming up the tiles on the pool walls. And to make the overall swimming experience more pleasant for everyone by keeping long floating hairs out of the pool. A good hair-band to tie back long hair, or wearing the hair in braids, would be just as effective, though. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, mainly hair in the works, understood. Still, I'd say tying one's hair back plus better filters would be better than requiring everyone to wear those daft caps. They're uncomfortable and rather spoil the experience. I do miss Canadian lakes. Thank you all again. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:21, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Japan Meteorological Agency

edit

Is there any reason why in Japan the Meteorological Agency handles the earthquakes instead of dedicated seismological authority, given the frequency of their earthquakes? Brandmeistertalk 08:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It also covers volcanoes and tsunamis. Given that these as well as extreme weather, floods and earthquakes all require a warning network as well as sometimes being causationally linked, it makes sense to group them under the same umbrella rather than having separate agencies trying to co-ordinate. The article's reference 7 links to a 32-page PDF here which may shed light on the historical reasons for this arrangement having come about. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.125.75.224 (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Philippines' hurricane warning center (PAGASA) is even broader. It handles meteorology, geophysics and astronomy (!) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Australia, where I am, is at the other end of the seismological activity scale from Japan. Earthquakes are very much rarer and less extreme here. We don't have a "dedicated seismological authority". (Or if we do, it's low profile enough for me not to have noticed it.) I do know though than when earthquakes do occur (usually small tremors by global standards) people tend to phone up the local weather service to ask/tell them about it. I guess there's something in human nature that lumps these physical environmental things together. HiLo48 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Squashed molecules

edit

A few years ago there was a new Wikipedia article on a kind of molecule where the two atoms were abnormally close to each other and electrons were pushed up to higher energy levels to accommodate. This type of molecule was very unstable emitting X-rays to drop energy and push the two atoms apart. I cannot find the article though. What is this kind of molecule called? It's not in Category:Chemical bonding. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I can't remember that WP article--do you remember if the two atoms were bonded or nonbonded? In the mean time, here is an item describing pushing the limits of nonbonded close contacts.[5] Perhaps WP:CHEM could help--lots of active editors there with diverse interests. For a newer ref that includes intermolecular not just intramolecular-cage, see doi:10.1021/jacs.7b01879. DMacks (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The molecules were much more compressed than in the blog, so much so that one atom appeared to be embedded in the other. The repulsion was much stronger than the bond due to the closeness, but I would guess that the bond would be much stronger than a normal bond. However they still had defined quantum states. (They may form inside white dwarfs for example of the pressure needed). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:52, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By chance, was it related to Rydberg polarons? Those allow you to put atoms inside another atom. 209.149.113.5 (talk) 11:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good suggestion, and the atom combination is like that but at much higher energy. So it was actually another article. I think they needed particle accelerators to get an ion with enough energy to penetrate into another atom. (I should have put the page on my watch list!). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Diet pills

edit

For me, any 'fat burning' claim of diet pills is automatically suspicious. However, some diet pills claim to block the absorption of fat, something that, at a first glance, seems possible. Could indeed something as small as a pill make our bodies extract less calories from fatty food? I assume ingesting some substances with more volume than a mere pill, like lots of fiber, would have it easier. But still, a pill could de/activate some mechanism, resulting in blocking fat digestion.--Doroletho (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Eating fats don't make you fat, so blocking absorption of fats just seems counterproductive to health. Eating excessive carbohydrates make you fat. If there's a pill that is proven to block absorption of starches and sugars, I don't know what it is. ~Anachronist (talk) 13:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You just haven't looked in the right places. http://media.philly.com/images/1200*800/TapewormDietPills.jpg
And please don't tell people that "Eating fats don't make you fat". Eating more calories than your body burns makes you fat. It matters little what form the calories take. See Healthy diet#Obesity. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beware of Products Promising Miracle Weight Loss, from the FDA, the agency responsible for regulating drugs and medical products, and making sure the advertisements do not make unscientific claims.
In particular:
  • "Dietary Supplements are not FDA-Approved" - this means that if a product "isn't technically" a drug, the FDA will not validate the claims they make - even if the seller wraps the product up in a pill shape and puts it in pill-bottles for retail sales... as long as they technically make no medical claims
  • Any products that make medical claims - including drugs and things that technically aren't drugs - are still subject to regulation
  • A huge variety of products are sold in stores, and are not approved by the FDA. Such products were not put through rigorous independent scientific testing - but you can buy them and eat/drink them anyway (at your own risk of harm, let alone risk of being cheated by the merchant)
  • A huge variety of products, including drugs, are approved for treating obesity, or otherwise assisting with weight loss, but those products must be subjected to intense scrutiny - especially about the way they are advertised to consumers
  • Widespread efforts by scammy companies to circumvent that scrutiny are the reason why FDA publishes consumer protection messages, like this video: Health Fraud Scams - Weight Loss
I can't find a short statement by FDA that clearly specifies whether the words "weight loss" or "diet pill" are categorically regulated as "medical claims," which probably means that they evaluate each product or situation on an individual basis. Egregious violaters who get caught lying about their unregulated medical products can be subject to civil or criminal action.
Nimur (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent post. I would add that if you sell a pill with nothing in it but inert filler, the FDA will approve it as being safe without approving it as being effective, then the ads scream "FDA Approved!". Homeopathic quackery does this all of the time. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't a hoemopathic pill that contained nothing kill you from an overdose? (slightly labored reworking of an excellent joke) Greglocock (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Amazing Randi regularly starts out lectures by sending someone to the local drug store to purchase homeopathic sleeping pills and then when they arrive he "overdoses" on stage. I think that CVS, Walgreens, etc. should stop selling things that they know don't work.
BTW, I created 37 new homeopathic articles on Wikipedia this week. no, not articles on homeopathy; I wrote an article, diluted it a million times, and posted the result. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't underestimate the power of such pills. And they can do harm. Count Iblis (talk) 23:13, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the stuff sold over-the-counter can be actually harmful. "And if you’re about to take what you think of as “natural” dietary supplements, ...be aware that FDA has found some of these products also contain hidden active ingredients contained in prescription drugs.", In general, it is not safe to assume that a material is inert, let alone safe in large quantity, simply because it's a "homeopathic" remedy. Worse still, some of these products are (accidentally or intentionally) mislabeled, tainted, or contain active substances that can cause serious harm.
Here is a list of a few hundred products including "herbal remedies" and "natural bee pollen pills" that were found to be illegally tainted with hidden ingredients, often including active drug ingredients that would normally be prescribed by a real medical doctor for totally different medical purposes. Selling a controlled substance and calling it a natural remedy is not only bad, it is actually the most prevalent and widespread drug crime in the United States. Real actual drug crime! The very stuff they don't turn into big-budget Hollywood action movies! In 2016, deaths related to illegal use of controlled prescription drugs exceeded deaths from cocaine and heroin combined.
Even if we know or suspect that a product's claims are pure "quackery," we would be wise not to automatically conclude that the product itself is a totally safe and inert substance - especially in large doses. Nimur (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a citation that shows that any FDA-approved (for safety, not effectiveness) homeopathic medicine has ever been been tainted in this way? "Since 1988, it has been the de facto policy of the FDA to treat homeopathic remedies listed in the Homeopathic Pharmacopeia of the United States (a collection of homeopathic ingredients and practices continually updated since 1897), as safe and legal to market — so long as that marketing does not meet the FDA’s definition of making fraudulent claims."[6] --Guy Macon (talk) 05:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...so, yes. There are just so many more - hundreds of cases each year - and this one example is simply the very first instance I found, after a very cursory reading through the FDA informational page.
In fact, just this week: June 18, 2018, "A 35-year-old Corpus Christi woman has pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a controlled substance with the intent to distribute and one count of receiving a misbranded drug in interstate commerce..." "The FDA found a number of the products X2Zero sold as “herbal weight loss supplements” to contain misbranded or unapproved foreign drugs." The defendant "knowingly possessed and sold diet drugs containing sibutramine," a drug illegal to sell in the United States because it "increased risk of heart attack, stroke and death."
Point being, we don't have to look hard for examples of herbal diet remedies with nasty, often illegal, contaminants.
Nimur (talk) 06:06, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The pill that blocks fat absorption is orlistat, which is, in fact, FDA approved. I have never personally seen a plausible explanation for the "fat burning" pills, and honestly, that sounds like a really dangerous thing to do, just messing with your metabolism. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:47, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT recommend this, but can't Amphetamines speed up your metabolism, and suppress your apetite? @Guy Macon:, can you please enlighten us about the exact nature of fat-burning potential of Crystal Meth, and why it is not a good idea to use it for this? Eliyohub (talk) 17:29, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to! Turns out that the following is some of the most popular advice I have ever given...
Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. Here is some professional advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will use up all of your money and is likely to get you fired. Don't bother asking a certified financial planner if becoming a meth addict is good for your finances. It isn't. (general disclaimer, medical disclaimer. legal disclaimer, risk disclaimer.)
There. I just provided medical, legal, and professional advice, and while I did make a point, I did so without being disruptive. There are some who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists. (If you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where the Wikipedia community approved them).
Feel free to report my behavior at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline.
BTW, in my opinion both terminal cancer and AIDS are even more effective methods of weight loss than meth, so why not try all three at the same time? Also, don't get your medical advice from an electronics engineer. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Archives/Science/2018_June_21&oldid=848134498"