Science desk
< December 26	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 28 >

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 27

Paramedic Milk?

Hello: I'm needing the name of a medicine/drug/etc that is mostly used in emergency medical situations, usually given by paramedics on the way to the hospital, by the name of (blank) milk. Apparently this is an informal name. I've tried various keywords on Wikipedia, but to no avail. Again, the term is (blank) milk.

Thanks in advance! Siouxdax (talk) 01:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you are thinking of "Milk of Amnesia" (aka "sweet milk" or "mother's milk" - see this), which is slang for propofol, an anesthetic, but I doubt an EMT would use it - it's not really part of the EMT medical arsenal - usually the EMTs are more interested in keeping patients conscious, not knocking them out. The only other thing I can come up with is Milk of Magnesia, but I don't think there's any circumstance where it would be administered by EMTs. --Bmk (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lactated Ringer's solution? "Lactated" makes one think of milk. On the old Emergency! TV series from the 1970's, the doctors at the hospital always told the paramedics to "Administer Ringer's and D5W and transport immediately." It seemed like it might be a good idea to keep some Ringer's and D5W around, just in case, whatever they were. D5W is 5% dextrose which hydrates, keeps the vein open and provides carbohydrates. Lactated Ringer's is used for fluid resuscitation after blood loss or burns, per the article. Edison (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although there may be another more suitable answer, have you considered that the answer to your question could just be milk? Milk has a lot of applications and one particular good one is that acids and bases can be diluted effectively. Although, these days, I think activated charcoal has replaced milk in this role both preclinically and in the hospital. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking more broadly, could the EMTs refer informally to Lactated Ringer's solution as 'Ringer's Milk', the pun intended on 'lactated'. Richard Avery (talk) 15:09, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cockatiel and budgerigar utterances

I've noticed that when they speak human words, their mouth movements don't always match the words being spoken. Their mouths are not open when the mouth of human speaking the same word would be open, I mean.

I guess this is because talking birds make their sounds in a different way to humans, but can anyone here be more specific? Thanks. --84.68.206.133 (talk) 07:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds make sounds with their Syrinx, which is considerably different than the voicebox of humans. The way birds produce sounds probably produces the effect you're seeing. -- JSBillings 13:59, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange weather seen on radar. Small scale "lake effect" perhaps?

http://img211.imageshack.us/img211/778/weirdweatherfc2.png

This is a screenshot I took on weather.com of a radar image showing a portion of Northeast Kansas on December 27th, 2008. It shows that there is an area of freezing rain around Tuttle Creek Lake, yet in the area immediately around and on the lake, the rain is not freezing. Why is this? I should mention that it got into the 70s here today and I know that water changes temperature slowly, so perhaps the lake is releasing warmth from the day causing the air around it be too warm for freezing rain. That's just my theory. What's your opinion? 63.245.144.68 (talk) 09:25, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the moving images of the radar, this effect is still visible, so it's not just one frame. The lake is definitely causing the rain to not freeze around it...but why? 63.245.144.68 (talk) 09:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a map of the reservoir, which clearly mirrors the shape of the disturbance noted above...

Large bodies of water have lots of thermal inertia, so they change their temperature more slowly than the surrounding land. It's possible that the lake is holding in heat acquired during the past few days and reradiating it into the local air. I'm not specifically familiar with this lake or the weather patterns around it, but if the lake is large enough to cause this effect, it should be a fairly regular occurrence (i.e. happens during most freezing-rain occurrences). It'd have to be a fairly large lake, though, since freezing rain forms at reasonably high altitudes and is generally characterized by temperature inversion layers (though these can form from local geography, they won't usually last over a pond-sized feature). It's not out of the question to call the artifact a RADAR fluke - there are dozens of reasons why RADAR would give faulty readings. Sometimes, a particularly sensitive RADAR can even backscatter off of atmospheric thermal gradients, possibly such as the rising column of warmer air from the lake. Nimur (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday was a really really unseasonably warm day, then it got colder last night. Also, the lake is probably still largely frozen, but I'm sure a lot of it broke up yesterday with the warmth (I'm not sure if that maters, though). It's about a mile to a mile and a half wide, by the way.

I kinda doubt this happens often because yesterday was so warm that it created unusual conditions, but sometimes in late summer and fall, fog will fill the valley on the lake and later in the day, the fog will rise as a big Tuttle Creek Lake-shaped cloud that I've seen on radar before. Also, notice that Milford Lake (which is larger) to the southwest isn't doing the same thing. 63.245.144.68 (talk) 13:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking it might be caused by the lake, since I have seen on radar, rain instead of mixed precip or mixed instead of snow over large, unfrozen lakes such as Georgian Bay or Lake Erie. However, it could just be a glitch or even a plain estimate based on temperature, since I've seen "rain" indicated on radar, but once the precip actually arrived at my location, it fell as wet snow. I live in S. Ontario. Mixed precip can indicate wet snow, ice pellets, snow pellets, freezing rain, rain/snow mixed, rain containing ice crystals, etc. Also, if the lake is unfrozen, and the rain near it is falling as freezing rain, then the rain is unlikely to freeze when it hits the lake since the heat of the lake will prevent freezing anyway. Small lakes can also generate their own precipitation, for example I have seen lake effect snow streamers coming off of lakes as small as Lake Simcoe. Unrelated, it sometimes snows here under a partly clear sky. Also, the rapid cooldown today generated winds gusting to 85 km/h (53 mph). Lakes, especially large ones, often don't freeze until January or February. I've heard a quote that the Great Lakes are warmer in November than they are in June. ~A H 1^(TCU) 21:59, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While these theories do have merit, it is important to realize that weather radars can not directly determine precipitation type: The colors are added artificially by a computer, taking surface observations, climatology, and other factors into account. Since surface observations are very widely spaced (~100 km apart on average), and are often automated and prone to occasional error, the precipitation types shown on the radar might not necessarily be true.

Also, even in the case where precipitation type can be directly detected by the radar (which should be possible with next-generation dual-polarimetric radar), remember that the radar beam sweeps out at an angle to the surface, so that areas far away from the radar site reflect not the surface precipitation, but that at the level of the radar, which can be several thousand feet up. This explains why occasionally radars will show precipitation where none is occurring, because it is evaporating before it hits the ground. -Running On Brains 01:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Binomial authority

I tried searching for the binomial authority of American spider beetle so that I could add it to the article, but I can't find it. What is the binomial authority of Mezium americanum? Schuym1 (talk) 13:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling on "Mezium americanum" yields several hits on the first page showing François Louis de la Porte, comte de Castelnau, who seems to be variously referenced as "Laporte", "Castelnau", and "Laporte de Castelnau". --Milkbreath (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Wikipedia article "List of botanists by author abbreviation", and our boy is not there. A link on that page, however, sent me to The International Plant Names Index author search, where I found a certain "Castelnau, François Louis Nompar de Caumat de Laporte", who is undoubtedly the same guy; the years of birth and death even match. There is shown a "standard form" of "Castelnau". --Milkbreath (talk) 18:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Color of hydrocarbons

What is the smallest (by number of carbon atoms) molecule composed only from C and H that is not white/transparent? What is the smallest such molecule that actually is black? How does this change when O is allowed in the molecule? 95.112.152.70 (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the smallest, but this page has some interesting info, and mentions 2,4,6,8 decatetraene C₁₀H₁₄ as having a pale yellow colour (structure; Wikipedia has little info but see -ene). It generally seems to be aromatic molecules with multiple rings that are not colourless (actually the colourless ones absorb in the UV spectrum), although there are a few linear molecules with alternating single and double bonds like 2,4,6,8-decatetraene. --Maltelauridsbrigge (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, azulene has ten carbon atoms, the same as decatetraene, but it's dark blue. With only C and H, aromatic rings are the way to go. —Keenan Pepper 20:31, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, so 10 seams the limit for (visible) color. But what about black? 93.132.189.157 (talk) 08:55, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It depends what your definition of "black" is. If you look through a thick enough layer of azulene, it will certainly look black, because the thicker it is, the more light it absorbs at any given wavelength (see Beer-Lambert law). Similarly, if you end up deciding that some compound is "really black", a very thin layer of it will not look black. See Opacity (optics) for various ways you could attempt to quantify how black something is. —Keenan Pepper 15:22, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't look through but rather at the substance, thus seeing the light that it emits/reflects rather than the light from the other side that it neglects to block. 93.132.189.157 (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreclosure

what are free listins of foreclosed cars and houses. thank you sir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.174.233 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This question has nothing to do with science, the topic of this Reference Desk.

Atlant (talk) 01:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it did, the lack of context is so mind boggling. I mean, online or newspaper, specirfic country, etc.? Makes me wonder if it is science in that some psychology student is trying to see how we react. Because, I can't figure out how else it relates to Science.209.244.30.221 (talk) 01:51, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cigarette v. Cigar Second Hand Smoke

I am trying to find out what the differences, if any, are between cigar and cigarette second hand smoke. I keep getting 4,000 chemicals in cigarettes BUT I really just need to know if the cigarette paper burning is worse than the cigar leaf burning? If this is not in your area PLEASE help to guide me to another reference source. Thank you very much —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.244.130.12 (talk) 20:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I removed your email adress so you won't get spammed. Lova Falk (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe more chemicals are added to cigarettes, since they are produced mainly by massive conglomerates, while cigars tend to be made by smaller companies. Also, some cigars stink to high heaven, so will "encourage" bystanders to move away to a safe distance. For both reasons, I suspect 2nd hand cigar smoke is less severe. StuRat (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What sources did you use as the basis of your response? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want proof that cigarettes are made by massive conglomerates, see RJR Nabisco and Phillip Morris. StuRat (talk) 10:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's some very detailed information which has been compiled by the National Cancer Institute (of the U.S National Institutes of Health). Their monograph on cigars is available here.

Studies specific to secondhand cigar smoke are few and far between, but the reported components are essentially the same as those in cigarette smoke. Because of the larger mass of tobacco, binder, and paper burned in a typical cigar (compared to the size of the typical cigarette), the effect on indoor air quality is greater on a per-cigar basis.

From page 97 (page 43 of PDF of Chapter 3: Chemistry and Toxicology), some of the conclusions include:

Cigar smoke contains the same toxic and carcinogenic compounds identified in cigarette smoke.
When examined in animal studies, cigar smoke tar appears to be at least as carcinogenic as cigarette smoke tar.
The differences in risk between cigarette smoking and cigar smoking appear to be related to the differences in patterns of use of those two tobacco products, principally non-daily use and less inhalation among cigar smokers, rather than a difference in the composition of the smoke.

You may also find Chapter 5 (Indoor Air Pollution From Cigar Smoke) a useful resource. Hope that helps. (I will warn you that some of the material is written at a fairly high level.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

transistor feed back network

can any body plz tell me which type of feed back network is between transistor q1 and transistor q3 in this circuit http://www.redcircuits.com//Page38.htm ,so that i could make a study on it 116.71.189.71 (talk) 21:12, 27 December 2008 (UTC )

Its dc feedback to Q1 used to alter the gain of Q1 (by altering its rE). It is part of the AGC loop. Havent we had this Q B4?--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you read the para on operation in that link (as I have just done), it actually tells you this.--GreenSpigot (talk) 02:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it is awe inspiring to see people who can actually understand transistor biasing. Edison (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the page Bipolar transistor biasing seems to cover all the options for those who are interested.--GreenSpigot (talk) 15:07, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disodium Edta

How is disodium edta formed?96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:16, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See EDTA#Synthesis. —Keenan Pepper 23:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate your help, but you only pointed me to the formation of EDTA, not disodium edta.96.53.149.117 (talk) 04:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the section I linked to does discuss the synthesis of sodium salt forms. It says "This yields the tetra sodium salt, which can be converted into the acidic forms by acidification.". See the first reference in that section for more information. —Keenan Pepper 04:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Different salts are formed in different ways. I am looking for disodium edta.96.53.149.117 (talk) 07:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I am not wrong, that reference only informs how edta is formed. It does not explain how disodium edta is formed.96.53.149.117 (talk) 07:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listen. Your statement that "Different salts are formed in different ways" is false. They are formed the same way, because they are in equilibrium in solution. If you just have an aqueous solution of EDTA, it's really a solution of (at least) seven different species in equilibrium: H₆EDTA²⁺, H₅EDTA⁺, H₄EDTA, H₃EDTA⁻, H₂EDTA²⁻, HEDTA³⁻, and EDTA⁴⁻. It's impossible to make a solution where only one of these is present, because it would react with water to produce the others. The only thing you can do is adjust the overall pH of the solution to change the distribution of the protonated forms. If there are also sodium ions in solution, then the equilibrium will include more forms where EDTA is complexed to various numbers of sodium ions. There is no way to make a solution where only Na₂H₂EDTA, or only Na₂EDTA²⁺, is present. Every chemist knows this. —Keenan Pepper 15:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the question is not about the formation, but actually about the isolation of the disodium salt? Nimur (talk) 17:35, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methylchloroisothiazolinone

How is Methylchloroisothiazolinone formed? What is the science behind Methylchloroisothiazolinone? What is it's occurrence in nature?96.53.149.117 (talk) 22:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any scientists out there that dont swear?

Every darn one of em my son brings home starts cussin like an old bitter sailer. What is the cause of such unscientific behavior? Does discovery disillusion all? Do we only gain knowledge at the price of sanity?--LarryOLarry (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is your son bringing scientists home? and... Do you let him keep them? - Nunh-huh 23:34, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have yet to meet a scientist who cusses like an old sailor. I know many who cuss, but they use a completely different group of favoured cuss words. Perhaps you are confusing cuss words into one large group. Real scientists are usually intelligent. Intelligence tends to include a good grasp on language. Being able to articulate leads to a lack of swearing. It appears that your son is picking up old sailors and just telling you that they are scientists. Reminds me of an old joke... I tried all those life-threatening sports to try and get an adrenaline rush. Nothing worked. So, I went for the most life threatening thing I could think of. I threw on a red dress and sold myself off to the lowest bidder down by the docks. -- kainaw ™ 23:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider whose fault it could be. Perhaps someone should've taught him to check those scientists for potty mouth before he picks them up. Or perhaps your son just likes that dirty talk? I mean, kids these days are just wild. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does anyone swear? I have heard that Americans and Brits swear much more than people in other countries. Maybe scientists in those two countries are just following national custom. – GlowWorm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.253.174 (talk) 01:07, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that's true, I'd attribute it to the richness of the English language. We will assimilate your curse words. Resistance is futile. - Nunh-huh 01:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you realize that, despite what you may have read, aardvarks, coelacanth, ectoplasm, vermicelli, rhizopod and even thundering typhoons are not necessarily curse-words ... Abecedare (talk) 01:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the golden apples of the west, are you sure? Algebraist 01:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be a little serious, I can't imagine that your son has taken home more than a few scientists. In any population, there is liable to be a few individuals who swear more than the average member of the larger society, and its perfectly possible that your son just happened to bring those home. Speak with a few hundred, then come back and let us know how many swear like drunk sailors. I can tell you that I, for one, don't swear all that often. – Clockwork Soul 01:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And of course we can't discount sampling bias; it's possible that scientists who cuss have been preferentially drawn from the proverbial urn. Nimur (talk) 17:56, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't worry about it, I'm sure you make up for that with your other fine qualities. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 01:43, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what my mom says, but she never seems to give any details. – Clockwork Soul 02:20, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your son has been trawling in the astrophysics department? They're a colorful bunch. Tell him to try condensed matter physics - they're much more proper. --Bmk (talk) 03:17, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although they might not realize it, there is absolutely nothing wrong with swearing. Swear words are simply the sounds produced by your vocal cords, tongue and lips. Any emotional value assigned to swear words are merely the product of culture. That is to say that there is no scientific reason why the word 'crap' is acceptable and the word 'shit' is not. Either way, they're simply sounds, a combination of vovels and consonants. Why should one combination of vovels and consonants be acceptable and another combination of vovels and consonants be inacceptable? It could easily be the other way around where 'crap' is considered obscene and the word 'shit' is perfectly fine. There is no scientific reason why 'sex' is acceptable and 'fuck' is not. To be honest, it's a bit sad that in 2008 (soon to be 2009) that we still allow this superstitious taboo to cloud our thinking. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 13:34, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Children (and adults) are pushed to avoid swearing because it is a sign of intelligence to be able to articulate without using "placeholder" words, be they swear words or whatever the popular slang words of the day are. A good parent attempts to help his or her child to be better. A terrible (but very common) parent raises his or her child to be worse so the parent can feel better that someone is worse. -- kainaw ™ 16:39, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Swearing has been called an ignorant man's eloquence. If a scientist swears, it is because he is an ignoramus at expressing himself (except, perhaps, in original mathematical formulas). I used to work as a scientific editor and some of the scientific papers I saw seemed as if written by a child. – GlowWorm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.253.174 (talk) 18:31, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a writer, I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that, and it's got nothing to do with whether I can think of a synonym for "bullshit" or express the thought in some other manner. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 02:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you had ever worked in a laboratory, with crappy instruments which give two completely different readings without you changing anything because the first time you make the measurement an electric cable wasn't working properly, or you're stretching yourself and you accidentally hit a dial and so you have to spend another 10 minutes re-calibrating an instrument, and then you find out that another instrument hadn't been calibrated properly in the first place, and you have to spend another hour to re-make the same set of measurements all over again ... Well, you'd understand why we swear. -- Army1987 – Deeds, not words. 19:24, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A scientist should express himself with grace and style. – GlowWorm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.253.174 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scientists should be logical and not succumb to superstition. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 00:33, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Captain Disdain. ~~Fuck that shit~~. I mean disregard that nonsense. Here's Penn and Teller's take on debunking profanity: [1]. It's ironic that on a Science reference desk we have so many people advocating such non-scientific view points. 67.184.14.87 (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Penn and Teller's show has anything to do with what has been stated here. The statements above claim that using words that have no meaning do not demonstrate an intelligent use of language. Penn and Teller's show claims that use of silly words that have no meaning is not a good replacement for vulgar words that have no meaning. Also, the FCC shouldn't exist. I agree with the statements above. Captain Disdain's statement, "call bullshit" doesn't have true meaning. It means "label that as feces from a bull." That isn't what he means though. What exactly he means, we have to guess. As for Penn and Teller, I agree with them. Had Captain Disdain wrote "call boohockey" instead, it would be just as meaningless. Also, the FCC is evil. Just because I feel that people should try to show intelligence by expressing meaning instead of lazily using placeholder words, I do not feel that there should be some government agency forcing people to do so. Mainly, I constantly repeat the advice my grandfather gave me: No matter what you believe and how strongly you believe it, at least half the world disagrees with you. -- kainaw ™ 02:03, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the Penn and Teller episode mentioned previously: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.14.87 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Profanity is a matter of superstition. The idea that there are certain sequences of sounds which if said will make everyone very unformfortable for reasons they can't quite explain is a very primitive notion.

"And it's also very arbitrary.

"'Dog' is a sequence of sounds. 'Dog'. We happen to have chosen that to match that little yapping animal. Well, we have no problem with that word. But then instead of 'dog' we say 'fuck', that's considered bad. Oh, dear!" 67.184.14.87 (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For another perspective, try asking here. BrainyBabe (talk) 20:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]