Miscellaneous desk
< April 11	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 13 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

April 12

Road kill animals

How long will it take before animals adapt their behaviour to avoid getting caught under my Cadillac. Along the road I see so many dead critters, foxes, badgers, game birds, bunnies.

You would have thought they would have learnt by now, purely by how many of them are piled up on the curb. Foxes seem to leave a particularly dire mess for some reason. One time I saw a small amount of fur, and a very visible ear still protruding up from the road and nothing much else. It disturbs me to this day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.35.67.52 (talk • contribs) The proxy geolocates to Yemen

They don't exactly teach each other the highway code, or even what 'those headlights' are, and what speed they are coming towards them at. Humans generally learn these things at school, but still, there are accidents, and the pedestrians involved are taken away in ambulances (whether dead or not). Animals don't have ambulances. This may be why they are generally still on the road for quite some time after being killed. I would suggest, that if you are seriously concerned about this, to adjust your own driving.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

21:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Squirrels and the like have been around a lot longer than cars have. Natural selection being what it is, presumably the ones who are not astute enough to get out of the way will stand a greater chance of being killed, and the population of the more alert ones should expand. But it could take a long time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have wondered about this myself. There has to be a differential survival rate. If each and every squirrel that crosses paths with a rattlesnake dies and is eaten, then there are no survivors who avoided death to breed and carry on their genes. In fours decades of reading popular science, all I can say is that I have never once come across the topic.

μηδείς (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could and probably will happen via natural selection. How quickly is impossible to say, it will probably only possible to deduce after the fact, when it will be possible to identify the factors that made a difference and perhaps even the genetic differences. It can happen very quickly, in just years with very short lived animals. See the peppered moth evolution for a particularly famous example.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 23:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have missed my point, so let me clarify. Evolution will occur, when a phenomenon causes some subpopulation to reproduce more than another subpopulation. If the death rate or survival rate for both populations is 100% or 0% then no change will occur, because there will be no differential reproduction. This is the reason why humans haven't developed arrow, spear, sword, and bullet-proof skins. μηδείς (talk) 04:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those things could evolve, given enough time. Some people bleed out more than others when wounded, for example, so would be less likely to survive such a wound, and less likely to pass on their genes. StuRat (talk) 04:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time is not itself sufficient for just old anything to evolve. There has to be a differential selection pressure, and there has to be a basis, such as fear of flat surfaces or the sound of ca tires to work on. Time alone won't lead to pigs sprouting wings. My observation of grey squirrels is that they are just as likely to reverse course and jump back into traffic when a car comes, even if they are already 2/3 of the way across the street, and out of the driver's lane. Paranoid squirrels might be less likely to die being run over, but they may also starve to death. Speculation here is worthless, and there simply don't seem to be the relevant studies, or we'd be reading of the evolution of squirrel dashing in the same way that of the spotted moth has become a paradigm case. μηδείς (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That reversing course behavior in squirrels is a method to evade faster predators, which is how they seem to think of cars. In time, those which live in areas where cars are more of a threat than predators would presumably lose that behavior, or better yet just not apply it to cars, as those without it would be more likely to survive and pass on their genes. As far as studies, that raccoon documentary on PBS I talked about below may qualify. They tracked a large group of coons to establish the territorial behavior of each in a city. Maybe I can find a link if I look a bit harder. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a documentary that seems to say that raccoons are adapting to survive with cars. Interestingly, the way they are adapting is to modify their natural territories to use dangerous roads as boundaries. So, each coon stays on his side of the highway. StuRat (talk) 03:54, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some animals not only adapted to not being killed, but even went further to use cars as their tools: [1]. — Sebastian 04:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I read this with amusement. OK, wild critters in the county-side may not get the hang of human connivances but town critters do. Example: Owner surprised to find cat regularly catches bus ; Casper (cat) & Pigeons let the train take the strain. Cats don't get taught like human children to first look left and right (this is for the UK) and left again before crossing the road – they pick it up instinctively. Around my way, foxes come out at night and know when to get out of the way of a passing car, otherwise they will happily sit in the middle of the road and decide this is a good opportunity to preen themselves. I recently uploaded a photo of one of the foxes that doesn't want to drink fowl canal water, so they comes to my favorite pub to drink from the dog bowls. The thirstyfox Fortunately. he and the others haven't progressed to following me into the bar and catching the barmaids attention before I do. Otherwise they might just find that fox stoles are coming backing to fashion - at my instance.--Aspro (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cats in my area like to hide underneath parked cars. I heard of one instance (not in my area) where a cat was asleep on top of the front wheel of a car parked in a driveway, and didn't notice that the driver had got in. Splat cat. The driver was in fact the cat's owner. I also heard of an instance where a driver drove 25 miles to his home, got out of the car, and noticed that there was a smashed-up dog in his car radiator. Rabbits (and apparently deer) are notorious for just completely standing still when they see the headlights. Birds flying into airplane engines is also a major problem - especially when there are a lot of them, as it can potentially bring a plane down. Ask a trucker how many times a bird hits his windscreen. Last year a dove hit the window of our house and was lying on the floor in the garden totally stunned. We kept it overnight and nursed it back to health, then let it go. Our house is not even a moving object!

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

18:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My parents have a pile of dead birds beneath their 5 by 8 foot north facing dining room window. The death toll was so bad (about half the collisions end in death) that they bought halloween raven decorations last month and hanged them from the inside of the window. In any case, the rhododendron below it is well fertilized. μηδείς (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have Halloween in MARCH? Or is this to ward off the other birds, as if to send a message saying, "You come here, you are dead....."? Best to put them outside the window, really, because after a very short time (as we are in spring now), they will stink to high heaven.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

23:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the US they do have year-long party/off-seasonal decoration stores. It was the same place they bought my niece a fairy princess outfit for Christmas, even though the fairy princess season is obviously March, April and May. They taped the birds to the inside since it would be easier to re-hang them when they eventually fell, the weather in NJ being very British. They had been having about a collision a month, with half of them fatal. Sooner or later one of them would have given Mom or Dad a heart attack as well, since they are quite loud and unexpected. In any case, no collisions since the crows were emplaced. μηδείς (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I misread your previous post. I read it as they were hanging the dead birds themselves inside the window of the house, to ward off the other birds who might fly at the window.

KägeTorä - (影 虎) (もしもし！)

16:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll mention that to them as a possibility, maybe starlings on a spike. Although the crows would probably eat them. μηδείς (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More food on sticks? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 21:50, 17 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Winning the lottery

In the UK, what is statistically more likely to give you a decent prize? Scratch cards of the national lottery. Honestly, winning £5000 would be just fine. I'd rather play those scratch cards than have a 1-100000000000 of winning a million on the national lottery. This question brought to you by — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winning the lottery (talk • contribs)

See UK National Lottery for the figures on the lottery itself; Camelot publish the odds for the scratchcards on their website. The expectation value for both is appallingly low compared to other forms of gambling - in playing the lottery, you're basically giving your money to the taxman voluntarily with virtually no chance of getting it back. I suppose this is morally superior to giving it to a bookmaker, but it's still not a reliable way of making a living. Tevildo (talk) 21:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"virtually no chance of getting it back" is virtually ∞% exaggerated. Percentage return is 45% - a far cry from 0%. — Sebastian 19:39, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The perils of selective quoting. Perhaps you ought to have quoted: "Over an extremely long period (tens of millions of draws) the return on investment would approach the average, about 45%". Alansplodge (talk) 21:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And remember this isn't a "return on investment", it's the amount of your stake that you get back - for every £100 you spend on the lottery, you'll lose, in the _very_ long run, £55, and in the short run, you're likely to lose more than that. Compare roulette, where, even with two zeroes on the wheel (illegal in the UK) you'd only lose £5.26 per £100 in the long run. And in neither case will you show a profit. Tevildo (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"A roulette wheel offering the same odds as [winning the jackpot in the] EuroMillions (admittedly worse odds than the smaller UK National Lottery) would be more than five times the size of the M25" [2] - the M25 motorway is a circular highway around Greater London with a circumference of 117 miles. Alansplodge (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, but that's only the odds, not the expectation value. A roulette wheel having the same expectation value as the (main) lottery would have thirty zeroes on it, so only twice the size of a normal one, but mainly green and orange rather than black and red. Tevildo (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A lottery is a Taxation,

Upon all the Fools in Creation;

And Heav'n be prais'd,

It is easily rais'd

Credulity's always in fashion:

For Folly's a Fund

Will never lose ground,

While Fools are so rife in the Nation.

Henry Fielding, The lottery. A Farce, As acted at the Theatre-Royal in Drury-Lane by His Majesty's Servants, London 1761 (no offence intended to User:Winning the lottery). Alansplodge (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a substantial amount, Premium bonds are an option. You can't lose your stake, the only loss is due to annual inflation. Hope this helps old boy! Quintessential British Gentleman (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An apple a day

Does eating an apple a day really reduce the number of visits people to the doctor? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Takkunsas (talk • contribs) 20:52, 12 April 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

I've put this question in its own section; Takkunsas, for future reference, the "new section" tab is the best way to add a question because it won't remove others' comments. I haven't got an answer, though. ekips39 (talk) 20:57, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To answer that, we'd have to know "versus what" ? If it's instead of healthy things, like blueberries, then no. If it's instead of less healthy foods, like a deep fried Twinkie, then yes.

Here's the nutrition data on an apple (with skin):[3]. It's good in some ways, like fiber and vitamin C, but not very complete nutritionally and has a fair amount of sugar. And, of course, if you make apple fritters or apple pie out of it, it becomes much worse. Even (filtered) apple juice is worse, since it removes the fiber, and makes it easier to get too much sugar.

Then we might well ask, could apples be made healthier ? If you started with organic apples (to avoid any pesticide residue on the skin), then just ate the skins, that might be healthier, although still by no means a complete meal. Since apples lack fats and protein, combining them with natural peanut butter can fix this. Yogurt might work too, but there you would need to get it unsweetened (including no artificial sweeteners), to avoid adding more sugars to those already in the apple. Cinnamon could also be sprinkled on the apple, so long as you don't then need to add more sugar. StuRat (talk) 21:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the old saying: "An apple a day keeps the doctor away. An onion a day keeps everybody away." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:26, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And garlic keeps vampires away and poverty keeps women away – oh, the list goes on and on...Err. Does anyone one know of a vegetable or fruit that can keep the taxman away – just hoping.--Aspro (talk) 00:24, 13 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Except for one tax man, you'll get rid of all of them with a little poison hemlock. Nyttend (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly sure if used right poison hemlock will reduce the number of doctor visits over the long term too. Nil Einne (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts will keep the taxman away, as long as you can convince him that's all you made last year. StuRat (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2015 (UTC) [reply]

I imagine peanut farmers would be very happy if that were true Nil Einne (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For British speakers of English -I can't resist this: Tax for the Taxman by Mike Absalom Others can look away because it doesn't have subtitles in US englwish but it sums up up my feeling.--Aspro (talk) 19:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This question was recent;y addressed in Scientific American. μηδείς (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pollan, in The Botany of Desire, writes that it was a marketing campaign to change the image of apples, which originally were planted as the primary source of alcohol. — Sebastian 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apples or apple juice have been found to be beneficial for asthma sufferers; see Dietary intake of flavonoids and asthma in adults, "It is possible that other flavonoids or polyphenols present in apples may explain the protective effect of apples on obstructive lung disease" or Childhood asthma and fruit consumption, "...some evidence was found to suggest that a higher consumption of apple juice from concentrate and bananas may protect against wheezing in children", or Food and nutrient intakes and asthma risk in young adults, "Apples and pears appeared to protect against current asthma... and BHR". Alansplodge (talk) 10:04, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are many looking at this from various aspects. Here are a few of various quality [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. You can find many more by doing a search, e.g on Google Scholar or Microsoft Academic Search. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]