Science desk
< December 24	<< Nov \| December \| Jan >>	December 26 >

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 25

Help identifying plant pest

Please see this imgur album. Something is creating these on my houseplants, and I'd like to know what so I can figure out how to kill/discourage it. Thank you! The Masked Booby (talk) 07:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to add I live in China. The Masked Booby (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a mealy bug to me, or a scale insect. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, more mealy bug than scale insect. Richard Avery (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neurofeedback in time management

I've read that EEGs can measure attention fairly accurately. Has the effectiveness of using it in time-management software, to determine when a user should switch tasks or whether to repeat a reminder, been studied? (I'd expect it to be particularly helpful for users with autism spectrum disorders or ADHD who hyperfocus.) Neon Merlin 08:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it works, how do you suppose that we use it? I can hardly carry an EEG machine with me, or have I missed the question entirely? Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:06, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In principle it ought to be possible, because the EEG pattern during a state of focused attention is quite different from the EEG pattern of somebody whose attention is wandering. Several companies that provide neurofeedback products claim that they are useful in time management, but I don't have much faith in the reliability of those claims. There is, however, some proper research showing that neurofeedback is sometimes helpful to people who have ADHD. Looie496 (talk) 18:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas a Defibrillator was invented to restart hearts, what needs to be invented to restart brains?

Also, what must be developed and overcome in order for a brain-restarter to be made that will bring back the activity of life to the brain? --75.39.137.175 (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magic needs to be invented. Hearts are nothing like brains, your logic does not follow. A brain cannot be restarted by electricuting it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:57, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question, though, is a natural one, given the recent popularity of the term Brain attack. The "Brain Attack" public service campaigns mean to emphasize "the urgency of stroke symptoms and the need to act swiftly" now that effective but time-critical stroke treatments exist, but it was never meant to suggest that parallels exist for all heart attack treatments. -- 203.82.82.134 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Atleast not in the same way.) To restart a brain you'd have to create a very specific neorological stimulation pattern, much like taking a second photograph that looks exactly the same as the first, accurate down to the pixel level. Impossible to do with current technology, or technology in the foreseable future. Plasmic Physics (talk) 13:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A defibrillator does not restart the heart, it just forces it into synchrony -- see fibrillation. A heart that is completely stopped cannot be restarted. The brain equivalent of fibrillation is an epileptic seizure, but epileptic seizures stop of their own accord when the metabolic energy of the brain runs down. Looie496 (talk) 18:02, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this answers your question, but you might find the links at Brain stimulation interesting. But no, none of them will bring a stopped brain back to life. They may, however, stimulate under-functioning areas of the brain into more activity. 58.111.186.225 (talk) 18:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a brain EKG?

Whereas EKGs are for heart activity, what's a device that gives us readings of brain activity? --75.39.137.175 (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EEG is what you're describing. Also, see fMRI or a PET scan with 18F-FDG for different ways of detecting brain activity. Fgf10 (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2011 (UTC) _{Edit:forgot to log in.}[reply]

Animals don't like the taste of humans?

Why is that predators usually don't hunt humans for food? In the rare cases they do attack humans, they do it for other purposes than hunting, for example they feel threatened, and even if they kill a human, they usually don't consume the corpse. Is there something special in our meat that makes it unhealthy or untasty for them, or is it more that the animals learned to fear and avoid humans (because of hunting, making loud noises, etc.) ? --79.116.95.237 (talk) 17:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Adult) Humans are quite big. There aren't many predators that will hunt such large animals. Big cats will, but that's all I can think of. Those few that do would rather hunt things that don't fight back so effectively (we are particularly good at working together to defeat predators, which is a key different between us and, say, antelope). Animals learn from experience, the same way we do - when they hunt antelope they get a nice meal, when they hunt humans they get shot (or speared, or hit on the head with a rock, or whatever). There is probably an evolutionary aspect as well - those individuals that tried to hunt humans didn't do very well so weren't able to pass on those genes, while those that gave humans a wide berth did pass on their genes. (Children are another matter entirely - there are plenty of animals that will take a human child for food given a chance.) --Tango (talk) 18:01, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting implication of that is that although deer, elk, antelope, etc. have horns, they don't really know how to use them to defeat a predator. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saltwater crocodiles will attack humans to prey on them. See Crocodile attack. So will Great white sharks, if given the chance. Most other animals will only attack a human in perceived self-defense, such as if a snake gets stepped on or spooked. (Actually, I've heard that a lot of snake bites happen when a human idiot tries to kill the snake. If you see a poisonous snake, you leave it alone, and it'll likely leave you alone). 58.111.186.225 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've read, your typical Great White will take one bite of a human, realize it's not a fat, tasty seal, and move on. The fact that it may leave the human dead or dying doesn't really figure into it, from the shark's standpoint. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's my understanding too. The sharks have just had a lot of bad press. But I'd agree with our IP editor about some snakes. The Australian Tiger snake in particular seems to like to seek out a confrontation. HiLo48 (talk) 04:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this has a lot more to do with the fight or flight response than flavor. If a wolf sees a deer, he knows just what it is, how fast it can run, what defenses it has, and how many of his friends he will need to take it down. It doesn't know any of that if a human should wander by, so it's natural inclination will almost always be to leave it alone and look for more certain prey. Even predators larger than a human, such as bears, can have this response. Training for those expecting bear danger usually includes the advice that if a bear is confronting you, you stop, face it, hold your arms up to make yourself look bigger and yell angrily at it. This is intended to confuse the bear. Like most humans, bears fear what they don't understand. If they don't understand why you are apparently not afraid of them, they are much more likely to back down. They may even charge to see if you will stand your ground or run. If you run, the decision is made in an instant and the bear attacks. If you stand your ground the bear will turn around and leave in most cases. The majority of animal attacks on humans are due to a human surprising a predator rather than being stalked by one. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:47, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure that would work against a grizzly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It works. It works better if you're in a group. The goal is not to confuse the bear, but to trigger the bear's "bison" reflex: no sensible bear will attack an adult bison, since the bison is bigger, stronger, and meaner than the bear. --Carnildo (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason is that humans hold a grudge. If a predator attacks another species, it will most likely not fight back at all. If it does fight back, it will only be until it gets away. Humans, on the other hand, might very well form a hunting party, track down the animal responsible and kill it and quite possibly any animal related to it. So, over the thousands of years humans have done this, their has been a constant evolutionary pressure to not hunt humans. StuRat (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shark attacks are rare, but are potentially becoming more common even as humans kill 80 - 100 million of them every year. See for example the 2010 Sharm el-Sheikh shark attacks on tourists. Some human behaviours, such as feeding the prey of sharks, may contribute to increased attacks as the sharks mistake humans for food, and warmer sea surface temperatures may have been another factor in the Egyptian attacks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumoencephalography in The Exorcist

The Regan MacNeil character in The Exorcist was shown to be undergoing pneumoencephalography. But the first X-ray computed tomography was done on 1 October 1971 and announced in 1972. On the other hand, Exorcist was released in 1973. If so, why MacNeil was undergone pneumoencephalography, not CT? --Xogogog (talk) 18:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It typically takes years between the first time a technology comes onto the market and the time when it is widely available at an affordable price. Also, a movie typically takes a couple of years to make, and the book the movie was based on was published several years before the movie came out (if that matters). Looie496 (talk) 18:18, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amplifying on Looie's point, this document goes into the timeline a bit more closely. EMI only took the decision to get into commercial manufacturing of CT scanners in early 1972, and the first scanner wasn't deployed in the United States (at the Mayo Clinic) until June 1973. EMI's entire production capacity was only three or four scanners per month; I would be surprised if there were as many as a dozen operating CT scanners in service in the U.S. at the end of 1973 when The Exorcist was released. Of course, principal photography would have finished months before the theatrical release. It's therefore quite likely that most of the movie was completed before a single operating CT scanner existed in a U.S. hospital. Finally – as we well know from the weekly antics of Dr. House – a scriptwriter will always avoid a less-invasive test when a more dangerous and uncomfortable option is available. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Exorcist was based on the actual exorcism of a young boy in the 1940s, well before there were CAT scans.- Nunh-huh 03:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Double" organ transplants

Person 1 dies in a manner which allows their organs to be harvested. An organ is taken and transplanted to person 2.

Some time later, person 2 is unlucky, and also dies in such circumstances. The same organ which is taken from person 1, is then taken from person 2, and transplanted to person 3.

Has this ever been done? If not, is there any reason it couldn't, in theory, be done? 58.111.186.225 (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it could work, in theory. However, since the organ would then contain the DNA of both the original donor and the original recipient, it would seem to make the risk of rejection higher. So, I would guess this would be avoided, for that reason. StuRat (talk) 17:38, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a story about a 45 year old male who received a heart which had been previously transplanted in a patient who "experienced non-heart-related complications during the transplant operation. Declared brain dead, the recipient became a potential donor and, with the family's consent, the heart was offered for donation six days after the operation." -- ToE 01:27, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find, Toe. – b_jonas 11:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of horror movies

In my childhood, I had a strong phobia of horror movie and was scared to death watching any deformed monster in the screen. But now I don't have that fear of that intensity, still I sometimes fear watching horror films alone in the dark. I want to know is there any psychological term for this kind of fear? --Xogogog (talk) 19:24, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about superstition? Monster movies can awaken childhood superstitions about phenomena that our adult intellect knows do no exist but our infantile side still thinks might exist. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably something related to the fear of rotting flesh, or likewise the fear of darkness (one type of fear of the unknown), triggering the fight-or-flight response. Horror movies are adept at manipulating reactions from the amygdala. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 02:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Starwisp

I've just been reading our Starwisp article and the masses given in the 4th paragraph of the "Description" section don't seem to make sense. There is a paper referenced at the bottom that I can't find available for free. Can anyone find the correct masses and correct the article? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 20:28, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's just the phrasing that's unclear. Ten thousand square metres of mesh at 100 kg/km² gives a total mass of 1 kg. Dbfirs 20:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, ok, so that makes sense (I'd missed the bit that said is was only 100m square - most of the plans I've seen for such craft are much larger). But do they really mean an 80g payload? What would that include? That's about the mass of a packet of crisps. Surely, if you are going to go to the effort of sending a probe on a decades long journey to another star, you are going to want to include a significant amount of instrumentation. --Tango (talk) 21:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that you'd want to, but you are severely limited by the size of the microwave generator and the lens that you can manufacture. According to calculations by Landis, the probe of this design with 80 g of payload would require a 56 gigawatt generator and a microwave lens that is 125 km in diameter (and preferably suspended somewhere beyond the orbit of Jupiter) in order to reach 1% of c.--Itinerant1 (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you know if Landis gave any details of what to use than 80g for? I struggle to see how you can make the mission worthwhile without more payload. It's a ridiculous amount of work for just 80g. Some early space missions had similarly small payloads (Sputnik 1 did little more than go "beep") but they were practising for future missions. Given the length of time required for interstellar travel and the fact that practice isn't going to overcome the restrictions you mention, I don't see the benefit from this mission. Wouldn't it be better to wait another few decades until someone comes up with a way of sending a useful payload? --Tango (talk) 11:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't have integrated circuits in 1957. Intel Atom has more computing power than you could possibly want in a probe like this, it weighs 500 mg and consumes 0.65 watt of power. Building a probe on a 80 g budget is surely possible. Two difficulties are where to get power and how to communicate with Earth. Landis proposes to use the sail, shaped like a parabolic dish, for both purposes. --Itinerant1 (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. and here's a digital camera that shoots pictures in a 1600x1200 resolution and weighs 12 g, including optics and batteries. (I'm not suggesting we send it to the nearest star, I'm just showing what's possible to fit in 80 g.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christmas related question (sort of)

Could the birth of Jesus Christ have been the result of human parthogenesis? Or is it not possible at all for the mother to give birth to a male child in this way? --95.148.106.232 (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would, indeed, have been a Christmas miracle! See Parthenogenesis#Humans Dbfirs 00:08, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is far more probable (Occam's razor) that early Greek Christians misinterpreted Isaiah 7:14.--Itinerant1 (talk) 02:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a lot of misinterpretation to make Isaiah 7:14 support Jesus' virgin birth in any way. Leaving aside questions about the meaning of the Hebrew, that passage says that the child will be named Immanuel, will initially be bad, and will become good, but before he does so, Syria and Israel will fall. 7:14 has the wrong name, wrong time period (by 700 years!), and contradicts the notion that Jesus was sinless. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 10:34, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not say that he will initially be bad. It says that Syria and Israel will fall before the child is old enough to know what's good/pleasant for him and what's bad/painful for him. Scholars sometimes take this to mean the age of 3 to 5 years. Other than that, yes, it's very hard to understand how Christians managed to misinterpret this so thoroughly. (And it's quite certain that they did - Matthew 1:23 directly quotes Isaiah 7:14.)--Itinerant1 (talk) 13:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parthenogenesis is completely ruled out by the fact that Jesus was male. The Y chromosome had to come from somewhere, and couldn't come from his mother. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 03:21, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've always thought that Christians have made this virgin birth stuff one of the toughest bits of Christianity to get across to thinking kids at Sunday School. It certainly led to me asking the sweet young lady teaching Sunday School some tricky questions about virgins and sex, exactly the sort of thing that conservative Christians hate talking about. As for Parthenogenesis, I really doubt if she would have had any idea. Surely there are so many other possible explanations of the "virgin" birth, it's amazing that God's involvement became the favoured one among so many people. HiLo48 (talk) 03:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"If Jesus didn't look like Joseph, did he look like the stable boy ?" StuRat (talk) 04:06, 26 December 2011 (UTC) [reply]

The point of the "virgin birth" story is that Jesus had to be conceived "without sin", i.e. without normal human sexual relations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Got chapter and verse for that? HiLo48 (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I think Bugs has got muddled between the Virgin birth of Jesus and the Immaculate Conception, which is Mary. Puzzling how common this misconception is, since it suggests an assumed link between sex and sin that isn't entirely present in the original ideas. 86.164.74.142 (talk) 11:50, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With very little understanding about how sexual reproduction actually worked at the time (well, really none) they could have been thinking all sorts of things, although partehnogenesis is unlikely to have been one of them. The most likely candidate is actually possibly the most prosaic - the original Hebrew term used simply translates to "young woman", but was translated early on into a particular Greek term, which was then possible to misinterpret as "virgin"; sure enough, this misinterpretation was duly made (and there could be a variety of reasons for this). Another interesting point is that for most of the four evangelists the virgin birth is either not mentioned at all or is no big deal; surely if it had genuinely been thought to be a real virgin birth at the time they all would have made a big issue of it? There's a nice little article here on beliefnet, which could hardly be considered an anti-religious site. --jjron (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus was born without "original sin", which could only be accomplished if (1) God was the father and (2) the mother Mary had had her "original sin" expunged by God. So it's both. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So God making Mary pregnant was OK, but a man doing it would have been sinful? I don't think I'll ever get the hang of this sin stuff. HiLo48 (talk) 22:12, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

God can do anything He wants. He is without sin. Sin is "separation from God". If God were sinful, it would suggest that He's schizoid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, either you have misunderstood the articles I linked you to, or you are giving your own opinion. Mainstream Christian belief does not link Jesus's sinlessness to being conceived without sex: Mary was conceived in the normal way, by sex between her parents, and the whole point of the 'Immaculate Conception' is that God protected her from ever being touched by original sin, so that she was saved from sin by Christ's sacrifice on the cross before it even touched her. She was as sinless as Eve before the apple: she was conceived without Original Sin, even though her parents had sex to conceive her. So no, mainstream Christian thought does not teach that the virgin birth was necessary for Jesus to be without Original Sin. The virgin birth was necessary for him to be God incarnate, the Word made flesh. If you want to give your personal take on theology, find a forum. If you want links to articles covering standard theological positions, ask away. 86.164.74.142 (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've got it covered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"for most of the four evangelists the virgin birth is either not mentioned at all or is no big deal." Here's how it went. Mark was the earliest evangelist (quite possibly the only one of the four who actually saw Jesus in his lifetime). He wrote a long, detailed narrative that made no mention of Jesus' birth (virginal or otherwise), of his resurrection, and, I think, never even said that he was a Messiah.

20 or so years later, Matthew and Luke came along. They had no first hand knowledge of the matter, but they had some important theological points to make, so they took Mark's work, copied it almost verbatim, and then added what they saw fit. They thought that Jesus was a Messiah, so they independently came up with birth narratives that "fulfilled" two old-testament prophecies (one that said that the Messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, and the other that someone just before their time misread in Isaiah 7:14). --Itinerant1 (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mark does include Jesus' resurrection (Mark 16). It's the only miracle, aside from feeding of the multitude, included in all four Gospels. Also, Mark's narrative is not long and detailed; it's by far shorter than Matthew and Luke. It was Matthew and Luke who, using the Q document and other sources, embellished Mark's narrative to include many more details.

Well, Mark mentions it, but he does not say that anybody ever actually saw risen Jesus. (That's assuming that Mark 16 originally ended at 16:8.) It is long and detailed in the sense that the amount of biographical information in Mark is probably larger than the amount added to it by Luke and Matthew, combined.--Itinerant1 (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@jjron: if the author of Isaiah meant "young woman" instead of "virgin", what's so miraculous about a young woman giving birth? Immanuel's birth was supposed to be a sign from God, not an ordinary event that happens every day. --99.237.252.228 (talk) 23:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the ancients were simply less in need of 'magic' to be happening than later believers? Perhaps because there were a lot of 'magic' things happening in everyday life, that are now days easily explained by this thing we call science, they had less need of having actual impossible things occurring? Isaiah may not have needed a virgin; his job was simply to prophesise the Messiah, and look, maybe he got some of it wrong (Immanuel?). --jjron (talk) 13:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And no one said anything about a miracle -- a sign needn't be a miracle. Isaiah's purpose was to convey to Ahaz a sense of confidence and relief about waging war with the norther kingdom, a message from the Lord that He would be on Ahaz's side. The prefix hey hayidiah as a preposition makes the word not "young woman" but "the young woman," namely, either the wife of Ahaz or Isaiah. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 18:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine Isaiah pointing at Ahaz's newest wife, a girl of the age of, say, 14, without any signs of pregnancy, and saying: "this young woman is pregnant and will bear a male child, and will call him Immanuel." --Itinerant1 (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And that is certainly the modern Jewish interpretation of what happened. The Christian interpretation is that the ancient Hebrew word used can, as far as we know now, mean either 'virgin' or 'young woman', but the only pre-Christian translation we have of it (the Septuagint) uses a Greek word to translate it that unambiguously means 'virgin'. The modern Jewish interpretation, as you say, is that this was a mistake. The Christian interpretation is that even before there were Christians who might be reasonably accused of twisting the words, there were plenty of Jews who thought 'virgin' was a reasonable translation of the word, and that if you were rejecting a messianic sect of your religion, you would be less likely to want to use a translation now strongly associated with that sect. Nothing dishonest: just a natural bias we see in anyone rejecting someone else's take on something they care about. Given the Biblical texts are nearly our only source for the Hebrew used in them, and there are many words whose meaning we only know because of tradition, and others whose meaning is simply guessed at, it doesn't do to overstate the certainty of words have a certain meaning, particularly when two different traditions disagree and it informs their theology. 86.164.74.142 (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Judaism maintains that the Septuagint written by the Jews consisted only of the Five Books of Moses, not the Prophets, of which Isaiah would be a component. Thus, Judaism mustn't answer for the Greek Isaiah because it, according to Judaism, was an ill-conceived forgery. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 06:42, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I've not heard that particular interpretation before. It doesn't seem to be the standard Jewish approach, as far as I can find. Which group thinks this? If you have a source, we can put a reference somewhere in the Septuagint article. 86.164.74.142 (talk) 09:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, because that's the classical approach, and what you may refer to as the "standard Jewish approach" is, unfortunately, the approach of the unlearned, which certainly does constitute the majority. The source is in the Babylonian Talmud (Megillah 9a, 17 lines up from the bottom) where it is recounted that King Ptolemy gathered 72 elders and placed them in 72 chambers to translate "Toras Moshe" into Greek; this quote is actually already in the first section of the Septuagint article but most readers are probably unfamiliar enough with learning the Talmud to be keen enough to pick up on the distinction. "Toras Moshe" is Hebrew for the Five Books of Moses, and the Talmud proceeds to list the many textual modifications made by the sages to protect Judaism from attack, all within the Five Books of Moses, although it is the reference to Torah Moshe that is the source, not the fact that no modification from the Prophets or Writings are in the list (the page in the Talmud can be accessed online here by finding 'megilah' and '9a' in the scroll down menus -- even if you don't know Aramaic, if you're able to read Hebrew, the words Toras Moshe appear in the center section, 13 lines up, where it's written kisvu li toras Moshe ravchem, "write for me the Torah of Moses your teacher"). Mention of this limitation to Toras Moshe is also found in Meseches Sofrim. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But what is your proof for the claim that Judaism accords some early Greek versions of Isaiah the status of forgeries? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 06:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bed bugs and skin problems that are, conceivably, sometimes, autoimmune in cause

With the recent resurgence of bedbugs, could there be a reduction in cases of excema and psoriasis, or even skin cancer? thank you.23:56, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not following your logic. If anything, an added irritant should increase the incidence of related problems. StuRat (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of things like the hygiene hypothesis.Rich (talk) 08:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That only applies if the person has an abnormal lack of exposure to irritants, bacteria, etc. (think of the boy in the bubble). While some exposure to such things is healthy, it's definitely not the case that more is always better. I also think that the same parents who keep their children away from all germs they can are the ones who report any sniffle as a major medical problem (and the kids become just as vocal, when they grow up, think of Niles Crane on Frasier). So, kids with little exposure aren't necessarily actually less healthy, they just appear to be. StuRat (talk) 15:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]