Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2008 December 2

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.

December 2

If the universe is constantly expanding....

Then what is it expanding into? For example if you were able to freeze time, then you would be able to define a clear boundary of the universe, in which case what would be beoyond this boundary? Also what would the outer "walls" of the universe look like? I doubt anyone really has any conclusive theories about this, so conjecture is welcome also. Thanks. 79.75.225.71 (talk) 11:03, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's true that noone has conclusive theories, but Metric expansion of space sums up what we believe today. Some theories postulate an "outside" outside the known universe, notably those with extra dimensions and/or brane and string theory. EverGreg (talk) 11:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Even in those theories, the universe isn't expanding into anything - the expansion is happening in out familiar 3 dimension, the "bulk" is outside out universe in terms of the extra dimensions. --Tango (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It isn't expanding into anything, and there is no boundary. There are two possibilities, either the universe is already infinite so when it expands its size doesn't actually increase, things inside it just get further apart (not because they've moving apart, but rather because the space between them gets stretched), or the universe is finite in which case it will be shaped something like a sphere (actually, a 3 dimensional analogue of the usual 2 dimensional sphere). Imagine if the Earth were to expand - there wouldn't be an edge of the Earth that is moving outwards, it would be the whole thing expanding (yes, it would be expanding into empty space, but that's because the surface of the Earth is a 2D surface in a 3D world, you need to think of the universe as a 3D "surface" that isn't embedded in any larger space). --Tango (talk) 14:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tango has it. Basically the current theory postulates either an infinite universe (an "open" geometry) or a universe which has finite volume (a "closed" geometry). In both cases, there is no "boundary", any more than there is for a 2D ant crawling on an infinite sheet (an open 2D geometry) or the surface of a sphere (a closed 2D geometry). As a thought experiment, imagine a 2-D ant were crawling on the surface of a balloon that was being inflated - suppose that ant asked you how it was possible that his universe seemed to be expanding, and yet there was no boundary anywhere? What is his universe expanding "into"? If you can answer that 2-D ant, then you have your own answer too (just a little harder to picture in three dimensions). --Bmk (talk) 19:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Physics

Hi there.Please suggest me a link from where i can download free solution manual for the fourth edition of 'Physics for scientists and engineers' by Paul.A.Tipler.Loads of thanks!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.103.28.35 (talk • contribs) 13:44, Dec 2, 2008

Start from [1]. The solutions are at [2] but you will have to prove that you are not a student, but a teacher. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we harness the power of tectonic plate movements?

How would that be done? I think that would solve a future energy crisis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.172.209 (talk • contribs) 14:00, Dec 2 2008

At present, no. In the future, who can say? I doubt there's much work being considered on a project of that scale, though -- there should be more than enough other ways to supply energy that are more reasonable engineering projects. — Lomn 14:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would think you could, by placing power generation stations on either side of fault lines with rods extended between them. During a quake the rods would be pushed one way or the other, and this motion could be used to generate power. However, the need to maintain the equipment for rare periods of power generation would make this not at all cost effective. A better approach would be to bypass the plates and go to the source, the Earth's geothermal energy. By drilling holes through the crust, we could fill such "wells" with water, then use the steam generated to power turbines continuously. StuRat (talk) 14:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Which, funnily enough, is already being considered. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 22:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I see a major problem with the tectonic "shaker" system laying across a fault-line, which is due to misconceptions about seismic faults. Although we see a lot of photos of specific "lines" of "fracture" damage, and it would seem like we could just pick "that spot" as the fault, see our article on the subject: "faults do not usually consist of a single, clean fracture, the term fault zone is used when referring to the zone of complex deformation" - and this zone can be many miles across. (Take a look at this one, for example - where would you put the "generators"?) Nimur (talk) 16:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Big Bang in the USA

I have heard that a lot of people (especially in the USA) are not too keen on the Big Bang theory:
Christmas_tree#You_should_get_a_Christmas_tree
Is this true or just anti-American stereotyping?
--AlexSuricata (talk) 14:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what that link about Christmas trees is about, but it seems like you're talking about creationism. I don't have any statistics, but I think it is true that there are more creationists in the USA that other western countries (I have no idea about the rest of the world). --Tango (talk) 15:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I would guess they're commenting on this diff. Nanonic (talk) 15:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would explain that, thanks! --Tango (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Well of course there are more, the US is the largest (by population) western country by far. :-P I think what you meant to say is that there is a higher proportion of the population. From memory, some surveys have shown the only developed country with a higher proportion of people not believing in evolution then the US is Turkey. Ah here it is Level of support for evolution. Actually while it included Japan and 32 European countries including Turkey, it didn't include Taiwan, Singapore, South Korea, Australia, NZ or Canada. (N.B. Of course it's possible to believe in the big bang but not evolution or vice versa). Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A few notes: 1) creationism is high among evangelical Christians. Evangelical Christianity is most popular in the United States, Australia, South Korea, and parts of Africa. However, creationism is popular among people of other religions as well, notably Islam. The chart given above reflects the western-centric views that are obnoxiously common to international studies run by English speaking media (Japan is always the exception); most third world nations would see a considerably lower level of support for evolution.

2) there are different levels of creationism. There is Young Earth creationism which really shouldn't doesn't allow a big bang; there's Old Earth creationism, which does allow it, and even theistic evolution or intelligent design, which both allow it.

However, I think the emphasis of your question is wrong. The emphasis is evolution vs. creationism, not big bang vs. other. Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone intended to suggest levels wouldn't be lower in a number of third world nations. But the highly educated, developed world is over greater interest when it comes to the acceptance of a scientific fact IMHO. Nil Einne (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sure, religion is much more deep-seated in the US than in (for example) Europe. If a higher proportion of people are religious - then it's no surprise that a higher proportion are extreme in their beliefs - to the point of not believing in rather well proven scientific discoveries such as the Big Bang and evolution.

But it's kinda ridiculous to drag the poor christmas tree into the thing. I'm an atheist - I celebrate Xmas - and I have a tree. I like to tell people that for me, God and Jesus are both precisely as believable as Santa Claus - and that is literally true. I don't believe in Santa - but that doesn't mean I have to expunge every reference to him from my home at the time of a traditional celebration - so if the odd star or angel creeps into the decor...so what? It doesn't MEAN anything.

There is really very little religion involved in the way most Americans or Europeans christians celebrate the holiday anyway. The tree has been 'adopted' by christianity from an older pagan tradition - the angel on the top of the tree might be considered to be a religious symbol - but a lot of people in the UK call it a 'fairy' - without wings and with a magic wand...it doesn't mean that we believe in fairies any more than an atheist has to believe in angels in order to stick one of them on top of the tree. They are decorative - rather pretty actually. Of course most christians use a female doll with a big fancy dress and wings to represent the angel - and the bible makes it quite clear that all angels are male and have TWO sets of wings...I don't see anything like that on the top of anyone's tree!

Xmas cards have snow scenes - robins - santa claus - quaint old-english villages - people dressed in victorian garb...most of them have no sign of religion. Sing many of the most popular carols and look for the religion and you won't find it anywhere. Rudolf the red nosed reindeer? Jingle-bells? Good King Wenceslas? Christmas has become a 'non-denominational' celebration - an excuse to decorate the house, give away presents and eat too much. We atheists can party with the best of them! Some people layer religion on top of the underlying celebration - but it's certainly neither necessary nor particularly traditional. Christians moan that the party has been hijacked by commercialism - but they should crack open a history book and note that the holiday was originally the pagan winter solstice celebration that the christians hijacked. SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Very curious. The Big Bang was originally hypotesized by Catholic priest Georges Lemaître, and, at first, many atheist scientists opposing it, because they didn't like the idea that the universe hadn't always existed and there had been an instant when it came to be—that sounded too much like creation. I've heard that, in the Soviet Union, teaching that theory was even forbidden, for this reason. Now that we have lots of evidence that the Big Bang happened, there are theists disputing it. No comment. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 17:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Solving Britain's housing crisis

Could massive land reclamation, for example extending the south west peninsula, cost effectively solve Britain's housing crisis?Trevor Loughlin (talk) 15:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The depends on what the cause of the housing crisis is. I don't think it's a lack of land, it's a lack of building projects. There are plenty of brown field sites that could be built on, but no-one is building (especially now that the housing bubble has burst). --Tango (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

As noted, Britain is not a particularly densely populated nation. There's plenty of land to build upon; the issue of the housing crisis today is that the credit markets have dried up. There's plenty of places to build houses, and plenty of people wanting to buy, but there's no availible credit to loan to people to encourage the building of new houses. No money means no building. Heck, as recently as 40 years ago, Britain was busy creating new towns out of whole cloth, i.e. Milton Keynes. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this applies to the UK but in many countries although there's a lot of land available it's not necessrily where a lof of people want to live. For example many countries have rather dense populations around the cities (compares to the rest of the country). Part of the housing crisis is often that people want to live near the cities and not out in the wops, or even near the city but too far from the city centre. You can make new cities, but it's often not that easy to make a succesful city. You can also increase density in the existing cities but how acceptable this is to the populance varies Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

A major part of the problem is that demand for housing is concentrated in the south and east, as is much of the economy. There's truckloads of space in the north and west but no-one wants to live there. Exxolon (talk) 19:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Except that those sorts of housing pressures are slowly dissipating. As jobs require less and less actual physical presence in a certain area, people are more able to telecommute and thus live wherever they want. My cousin and her husband, for example, live in Austin, Texas. She works for GlaxoSmithKline out of their Raleigh-Durham office, and he works for Seimens out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Neither of their jobs require them to actually BE in their office, so they work out of a home office. More and more people are able to do this, and that will in the future decrease the housing pressures around urban centers. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the problems of flooding already facing recently built estates, many of which were built on floodplains, the concept of introducing polders to Britain sounds like giving up liquid to cure alcoholism. --Dweller (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Everyone likes the South-West, but not the North. And polders below sea level made of organic material are unstable. So to kill two birds with one stone, the whole of the North of England and Midlands could be excavated creating one giant hole (no-one would know the difference) and dumped at Lands End,then landscaped along with artificial beaches created making clones of the classy Bournemouth, Poole, Purbeck and Sandbanks conurbation.Trevor Loughlin (talk) 02:48, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Acids taste sour...

why do bases not have a distinct taste? Or, do they act as "antisour"? Any thoughts on this important question? Thanks. Aaadddaaammm (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bases often taste bitter. DMacks (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Bases DO have a distinctive taste. Take a bite of a bar of soap. That's pretty much what bases all taste like. Also, because of saponification (i.e. the ability of bases to turn material YOU are made of into soap), it is somewhat less wise to consume bases than to consume acids. Additionally, most nitrogenous bases (like ammonia and methylamine) are themselves quite toxic; acids such as acetic acid or even hydrochloric acid aren't all that toxic in-and-of-themselves... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:13, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Dissolve a tiny bit of baking soda in water and take a sip. It will have a bitter aftertaste at the back of the tongue. StuRat (talk) 07:33, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Limit to the number of discovered elements

How come it's so hard to synthesise more elements after say Roentgenium? If the ratio of neutrons increases with the number of protons, why can't we just increase the number of neutrons present to help space the positive charge? —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 17:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

While I don't know if it will answer your question, you may be interested in Island of stability and perhaps Transuranium element Nil Einne (talk) 18:16, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware of the idea of the island of stability, and that elements have been synthesised higher than Rg, but I'm confused as to why we can't just keep increasing the number of neutrons to help spread out the positive charge so that we can form elements even higher. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 18:27, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

It's frickin' hard to collect a bunch of protons and neutrons and squash them together close enough for them to stick and form a nucleus at all, let alone mix "just the right numbers" of each. DMacks (talk) 18:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC) Nuclear physics is not my thing but I was under the impression too many neutrons is not a good thing either. At least thats's what the graph potrays to me Image:Island-of-Stability.png. As to why, I'm not sure but I was under the impression very large nuclei are not stable, and particularly if you just keep adding neutrons I don't see whats going to hold it together. Or are you talking about the practical side? If so the article says "Manufacturing nuclei in the island of stability may be very difficult, because the nuclei available would not deliver the necessary sum of neutrons. So for the synthesis of isotope 298 of element 114 by using plutonium and calcium, one would require an isotope of plutonium and one of calcium, which have together a sum of at least 298 nucleons (more is better, because at the nuclei reaction some neutrons are emitted). This would require for example in the case of synthesis of element 114 the usage of calcium-50 and plutonium-248. However these isotopes (and heavier calcium and plutonium isotopes) are not available in weighable quantities. This is also the case for other target/projectile-combinations." P.S. What DMacks said. You do realise of course that this isn't just a matter of typing into a computer I want an atom with 100 neutrons and 80 protons right? You actually have to come up with a way to sythesise it and AFAIK most/all? methods involve fusing nuclei together to get what you want. Even if you get an atom of element 114 I don't think you can just add neutrons to it particularly as it probably decays in milliseconds Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Caffeine in potatos?

How much if any Caffeine is there in a Potato? Ballpark. ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.165.5.103 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 2 December 2008

As best I can tell, there is no caffeine in a potato. There seems to be at least one brand of caffeinated potato chips/crisps. There is no caffeine in a ballpark, unless you count the drinks available at the concession stands. --LarryMac | Talk 21:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

wikt:ballpark estimate? -- Ferkelparade π 22:20, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

wikt:sense of humor? --LarryMac | Talk 14:43, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

wikt:Sorry, I was pretty tired and trying to make a joke which fell flat on its nose? --Ferkelparade π 01:26, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This was in regards to coffee made out of potatos, or would that be the same? and yes ballpark figure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.165.5.103 (talk • contribs) 23:54, 2 December 2008

Interesting, verrry interesting! And according to this source, zero mg of caffeine. -hydnjo talk 03:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Brita water filter

I've looked through some of the links in our article and can't find the answers to the specific question I have. Which is: what is it that makes it necessary to replace the filtering cartridge? Is it that the chemicals in it get somehow "used up" after a certain number of uses? Do they degenerate in time? What is it? I ask because I use my filter jug much much more rarely than they expect me to (on their website, they talk about people filling it once or twice a day - I probably do so about once or twice a week) so should I replace the filter less often than they suggest?

Is there any danger in using an out of date filter, or is it just going to filter less efficiently? --Dweller (talk) 21:01, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I could be wrong but I believe filters such as this work by attracting the charged ions in the water which then get 'stuck' in the filter. You need to replace your filter every so often because the filter gets clogged. This is just a hunch, someone feel free to disprove it. —Matt (talk · contribs · email) 21:31, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Well, what do you think happens to the stuff that gets filtered out of your water? It doesn't just disappear into the ether; it is trapped by the filter. As the filter becomes saturated with the compounds it is filtering out, its general effectiveness will decrease over time.

As to your second question, you should be safe adjusting the replacement schedule accordingly. I would suspect that if you filter only once per week (as opposed to once per day) you could safely replace the filter 1/7 as often as recommended. The best test is probably your own taste/smell apparatus. If you can tell the difference between your tap water and your filtered water, then you will notice when the filter stops working.

Also, be aware that since the Brita pitcher isn't airtight, keeping it in your fridge for long periods of time can effect the taste of the water in the pitcher. Volitle compounds (i.e. funky smells) floating around you fridge will slowly dissolve in the water. If taste is your primary concern with filtering your water, then you would probably do best to empty the filter every day or two even if you don't drink all of the water. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, yes, I usually refill the jug before use! So, what you're saying is that with increasing use the cartridge becomes less efficient. So there's no harm in using an overused cartridge - just a waste of time (!) --Dweller (talk) 21:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:08, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. The filter is impregnated with silver to stop bacteria from growing in the water. Over time, this antibacterial effect will also be reduced. If you boil the water for tea, no problem. But if you drink it straight from the jug, you increase the risk of diarrhea, or worse, if you keep using the same filter for longer periods. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. But the level of drinking water safety in Britain already way exceeds European standards for cleanliness, so I guess I'd only need to worry about that if I was using the filter overseas... unless you're saying that when the silver degrades, it'll release any bacteria present back into the jug? --Dweller (talk) 10:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Any bacteria that comes into contact with the silver will be killed, so you don't need to worry about it being released if the silver breaks down. --Joe^Talk_Work 11:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disinfected water, wether treated with silver or by boiling, is particularly prone to become re-contaminated, because the dead bacteria leave (well, become ;-) all the nice nutrients in the water. I don't know how you use your Brita - I'll always have water in mine and refill it immediately. Brita certainly recommends that the filter stays wet all the time. Once the disinfecting effect of the silver wears of, the porous filter is quite a good habitat for bacteria. Unless you overdo it, the risk is remote for any public Western European drinking water supply. But I wonder: I only use my Brita for tea and coffee. I drink plain water straight from the tab and have never noticed a difference to various bottled (non-carbonated) waters. Is there a reason for preferring filtered water here in Europe? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:28, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Bomb into Lake

If someone were to drop a powerful bomb, like a MOAB or a couple 10's or hundreds of tons of something explosive that has been reponsible for some manmade disasters such as fertilizer, petro, or rocket fuel or something that exploded you might see on the shows Shockwave or Destroyed in seconds, into Lake Nyos or Lake Kivu that exploded when it reached the layer of water where the concentration of CO₂ saturation is the highest — while ignoring any difficulty of getting the bomb down underwater and preventing it from being crushed. What would the effects be and quanties (eg.. size, height, power, etc), such as the jet CO₂ gaseous water erupting from the lake, the wave created by the jet, the underwater physical effects on sediment being kicked up. --Melab±1 ☎ 22:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Why stop at the MOAB? See Bikini Baker! --Sean 23:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I think the question here is the secondary effect from the lake, not the primary effect of the explosive. Putting a large disturbance into one of these supersaturated lakes (see Lake Kivu, Lake Nyos) might cause an overturn and a large release of dissolved gases. I don't know how likely this is, and how big an explosion would cause such an effect. If only CO2 is released, it might suffocate a lot of people. But if Methane (known to be in Lake Kivu in massive quantities) is released, it might or might not cause a secondary explosion or at least conflagration. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No I mean both the secondary and primary effect of the explosive.--Melab±1 ☎ 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I recall reading some time ago that a supersaturated lake in Africa (don't recall which one) released a cloud of CO2 (through natural processes). The result of that release was the suffocation of the entire population of a village down hill from the lake. --Psud (talk) 11:40, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

That's Lake Nyos mentioned above PervyPirate (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Question about volume of helium in a balloon

whatvolume of helium would be in balloon the size of a soft drink bottle?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.166.129 (talk • contribs)

What sized soft-drink bottle? If the balloon is a 2-liter balloon, then it holds 2 liters of anything (air, helium, whatever). The space taken up by the container doesn't changed based on the identity of the material contained in it... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 22:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

arguments against vaccinating babies

Hello,

My dad and step-mum have decided against vaccinating my baby sister against, well, anything. I'm appauled by this (and am aware that a couple in belgium were convicted of child abuse for the same thing). In the interest of balance however, i'm just wondering whether there are any scientific arguments against routine childhood vaccinations? thanks 82.22.4.63 (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

There was an uproar, still is infact, that there have been one or two studies that show the MMR vaccine to increase the chances of your child developing an autistic nature; however, it turned out that several facts had been omitted and now scientific consensus is mostly that the vaccine is not linked to autism. Other than that, I can't think of anything. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The more rational argument is that a vaccine, like any medication, has risks. You are much more likely to have an adverse reaction to the vaccine than you are to get the disease the vaccine prevents against provided that enough people are vaccinated to provide a herd immunity and the disease cannot establish itself in the population. Avoiding vaccination makes sense from a purely selfish standpoint, but if enough people act selfishly the disease becomes a risk again and the population suffers. Imagine five people in a house on stilts: if every person provides a stilt to the house, the house stays up. If one person doesn't, the house will still stand. If three people don't, the house falls over. It's not really "child abuse" to avoid vaccination, it's really more like tax evasion. SDY (talk) 23:56, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

At one time, mercury compounds were included as a preservative in some vaccines. The mercury came under suspicion as a cause of autism. Nowadays, no vaccine contains a mercury compound except for a few flu vaccines.

And, surprise surprise, there was no decrease in autism rates associated with stopping the use of said compounds. There continues to be no empirical evidence supporting the anti-vaccine crowd. Not vaccinating babies has the potential to place said baby in a position of harm, and place the population as a whole in harm. It is absolutely irresponsible. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 00:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

There are none. Some vaccines do contain Mercury, but less than a tin of tuna. WilyD 00:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, fear of mercury is not based on actual harm that mercury may cause. No child is going to suddenly turn retarded, go crazy, or start growing a third arm just because they were touched by a drop of mercury. It takes long-term exposure to mercury to get a build-up of mercury in the child's system. If the child was getting a mercury-laden shot every week for a few months, I'd be concerned. If the child received one shot that contained a minute speck of mercury, any chance of poisoning would be because the child had some other health problem that was keeping the child from expelling the mercury. -- kainaw™ 03:27, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Some risks for vaccine injections:

1) For live vaccines, there's a slight risk of contracting the disease they are attempting to innoculate against.

2) The needle could break off in the child or cause other tissue damage.

3) An infection can occur at the injection site.

4) A medical error may occur and they may inject the child with the wrong item or the wrong dosage.

5) An unscrupulous medical researcher may use innocculations as a way to expose children to some test medication.

6) If they accidentally use a used needle, the child may contract a disease carried by the last patient.

The risk of each of these is quite small, but not zero. StuRat (talk)

funny enough, hepatitis B vaccine was said to increase the risk of multiple sclerosis in france, and, as i suffer from MS & am french, I am always asked if I had the vaccine, and as the answer is yes, a sligthy awkward silence generally follows. but there are no evidence thereof, so, don't worry!! some babies will get really bad reactions to vaccines, but that's one in a million, also, vaccination might be delated to decrease the "risk", but it's typically a free rider decision ; getting all the advantages (the major part of the population is vaccinated so the rick to be sick is low) without the speculated disadvantages (not proved to me) Pytra (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Logically, you're safest being an unvaccinated person in a world where 100% of others are vaccinated. However, given that the true figure for the "others" is nowhere near 100%, this is literally dicing with death. Especially if you factor in foreign travel - people bring diseases with them from other countries, and your baby sister might conceivably wish to travel overseas herself... --Dweller (talk) 10:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I wonder whether the pharmaceutical companies that sold the mercury-preserved vaccines also produced the figures (from "independent" researchers) and the publicity, saying their vaccines were harmless. After all, they would be faced with an enormous number of lawsuits if the vaccines were responsible for autism. And if mercury is harmless, why is it that mercury compounds are no longer used in most vaccines?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.67.220 (talk • contribs)

If a loud enough contingent of critics complain about mercury regardless of their validity, seems like removing it is a rational and no-hidden-agenda business decision to solve a PR problem. As another noted above, didn't work because apparently the critics aren't rationally examining the before/after data. DMacks (talk) 14:32, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, they removed mercury because their sales dropped when people thought of the concern. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I've always felt that people have a severe over-reaction to mercury when they bring in a toxic waste disposal team wearing chem suits when a mercury thermometer breaks. However, it even makes me uncomfortable to think they are intentionally injected it into babies, even in small dosages. Even if it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt to be harmless, it just SEEMS like a bad idea, and always will. StuRat (talk) 18:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

No one is injecting mercury into babies. A mercury-containing compound is not "mercury". - Nunh-huh 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Injecting a mercury containing compound certainly is injecting mercury, among other things. And some mercury containing compounds, like methylmercury, are far more dangerous than elemental mercury. StuRat (talk) 11:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

And some are less, but that's not to your point. Avoiding mercury-containing compounds because elemental mercury makes you uncomfortable is like avoiding salt because elemental sodium creates a spectacular pyrotechnic display when exposed to water, and chlorine gas is poisonous. - Nunh-huh 16:19, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Table salt is a good example. If I want to limit my sodium intake, I should limit my consumption of most molecules containing sodium, such as sodium chloride, as my metabolism will break them down. One diff, however, if that some sodium is essential for life, while mercury is not. Thus, rather than risk that a given mercury compound may be changed into a toxic form by my metabolism, I'd prefer to avoid it entirely. StuRat (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

A better example would have been a non-ionic substance. Rejecting a substance on the basis of the effects of that substance is rational. Rejecting a compound on the basis of the elements that make it up, rather than on the effects of the compound, is irrational. - Nunh-huh 01:41, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Some molecules are broken down into their constituents by the human metabolism, others aren't. Unless scientists have done exhaustive studies to prove that a molecule can't break down in the human body, or it's "generally recognized as safe", due to having been consumed for generations with no apparent ill effects, then it's safer to limit exposure to those molecules containing dangerous constituents. I also plan to avoid arsenic-containing and uranium-containing molecules, for the same reasons. StuRat (talk) 04:39, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Take a read of MMR vaccine controversy "Following the initial claims, multiple large epidemiologic studies were undertaken. Reviews of the evidence by the Centers for Disease Control,[5] the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of Sciences,[6] the UK National Health Service[7], and the Cochrane Library[8] all found no link between the vaccine and autism." before you suggest such non-sense Nil Einne (talk) 19:12, 3 December 2008 (UTC) Edit: Okay maybe I was a little harsh in my response, re-reading anons comment it was phrased as a question not a statement. Also I'm not sure if the studies were referring to thiomersal containing MMR vaccines, I suspect MMR vaccines in general but Thiomersal controversy says "The scientific consensus—including scientific and medical bodies such as the Institute of Medicine and World Health Organization[8] as well as governmental agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration[4] and the CDC[9]—rejects any role for thiomersal in autism or other neurodevelopmental disorders. Multiple lines of scientific evidence have been cited to support this conclusion: for example, the clinical symptoms of mercury poisoning differ signficantly from those of autism.[10] Most conclusively, eight major studies (as of 2008) examined the effect of reductions or removal of thiomersal from vaccines. All eight demonstrated that autism rates failed to decline despite removal of thiomersal, arguing strongly against a causative role.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]" Nil Einne (talk) 21:01, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems some people have missed one key point. While you may be more likely to have an adverse reaction of some sort then to catch the disease the adverse reaction you do get is likely to be far less severe then the results of catching the disease. Child abuse? Yes I would say so. Note as well the IP looks up to the UK where a numberof diseases normally vaccinated for are a problem Nil Einne (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that the net result is the same in the end - but it really bothers/annoys me when people (or perhaps 'dipshits') justify refusing to vaccinate their kids for crackpot, wac-a-mole reasons - such as the belief that vaccination programs are just a convenient excuse to enable the Government to secretly inject children with genetic tracking/thought control/bioweapons technology. Or the belief that these 'common childhood diseases' don't actually exist as claimed and that stories of such are merely a propaganda tool to enable the evil global megacorporations (with Government collusion) to sell placebos to the mass populace for sheer financial gain. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 19:23, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only the child either, but as has been noted you're endangering the population as a whole by reducing its herd immunity. Vaccines are usually close to, but never 100% effective. Everyone is safer when a larger portion of the population is vaccinated. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of adverse reactions, thiomersal controversy has this sad little gem "The notion that thiomersal causes autism has led some parents to have their children treated with chelation therapy; about 10,000 autistic children in the U.S. receive mercury-chelating agents every year, and in August 2005 a 5-year-old autistic boy died from an arrhythmia caused by injection of the chelating agent EDTA." Nil Einne (talk) 21:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The general attitude of Americans to childhood diseases, such as measles, chicken pox, mumps, etc. is that they are really quite harmless and nothing to worry about. This is partially due, I should think, to the success of vaccination in controlling these diseases. After all, our parents and grandparents often had them and survived OK. I am in fact old enough to have had measles and chicken pox myself; I remember being very sick with high fever, but I got over it just fine. This, of course, is a mistaken idea, because children do die from these diseases. See for example this link to the World Health Organization's article on measles [3]. Note this statement: "Measles remains a leading cause of death among young children, despite the availability of a safe and effective vaccine for the past 40 years. An estimated 242 000 people, the majority of them children, died from measles in 2006, the latest year for which figures are available." Perhaps this sort of information will encourage your parents to change their minds.--Eriastrum (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The fact that one's ancestors, by necessity, survived (because we exist) is an interesting source of bias; the children killed by measles and other preventable diseases don't have descendants. I hadn't thought about this before; I wonder if there's a name for this sort of bias. - Nunh-huh 22:30, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Do they still do measles and mumps parties regularly in the US? Chicken pox parties seem to be fairly common, AFAIK (never been involved with one) - though my childhood experience would suggest that these are probably unnecessary, as there were always arsehole parents who'd force their kids to go to school when they were pox-ridden and nearly everyone would end up with it anyway... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 00:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. those answers have certainly been eye-opening/terrifing! As Nil Einne picked up on, I am from the UK so am a but troubled by assertion that the diseases we vaccinate against are still prevalent in the UK. I don't doubt what you're saying but do you know any websites i can direct my dad which details this? 82.22.4.63 (talk) 10:14, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You can search for "measles rate Britain" or "measles epidemiology Britain" for numerous articles, of which this is one: [4] and this is another, older but more scientific [5]: "Measles has reappeared in the United Kingdom, with 449 confirmed cases to the end of May 2006 compared with 77 in 2005, and the first death since 1992. Cases are occurring in inadequately vaccinated children and in young adults, leading to concerns that endemic measles could re-emerge. But, as with smallpox, measles could be eradicated. It has been eliminated in the Americas since 2002." Since that article was written, measles has indeed again become endemic in Britain: [6]. That last article may be the one to share with your father. - Nunh-huh 22:22, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's another pro vaccination reason. If your sister should come down with one of the diseases that vaccination is common for in your country her doctor will go down the list of "possible causes" for e.g. her measles rash, going to ever more exotic tests and causes because a) the formerly "common" disease has become so uncommon locally that it simply doesn't come to mind and b) they'll say she's from ...insert country... so it can't be ...insert disease... So maybe the "child abuse" may happen years down the road when she's grown (maybe has kids of her own) or even when she's a senior and any vaccination records have long been lost in one move or other. 76.97.245.5 (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2008 (UTC)