Armageddon MUD General Discussion Board

Non-Armageddon Discussion => Non-Armageddon Discussion => Topic started by: Malifaxis on February 23, 2011, 02:19:56 PM

Title: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on February 23, 2011, 02:19:56 PM
TEH RULEZ:

Synthesis has to explain one thing before another can be posted. 

If Synthesis doesn't desire to explain, Synthesis may 'opt out' by just posting 'opt out of this one because I can't handle this shit, it is entirely too fucking weird.'

The above 'opt out' rule does not pertain to the first post, which is linked below.

First explanation desired:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/03/what-happens-when-you-stick-your-head-into-a-particle-accelerator/
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: mansa on February 23, 2011, 04:00:11 PM
Why does it hurt when I pee?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 23, 2011, 04:33:55 PM
Synthesis has to explain one thing before another can be posted.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on February 23, 2011, 04:39:51 PM
Synthesis has to explain one thing before another can be posted.

It's okay, Mansa doesn't understand.  He's Canadian.  We'll just ignore him until Synthesis gets this, and then, if Synthesis desires, he can answered the Canadian Cock Conundrum.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 23, 2011, 06:50:40 PM
TEH RULEZ:

Synthesis has to explain one thing before another can be posted.  

If Synthesis doesn't desire to explain, Synthesis may 'opt out' by just posting 'opt out of this one because I can't handle this shit, it is entirely too fucking weird.'

The above 'opt out' rule does not pertain to the first post, which is linked below.

First explanation desired:
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2010/03/what-happens-when-you-stick-your-head-into-a-particle-accelerator/

I don't really do physics, so I'll just have to guess that the particle beam did some sort of damage to the tissue along its path (my first guess would be heat).  

He retained mental/cognitive function (assuming the diagram in the article is correct) because it looks like the beam entirely missed the prefrontal cortex where all your fancy theorizin' goes on.  He lost hearing on one side because it looks like the beam passed behind the primary auditory cortex, so I'm guessing inputs/outputs related to that area were damaged (it's a little difficult to judge without a coronal section).  I'd be interested to know if he also had problems with proprioception/vertigo afterward, as that would suggest a more specific lesion to the vestibulocochlear nerve.  Facial paralysis is also difficult to judge from just those two pictures, but my guess is that it hit the facial nerve on the way out, since the paralysis was ipsilateral to the supposed lesion (if it was damage to the cortex on the left side controlling the muscles of facial expression, the right side of his face would've been paralyzed).  It also could've damaged the facial nucleus in the pons, but since the pons is pretty small, I'd expect a beam like that to have a wider variety of symptoms, because a whole lot of stuff passes through there.

The paralyzed side of his face looked more "youthful" for the same reason Botox works--paralysis.  Seizures either from the damage itself, or faulty re-wiring post-insult.

Edited to add:  I'd also be interested to know whether the paralysis was purely motor or also sensory, since a motor-only lesion would point specifically to facial nerve damage, while sensory and motor would suggest separate facial and trigeminal nerve lesions.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 23, 2011, 07:21:31 PM
Why does it hurt when I pee?

Infection is the most likely cause, if it's persistent (e.g. gonorrhea, chlamydia, trichomoniasis, or even coliforms if you're sticking it in someone's poop-chute).  I guess it also could be ordinary skin flora if you have some sort of genital piercing that traverses the urethra.

If it's transient, it might merely be chemical irritation from whatever soap you're using to wash your junk.

Otherwise...trauma...cancer...could be passing a kidney stone...after that, there's probably a bunch of unlikely/rare stuff.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Is Friday on February 23, 2011, 07:46:02 PM
Synthesis: Is your avatar from a movie of some sort, or was it just a freaky avatar you found?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on February 23, 2011, 08:24:50 PM
Synthesis: Is your avatar from a movie of some sort, or was it just a freaky avatar you found?

I'm less interested in the answer to this than I am in how Synthesis will explain it scientifically.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Is Friday on February 23, 2011, 08:26:17 PM
Synthesis: Is your avatar from a movie of some sort, or was it just a freaky avatar you found?

I'm less interested in the answer to this than I am in how Synthesis will explain it scientifically.
I try to challenge my GDB Guru as much as I can.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 23, 2011, 08:38:25 PM
Synthesis: Is your avatar from a movie of some sort, or was it just a freaky avatar you found?

I just did a Google image search for "backstab," and it was one of the first that popped up.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marc on February 23, 2011, 08:47:02 PM
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Fnord on February 23, 2011, 09:48:38 PM
Let's actually challenge the man.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236118.stm

Doctors and experts are baffled by an Indian hermit who claims not to have eaten or drunk anything for several decades - but is still in perfect health.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 23, 2011, 10:03:29 PM
Let's actually challenge the man.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3236118.stm

Doctors and experts Half-wits and morons are baffled by an Indian hermit who claims not to have eaten or drunk anything for several decades - but is still in perfect health.

 ::) (http://instantrimshot.com/index.php?sound=coughbullshit)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: valeria on February 23, 2011, 11:29:29 PM
Magnets, how do they work?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 24, 2011, 09:39:18 AM
Electrons in unpaired orbitals whose magnetic dipole moments are arranged in parallel (if you're talking about regular magnets), or by movement of electric current (if you're talking about electromagnets).

That's probably a pretty lame answer by a physicist's standards, but as I said earlier, I don't really do physics.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Lizzie on February 24, 2011, 10:57:29 AM
Why can't natural synergies be reproduced using their individual chemical components?

In layman's terms: you can isolate each chemical component of eucalyptus oil, but if you took those isolated components and mixed them together, you wouldn't end up with eucalyptus oil. Why?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 24, 2011, 05:09:23 PM
Why can't natural synergies be reproduced using their individual chemical components?

In layman's terms: you can isolate each chemical component of eucalyptus oil, but if you took those isolated components and mixed them together, you wouldn't end up with eucalyptus oil. Why?

I imagine that there are many such combinations that can be reproduced simply by mixing.

As for the others, there are probably a variety of reasons for it...just off the top of my head, I'm guessing: catalysts not present in the final product or chemical/physical conditions (e.g. temperature, pressure, pH) necessary to overcome the activation energies for particular steps in the process (if you're talking about precursors and synthesis when you say "component") and microstructures within the final product that are only reproducible under specific conditions or in the presence of intermediaries not in the final mixture (if you're talking about only final products).  Chemistry and biology are a lot more complicated than "you mix A and B and get C."

If you're talking about eucalyptus oil specifically, I couldn't really say.  Intuitively, it seems like if you accurately identified every component of the extract and its proportion, you'd be able to reproduce it exactly.  From a quick Google search, it looks like the stuff is just steam-distilled, so it's unlikely to contain any complex cellular components or other structures.  My guess would be that it's simply difficult to analyze the mixture without changing components of it, so that the final results of any particular analysis aren't accurate.

Edited to add:  "simply difficult..." that's a funny term, like "civil war."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on February 24, 2011, 05:53:17 PM
Emotions.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on February 24, 2011, 05:53:40 PM
Fucking magnets, how do the-

Magnets, how do they work?

Dammnit.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marauder Moe on February 24, 2011, 06:45:17 PM
Lobster sticks to magnet.  Never a miscommunication.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 24, 2011, 07:02:39 PM
Emotions.

Cognition and neurotransmitters.

Lobster sticks to magnet.  Never a miscommunication.

Heh.  I think poor Bill was attempting to lay out the "God as arbiter/creator of natural laws" argument, but he skipped most of the steps in the process.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: mansa on February 24, 2011, 07:57:31 PM
Free will vs rules of gravity ?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on February 24, 2011, 09:12:27 PM
The BEES! WHERE ARE ALL THE BEES?!?!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on February 24, 2011, 09:30:34 PM
The BEES! WHERE ARE ALL THE BEES?!?!

Didn't the FDA or someone come out and say they contracted companies to kill everything?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on February 24, 2011, 09:34:21 PM
Those damn scheming bees!  >:(
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Reiteration on February 24, 2011, 09:59:22 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI2qk3xXdWQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI2qk3xXdWQ)


Thoughts?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 02:11:53 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI2qk3xXdWQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI2qk3xXdWQ)


Thoughts?

What you have there is a basic logistics problem:  you have a large number of animals that are being culled because they either are infected with, or have been exposed to the foot-and-mouth disease virus.  Once you've determined that you're going to kill them, the question is, what's the best way to get them all in the ground?  If you kill them beforehand, you've got to go through the trouble of killing them directly, and then you've got to get them from point A, where you killed them, to point B, where you're burying them.  It's much simpler if you have the pig walk itself to point B, and give it the last little nudge over the edge.  Once it's in the hole, killing it directly is unnecessary.

I suppose it would've been nicer to kill them quickly via whatever method they're ordinarily slaughtered, despite the extra trouble involved.  However, according to the BBC, we're talking about 1.4 million pigs and cattle.  Let's assume that one man operating the killing machine can get them through at the rate of 1 every 30 seconds.  That's 120/hour, so if you make him work a little overtime (10 hour shift), he can kill 1,200 animals in a day's work.  Doing a little more number-fudging just to make things simple, it would take 1 man just shy of 3 years working 10 hours a day just to kill them all.  If you want to get it done in a week, you'd need about 170 men and machines working at that rate.  At $10/hour, that's about $120,000 in labor costs just on the killing step.  You'd also need the killing machines themselves...the captive bolt pistol I'm looking at costs $450, so that's another $75,000 in durable equipment costs.  At $16 per 50 cartridges, you've got another $500,000 to spend on the 9mm blank cartridges that the bolt pistol uses, assuming you only have to shoot each animal once.  So now we're up to an extra $700,000 on that single extra step in the killing process.

Now, some people might not mind spending that money to appease delicate sensibilities, but clearly everyone doesn't feel the same way about it.

(In Armageddon terms, at 1.4 million backstab practices, you could train an army of thousands of stone-cold killers.  If they were PCs, they'd probably do it free of charge.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ampere on February 25, 2011, 05:36:16 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI2qk3xXdWQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vI2qk3xXdWQ)


Thoughts?

What you have there is a basic logistics problem:  you have a large number of animals that are being culled because they either are infected with, or have been exposed to the foot-and-mouth disease virus.  Once you've determined that you're going to kill them, the question is, what's the best way to get them all in the ground?  If you kill them beforehand, you've got to go through the trouble of killing them directly, and then you've got to get them from point A, where you killed them, to point B, where you're burying them.  It's much simpler if you have the pig walk itself to point B, and give it the last little nudge over the edge.  Once it's in the hole, killing it directly is unnecessary.

I suppose it would've been nicer to kill them quickly via whatever method they're ordinarily slaughtered, despite the extra trouble involved.  However, according to the BBC, we're talking about 1.4 million pigs and cattle.  Let's assume that one man operating the killing machine can get them through at the rate of 1 every 30 seconds.  That's 120/hour, so if you make him work a little overtime (10 hour shift), he can kill 1,200 animals in a day's work.  Doing a little more number-fudging just to make things simple, it would take 1 man just shy of 3 years working 10 hours a day just to kill them all.  If you want to get it done in a week, you'd need about 170 men and machines working at that rate.  At $10/hour, that's about $120,000 in labor costs just on the killing step.  You'd also need the killing machines themselves...the captive bolt pistol I'm looking at costs $450, so that's another $75,000 in durable equipment costs.  At $16 per 50 cartridges, you've got another $500,000 to spend on the 9mm blank cartridges that the bolt pistol uses, assuming you only have to shoot each animal once.  So now we're up to an extra $700,000 on that single extra step in the killing process.

Now, some people might not mind spending that money to appease delicate sensibilities, but clearly everyone doesn't feel the same way about it.

(In Armageddon terms, at 1.4 million backstab practices, you could train an army of thousands of stone-cold killers.  If they were PCs, they'd probably do it free of charge.)

...how much would it have cost to gas them with CO2? Scientifically speaking.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on February 25, 2011, 07:06:46 AM
Now, some people might not mind spending that money to appease delicate sensibilities, but clearly everyone doesn't feel the same way about it.

On the other hand, you're arguing (for the sake of argument, at least) that 40 cents ($0.08 labor + $0.32 for a single 9 mm cartridge) is far too much money to spend on humanely ending the life of an animal that's already cost, say, at least a few dozen dollars to grow to adulthood.

Capitalist basserts.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 07:45:56 AM
...how much would it have cost to gas them with CO2? Scientifically speaking.

Carbon dioxide gas is supposedly pretty cheap, but things that are cheap on a small scale tend not to be when the scale increases by several orders of magnitude.  The Internet says it's about $0.75 - $1.25 per pound, but I'm not sure how much volume a pound of CO2 would fill at the 30-70% concentration (let's go 70%, because we're trying to get this done in a hurry) you need to achieve effective euthanasia.  Maybe I'll revisit the question when I have time to do the math.

Alright, using the ideal gas law calculator here (http://www.ajdesigner.com/idealgas/ideal_gas_law_mole_equation.php), it looks like it would take about 2,000 mol CO2 to fill a standard shipping container-sized chamber (2,376 cubic feet (http://www.shipping-container-housing.com/shipping-container-standard-dimensions.html)) with 70% CO2 at STP.  CO2 weighs 44g/mol, so that's 88,000g = 195 pounds of CO2 to euthanize one container-full.  I don't know exactly how large a pig is, but I'll be generous and guess you can fit 50 in at a time.  Let's also forget about the cows involved and assume it's 1.4 million pigs.  Going 50 at a time, you're looking at 28,000 cycles * 195 pounds of CO2 each time = 5.5 million pounds of CO2, at $0.75 per pound = $4,095,000.  So shooting them with the bolt pistol turns out to be about 10x cheaper than gassing them with CO2, unless I've gotten my math wrong somewhere along the line.  Even if you drop the concentration to 30%, it's going to be in the range of 2-3 times more expensive.

Actually, I did goof a little on the math in a couple of ways.  First, I implicitly assumed that we'd be filling the container from a state of vaccuum--but regular air already contains some CO2.  Fortunately, it would only be about 1 mol out of the 2,800 mols (388 ppm) of other gases in the container, so it doesn't affect the outcome much.  Second, for the procedure to work, you have to not only fill the container, you have to continue to let the CO2 flow at a minor rate during the 30 minutes or so it would take to ensure that all the animals in the container were dead.  This would tend to increase the estimate, probably by a substantial amount.

Now, some people might not mind spending that money to appease delicate sensibilities, but clearly everyone doesn't feel the same way about it.

On the other hand, you're arguing (for the sake of argument, at least) that 40 cents ($0.08 labor + $0.32 for a single 9 mm cartridge) is far too much money to spend on humanely ending the life of an animal that's already cost, say, at least a few dozen dollars to grow to adulthood.

Capitalist basserts.

The few dozen dollars is an investment by a private farm/corporation.  The $0.40 is someone's tax dollars at work, essentially cleaning up a mess that the private farms/corporations should've been handling on their own in the first place.  I don't think either entity is going to be profligate in their expenditures on what amounts to waste cleanup, but the government is particularly hampered by the fact that it can't easily increase prices (i.e. taxes) to compensate for the loss of revenue.  Additionally, I believe the South Korean government is actually paying farms for the destroyed pigs, so they've already got some massive outlays involved in the process.  

I'm not arguing that this was the best solution they could've come up with, but I doubt anyone knows all the variables in the logistics equation they had to deal with, so the immediate judgment "oh, this is completely unacceptable" should probably be tempered with a bit of cautiousness about the fact that this is a domain far beyond most of our ordinary experience, both in terms of content and magnitude, and schemas that work on the level of our ordinary experience may in fact be impracticable in other domains with which we're unfamiliar.  Also, I'm not really familiar with South Korean culture, but it's quite possible that they simply have different standards for what is acceptable with respect to animal welfare.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on February 25, 2011, 10:24:59 AM
What does high cholesterol actually do to you, and how can it be prevented? 
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 04:05:04 PM
What does high cholesterol actually do to you, and how can it be prevented? 

The main problem is that it contributes to the formation of arterial atherosclerotic plaques, which can rupture and serve as nucleation points for the formation of fibrin thrombi that can grow large enough to entirely occlude the artery's lumen, or break off in smaller pieces and occlude smaller arteries downstream.  If this happens in your coronary arteries (supplying your heart), you can have a heart attack.  If it happens in your carotid or vertebral arteries, you can have a stroke.  It can happen anywhere, really, but the heart, brain, and kidneys are probably the most immediately life-threatening places for a thrombotic embolus to turn up.  (You can also get thrombotic emboli to your lungs, but those are usually the result of venous thrombosis unrelated to high cholesterol.)  Basically, gunk builds up in the artery and either plugs it, or breaks off and plugs it farther downstream, and all the tissues that are supplied by the clogged artery are starved for oxygen and nutrients until the clot resolves (if it does, which isn't a guaranteed thing).

High cholesterol is probably associated with the formation of cholesterol gallstones (although it looks like the evidence for that isn't 100%), and if it's severe enough, you can get these weird little deposits of lipid-stuffed macrophages called xanthomas in your tendons or subcutaneously.

Modifiable risk factors include smoking, obesity, physical inactivity, and a high cholesterol/atherogenic diet.  Quitting/reducing any of these should help.  Also, if you're diabetic or hypertensive, keeping those conditions under control helps.  Beyond that, there are a bunch of drugs that either inhibit cholesterol synthesis or reabsorption, or improve your ratio of HDL:LDL.

There are also some hyperlipidemias/hypercholesterolemias that are the result of identifiable genetic defects, usually in genes that code for proteins involved in cholesterol synthesis, transport, or reabsorption.  These typically have a specific pharmacologic treatment that targets the deficiency, but it certainly doesn't hurt to have generally "healthy" habits, anyway.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on February 25, 2011, 04:34:19 PM
Why do bad things happen?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 04:47:19 PM
Why do bad things happen?

Because most of the laws of the universe operate independently of our approval of them.  There are probably domains where human action can affect those laws (or more appropriately, human action is a variable in the law), such that approval/disapproval can influence the likelihood of bad/good things subsequently happening, though...assuming you aren't a hard determinist.

For example, even though weather seems fairly well determined by natural processes, apparently mass human behavior can affect weather patterns...but now I'm pissing off hard determinists and anthropogenic global warming skeptics.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Maziel on February 25, 2011, 05:03:46 PM
Hmm...

What drives you to respond to all of these absurd questions?

 ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jhunter on February 25, 2011, 05:04:26 PM
What is the largest insect in the real world and would it be scientifically possible for insects the size of those found on Zalanthas to exist here on Earth? If so, how physically powerful would a Zalanthas-sized insect be if they existed here on Earth?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Fathi on February 25, 2011, 05:30:38 PM
What is the largest insect in the real world and would it be scientifically possible for insects the size of those found on Zalanthas to exist here on Earth? If so, how physically powerful would a Zalanthas-sized insect be if they existed here on Earth?

I won't steal Synth's thunder, but a good friend of mine who studies moths is conducting an experiment as we speak regarding this. He has never played Armageddon, he just likes moths and got a helpful grant.

This thread is great. It's like Ask Mansa but more informative!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 05:46:44 PM
Hmm...

What drives you to respond to all of these absurd questions?

 ;)

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 06:16:53 PM
What is the largest insect in the real world and would it be scientifically possible for insects the size of those found on Zalanthas to exist here on Earth? If so, how physically powerful would a Zalanthas-sized insect be if they existed here on Earth?

The heaviest insect is the larval stage of the goliath beetle, weighing in at 115 grams.  The longest is Chan's megastick (good name for an Asian metal band, incidentally), measuring 14.1 inches in length.

I imagine the most serious limiting factor for insect size is their lack of lungs for gas exchange.  Breathing through spiracles (which are basically just holes in the exoskeleton leading into primitive tracheal tubes), they rely on direct diffusion of gases from the tracheal tubes to the surrounding tissues (and vice versa).  Their circulatory fluid (hemolymph) doesn't contain any oxygen-binding (or carbon dioxide-binding, presumably) cells (that we know of), so it can't deliver oxygen to tissues that are too far away from a spiracle for efficient diffusion.  Furthermore, the only circulatory vessels most insects have is a primitive tube that hemolymph just kind of sloshes into through some holes in the primitive heart wall, after which the heart just sort of squirts it toward the head and thorax.  Otherwise, the hemolymph just bathes the remainder of the insect's tissues, presumably without the sort of regular cycle present in animals with true (heart/lung) circulatory systems.

Thus, if an insect grew too large, the cells too far removed from spiracles would become hypoxic and die.  So to answer the second question, if a Zalanthan insect showed up on Earth (assuming Zalanthan insects share the relevant qualities with Earth insects), it would suffocate to death.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on February 25, 2011, 07:02:16 PM
What is the largest insect in the real world and would it be scientifically possible for insects the size of those found on Zalanthas to exist here on Earth? If so, how physically powerful would a Zalanthas-sized insect be if they existed here on Earth?

The heaviest insect is the larval stage of the goliath beetle, weighing in at 115 grams.  The longest is Chan's megastick (good name for an Asian metal band, incidentally), measuring 14.1 inches in length.

I imagine the most serious limiting factor for insect size is their lack of lungs for gas exchange.  Breathing through spiracles (which are basically just holes in the exoskeleton leading into primitive tracheal tubes), they rely on direct diffusion of gases from the tracheal tubes to the surrounding tissues (and vice versa).  Their circulatory fluid (hemolymph) doesn't contain any oxygen-binding (or carbon dioxide-binding, presumably) cells (that we know of), so it can't deliver oxygen to tissues that are too far away from a spiracle for efficient diffusion.  Furthermore, the only circulatory vessels most insects have is a primitive tube that hemolymph just kind of sloshes into through some holes in the primitive heart wall, after which the heart just sort of squirts it toward the head and thorax.  Otherwise, the hemolymph just bathes the remainder of the insect's tissues, presumably without the sort of regular cycle present in animals with true (heart/lung) circulatory systems.

Thus, if an insect grew too large, the cells too far removed from spiracles would become hypoxic and die.  So to answer the second question, if a Zalanthan insect showed up on Earth (assuming Zalanthan insects share the relevant qualities with Earth insects), it would suffocate to death.

There was actually some discussion of this in a previous thread but giantinsects used to roam earth in the long long ago.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Fathi on February 25, 2011, 07:26:47 PM
Dear Dr. Synthesis,

I suffer from Essential Tremor. Do you have any tips for managing it that don't involve beta blockers? Also I'd ask how it works but last I heard science didn't know yet.  :'(
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ocotillo on February 25, 2011, 07:34:57 PM
Dear Dr. Synthesis,

I suffer from Essential Tremor. Do you have any tips for managing it that don't involve beta blockers? Also I'd ask how it works but last I heard science didn't know yet.  :'(

Short answer: you actually have two nervous systems.

Short solution: less caffeine. I didn't like it either, I just live with the tremor.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on February 25, 2011, 07:41:02 PM
Dr. Yam can handle this one.

You should drink to excess all day every day
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 07:59:52 PM
Dear Dr. Synthesis,

I suffer from Essential Tremor. Do you have any tips for managing it that don't involve beta blockers? Also I'd ask how it works but last I heard science didn't know yet.  :'(

There's a bunch of stuff that's been tried that works for some people, but not for others:
Primidone (active metabolites are phenobarbital and some other compound I've never heard of)
Alprazolam (a benzodiazepine)
Clonazepam (sorta like a benzodiazepine)
Clozapine (atypical antipsychotic that blocks dopamine, serotonin, histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and cholinergic receptors)
Nimodipine (calcium-channel blocker)
Topiramate (anticonvulsant, blocks voltage-dependent sodium channels, antagonizes glutamate, and potentiates the activity of GABA)
Gabapentin (anticonvulsant that's sort of like GABA, but binds to a different receptor type)

I'm not sure whether the adverse effects of some of those drugs would be worse than the tremor, though.

Low-dose ethanol supposedly provides temporary relief, so Yam is sort of correct.  Maybe you could have your primary care physician write you a medical necessity note to justify you keeping a light buzz on all day. :)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Fathi on February 25, 2011, 08:33:40 PM
Dear Dr. Synthesis,

I suffer from Essential Tremor. Do you have any tips for managing it that don't involve beta blockers? Also I'd ask how it works but last I heard science didn't know yet.  :'(

Short answer: you actually have two nervous systems.

Short solution: less caffeine. I didn't like it either, I just live with the tremor.

I don't actually drink that much caffeine, shocking as it must sound coming from an Arm player.
Dear Dr. Synthesis,

I suffer from Essential Tremor. Do you have any tips for managing it that don't involve beta blockers? Also I'd ask how it works but last I heard science didn't know yet.  :'(

There's a bunch of stuff that's been tried that works for some people, but not for others:
Primidone (active metabolites are phenobarbital and some other compound I've never heard of)
Alprazolam (a benzodiazepine)
Clonazepam (sorta like a benzodiazepine)
Clozapine (atypical antipsychotic that blocks dopamine, serotonin, histamine, alpha-adrenergic, and cholinergic receptors)
Nimodipine (calcium-channel blocker)
Topiramate (anticonvulsant, blocks voltage-dependent sodium channels, antagonizes glutamate, and potentiates the activity of GABA)
Gabapentin (anticonvulsant that's sort of like GABA, but binds to a different receptor type)

I'm not sure whether the adverse effects of some of those drugs would be worse than the tremor, though.

Low-dose ethanol supposedly provides temporary relief, so Yam is sort of correct.  Maybe you could have your primary care physician write you a medical necessity note to justify you keeping a light buzz on all day. :)

Yeah, I was on Oxcarbazepine as an experimental treatment for a while. The side effects weren't too terrible, but when I stopped taking them I didn't notice any marked difference in shakiness, so I didn't bother getting more.

Also considered Topiramate but apparently it makes your girly hormones go utterly ballistic.

And while it could just be confirmation bias, I have noticed a slight lessening of the tremor with moderate alcohol consumption. However, the closer I get to being actually drunk, the more the tremor returns with a vengeance.




... Can you tell me why the enzyme-inducing variety of anticonvulsants does such a number on estrogen levels?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on February 25, 2011, 09:02:54 PM
Topamax makes everyone that takes it in my pharmacy super effing skinny.

...Why do my boobs itch? Is the old wives' tale about them itching when growing really true?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 09:24:02 PM
... Can you tell me why the enzyme-inducing variety of anticonvulsants does such a number on estrogen levels?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyp3a4#CYP3A4_substrates


That pretty much sums it up.  CYP3A4 is the top dog of your liver P450s, and those anticonvulsants send them into overdrive.  If you're asking why that is, mechanistically, it probably has something to do with upregulation (i.e. increasing gene transcription and protein translation) of the enzymes, as opposed to increasing the effectiveness of extant proteins.  Oh hey, yeah, there's a blurb on the Wikipedia article about it:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyp3a4#Induction .  It looks like CYP1A2 is also involved, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are others, as well.

So basically, the anticonvulsants cause increased expression of the enzymes that turn your estradiol into junk, and it might not be the greatest idea to try to fix the problem by supplementing additional estradiol (unless it's such an extreme case that it's worth the risk), because it turns out some of those junk metabolites are probably carcinogenic.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on February 25, 2011, 09:37:59 PM
Dear Dr. Synthesis:

What is it about the metal in cheap earrings that makes my ears itch like crazy?  Am I allowing dangerous minerals into my body via my piercings? 
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 10:19:11 PM
Topamax makes everyone that takes it in my pharmacy super effing skinny.

...Why do my boobs itch? Is the old wives' tale about them itching when growing really true?

Tingling and tenderness are supposedly common.  Itching though...there are a couple of pregnancy-related pruritic conditions, but I can't recall or find anything that's specifically localized to the breasts.  If it's really bothersome and/or you start itching elsewhere, you could mention it at your next checkup and maybe they'll check your serum bile acid level.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on February 25, 2011, 10:36:37 PM
Why do elves steal?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 25, 2011, 10:51:12 PM
Dear Dr. Synthesis:

What is it about the metal in cheap earrings that makes my ears itch like crazy?  Am I allowing dangerous minerals into my body via my piercings? 

You've probably developed an allergy to nickel.  And yeah, apparently it does rub off, and the European Union has imposed some regulations on jewelry and whatnot containing nickel, regarding how much can come off and how quickly, mainly as an effort to reduce the incidence of nickel allergy.  Here in the U.S. it's about 17% of women and growing, but it seems to be declining post-regulation in the EU.

As far as it being dangerous is concerned...as jewelry, probably not at all.  The only case reports of nickel toxicity I can find are regarding occupational exposures in like...the welding, electroplating, and nickel refining industries, and those are all inhalation exposures.  So as long as you aren't like...sharpening your ear studs on a bench grinder and snorting rails of nickel dust, you'll be fine.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on February 25, 2011, 10:53:56 PM
Does your school do dog vivisections? Is it awesome?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 26, 2011, 12:00:55 AM
Does your school do dog vivisections? Is it awesome?

I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.  In the past, I'm not sure it was so much awesome as necessary.  It's kind of sad when a suture technique or something keeps failing and a couple of experimental animals die before you finally get it right, but when it's a couple of Grandmas dying because some folks were squeamish about doing sham surgeries on dogs to perfect the process, I think it's fair to say that's a whole 'nother level of potential outrage.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on February 26, 2011, 12:26:31 AM
You didn't say whether or not your school had them though.

Question dodger.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 26, 2011, 12:31:13 AM
I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: spicemustflow on February 26, 2011, 01:13:38 AM
Mouth and hoof disease doesn't affect humans at all. True or not? If true, did they really have to bury the piggies alive?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 26, 2011, 02:28:03 AM
Mouth and hoof disease doesn't affect humans at all. True or not? If true, did they really have to bury the piggies alive?

It's not so much a matter of humans being infected, but yes, it is transmissible to humans and produces a fever and vesicles over the mouth, throat, palms, and soles.  In livestock, the virus produces a long-term, wasting, potentially crippling disease that is highly transmissible.  Most animals recover, but they're sickly and produce less meat/milk, which is a problem when the only reason you're raising them is to produce meat/milk.  A cull is taking a deliberate short-run loss in order to avoid the long-term cost of having sub-standard product.

Furthermore, there are trade restrictions imposed on nations who don't have their foot and mouth disease situation under control, because in places like the United States, where we have it virtually eradicated, we don't want virus-laden meat products getting in.  So not only does the virus hamper you with sub-standard product, you're additionally hampered by lack of export markets.

I doubt live burial was a strict necessity, but clearly there's an economic incentive to keep costs as low as possible, and it probably was a very low-cost solution, if not the lowest.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on February 26, 2011, 02:45:24 AM
I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.

Don't you think that's more of a yes or no question?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on February 26, 2011, 04:21:09 AM
Dude, you sound smart.

Why does wood alcohol make you blind? What is your IQ?

I don't believe in IQ tests. I'm the dumbest f$%ker alive and apparently I have a higher IQ score than my mother.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ocotillo on February 26, 2011, 04:23:03 AM
Do gentlemen actually prefer blondes?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 26, 2011, 12:58:16 PM
I doubt it, but I suppose it's possible.

Don't you think that's more of a yes or no question?

Sure, but that's an, "I don't know" answer.

Why does wood alcohol make you blind?

It's been known for over a century that ingestion of methanol can cause blindness, and it's often repeated to the point where it's widely known, but I actually had to do some digging to find the specifics.  Wood alcohol (a.k.a. methanol) is metabolized to formaldehyde by alcohol dehydrogenase, and then further metabolized to formic acid by aldehyde dehydrogenase.  So far, that's basic biochemistry common knowledge.  Accumulation of enough formic acid results in a metabolic acidosis, which accounts for most of the intoxication-like effects.

The mechanism by which it causes blindness isn't 100% clear, but there's good evidence to support the idea that formic acid inhibits cytochrome c oxidase, the final enzyme in the mitochondrial electron transport chain.  Without the ETC in action, ATP (the primary energy-carrying molecule in your cells) production virtually grinds to a halt and given enough time, the cell either dies or can't recover its normal function.  This mitochondrial damage is very bad in particular for the cells of your retina, because they're mitochondria-dense, and rely on mitochondrial activity to produce anti-oxidants that protect the cells from their own toxic by-products of high metabolic activity, and from the stress of near-constant exposure to irradiation (e.g. UV light). 

It's been shown that formic acid rapidly depletes stores of glutathione (a major protective agent against oxidative stress) in retinal cells, for one (or both) of two proposed reasons: 1) both steps in glutathione synthesis are ATP-dependent, so in the presence of formate-induced ATP deficiency, the cell can't synthesize additional glutathione and 2) formate may directly increase oxidative stress within the retinal cells, such that pre-existing stores of glutathione aren't sufficient to keep up with the additional damage that's accumulating.

This is the paper I got most of that from, by the way:  http://www.iovs.org./content/42/3/834.full (http://www.iovs.org./content/42/3/834.full)

It's a free full-text article, so if you were looking for some light Saturday-afternoon reading, today is your lucky day.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on February 26, 2011, 01:02:38 PM
Oooh, thank you.

I killed my gpa and my interest in school last semester by trying to take nursing, and we learned a few basic carbon structures, like the three simplest types of alcohol, including wood alcohol. Didn't say why it made you blind, though, though now i know that Squidbilles actually did their homework in one episode, rather than b.s.ing it, which... I mean, if you've never heard of the idea that a certain alcohol made you blind, it'd be hard to believe coming from Adult Swim.

Synthesis needs his own science show, where he answers question from the unwashed masses.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on February 26, 2011, 02:44:18 PM
How come only old people have hair growing in their ears?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 26, 2011, 04:18:34 PM
How come only old people have hair growing in their ears?

Well, everyone has hair follicles in the external ear canal (with the possible exception of some rare cases).  The question is more, "why do older men seem to have thicker and longer hairs in the external ear canal?"  Unfortunately, I don't think anyone knows the answer to that (or if someone does, they haven't published it).

My guess is that it has something to do with hair follicle cycling, such that the anagen (growth) phase is prolonged.  Since it seems to be age-related (with the exception of some hereditary conditions), it could be related to the age of the stem cells producing the keratinocytes.  There also have been a couple of case reports of minoxidil (a vasodilator) causing hypertrichosis of the external ear canal, so it could be a result of age-related changes to the vascular supply of the dermis there.  Finally, there are a bunch of signaling molecules that are known to promote the anagen phase (IGF-1, TGF-alpha, KGF, ACTH, WNTs, beta-catenin, and noggin), and a few that are known to prevent transition to the catagen phase (IGF-1, activin, GDNF), so there could be some sort of age-related changes in one or more of those.

It is interesting to note that the areas where this effect is most pronounced (the ears and nose) are cartilaginous structures, and it's known that chondrocytes can secrete IGF-1 as a paracrine hormone...and IGF-1 both promotes anagen and prevents transition to catagen.  So...there's a thesis project waiting for someone.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on February 26, 2011, 04:34:23 PM
Dear Synthesis,

Why is our DNA shaped the way it is?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Thunkkin on February 26, 2011, 04:48:52 PM
Dear Synthesis,

In regards to insects breathing through spiracles: Does this mean that if you submerged an insect's lower body into water (but not its head, mouth, etc.), it would still drown? If so, how would the process of death actually work? Is it correct to say that the interior organs housed in the lower, submerged part of its body would cease to function, causing a chain reaction of system failure? What do you think the sensation would be like for the submerged areas - painful or numbing?

I'm now feeling the faintest bit of pity for the japanese beetles that we drown en masse every summer by plucking them off the leaves of our plants and dropping them into a jar of soapy water. (This faint bit of pity won't keep me from drowning the bastards, though).

This prompts a second topic. Apparently, soap doesn't actually increase surface tension, but decreases it. So why does adding soap to water make it more effective for drowning insects?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ocotillo on February 26, 2011, 05:06:35 PM
And the line dissolves into chaos.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 26, 2011, 06:37:55 PM
Dear Synthesis,

Why is our DNA shaped the way it is?

I don't think DNA actually exists under physiologic conditions in the distinct, rigid, three-dimensional conformation that we're used to seeing in infographics and all that.  The double-helix model looks really cool, but that structure is based on X-ray diffraction analysis, and to do that analysis, you have to crystallize the compound you're analyzing, which alters the structure.

Under physiologic conditions, DNA is twisted around other proteins, being unwound for transcription, and there's probably quite a bit of cramming, confusion, and chaos involved before things get locked into place.  Addtionally, some of our DNA is methylated to make it transcriptionally inactive, and I imagine that alters the final structure a bit, since the Watson-Crick model doesn't include methylated sequences.

Of course, the primary sequence of bases on a strand imposes limits on what conformations are possible, as does the process of base-pairing, and those limits are a result of the placement of the phosphodiester linkages in the sugar backbone and the hydrogen bonds formed between complentary bases.  Given those limits, the structure is most likely always double-helical-like when base-pairing is intact.

If you're asking why the PDE linkages and base-pairing are the way they are, the answer is, "because the only successful replicating organisms on Earth all inherited that mode of replication."  (Well, okay, except for RNA viruses and prions...but RNA has basically the same structure as DNA.)  But that's really just a fancy way of saying "just because."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bushranger on February 26, 2011, 06:45:25 PM
Synthesis, are Zebras black with white stripes or white with black stripes? Or are they pink from feeding on flamingo flesh and have both black and white stripes?

Thanks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 26, 2011, 07:07:08 PM
Dear Synthesis,

In regards to insects breathing through spiracles: Does this mean that if you submerged an insect's lower body into water (but not its head, mouth, etc.), it would still drown?

Well, it would probably suffocate, at least.  I'm not sure whether it's technically possible to drown without lungs.

If so, how would the process of death actually work?

Hypoxic cells would eventually cease metabolic activity and undergo necrosis.

Is it correct to say that the interior organs housed in the lower, submerged part of its body would cease to function, causing a chain reaction of system failure?

Well...insects don't really have a very complex system of organs, and the circulatory system isn't compartmentalized, so cell-failure rates would probably depend on the metabolic requirements of the cell in question, moreso than where it was located.  However, assuming there are spiracles in the head and the head remained above water, those cells would probably be under the least immediate stress.

What do you think the sensation would be like for the submerged areas - painful or numbing?

I doubt the insect nervous system is complex enough to distinguish between types of pain, if they perceive pain at all.

So why does adding soap to water make it more effective for drowning insects?

If it reduces surface tension enough, it probably allows water to actually infiltrate the spiracles, which would be much closer to "drowning."  Under ordinary conditions, I doubt a typical insect could generate enough inspiratory force to counteract surface tension and draw water into the spiracles...but that would make an interesting experiment, in an ants-under-magnifying-glass kind of way.

Synthesis, are Zebras black with white stripes or white with black stripes?

I prefer to think of them as black stripes, because I can't stand the white stripes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on February 26, 2011, 07:57:18 PM
What is the current scientific thought regarding the varying states of reality generally perceived through the use of hallucinogens/entheogens?  Merely the product of an unusual chemical reaction within the body, a glimpse of something we cannot ordinarily perceive, or 'quantum stuff'?   Also, what is your own personal opinion on this?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Thunkkin on February 26, 2011, 08:36:15 PM
Synth rocks at RL (or possibly a mixture of RL and google, but that's close enough for me).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on February 27, 2011, 05:34:18 AM
But that's really just a fancy way of saying "just because."

I fucking knew it!  Also, I had to look up phosphodeister.  Lulz.  I was always better at physics than chemistry.  I was just curious, really, because, for instance, I'm sure you know that a soap bubble takes a spherical form because that's the most efficient shape.  Ockham's razor.  I was curious about the double helix, because, while pondering Wave-Particle Duality, it occurred to me that the shapes of waves and DNA are similar.  Also, did you know that a nebulous double helix formation exists in the center of our galaxy?  Food for thought!

Thanks for the deets!

XOXO
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Drayab on February 27, 2011, 06:29:35 AM
So, I'm breaking the rule about waiting for synth to answer the last post before I jump in, but...

It's not so much a question, but here's a little something I would be interested to hear you comment on with the science chops you've flexed so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg#t=2m45s

It is a ten minute video, purported to be a summary of some relatively recent work by Dr. Jack Szostak at Harvard Medical School on the topic of abiogenesis. It's a topic I find interesting, but it's way outside my area so I am not confident in making a critical judgement of whether this is really something to crow about. It's an entertaining video nonetheless. The first 2:45 is a heavy handed rant against creationism so I skipped it to get to the good stuff.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 27, 2011, 09:32:53 AM
So, I'm breaking the rule about waiting for synth to answer the last post before I jump in, but...

It's not so much a question, but here's a little something I would be interested to hear you comment on with the science chops you've flexed so far.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg#t=2m45s

Yeah, that's fine...nothing way out of left field, anyway.  I thought it was cute how he's positing convection currents around steam vents as a sort of natural polymerase chain reaction cycler.  That looks like a perfect example of our technological-cultural milieu influencing the hypotheses we attempt to test, in a way that isn't strictly a function of the technology's purpose.

What is the current scientific thought regarding the varying states of reality generally perceived through the use of hallucinogens/entheogens?  Merely the product of an unusual chemical reaction within the body, a glimpse of something we cannot ordinarily perceive, or 'quantum stuff'?   Also, what is your own personal opinion on this?

I seriously doubt there's any "alternate reality" hypothesis floating around (at least, not in reputable labs).  The only thing I've read about lately is some psychiatrists using MDMA as an adjunct for behavioral therapy for treating post-traumatic stress disorder.

Do gentlemen actually prefer blondes?

That's probably more of a culture-specific kind of thing.  The only study I can find is one of Polish men, and in Poland apparently, they do.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on February 27, 2011, 10:48:02 AM
(http://i444.photobucket.com/albums/qq163/Qzzrbl/Picture0002.jpg?t=1298821519)

Syn, what is this thing in my wall?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 27, 2011, 01:03:57 PM
Where on the wall is it?  My first guess would be an outlet for a wall-mounted lamp.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on February 27, 2011, 01:07:15 PM
It's around three feet off the ground.

It's origin has bugged me for years.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jdr on February 27, 2011, 02:39:10 PM
What's more OP, Death Knights or Paladins?

Show your work.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 27, 2011, 04:42:13 PM
What's more OP, Death Knights or Paladins?

Show your work.

Lord Soth is more badass than any paladin, ever.  That's just common sense.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on February 27, 2011, 07:39:00 PM
Dude, you guys should ask Synthesis SCIENTIFIC questions!!   >:(

My question:  do the microscopic black holes generated by the Large Hadron Collider actually have a chance to expand and swallow the earth?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 27, 2011, 08:31:40 PM
Dude, you guys should ask Synthesis SCIENTIFIC questions!!   >:(

My question:  do the microscopic black holes generated by the Large Hadron Collider actually have a chance to expand and swallow the earth?

If they do, does it matter?  I mean, if the entire Earth was instantaneously destroyed, that presumably doesn't leave a whole lot of sentient beings around to give a shit about it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on February 27, 2011, 09:15:15 PM
Just to chime in, there, but I think the word microscopic here is an understatement.  I'd be more concerned about higher interests in generating large amounts of anti-matter (which, luckily, for now, are out of the scope of fiscal reality).  According to research, black holes generated by CERN or LHC would take several years just to consume -you-.

That said ...

Dear Synthesis,

How do certain rare plants survive without photosynthesis?  I've heard there are plants that give off oxygen without needing light, only water as sustenance.  If this is true, how many of these plants would it take to support an underground colony of, say, 100 people?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on February 27, 2011, 09:53:21 PM
black holes generated by CERN or LHC would take several years just to consume -you-.

That sounds pretty painful, I think I'll stick with the instant extinction of planet Earth myself.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 27, 2011, 11:02:48 PM
Dear Synthesis,

How do certain rare plants survive without photosynthesis?  I've heard there are plants that give off oxygen without needing light, only water as sustenance.  If this is true, how many of these plants would it take to support an underground colony of, say, 100 people?

Well, nothing can grow "only on water," because it's got to get carbon, phosphorous, sulfur, etc. from -somewhere-.  Since the energy for the process isn't coming from light, you're talking about either a chemoautotroph (e.g. certain bacteria that scavenge elemental iron for electrons for energy) or a chemoheterotroph (e.g. humans).  Ah, yeah, after a little digging around...you're probably referring to myco-heterotrophic plants--plants that parasitize fungi for high-energy molecules.  The problem is that the fungi they're parasitizing still need to get their energy from somewhere...and usually they get it from the decay of...photosynthetic plants.

However, apparently there are some fungi that can use gamma rays from radioactive decay as an energy source, and as I mentioned previously, there are plenty of bacteria and whatnot that are entirely independent of the light-based ecosystem for their own growth and survival.  So I suppose it would be possible for a myco-heterotrophic plant to evolve which parasitizes a radiotrophic fungus, or a fungus that survives on the waste of or parasitizes a species of chemoautotrophic bacteria.

As far as how much it would take for 100 people to live...the general rule of thumb is that only 10% of the energy at one trophic level makes it to the next higher trophic level.  So 1 person would require about 1500 kcal/day to survive...so the myco-heterotrophs would have to be pulling in 15,000 kcal/day of energy.  In turn, the fungus would have to be drawing 150,000 kcal/day, and the poor workhorse chemoautotrophic bacteria would have to be producing 1,500,000 kcal/day.  Multiply that by 100 people, and you've got 150,000,000 kcal/day.

Doing some searching...let's assume our chemoautotroph is one that generates ATP from ferrous iron, and re-frame that in terms of moles of ATP.  Oxidizing one atom of iron generates one molecule of ATP in their system, so 1 mol Fe 2+ ==> 1 mol Fe 3+ + 1 mol ATP, more or less.  Minimally, a human uses about 200 mol ATP/day.  So since humans would be 3 trophic levels removed, multiply that by a factor of 10^3, and the bacteria would have to be producing 200,000 mol ATP/day, and consequently oxidizing 200,000 mol Fe2+ per day, to support 1 human.  Iron's about 56g/mol, so that's 11.2 million grams of iron per day.  That's about 25,000 pounds of iron per day, or 12.5 TONS every day, to support the energy requirements of 1 human.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on February 27, 2011, 11:06:43 PM
Awesome answer.  Thanks, Synthesis.  Thank Krath the Earth is iron rich.  :P
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ocotillo on February 27, 2011, 11:09:41 PM
That was awesome.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on February 28, 2011, 01:31:18 AM
Synthesis is awesome.

FTFY.

Synthesis, is the universe finite or infinite?

If it is finite, how can you justify hoarding so much awesome?  If it is infinite, does the amount of awesome within you stay constant, or is it devalued because somewhere, somehow, there might be a whole planet of Synthesi who are just as awesome?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on February 28, 2011, 02:01:25 AM
What is love?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 28, 2011, 04:20:24 AM
Synthesis, is the universe finite or infinite?

Something, something cosmic microwave background radiation something, something dark matter. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe)

What is love?

Baby don't hurt me no more.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on February 28, 2011, 10:50:30 AM
Love is walking out at your friend's Superbowl party, even when your team is in the game, to talk to her on the phone because she's feeling blue.

Or ... some other once in a lifetime event that you guys can relate to.


Dear Synthesis,

Could the Grinch's heart grow three times as big without getting cor pulmonare and dying?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on February 28, 2011, 11:38:53 AM
What is love?

Love is thought of by some in the professional whatever place (field) as a mild form of insanity. I think the love of other things is technically considered sane, such as love for puppies or friends.

Synthesis, do you love puppies?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Redheart on February 28, 2011, 01:51:20 PM
Leave love to the poets, this thread is supposed to be about science.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 28, 2011, 02:28:38 PM
Could the Grinch's heart grow three times as big without getting cor pulmonare and dying?

Cor pulmonale is a slow process that develops mainly in response to pulmonary hypertension.  If the Grinch's heart acutely tripled in size, I'd be more worried about compression of structures in the mediastinum, especially the trachea, pulmonary arteries and veins, and the descending aorta.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: DesertT on February 28, 2011, 02:37:55 PM

Alright, so if you have a 4x4 cm tumor in your head, it would seem to me that once you have it removed, you would want something in there to help make filling the void not so drastic.  Can you address that?  Wouldn't that be rather traumatic to have such a large tumor removed, then your brain just shifts over to fill the void left?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on February 28, 2011, 02:51:05 PM
Well the problem with tumors i think is the pressure it causes by growing in there, not so much that the cells themselves are "bad". By removing it you're going back to normal, so to say. Relief from the pressure.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on February 28, 2011, 03:02:45 PM
Dear Synthesis,

    Why are so many people who are not Synthesis trying to answer questions in an "ask Synthesis" thread?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marauder Moe on February 28, 2011, 03:10:58 PM
Dear Synthesis,

    Why are so many people who are not Synthesis trying to answer questions in an "ask Synthesis" thread?

Because sometimes other people know the answer and Synthesis is taking too long to respond.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 28, 2011, 03:51:54 PM

Alright, so if you have a 4x4 cm tumor in your head, it would seem to me that once you have it removed, you would want something in there to help make filling the void not so drastic.  Can you address that?  Wouldn't that be rather traumatic to have such a large tumor removed, then your brain just shifts over to fill the void left?

Brain is a pretty solid tissue.  When you scoop out a chunk, the rest doesn't necessarily ooze in and fill the empty space or anything, you're mostly left with a cystic space there that probably fills with CSF or blood, although if removal relieved enough pressure, the surrounding tissue would kind of rebound into the space after removal to some extent.  I suppose the surrounding brain could catastrophically collapse into the space under some circumstances.  Ah, and if the mass was removed while the brain is still growing (e.g. infancy), it would probably be capable of growing into the space.

But yeah, the main reason the mass is causing problems is because it's putting pressure on the surrounding tissue.  Removing it and then putting something back in would kind of defeat the purpose of removing it in the first place.  I suppose for huge mass lesions like...hydatid cysts, or something, it might be useful to have a balloon-like device that you could progressively deflate to prevent sudden collapse of the surrounding brain.  I'm not aware of anything like that being used, and surgeons are notoriously sloppy when it comes to publishing reports on their business...I can't even find any good post-surgical-removal case reports that address your original question, which is why most of this is speculative.  Most of the case conclusions are like "patient tolerated procedure well and made full/partial recovery.  The end."

I did find this totally awesome YouTube video, though.  Fair warning:  if you are going to be offended by a video of a surgical procedure, do not click on this link:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TwHi1D2G2M
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on February 28, 2011, 04:39:29 PM
Quote
I suppose the surrounding brain could catastrophically collapse into the space under some circumstances.

Would this cause a problem with the thought process itself, to your knowledge?  Can a brain still brain if it isn't in the same shape as it was, or do the pathways have to remain semi-linear?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 28, 2011, 06:09:26 PM
Quote
I suppose the surrounding brain could catastrophically collapse into the space under some circumstances.

Would this cause a problem with the thought process itself, to your knowledge?  Can a brain still brain if it isn't in the same shape as it was, or do the pathways have to remain semi-linear?

Glial cells would grossly maintain the neuronal architecture up to a point.  I think the most immediately worrisome thing would be disruptions in the vascular supply (hemorrhage).  But yeah, clearly at some point you're going to get axonal damage from stretching/shearing/etc.  The neurosurgeons always like to tell horror stories about drilling burr holes in patients with highly elevated intracranial pressure and having brain herniate out.

As far as pathways are concerned, there's some plasticity involved, but the major tracts are pretty much constant, to the point where we have most of the brain "mapped" with respect to gross functions.  The prefrontal cortex less so, but I mean...the motor and sensory cortices have "road maps" from cortex to motor unit or sensory neuron to cortex.  (That we have to bust our asses to memorize, only to promptly forget 2 weeks later....damn you paleospinothalamic tract.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Rhyden on February 28, 2011, 06:49:13 PM
What's the difference between dark matter and antimatter?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on February 28, 2011, 07:31:48 PM
What's the difference between dark matter and antimatter?

Antimatter particles have charges opposite to how we ordinarily encounter them--e.g. negatively-charged protons and positively-charged electrons, and supposedly we've actually directly observed them in action.  Dark matter is a postulate based on some hitherto undefined (as far as I know) mass defect between what some equation predicts, and what we actually measure.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marauder Moe on February 28, 2011, 09:15:02 PM
Dear Dr. S,

Can you actually go blind from looking at the sun?

Is it true that anti-bacterial soap will eventually breed a super-virus that could kill us all?

How come they haven't invented calorie-free pork lo-mein yet?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on February 28, 2011, 09:29:36 PM
I've having a hard time understanding your definition of Dark matter. here's my understanding of it... Basically it solves... It is the missing link in discovering... God this is really hard to put to words, I'm starting to understand Synthesis abundant use of large words.

We measured the universe and it weighed way, way too much. let's say 40% of the weight was unaccounted for. All this extra weight, the 60% is believed to be the space between molecules or "Space" in general. This extra "stuff" that makes of most of our weighted world that goes unobserved, is "Dark matter",


Also: Why the hell was that thing they pulled out of that girls head so big? How was that small child still alive? Did they inflate it?


And for question: Was dark energy created by, or did it create, the big bang? Or is it separate all together?

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on March 01, 2011, 12:35:22 AM
I have a hard time believing that humanity has the capacity to accurately measure the entire universe, but I guess I'm not a scientist.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: mattrious on March 01, 2011, 04:54:50 AM
What is to be found on the outer edges of the universe?

Is the universe infinite or finite?

What are your thoughts on the Big Bang model?



Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Drayab on March 01, 2011, 05:42:03 AM
With all due respect to Dr. Synthesis...

(https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/files/astro801/image/Lesson%208/800px-GalacticRotation2_svg.png)

This is the easiest to understand evidence for the reality of dark matter. The vertical axis is the rotational velocity of a parcel of luminous matter in a galaxy, and the horizontal axis is the distance from the galactic center. When you add up all the matter you can see, and you calculate the orbits according to Newtonian dynamics, you expect galaxies to have rotation curves that look like A, but in reality what we observe is B. The simplest explanation is that there must be a lot of matter there that we can't see that keeps the rotational velocity of the luminous matter high even at large radii. Hence, astronomers talk about the 'dark matter halos' of galaxies.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Reiloth on March 01, 2011, 06:46:47 AM
Dear Synthesis,

Would a Dwarf Assassin in Real Life be more or less scary than a Dwarf Assassin in Zalanthas? Why?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 01, 2011, 11:15:47 AM
Dear Dr. S,

Can you actually go blind from looking at the sun?

If you do it often enough, maybe.  There's a case report of a man from Cameroon who was tortured (partially) by being forced to stare at the sun for ~1 hr on 2 consecutive days, but he recovered vision and didn't have any long-term visual defects.  The problem is that from the location of the solar burns, it was clear he wasn't looking directly at the sun...probably just close enough to convince his captors that he was, while minimizing the pain involved.  There's another case report of a guy who stared at the sun during an LSD trip who apparently recovered vision over a period of 7 months.  I can't find anything that would rigorously answer the question, probably because there aren't enough people who go out and stare at the sun, and I suppose it's kind of difficult (both practically, and as a matter of convincing your institution's ethics review board to let you do it in the first place) to you know...force monkeys to stare at the sun until they sustain severe retinal damage.

Is it true that anti-bacterial soap will eventually breed a super-virus that could kill us all?

What does anti-bacterial soap have to do with viruses?  Bacteria might become resistant to the antibacterial compound in the soap (and they frequently do), but resistance to those compounds doesn't really confer resistance to the drugs we use clinically to kill them.  I mean, I guess if you started putting vancomycin and linezolid in hand soaps, that could eventually lead to a bacterial apocalypse, but the fact is that our immune systems are generally pretty good at killing them, anyway.  Sure, all the people who came down with really bad bacterial infections would die, because we wouldn't have any antibiotics available to kill the bugs...but humans have been around a hell of a lot longer than antibiotics.  I think we'd manage, just with a slightly higher mortality rate.

How come they haven't invented calorie-free pork lo-mein yet?

In the meantime, I suppose you could just spike a bottle of water with some lo-mein sauce.

We measured the universe and it weighed way, way too much. let's say 40% of the weight was unaccounted for. All this extra weight, the 60% is believed to be the space between molecules or "Space" in general. This extra "stuff" that makes of most of our weighted world that goes unobserved, is "Dark matter",

Yeah, pretty much what I said.

Also: Why the hell was that thing they pulled out of that girls head so big? How was that small child still alive? Did they inflate it?

No, it wasn't inflated...they really get that large.  It's a sac full of Echinococcus (dog/sheep tapeworm) protoscolices.  She didn't die because it enlarges slowly enough for the brain to accommodate to the increased pressure

And for question: Was dark energy created by, or did it create, the big bang? Or is it separate all together?

I don't really do physics, so I don't know.  If we assume everything in the universe started with the Big Bang, then I suppose the hypothesis logically follows that dark energy (if such a thing really exists) also began with the Big Bang.

Would a Dwarf Assassin in Real Life be more or less scary than a Dwarf Assassin in Zalanthas? Why?

Real-life little people tend to have some pretty significant physical limitations, although this doesn't usually prevent them from living relatively normal lives.  I'm not aware of any becoming martial-arts masters or anything, but I suppose they might make good burglars (or maybe that's just a movie I'm remembering).

I stared at the sun when I was a kid because my grandmother told me it would make me go blind, and I didn't believe her.  Even now in adulthood, I catch myself giving the sun a long, hard look every now and then.  You'll get spots if you look at it for a good 20 seconds, but they'll go away within an hour or two.  I'm surprised more people don't actually do this, and this is just another one of my quirks.  I've never seen anything more perfectly round, and it's really very beautiful to behold once your eyes actually -focus- on the sun.

Yeah, I would strongly recommend that you stop doing that.  The fact that your vision comes back doesn't mean you aren't damaging your retinas.


What causes the evolution of the opposable thumb, and is it (remotely) possible for other species on Earth to evolve in this manner to acquire the usage of tools?

Nothing "causes" evolution.  As far as the opposable thumb is concerned, I believe its primary application was more related to climbing trees than for using tools.  Tool-usage is more related to cognitive processes than any particular physical characteristics.  After all, humans without hands can still use tools, and there are plenty of species with opposable digits that don't use tools.  I mean, sure, there's a lot of evolutionary speculation about how the opposable thumb may have led to improved cognition, but that's mainly because we can't really go back and test cognition in fossil remains...all we have to go on is physical remains, and those admit mostly of physically-based hypotheses...which are fine, as far as they go, but there's always a tendency to want to take them a bit further than they ought to.  There's sort of a tendency to go with "thumbs > motor skills > cognition" instead of "cognition > thumbs > motor skills" or "motor skills > cognition > thumbs," because there's essentially a gaping hole in the data (i.e. virtually everything behavior-related is missing).

If you mean "cause" in the sense of "what were the selective pressures that led to the selection of individuals with opposable thumbs," it's almost certainly ability to climb trees to either escape predation or gain access to food sources, and that would've occurred in a common ancestor pretty far removed from Homo sapiens.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on March 01, 2011, 11:40:28 AM
I stared at the sun when I was a kid because my grandmother told me it would make me go blind, and I didn't believe her.  Even now in adulthood, I catch myself giving the sun a long, hard look every now and then.  You'll get spots if you look at it for a good 20 seconds, but they'll go away within an hour or two.  I'm surprised more people don't actually do this, and this is just another one of my quirks.  I've never seen anything more perfectly round, and it's really very beautiful to behold once your eyes actually -focus- on the sun.

Ok, my next question, Doc:

What causes the evolution of the opposable thumb, and is it (remotely) possible for other species on Earth to evolve in this manner to acquire the usage of tools?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on March 01, 2011, 12:37:30 PM
People are more afraid of public speaking than death.

Can this fear be cured by providing the afflicted with the exray glasses advertised in comic books?

If so will health insurance cover the cost?

Also how do the xray glasses work?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 01, 2011, 02:30:01 PM
People are more afraid of public speaking than death.

I'd be willing to bet that if you held a gun to someone's head and said, "Get extemporaneous with this crowd, or I'll shoot you," you'd be hearing a speech rather than a gunshot 90% of the time.  The other 10% would probably be home-schooled religious Americans who misunderstood "extemporaneous" to mean some sort of deviant sexual act.

Can this fear be cured by providing the afflicted with the exray glasses advertised in comic books?

That would probably depend on the subject's prior belief about the power of the glasses.  Placebos can be a powerful thing.

If so will health insurance cover the cost?

Coverage of mental health issues is kind of spotty in the U.S.  Try Germany...I hear they cover some pretty oddball things.

Also how do the xray glasses work?

As originally designed, they probably don't.  However, nowadays, you could design a system with an x-ray emitter, a film scanner/reader connected to a wireless network, and a pair of glasses with a wireless receiver and built-in monitors to work like an actual pair of x-ray glasses.  If you wanted to get really fancy, you could put gyroscopic motion-detection devices in the glasses, so the x-ray emitter and film backstop would move in tandem with your head movements.  Moving the detection device around would be tricky...but it might not be necessary if the glasses only had to work in a single room.  Then you could just have stationary detectors arranged in a parabola behind the audience.

Of course, the problem is when your audience starts getting radiation burns from the x-rays, but that's not the sort of thing that stops evil genius in its tracks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: DesertT on March 01, 2011, 02:36:06 PM
For Scoliosis in a child the age of 8, once the fiber cord has been snipped that was giving her the tethered spine, where the degree of curvature started out at 30 but after the operation and nine months of wearing a brace, has been reduced to 18, how much further can someone expect that curvature to straighten?

And is a 'soft' brace the way to go (made out of plastic something) or would 'casting' be more beneficial?

From what I understand, the 'soft' brace will have to be worn for the next 10-12 years, whereas this whole 'casting' deal could 'fix' it in 6-12 months.

Right now, she wears the brace at least 22 hours a day.

ETA: The research on Casting seems to have high promises, but doesn't seem to be practiced too much, which gives me pause.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Fredd on March 01, 2011, 02:41:02 PM
How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

As much wood as a wood chuck could chuck, if a wood chuck could chuck wood.


C'mon. Didn't you watch Goof Troop?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 01, 2011, 07:12:09 PM
For Scoliosis in a child the age of 8, once the fiber cord has been snipped that was giving her the tethered spine, where the degree of curvature started out at 30 but after the operation and nine months of wearing a brace, has been reduced to 18, how much further can someone expect that curvature to straighten?

And is a 'soft' brace the way to go (made out of plastic something) or would 'casting' be more beneficial?

From what I understand, the 'soft' brace will have to be worn for the next 10-12 years, whereas this whole 'casting' deal could 'fix' it in 6-12 months.

Right now, she wears the brace at least 22 hours a day.

ETA: The research on Casting seems to have high promises, but doesn't seem to be practiced too much, which gives me pause.

Well...there are at least a dozen different kinds of braces out there.  If the one she's using now is working, it's not likely that your orthopedist is going to change it, unless it's unbearably uncomfortable or something.

As far as brace vs. cast is concerned, it looks like the plaster (Risser) cast has pretty much been the standard to which all other non-operative treatments have been compared since the 70's.  Since braces seem to be the standard now, I'm assuming they've proven to be at least as effective as the cast, overall.  There isn't much mention of casting in the literature since the 90's.  Also, she's probably still going to have to wear a brace after the 1-year cast period, so it's not a magic solution or anything.

I suppose the main benefit of casting is probably compliance, since it's impossible to take it off without taking a saw to it...but I suppose a sufficiently dedicated little kid could probably manage to destroy it one way or another.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on March 01, 2011, 08:44:56 PM
Why humans enjoy music.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on March 02, 2011, 01:11:52 AM
The other 10% would probably be home-schooled religious Americans who misunderstood "extemporaneous" to mean some sort of deviant sexual act.

There's not a lot of evidence to suggest that home-schooled children have lower vocabulary (or intelligence) levels than their publicly-schooled counterparts, but if you have some, that would be interesting to see.  (Below-average social intelligence could probably be argued.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 02, 2011, 02:23:49 AM
Why humans enjoy music.

It probably has something to do with the pattern recognition sub-process of our cognition, along with some reinforcement from associative learning in a social context.  Given the emotional response it can evoke, I wouldn't be surprised if there were elements from other speech-related behaviors involved as well.  For example:  mating call/display rituals, aggression/display rituals, social bonding rituals, etc.  It's pretty easy to come up with scenarios where things that functioned in a certain way for a common ancestor could be co-opted by or commingled with another system to give rise to a modern phenotype.  The trouble is proving any of it.

But apparently, tamarin monkeys like Metallica and hate Tool (http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/sep/23/monkey-music-tamarins), providing yet another piece of evidence that Metallica fans are a lower species.

The other 10% would probably be home-schooled religious Americans who misunderstood "extemporaneous" to mean some sort of deviant sexual act.

There's not a lot of evidence to suggest that home-schooled children have lower vocabulary (or intelligence) levels than their publicly-schooled counterparts, but if you have some, that would be interesting to see.  (Below-average social intelligence could probably be argued.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6cxNR9ML8k
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ghost on March 02, 2011, 02:29:39 PM
hey synth

do crabs and lobsters feel pain?  how long does it take for them to die as they are cooked

the answer to this question is going to determine if i will ever eat them again
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 02, 2011, 02:43:19 PM
They die instantly if you do it right.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 02, 2011, 07:55:47 PM
hey synth

do crabs and lobsters feel pain?  how long does it take for them to die as they are cooked

the answer to this question is going to determine if i will ever eat them again

It's difficult to say whether they feel pain.  They clearly exhibit avoidance behaviors when exposed to noxious stimuli, but I'm not sure anyone's ever characterized the crustacean nervous system in such detail that you'd be able to identify structures and pathways homologous to those found in mammals.  Relying purely on avoidance behavior as a judge is difficult, because lots of things respond to "noxious" stimuli that are pretty benign by human standards, e.g. exposure to light or mild changes in pH.

The best you could do would be to identify all the necessary and sufficient conditions for pain perception in mammals, and then work backwards phylogenetically to see which related clades maintained homology for those conditions.  The problem is that your work will always have a political/ethical component to it, because the problem of pain perception is central to certain ethical worldviews, particularly the various consequentialisms.

As far as how quickly they "die" is concerned...that's also difficult, because they don't really have a central nervous system that coordinates all the nervous activity in their body, so the concept of brain death that could probably be applied to most vertebrates wouldn't necessarily be applicable.  Also (apparently, as my experience is pretty much limited to a single crawfish boil when I was quite young), if you remove a lobster's head, its posterior parts will continue to behave in much the same way with respect to reactions to stimuli, provided you seal off the wound and don't let the circulatory fluid escape.  With the nervous system distributed like this, I suspect it could take a bit of time for complete cessation of responses to stimuli to occur, unless you were a particularly deft crustacean anatomist and managed to simultaneously backstab the major ganglia.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Majikal on March 02, 2011, 08:41:04 PM
Dear synth,

How come I'm on my 9th xbox 360, how come they fall apart all of the god damn time. Is there anything I can do to keep this from happening or at least prolong their pitiful existence?

Which is better, playstation 3 or xbox 360 in terms of capabilities.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 02, 2011, 10:02:19 PM
Dear synth,

How come I'm on my 9th xbox 360, how come they fall apart all of the god damn time. Is there anything I can do to keep this from happening or at least prolong their pitiful existence?

Which is better, playstation 3 or xbox 360 in terms of capabilities.

A pox on console games that don't have built-in support for mouse+keyboard input.  That's really all I have to say about that.  Oh...and fuck thumb-sticks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MarshallDFX on March 02, 2011, 10:50:22 PM
Dear Synth,

Why does my nose run in the cold?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 02, 2011, 11:22:51 PM
Dear Synth,

Why does my nose run in the cold?

Too lazy and full of tacos to explain it in my own words, so here's some other guy:  http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99844567
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on March 03, 2011, 04:01:46 PM
Cats with thumbs.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 03, 2011, 06:33:02 PM
Cats with thumbs.

Are you talking about polydactyly or a normal number of claws with one malformed?

In the meantime, there's this (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_panda%27s-thumb.html).  It doesn't necessarily apply to cats, but it's interesting.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on March 03, 2011, 06:35:29 PM
Not sure. My friend's cat has what looks like opposable thumbs.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 03, 2011, 06:53:08 PM
Not sure. My friend's cat has what looks like opposable thumbs.

Hmm...probably polydactyl.  Extra digits and all that.  There are some cases where the first digit (i.e. thumb) is malformed.  It's probably not worth it to go into excruciating detail, but the short answer is most likely "genetic mutation" in either case.  I suppose it could've been some sort of teratogen or developmental disruption, but that would be odd a) in the absence of other malformations or b) to have it bilaterally (which I'm assuming, since you used the plural).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Redheart on March 03, 2011, 06:56:55 PM
http://www.pawsonline.info/paws.htm

Quote
Feline Paws


  A cat's paws, like its teeth, are lethal weapons; they also act as a climbing aid and a shock-absorber when landing. Each front paw contains seven pads. Five digital pads that have claws. One large plantar pad, which is made-up of three lobes and is the main support for the cat's leg, protecting the weight-bearing leg bones. Also there is a small wrist-pad (pisiform).*

There are five pads on each of the hind paws - four digital and one plantar pad. The hind feet are stronger than the front and endure much greater stresses and strains, especially when running and jumping.

(http://www.pawsonline.info/images/anatomy/Bwpaw.gif)

There is a common condition know as polydactylism, in cats, this genetic disorder causes extra toes to be present. Sometimes as many as seven toes on each foot have been known.

Finally, one more interesting point about our feline friends is that they, like us, can be right or left-handed, or should I say pawed! Tests have revealed that, out of every one hundred cats, approximately 40 are left-pawed, 20 are right-pawed and 40 are ambidextrous. As regards to us, only 10 people are left-handed for ever 90 who are right-handed.

* "Pisiform" means "pea-shaped", and it refers to the shape of the cat's wrist-bone beneath the pad.
 
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on March 04, 2011, 12:25:25 AM
How exactly do hot baths fuck with a fetus' neural tube?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 04, 2011, 02:54:23 AM
How exactly do hot baths fuck with a fetus' neural tube?

This isn't something that's been firmly established, either as a matter of biology or epidemiology.  There are recommendations against it because it might be harmful, and it's a fairly easily-avoided exposure.  This applies to fevers, heavy exercise, and electric blankets as well as hot baths and hot tubs.

The idea is that elevations in core body temperature can lead to disruptions on the cellular level, whether that's cell death, apoptosis, or cessation of migration and/or mitotic activity.  There's some experimental evidence to support it in animal models, but it doesn't look like it's been worked out rigorously.  If I were to guess, I'd say that it's largely a matter of chance as to which cells are affected (if any are at all), which is why the epidemiology is difficult to establish.  (Although it's likely that some cells are more susceptible than others and/or death of certain cells leads to more noticeable/adverse outcomes.)  At the molecular level, it could have something to do with denaturing of proteins critical to some growth/survival process...or possibly up-regulation of heat-shock proteins that might save the cell from dying, but perturbs some balance of factors in the growth/survival equation.

Here (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC312966/pdf/i1355-8145-003-04-0213.pdf)'s an article on it that goes into some detail...but giving it a brief skim, it looks like mostly generalities.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Majikal on March 04, 2011, 02:43:32 PM
Dear synthesis,

        Hi, it's me again. I was just wondering why my farts smell so much worse in the shower, this has bothered me for years but I've never cared enough to google it.

xoxoxo
-Maj
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Timetwister on March 04, 2011, 03:30:44 PM
So.. Big Freeze or Heat Death? Big Crunch or Big Rip? Any thoughts on the ultimate fate of the universe?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bebop on March 04, 2011, 03:32:45 PM
Synthesis, I just set up another monitor and connected it to my laptop with a VGA cable.  How do I now change the settings to use my monitor independently of my laptop monitor instead of just showing my desktop?  Lurve, Bebop
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Redheart on March 04, 2011, 03:40:18 PM
Right click on your desktop, choose "Properties", choose the "Settings" tab, click on the box with the "2" in it, check the box next to "Use this device as the primary monitor", click "Apply", and lastly, click "OK." All done. I think this accomplishes what you want.... let us know.

I'm all for a SSRTM (Synthesis Scientific Response) on this though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 04, 2011, 03:58:51 PM
So.. Big Freeze or Heat Death? Big Crunch or Big Rip? Any thoughts on the ultimate fate of the universe?

I'll be dead approximately eleventy-billion years before anything like that happens, so I really don't think about it much at all.  It will be a pressing or expansive problem for our descendants approximately eleventy-billion years from now, though.

Synthesis, I just set up another monitor and connected it to my laptop with a VGA cable.  How do I now change the settings to use my monitor independently of my laptop monitor instead of just showing my desktop?  Lurve, Bebop

I can do basic tech support for bodies, but you'll have to ask Moe or someone about computers.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marauder Moe on March 04, 2011, 04:05:13 PM
Synthesis, I just set up another monitor and connected it to my laptop with a VGA cable.  How do I now change the settings to use my monitor independently of my laptop monitor instead of just showing my desktop?  Lurve, Bebop
Try hitting Fn+F8 a few times. 

If that doesn't work, right-click on desktop -> Properties -> Settings and you should be able to set it from there.

If that doesn't work, you may have a proprietary (nVidia or ATI) display manager.  Accessing that should also be possible by right-clicking on the desktop.  Once in that there should be a tab for multiple displays that'll let you set things up right.

If that doesn't work, I'd need more details on your case to work it out.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Majikal on March 04, 2011, 05:48:07 PM
You ignored my question synthesis. I believed in you.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 04, 2011, 06:37:25 PM
Dear synthesis,

        Hi, it's me again. I was just wondering why my farts smell so much worse in the shower, this has bothered me for years but I've never cared enough to google it.

xoxoxo
-Maj

Because the smells in a shower are generally more pleasant, thus making the fart seem worse. You're also in a more confined space, so it doesn't air out as well.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Redheart on March 04, 2011, 07:05:55 PM
Dear synthesis,

        Hi, it's me again. I was just wondering why my farts smell so much worse in the shower, this has bothered me for years but I've never cared enough to google it.

xoxoxo
-Maj

Because the smells in a shower are generally more pleasant, thus making the fart seem worse. You're also in a more confined space, so it doesn't air out as well.

If you fart in the pool it smells worse too. Just saying. I always thought it had something to do with the reaction of the water/steam and the bacteria and matter that they come from, but that was just my theory.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Majikal on March 04, 2011, 07:42:06 PM
Neither of you are synthesis. Therefore, both wrong.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 04, 2011, 10:46:25 PM
Dear synthesis,

        Hi, it's me again. I was just wondering why my farts smell so much worse in the shower, this has bothered me for years but I've never cared enough to google it.

xoxoxo
-Maj

Could be a few reasons.  If your bowel movements and shower habits are regular and synchronous, it could be a matter of fecal transit.  It could be that the water vapor from the shower clears out your nasal passages enough to expose more of the appropriate olfactory receptors.  It could be that the flatus diffuses more slowly under the local condition of high humidity.  Then there's a whole host of somewhat unlikely hypotheses that could be explored if the low-hanging fruit doesn't pan out.  I'm pretty sure this phenomenon of yours isn't something that's been thoroughly investigated, if at all.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on March 05, 2011, 05:34:13 PM
Dear synthesis,

        Hi, it's me again. I was just wondering why my farts smell so much worse in the shower, this has bothered me for years but I've never cared enough to google it.

xoxoxo
-Maj

Could be a few reasons.  If your bowel movements and shower habits are regular and synchronous, it could be a matter of fecal transit.  It could be that the water vapor from the shower clears out your nasal passages enough to expose more of the appropriate olfactory receptors.  It could be that the flatus diffuses more slowly under the local condition of high humidity.  Then there's a whole host of somewhat unlikely hypotheses that could be explored if the low-hanging fruit doesn't pan out.  I'm pretty sure this phenomenon of yours isn't something that's been thoroughly investigated, if at all.

Smells travel faster and are stronger in hot, humid environments because the molecules are agitated and have a higher net energy. More of them break apart into detectable-sized parts and they move faster.

Same reason alcohol smells stronger in hot drinks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Lizzie on March 06, 2011, 09:56:32 AM
Yam is now official expert on the smell-vapor connection. Synthesis, you're fired.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 06, 2011, 03:15:14 PM
I'm sure it's the sum of all these things. But yeah, Yam nailed it best most scientifically.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 06, 2011, 05:18:36 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RF87eEUXmM



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwp_WHFhA4A&feature=related


I'm expecting much.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on March 06, 2011, 06:57:29 PM
Is there any merit to holistic medicine? Everybody's heard the miracle stories.

I'm skeptical myself but both my parents are into "traditional chinese medicines" to solve back pain, kidney issues, stomache ulcers, high cholesterol and whatnot.

Edit: spelling lol
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 06, 2011, 07:07:30 PM
I'm really making an ass out of myself constantly trying to answer questions far above my level of understanding. But doesn't the term holistic itself refer to the idea that none of those medicines can be directly attributed to the curing one might have received, and thus lie within the domain of placebo effects? Maybe I'm thinking of homeopathy...


I'm sure synthesis would need a more specific example of holistic treatment and ailment before being able to offer your more than a generalized statement like mine though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 06, 2011, 09:22:40 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RF87eEUXmM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwp_WHFhA4A&feature=related

I'm expecting much.

It's a light that goes down, then goes up.  Clearly it must be alien, because there isn't anything man-made that has lights and can move up and down.  Also, there surely are no individuals who would be inclined to perpetrate religious hoaxes (but I repeat myself).

Is there any merit to holistic medicine? Everybody's heard the miracle stories.

I'm skeptical myself but both my parents are into "traditional chinese medicines" to solve back pain, kidney issues, stomache ulcers, high cholesterol and whatnot.

It all depends on what you're talking about.  Some things have been tested and shown to consistently beat placebo.  The vast majority of traditional/alternative/complementary stuff either hasn't been tested rigorously, or has been tested and failed to measure up.  I think "holism" in a clinical sense these days means something more along the lines of "treating the patient with respect to their psycho-social context," as opposed to merely treating a disease process.  With respect to traditional medicine etc., that usually means letting patients do whatever weird cultural stuff they want to do, as long as it's harmless.

I guess the only caution I'd throw in is that there are some herbs that are potent inhibitors or inducers of cytochrome P450s, so if your parents are taking a bunch of herbal stuff along with prescribed medicines, they should probably let their doctor know what the herbal stuff is, because it might change the pharmacokinetics of the prescribed meds.  (I suppose some herbal stuff might actually be harmful...but the vast majority seems to be benign...tradition-based practices are generally pretty good at weeding out the compounds that will kill you acutely, so most of it is just plain useless.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 06, 2011, 09:31:13 PM
The title says explain, not describe.  :P
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 06, 2011, 10:05:37 PM
Maybe I'm thinking of homeopathy...

I think that Synthesis would/will declare homeopathy ("a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient") to be bunk.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 06, 2011, 10:19:27 PM
The title says explain, not describe.  :P

Assuming old-school tech: some douchebags probably rigged up a light on a string, or a light on a radio-controlled helicopter, etc., then used darkness, lack of detail, and lack of perspective to make it look like the light was farther away than it really was.

We interpret the speed with which the light exits the viewing frame in the context of apparent distance traveled per unit of time.  Since the light appears to be distant, we assume that the vertical distance traveled must be large, and thus the speed required for it to exit the viewing frame to be large as well.  However, the distance from the camera lens to the light is unknown, thus we can't know how fast it was traveling.

I suppose the simplest explanation is somebody was tinkering around in some video-editing software and thought it would be funny to fuck with the heads of people who are already inclined to believe stupid things, especially with respect to religious landmarks.

Maybe I'm thinking of homeopathy...

I think that Synthesis would/will declare homeopathy ("a form of alternative medicine in which practitioners treat patients using highly diluted preparations that are believed to cause healthy people to exhibit symptoms that are similar to those exhibited by the patient") to be bunk.

Thanks for saving me the trouble?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on March 07, 2011, 05:54:29 AM
Spontaneous combustion.  Could it happen?  If so, how?  How hot would the fire have to be?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 07, 2011, 02:25:41 PM
Spontaneous combustion.  Could it happen?  If so, how?  How hot would the fire have to be?

Of a human body? No.

The only major intrinsic heat-generator in the human body (that I'm aware of) is "leakage" from ATP synthase at the end of the electron transport chain.  I imagine the proteins required to run that machinery would denature long before you reached the autoignition temperature of any cellular components.  I mean, the autoignition point of vegetable oil is like 600 degrees Fahrenheit.  Once you get to around 105 Fahrenheit, things in your body start to break down...reaching six times that temperature seems completely out of the question.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on March 07, 2011, 02:56:02 PM
This, however is very possible.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wick_effect

Hardly spontaneous and requires an external ignition source.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on March 07, 2011, 03:20:05 PM
Dear Synthesis,
Please pardon my skepticism, but I'm certain you're mistaken regarding the spontaneous human combustion. I read about it in the world weekly news! Explain the photos and eye witness accounts.
Sheesh, next you'll try to tell us the devil doesn't live in a toaster in Manchester and Michelle Obama isn't carrying an extraterrestrial's love child!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marc on March 07, 2011, 03:36:06 PM
...and Michelle Obama isn't carrying an extraterrestrial's love child!

Even flops like the World Weekly News are bound to get it right once in awhile.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh?  Every dog has its day?

I'm still curious about woodchucks chucking ability.

I also want to know what is the best cover crop for between garden beds.  I need something that will add nitrogen, is fairly cheap seed wise, can be grain-drilled or hand sowed and can be cut with a rotary mower.  It's also important that it is aggressive to choke out any weeds that might want to try and grow (nothing is perfect I know, but this field is retarded with old growth.  60 years+ fallow so I need aggressive plants!)  This is for Region 4/5.

Is a red or white clover my best option?  Why or why not and if not, what is?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on March 07, 2011, 04:11:37 PM
The amount of wood a woodchuck would chuck is directly proportional to the amount of wood a woodchuck could chuck, therefore a woodchuck would chuck an infinite amount of wood as long as it is properly serviced.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 07, 2011, 06:13:49 PM
...and Michelle Obama isn't carrying an extraterrestrial's love child!

Even flops like the World Weekly News are bound to get it right once in awhile.  Even a broken clock is right twice a day, eh?  Every dog has its day?

I'm still curious about woodchucks chucking ability.

I also want to know what is the best cover crop for between garden beds.  I need something that will add nitrogen, is fairly cheap seed wise, can be grain-drilled or hand sowed and can be cut with a rotary mower.  It's also important that it is aggressive to choke out any weeds that might want to try and grow (nothing is perfect I know, but this field is retarded with old growth.  60 years+ fallow so I need aggressive plants!)  This is for Region 4/5.

Is a red or white clover my best option?  Why or why not and if not, what is?

Those sound like technical issues, and I don't really do agriculture.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marc on March 07, 2011, 06:26:37 PM
Pffftshaw.  Science is applied mathematics.  Mathematics is the language of nature.  Nature is agriculture ergo agriculture is science.  ;D
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on March 07, 2011, 06:41:13 PM
I didn't read the thread, so it might have been answered already, but...

Is the nutritional value of -just- good ole beer enough to keep you alive and functioning? Barring massive dehydration that is. I mean, you get calories and a little water. No vitamins really, but...? People in the dark ages survived on a crust of moldy bread a day. Beer is just grain that's been brewed. Teach me, Synth.

Also, would a few ounces of mercury poured in the earhole get you high as fuck? Before you died horribly?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on March 07, 2011, 06:43:43 PM
Quote
Also, would a few ounces of mercury poured in the earhole get you high as fuck? Before you died horribly?

I don't know A) if mercury can get you high or B) if you can absorb things into your bloodstream through your ear, but you can become intoxicated by putting things like alcohol in certain other holes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on March 07, 2011, 07:10:13 PM
Elemental mercury used to be prescribed to clear bowel obstructions in childrens.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on March 07, 2011, 07:11:15 PM
And chlamydia.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 07, 2011, 07:17:26 PM
Is the nutritional value of -just- good ole beer enough to keep you alive and functioning? Barring massive dehydration that is. I mean, you get calories and a little water. No vitamins really, but...? People in the dark ages survived on a crust of moldy bread a day. Beer is just grain that's been brewed.

No, you'd get all sorts of vitamin deficiencies, and they aren't really trivial things.  E.g. beri-beri, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, pellagra, megaloblastic anemia.  You might be able to get away with it for a while if you were previously in good health, but it isn't a sustainable diet.


Also, would a few ounces of mercury poured in the earhole get you high as fuck? Before you died horribly?

It doesn't look like inorganic (elemental) mercury is readily absorbed through the skin, so it probably wouldn't do anything at all, assuming your tympanic membrane is intact.  Even if you ingested it chronically, it wouldn't get you "high as fuck," because the neurological manifestations are more insidious in onset:  tremor, memory loss, fatigue, insomnia, anorexia, mood changes, withdrawal, depression, etc.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on March 07, 2011, 07:50:44 PM
Man, some of you need to go easy on Synth. It's not like he can actually prove anything on this thread. He is only able to give the best possible explanation based on the interpretation of all available evidence.

So much for science being a way to understand the universe.  ::)

Question: Which of the silent killers should I be worried about at 25 years old? I.E. diseases that tend to exhibit mild symptoms until the preferred window of preventative medicine has passed.

Or what's the best way to remain healthy and ensure a long life?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 07, 2011, 08:24:20 PM
Question: Which of the silent killers should I be worried about at 25 years old? I.E. diseases that tend to exhibit mild symptoms until the preferred window of preventative medicine has passed.

I wouldn't worry about any of them, unless you have some kind of family history of relatively young people suddenly dropping dead or getting cancer, or you have some risk factor or occupational exposure situation going on.

Or what's the best way to remain healthy and ensure a long life?

Control your diet, exercise, use a rubber, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink excessively.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on March 07, 2011, 08:28:43 PM
Control your diet, exercise, use a rubber, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink excessively.

I'm so fucked
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marc on March 07, 2011, 08:31:46 PM
Control your diet, exercise, use a rubber, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink excessively.

I'm so fucked

It's a choose two deal  ::)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on March 07, 2011, 09:12:11 PM
Homeopathy makes me chuckle.

"Medicine is better the less you take of it! In fact, it's best of all if you take water which may have at one point contained a trace amount of the medicine!"

Lolz.

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on March 08, 2011, 04:46:04 AM
Elemental mercury used to be prescribed to clear bowel obstructions in childrens.

i think that's because if you wanted to live until a few centuries ago, you didn't go to a white doctor.

.....

now i'm wondering if that actually worked.

"Oh, let's try feeding this child mercury."

"Smashing idea!"
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kalai on March 08, 2011, 07:30:54 AM
The two preceding posts in combination suddenly make homeopathy make sense.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on March 08, 2011, 07:31:55 AM
Elemental mercury used to be prescribed to clear bowel obstructions in childrens.

i think that's because if you wanted to live until a few centuries ago, you didn't go to a white doctor.

.....

now i'm wondering if that actually worked.

"Oh, let's try feeding this child mercury."

"Smashing idea!"

I don't think "bowel obstruction" and "oral medication" went hand in hand in the 18th-19th century.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on March 08, 2011, 02:46:43 PM
I was wondering what the doctor being white had to do with anything whatsoever?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 08, 2011, 03:37:36 PM
I was wondering what the doctor being white had to do with anything whatsoever?

I'm assuming she was insinuating that European scientific knowledge took quite a while to catch up to the loss of cultural knowledge that occurred during the Dark Ages.  (I'm not sure exactly how long a gap we'd be talking, or whether there really was any significant loss of cultural knowledge.)

The idea being that a healer from a "brown" culture whose medicinal traditions were still alive probably would've had more success, since the chain of trial and error hadn't been interrupted.

Interestingly, bloodletting is still a treatment for at least one disease that is fairly common among Caucasians, so it's plausible to think that perhaps that wasn't merely something that some crazy guy dreamed up one day.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on March 08, 2011, 03:38:57 PM
Why is it so damn hard to take a radio, stick it in someone's head, and then wire the speaker directly into the bone in order to allow you to never lose your music?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ender on March 08, 2011, 04:01:31 PM
Why is it so damn hard to take a radio, stick it in someone's head, and then wire the speaker directly into the bone in order to allow you to never lose your music?

That's just what they want you think maaaaaaan (http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/emot-tinfoil.gif).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 08, 2011, 04:30:30 PM
Why is it so damn hard to take a radio, stick it in someone's head, and then wire the speaker directly into the bone in order to allow you to never lose your music?

Probably a matter of demand.  I'm not sure that solution would be a marked improvement on iPod+earbuds for most people.  Certainly not enough to establish a market for a technology and surgical procedure.

But there's a pretty long list of technical hurdles you'd have to overcome, as well:  audio quality/degradation, upgrades to software/hardware, input/output, device failure, battery life/replacement/recharge, fibrosis around the implant, infections around the implant (especially if I/O ports are present), implant placement, etc.

The only applications I can think of where it might be worth the trouble would be for like...military, national security, or corporate espionage.  Even then, it would be very expensive.  I suppose if someone developed a "killer" application for it that exponentially increased demand, the procedure and technology could be reduced to the expense of something like a breast implant.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on March 08, 2011, 04:31:40 PM
Why is it so damn hard to take a radio, stick it in someone's head, and then wire the speaker directly into the bone in order to allow you to never lose your music?

That's just what they want you think maaaaaaan (http://forums.randi.org/images/smilies/emot-tinfoil.gif).

No, I was wondering why it's so difficult for me to do this?  Apparently some of my friends are "pissed off" at my modifications, now that they've woken up.  Damn things are healing out, too.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ocotillo on March 08, 2011, 05:05:58 PM
Interestingly, bloodletting is still a treatment for at least one disease that is fairly common among Caucasians, so it's plausible to think that perhaps that wasn't merely something that some crazy guy dreamed up one day.

What disease is this?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 08, 2011, 06:11:19 PM
Hemochromatosis
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: FiveDisgruntledMonkeysWit on March 08, 2011, 09:59:45 PM
WP's question on mercury in the ear prompted this...

Synthesis, are there any poisons that can actually kill you when poured in the ear, like in Hamlet? How do they work?

Always struck me as a random orifice through which to aply poison. I feel like you see it in Hamlet and nowhere else. Are there actual, well-known ear poisons? Or was Ol' Billy Shakes just being weird?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 08, 2011, 10:14:33 PM
WP's question on mercury in the ear prompted this...

Synthesis, are there any poisons that can actually kill you when poured in the ear, like in Hamlet? How do they work?

Always struck me as a random orifice through which to aply poison. I feel like you see it in Hamlet and nowhere else. Are there actual, well-known ear poisons? Or was Ol' Billy Shakes just being weird?

Anything that would kill you by being absorbed through your skin anywhere else.  There isn't anything special about the external ear in terms of vascular supply.  I suppose the only reason to do it would be if you had a poison that was a free-flowing liquid and absorbed through the skin, the external ear canal would make a convenient receptacle for it, provided the target was asleep and lying on one side.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on March 12, 2011, 01:33:27 PM
Dear Synthesis,

How many apricot pits would you need to get to make enough cyanide to kill an adult human?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on March 12, 2011, 01:41:16 PM
Hemochromatosis

Blood donation is a handy and self-satisfying remedy
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 12, 2011, 03:59:44 PM
Dear Synthesis,

How many apricot pits would you need to get to make enough cyanide to kill an adult human?

http://www.livestrong.com/article/106492-foods-vitamin-b17/#

...quotes eating 50-60 apricot pits per day as the ballpark for fatal toxicity.

I think wikipedia quoted 200-30mg pure hydrogen cyanide as a fatal dose, which is about 0.008 mol.  Assuming perfect yield, 1 mol amygdalin would produce 1 mol HCN...so you'd need 0.008 mol amygdalin, which is about 3.7g.  The problem variable is amygdalin per apricot pit.  I can find plenty of quantitative studies for it, but none of them are in open-access journals.

I imagine it would take substantially fewer than 50-60 pits (assuming perfect yield) if you were purifying it, because eating raw pits is essentially a "time-release" formulation by comparison.

However, you can buy Laetrile as a "vitamin," which is basically amygdalin minus glucose, if I'm remembering the structures correctly.  Same principles apply, there, but 3000mg of it would cost you almost $500.  (Edit: more like $50-$100)

If you're planning on killing someone with it, it's unlikely you'll fool the coroner with cyanide, though.  If you're planning on killing yourself, I'm sure there are much easier, less expensive, and less uncomfortable methods.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on March 12, 2011, 05:20:17 PM
What is the purpose of meaning?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 12, 2011, 06:39:20 PM
What is the purpose of meaning?

Replication
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on March 12, 2011, 06:46:14 PM
Mainly because I can't understand what it is that Cindy's having trouble believing about it (no matter how many times I read her question on the Idle Complaints thread), why is Y. pestis so fatal in humans, and can natural immunity be passed down to offspring?

If I'm reading wiki correctly (yes, I know it's not a reliable source, but I don't have access to any journal archives anymore, and I'm probably not reading it right...) untreated Y. pestis has a 50-90% mortality rate, and the deciding factor in resistance is one's ability to produce specific opsonic antibodies...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on March 12, 2011, 06:59:11 PM
In your scientific oppinion. What is the worst possible way to die?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 12, 2011, 07:51:08 PM
Mainly because I can't understand what it is that Cindy's having trouble believing about it (no matter how many times I read her question on the Idle Complaints thread), why is Y. pestis so fatal in humans, and can natural immunity be passed down to offspring?

If I'm reading wiki correctly (yes, I know it's not a reliable source, but I don't have access to any journal archives anymore, and I'm probably not reading it right...) untreated Y. pestis has a 50-90% mortality rate, and the deciding factor in resistance is one's ability to produce specific opsonic antibodies...

Maybe I'll try to answer this a little more in-depth later, when I can VPN into some better info, but basically it's because it replicates within macrophages and neutrophils.  Since macrophages and neutrophils are supposed to be killing them, but can't, the bacteria go buck wild and you end up dying of some sort of organ failure.  I'm not sure about the "opsonic" antibodies, since opsonization is one of the general of functions of all antibodies.  I suppose it could be an antibody against a specific receptor on the bacterium that's required for survival/replication/escape from the endosome (such that antibody binding to it prevents its normal function), but I'd have to look that up.  If resistance really is dependent solely on development of that particular antibody, that kind of sucks, from an evolutionary perspective, because while antibody generation isn't entirely random, it's fairly random within inherited HLA "cassettes," so the penetrance of an inherited HLA type that can generate resistance isn't going to be very high...unless there are variants of other proteins (e.g. RAG1, RAG2) that increase the odds of that particular VDJ recombination.

In your scientific oppinion. What is the worst possible way to die?

Being eaten alive by (small) wild animals (e.g. ravens, vultures, coyotes) after failing at your life's greatest ambition, while watching the similarly painful death and/or destruction of everything you hold dear?  Anyone feel free to start another thread on this, if you can come up with something more horrible.  (Although really, I suspect this is sort of thing would vary on a person-to-person basis, depending on culture/phobias/etc.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on March 12, 2011, 11:57:45 PM
Why is there an upper limit to the mass of elements?  Is it possible there are denser elements than we know of?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: SMuz on March 13, 2011, 03:35:07 AM
How do you maximize the probability of a hot girl sitting next to you in a bus? Not including personal attractiveness, more on finding the best seat.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on March 13, 2011, 04:33:35 AM
How do you maximize the probability of a hot girl sitting next to you in a bus? Not including personal attractiveness, more on finding the best seat.

By finding a hot girl on the bus and sitting next to her.

Trust me.... I'm a doctor.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on March 13, 2011, 04:32:07 PM
Elemental mercury used to be prescribed to clear bowel obstructions in childrens.

i think that's because if you wanted to live until a few centuries ago, you didn't go to a white doctor.

.....

now i'm wondering if that actually worked.

"Oh, let's try feeding this child mercury."

"Smashing idea!"


Not sure if this has been touched upon or not, but elemental mercury is actually not very readily absorbed through ingestion or skin contact.  An individual with a healthy, intact GI tract will absorb very very little elemental mercury.  I'm not 100% sure, but I think the bigger concern with elemental mercury is that it releases mercury vapour, which, if chronically inhaled, can be problematic...?

Like I said, I don't really know and I'm no scientist so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong...

Maybe I'll just ask my doctor about it....she's white so I'm pretty sure she'll have all the answers... :-\

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on March 13, 2011, 05:29:55 PM
Not sure if this has been touched upon or not, but elemental mercury is actually not very readily absorbed through ingestion or skin contact.  An individual with a healthy, intact GI tract will absorb very very little elemental mercury.  I'm not 100% sure, but I think the bigger concern with elemental mercury is that it releases mercury vapour, which, if chronically inhaled, can be problematic...?
Yup. There's also the urban legend about someone trying to prove this by drinking a significant amount of mercury and dying - because the weight made his stomach rip.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on March 14, 2011, 06:24:17 AM
Mainly because I can't understand what it is that Cindy's having trouble believing about it (no matter how many times I read her question on the Idle Complaints thread), why is Y. pestis so fatal in humans, and can natural immunity be passed down to offspring?

If I'm reading wiki correctly (yes, I know it's not a reliable source, but I don't have access to any journal archives anymore, and I'm probably not reading it right...) untreated Y. pestis has a 50-90% mortality rate, and the deciding factor in resistance is one's ability to produce specific opsonic antibodies...

i believed i clarified why i didn't believe immunity to the plague can be passed down--- because i believed it kills everyone in under 9 months and is physically contagious-- until Synth said to me something like that. that would give a good window for survivors to create a genetic immunity to pass down after they've been exposed and lived.then i believed it, because Synth's words should be believed. late posting?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on March 14, 2011, 01:21:57 PM
Actually I managed to post it concurrently with Synthesis' answer in the other thread, but I've also asked a different question additionally.

But originally reading your stuff, it wasn't clear to me that you didn't believe it possible to be immuned -because- it killed people in under 9 months.
However, that's all cleared up now. ^^
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on March 14, 2011, 01:27:28 PM
that would give a good window for survivors to create a genetic immunity to pass down after they've been exposed and lived.

I think the proper understanding isn't that the survivors created immunity; it's that they survived because they already had it.

Kids born to you after you've been vaccinated for mumps still need to be vaccinated for mumps.  Acquired immunities don't live in your DNA.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on March 14, 2011, 01:30:30 PM
Is there any substance besides water which can be used to hydrate?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on March 14, 2011, 01:34:48 PM
Is there any substance besides water which can be used to hydrate?

Brawndo, the Thirst Mutilator (it's got electrolytes).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on March 14, 2011, 01:35:40 PM
It's what plants crave!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 14, 2011, 03:11:40 PM
that would give a good window for survivors to create a genetic immunity to pass down after they've been exposed and lived.

I think the proper understanding isn't that the survivors created immunity; it's that they survived because they already had it.

Kids born to you after you've been vaccinated for mumps still need to be vaccinated for mumps.  Acquired immunities don't live in your DNA.

Well...technically...acquired immunity does "live" in your DNA, but it's not germline DNA, so it isn't heritable.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 14, 2011, 03:31:51 PM
Is there any substance besides water which can be used to hydrate?

For humans? Not really.  I mean, there are plenty of solutions of water and <something else>, and some foods that have a very high water content (e.g. lettuce, watermelon) that will keep you hydrated, but water is still present.

Supposedly some animals (e.g. kangaroo rats) have such efficient kidneys and other relevant water-sparing physiological/behavioral adaptations that the scant amount of water that's produced by food metabolism is enough for them to live on, though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on March 14, 2011, 03:54:49 PM
WP's question on mercury in the ear prompted this...

Synthesis, are there any poisons that can actually kill you when poured in the ear, like in Hamlet? How do they work?

Always struck me as a random orifice through which to aply poison. I feel like you see it in Hamlet and nowhere else. Are there actual, well-known ear poisons? Or was Ol' Billy Shakes just being weird?

I always assumed that this was an example of one of the caustic "poisons", either acid or alkali, where absorption would be less of an issue if introduced to a relatively unprotected organ with ready access to the brain.

Anyone with a deeper knowledge of chemistry have a "yay" or "nay" on that?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on March 14, 2011, 04:01:22 PM
Anyone with a deeper knowledge of chemistry have a "yay" or "nay" on that?

It's funny you say that, because I always assumed that Synthesis was a chemist (or probably something medical, since it seems to be mostly organic chemistry).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on March 14, 2011, 04:14:00 PM
Anyone with a deeper knowledge of chemistry have a "yay" or "nay" on that?

It's funny you say that, because I always assumed that Synthesis was a chemist (or probably something medical, since it seems to be mostly organic chemistry).

Yea, I had a the same thought. My understanding of the properties of matter took a decided turn towards making electrons jump around.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on March 14, 2011, 04:28:51 PM
i want to ask a question involving the japanese and their nuke plants, and wait humbly for musashi's permission, or that of a person of cultural or ethnic japanese origin, because it kinda seems mean not to.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marauder Moe on March 14, 2011, 04:34:41 PM
I'm not aware of Japanese nuclear reactor technology being significantly different from the rest of the world's standards.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on March 14, 2011, 04:49:47 PM
It's not... I've toured one and it looks just like any of the ones we have in California, more or less.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 14, 2011, 05:46:19 PM
WP's question on mercury in the ear prompted this...

Synthesis, are there any poisons that can actually kill you when poured in the ear, like in Hamlet? How do they work?

Always struck me as a random orifice through which to aply poison. I feel like you see it in Hamlet and nowhere else. Are there actual, well-known ear poisons? Or was Ol' Billy Shakes just being weird?

I always assumed that this was an example of one of the caustic "poisons", either acid or alkali, where absorption would be less of an issue if introduced to a relatively unprotected organ with ready access to the brain.

Anyone with a deeper knowledge of chemistry have a "yay" or "nay" on that?

Even if it was something caustic, the external ear canal and the middle ear aren't really contiguous with the inside of the cranium.  I mean, there are some very small holes through which the vestibulocochlear and facial nerves pass, and a tiny hole for the endolymphatic duct, but the rest of the middle ear is entirely separated from the brain by bone.  By the time something caustic managed to erode through that, the vast majority of the liquid would probably have drained out through the Eustachian tube into the nasopharynx.  (Assuming the victim actually remained in one place long enough for the caustic liquid to erode through the tympanic membrane...which is highly unlikely, unless they were anesthetized or restrained beforehand.)

Here's a helpful picture:

(http://www.virtualcancercentre.com/uploads/VMC/TreatmentImages/2191_ear_anatomy_450.jpg)

As you can see, anything eroding through from the external ear canal to the brain would have to pass through the tympanic membrane, the stapes, pass through the oval window, seep around the cochlea, then dissolve through the facial and/or auditory nerves to get into the actual brain compartment.  This would be highly problematic given the location of the Eustachian tube.

I mean, if it were easy to get from the middle ear to the brain, we would all die of meningitis as kids.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on March 14, 2011, 05:59:18 PM
By the time something caustic managed to erode through that, the vast majority of the liquid would probably have drained out through the Eustachian tube into the nasopharynx.

Now I hadn't thought of that, but the nasopharynx remains open and is far enough back that a fluid introduced though the ear would drain down the esophagus (or possibly be aspirated), correct? So, if your victim remained still for a while, this would be a plausible, if elaborate, method of delivering an ingested poison.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 14, 2011, 06:03:51 PM
By the time something caustic managed to erode through that, the vast majority of the liquid would probably have drained out through the Eustachian tube into the nasopharynx.

Now I hadn't thought of that, but the nasopharynx remains open and is far enough back that a fluid introduced though the ear would drain down the esophagus (or possibly be aspirated), correct? So, if your victim remained still for a while, this would be a plausible, if elaborate, method of delivering an ingested poison.

That would only work if the victim had a perforated tympanic membrane...so yeah, I guess it might work if it were something caustic.  But the tympanic membrane and external ear canal are pretty damn sensitive to pain.  If you put something like sodium hydroxide or hydrochloric acid in there, the victim would probably jump up and drain it out long before it managed to erode through to the middle ear.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on March 14, 2011, 06:24:02 PM
So, really, Jael had it right...a simple solution.

(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/3297/jaelv.jpg)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 14, 2011, 06:30:13 PM
So that's why assassins get bludgeoning and piercing.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on March 15, 2011, 04:23:47 AM
Girl put the peg all the way through his head (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+4%3A21&version=KJV), too.

would she have had to go through solid bone cranium to do that?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kronibas on March 15, 2011, 05:17:43 AM
Control your diet, exercise, use a rubber, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink excessively.

So.  Fucked.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 15, 2011, 09:27:39 AM
Control your diet, exercise, use a rubber, don't smoke, don't do drugs, don't drink excessively.

So.  Fucked.

It's never too late to reduce your modifiable risk factors!

Girl put the peg all the way through his head (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges+4%3A21&version=KJV), too.

would she have had to go through solid bone cranium to do that?

Yeah, but the bone is pretty thin at the temple, there.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on March 16, 2011, 06:01:28 AM
I'm not aware of Japanese nuclear reactor technology being significantly different from the rest of the world's standards.

the question itself is offensive. and now i've forgotten it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on March 16, 2011, 10:10:42 AM
Dr. Synthesis, what is it that Cindy42 smokes, and is it natural or synthetic?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 16, 2011, 10:26:44 AM
If you think someone has a problem, this isn't really an appropriate avenue to voice that concern, and passive-aggressive humor definitely isn't going to be a productive way of broaching the subject.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Malifaxis on March 16, 2011, 12:54:11 PM
If you think someone has a problem, this isn't really an appropriate avenue to voice that concern, and passive-aggressive humor definitely isn't going to be a productive way of broaching the subject.

I've asked her directly a few times, and she refuses to answer, so I came to the expert.

However, I will accept your judgement as a blanket statement that you don't know.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on March 16, 2011, 01:09:36 PM
NPR told me that children tend to segregate themselves.

NPR also tells me that the tendency to liberalism is hard-wired.

What is the likelihood that xenophobia is a matter of nature rather than nurture?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on March 16, 2011, 08:47:26 PM
NPR told me that children tend to segregate themselves.

NPR also tells me that the tendency to liberalism is hard-wired.

What is the likelihood that xenophobia is a matter of nature rather than nurture?

Like I mentioned earlier in the thread, evolutionary biologists tend to overstate their cases...or at least, the media reports tend to overstate their cases.  This month's Science has a study that proposes one of the factors that drove early human speciation away from the other great apes wasn't kinship-selection:  it was a behavioral adaptation that allowed them to interact with more early humans from other bands.  Since we developed the ability to learn socially (by watching others), the most successful early humans were those that had the most other humans to watch and interact with.  If this theory is correct, it basically upends much of the kinship-selection thesis, and a whole lot of pseudo-racist corollaries to it.  I think the research itself showed that, unlike what you'd expect from kinship-selection, some remaining African hunter-gatherer tribes are actually highly genetically diverse, indicating a great deal of intermixing between groups.

Edited to add: I should say that it doesn't completely invalidate kinship-selection as a force, but it suggests that kinship-selection probably wasn't the only force, and might not have been the most important.

Of course, it's difficult to evaluate the value of this new theory, because it unavoidably has political connotations.  I mean, the kinship-selection theory itself was highly politicized, as it was a solution to the egoism vs. altruism debate, in favor of a strong evolutionary basis for limited altruism.  This would form the basis for a much stronger version of cooperative/prosocial/altruistic behavior.

If you have access to Science, the article is here:  http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6022/1286.full
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on March 16, 2011, 08:53:02 PM
I'm sending that answer to Travis Smiley!

I wonder too, this instance aside, but in general, how effectively does nurture overcome nature?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on March 16, 2011, 08:54:10 PM
Tavis Smiley? You know who I mean.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 20, 2011, 09:40:44 PM
Why do I get such terrible stretch marks? What are the best ways to prevent/get rid of them?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on March 21, 2011, 01:10:29 AM
Why do I get such terrible stretch marks? What are the best ways to prevent/get rid of them?

Moisture! You actually have to start this before you get them and continue the regimen really. Water in your diet. But, some aren't preventable because of hereditary skin condition and elasticity conditions.

But, I'm sure Synth has a few more accurate and scientific answer. :<
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 21, 2011, 02:51:22 AM
It doesn't seem to take much. When I was first growing I had them all over my back, and whenever I pumped weights I'd get them all over where my deltoids meet the arm-pit/pecks. Recently I've just been doing push-ups and boxing, not looking for large growth or anything but just the opposite I'm trying to get leaner... but I've started getting them again. WTF skin why do you suck so much.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on March 21, 2011, 05:08:47 PM
It doesn't seem to take much. When I was first growing I had them all over my back, and whenever I pumped weights I'd get them all over where my deltoids meet the arm-pit/pecks. Recently I've just been doing push-ups and boxing, not looking for large growth or anything but just the opposite I'm trying to get leaner... but I've started getting them again. WTF skin why do you suck so much.

Even just lathering yourself with olive oil helps. It also firms. My tatas were perky as a porn star's new breast implants when I was doing an olive oil regimen.

I'm replying to this and sort of just waiting for Synthesis to just shit all over my replies with scientific know-how. ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jhunter on March 21, 2011, 05:18:15 PM
Quote
My tatas were perky as a porn star's new breast implants when I was doing an olive oil regimen.


Thanks...I completely forgot my question... :-[
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on March 21, 2011, 06:05:52 PM
Quote
My tatas were perky as a porn star's new breast implants when I was doing an olive oil regimen.


Thanks...I completely forgot my question... :-[

i concur, and i'm a straight chick.

dear synth, why do we perceive an uncanny valley in human-like things?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on March 21, 2011, 10:05:15 PM
Is the nutritional value of -just- good ole beer enough to keep you alive and functioning? Barring massive dehydration that is. I mean, you get calories and a little water. No vitamins really, but...? People in the dark ages survived on a crust of moldy bread a day. Beer is just grain that's been brewed.

No, you'd get all sorts of vitamin deficiencies, and they aren't really trivial things.  E.g. beri-beri, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, pellagra, megaloblastic anemia.  You might be able to get away with it for a while if you were previously in good health, but it isn't a sustainable diet.

What about beer and ramen noodles?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 08, 2011, 05:58:03 PM
Why do I get such terrible stretch marks? What are the best ways to prevent/get rid of them?

Nobody really knows why.  The most plausible hypotheses are regarding the effect of steroids on fibroblasts, and genetic variants of some of the proteins in the dermis, in conjunction with mechanical stress.

There isn't any proven cure that works in a majority of cases.  Tretinoin cream and a bunch of laser therapies have been tried with varying degrees of success.  As far as moisturizing goes...sure, why not?  I wouldn't expect it to really do anything, but at the worst you're out a few bucks and you smell like someone's grandma.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 08, 2011, 06:13:02 PM
Is the nutritional value of -just- good ole beer enough to keep you alive and functioning? Barring massive dehydration that is. I mean, you get calories and a little water. No vitamins really, but...? People in the dark ages survived on a crust of moldy bread a day. Beer is just grain that's been brewed.

No, you'd get all sorts of vitamin deficiencies, and they aren't really trivial things.  E.g. beri-beri, Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, pellagra, megaloblastic anemia.  You might be able to get away with it for a while if you were previously in good health, but it isn't a sustainable diet.

What about beer and ramen noodles?

There isn't much in ramen noodles that isn't already in beer.  A little more protein, a little fat, a bunch of salt.  It probably depends on your nutritional status before you start up as well, since your body can keep pretty large stores of some vitamins.

It's probably a bad idea, but hey...if you want to ruin yourself in the name of science, keep a lab notebook of your observations (get regular blood work done), and let us know how it turns out.  Drinking beer for science is probably a lot more fun than slowly dying of radiation poisoning or drinking a flask of Helicobacter to prove your point.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on April 12, 2011, 05:14:16 AM
One liquor of the same alcohol content of another can often carry much less of a hangover. Why is this?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on April 12, 2011, 08:58:25 AM
If I clean my toilets with bleach, might it give my septic tank indigestion?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 12, 2011, 08:18:50 PM
One liquor of the same alcohol content of another can often carry much less of a hangover. Why is this?

Congeners, probably.  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20028364

If I clean my toilets with bleach, might it give my septic tank indigestion?

It depends on how large the tank is and how much you use.  I doubt the amount you'd use to clean a toilet would do any harm.  Septic tanks give me the heebie jeebies.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on April 16, 2011, 02:19:38 AM
Dear Synth,

Why do women live longer than men?

Taking out factors such as social group and access to adequate healthcare--- let's just assume these folks have the same type of healthcare. Is it because we are fertile for a shorter period of time?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on April 16, 2011, 02:29:37 AM
Evolutionarily that wouldn't make sense to me. Rather that being fertile for a shorter time means you die sooner.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: SMuz on April 16, 2011, 03:58:29 AM
Dear Synth,

Why do women live longer than men?

Taking out factors such as social group and access to adequate healthcare--- let's just assume these folks have the same type of healthcare. Is it because we are fertile for a shorter period of time?

Possibly because men are a hell lot more reckless. With everything. Cars, bikes, interpersonal relationships, alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, unhealthy food, etc.

And wouldn't the fertility thing take more of a toll on women? Especially since it's so much less work for men to reproduce.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on April 16, 2011, 04:51:24 AM
why do we perceive an uncanny valley in human-like things?

Natural self-defence mechanism perhaps?  If something's a little bit 'off' about someone, then maybe feeling a little uneasy around them is a recipe for increased chances of survival.  Maybe it's a hangover from the caveman days when there were several species closely resembling humans.

Either that, or so you'll know to GTFO when Slendy appears.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: NOFUN on April 16, 2011, 07:45:39 AM
It's a well known fact that everything weights less underwater, so I tried putting a weight inside a water-filled bag but it only made it weigh more. What am I doing wrong?

What happens if I shoot a bullet on top of a train (In the same direction that the train is moving) that is moving an equal speed to the bullet?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jdr on April 16, 2011, 08:02:10 AM
Tch, give the man some tough ones, any high-school drop-out knows the answers to those.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on April 16, 2011, 08:09:42 AM
Tch, give the man some tough ones, any high-school drop-out knows the answers to those.

What is the currently accepted scientific theory regarding auras/biological electromagnetic fields?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on April 16, 2011, 08:28:31 AM
It's a well known fact that everything weights less underwater, so I tried putting a weight inside a water-filled bag but it only made it weigh more. What am I doing wrong?

What happens if I shoot a bullet on top of a train (In the same direction that the train is moving) that is moving an equal speed to the bullet?

i don't know what happens at first, but the bullet's eventually going to slow down and not go as fast as the train after a while. maybe thirty seconds or so, while slowly dipping lower than the original trajectory, like it does when shot from stable ground to a long-distance target.

maybe the combined water plus the weight minus some of the support of the water was heavier than the weight by itself? water's heavy.

and now for an answer that sounds much more informed than my own.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Is Friday on April 16, 2011, 08:36:23 AM
This is a thread dedicated to having Synthesis answer questions, not some random Korean woman. Please refrain from doing that, thanks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 16, 2011, 02:28:18 PM
Dear Synth,

Why do women live longer than men?

Taking out factors such as social group and access to adequate healthcare--- let's just assume these folks have the same type of healthcare. Is it because we are fertile for a shorter period of time?

Once you factor out "early" causes of death that tend to lower the life expectancy for males, it's mostly cardiovascular disease (i.e. heart attacks).  There are a lot of theories as to why that is.  Estrogen levels are involved in one of them, but opposite to what you proposed (i.e. the longer you go before menopause, the more you're protected against heart disease...although this effect probably has limits on the age ranges where it's present...not going to bother looking that up for specifics).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 16, 2011, 02:39:17 PM
Dear Synth,

Why do women live longer than men?

Taking out factors such as social group and access to adequate healthcare--- let's just assume these folks have the same type of healthcare. Is it because we are fertile for a shorter period of time?

Possibly because men are a hell lot more reckless. With everything. Cars, bikes, interpersonal relationships, alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, unhealthy food, etc.

And wouldn't the fertility thing take more of a toll on women? Especially since it's so much less work for men to reproduce.

Yeah, there's the whole lifetime stress theory, too.  It'll be interesting to see how that pans out once women are pretty much equally represented in formerly male-dominated high-stress jobs, etc.  (But let me tell you, raising kids is pretty goddamn stressful...I suppose it might be ameliorated since the high-stress component of child-rearing is earlier in life, when the body is more capable of dealing with it, whereas career stress can be more or less a constant until retirement, but I'm just guessing at this point.)  Most accidents that people live through don't really contribute much to long-term disease processes, unless it's the sort of thing that would render you physically handicapped...it'd be interesting to see what the size of the effect would be, or whether there's even a male-female disparity with respect to the debilitating ones.

As to the second part, the cardiovascular theory proposes that pregnancy is actually beneficial over the long term, because it's like 9 months of constant low-level exercise for the mother's heart.  Cardiac output is also maintained at a higher level during the high-estrogen phase of the menstrual cycle, so presumably the more cycles you go through, the higher the effect (generally speaking...again, at the extreme ranges of pregnancies and age, other factors may come into play).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 16, 2011, 02:40:29 PM
dear synth, why do we perceive an uncanny valley in human-like things?

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say, here.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 16, 2011, 02:48:19 PM
It's a well known fact that everything weights less underwater, so I tried putting a weight inside a water-filled bag but it only made it weigh more. What am I doing wrong?

What happens if I shoot a bullet on top of a train (In the same direction that the train is moving) that is moving an equal speed to the bullet?

Things don't weigh less underwater...the buoyant force of the water acting on the object simply opposes the gravitational force, so they appear to weigh less.  As to putting something in a bag of water and expecting the combination to weigh less...I hope that was a joke.

A bullet should come out with twice the initial velocity, with respect to a stationary bystander (assuming it's a normal bullet and doubling the velocity doesn't approach the speed of light).  Air resistance would probably get to work on reducing that higher velocity fairly quickly though, I imagine.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dakota on April 16, 2011, 02:50:16 PM
Dear Synth,

Long time reader, first time poster. Question from the Czech Republic...

Can you please explain to me (scientifically), why does our president here, Vaclav Klaus, believe their is no such thing as global warming? Also could you please explain why he was recently seen stealing pens from a Czech - Chilean conference a week ago?

Thank you,

A reader from Prague.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: NOFUN on April 16, 2011, 02:51:18 PM
I think I've found a cheat code for life, can you tell me why we aren't all super-poor with inflation?

Person a: puts 20$ into a box
person b: puts 20$ into the same box
person a then sells the box to person b  for 30$
Person a and person b both walk away with 10$ profit
Rinse, repeat for unlimited money?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on April 16, 2011, 02:55:28 PM
I think I've found a cheat code for life, can you tell me why we aren't all super-poor with inflation?

Person a: puts 20$ into a box
person b: puts 20$ into the same box
person a then sells the box  for 30$
Person a and person b both walk away with 10$ profit
Rinse, repeat for unlimited money?

I don't get it.  You're down $5 each, as well as whatever the box was worth.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 16, 2011, 02:57:43 PM
Dear Synth,

Long time reader, first time poster. Question from the Czech Republic...

Can you please explain to me (scientifically), why does our president here, Vaclav Klaus, believe their is no such thing as global warming? Also could you please explain why he was recently seen stealing pens from a Czech - Chilean conference a week ago?

Thank you,

A reader from Prague.

Because he doesn't understand the available data, understands the data but believes in an alternate explanatory theory, or understands the data and believes in the consensus theory but has some other motive for claiming to believe otherwise.  My guess is he was taking the pens to later distribute them to children who hadn't been terribly naughty, but weren't particularly nice, either.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 16, 2011, 03:05:57 PM
I think I've found a cheat code for life, can you tell me why we aren't all super-poor with inflation?

Person a: puts 20$ into a box
person b: puts 20$ into the same box
person a then sells the box  for 30$
Person a and person b both walk away with 10$ profit
Rinse, repeat for unlimited money?

Profit = Income - Expenses.  Income in this case is $30, but expenses are $40, so profit = -$10.  This wouldn't cause any expansion of the money supply, but it definitely will render you poor if you adopt it as a business model.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: NOFUN on April 16, 2011, 04:40:54 PM
I think I've found a cheat code for life, can you tell me why we aren't all super-poor with inflation?

Person a: puts 20$ into a box
person b: puts 20$ into the same box
person a then sells the box  for 30$
Person a and person b both walk away with 10$ profit
Rinse, repeat for unlimited money?

I don't get it.  You're down $5 each, as well as whatever the box was worth.

Eh, What I ment to say was person a sells the box to person b

In the box person A and B both put 20$, amassing 40$
Person A then sells the box to person B for 30$, Person A gains 10$
There was 40$ in the box, person B only paid 30$ for it therefore he also made a profit of 10$
Every one is richer!

Edit: I've just relized person B will be paying a total of 50$. Doh.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: spicemustflow on April 16, 2011, 05:02:41 PM
:D. and for a couple of moments I was wondering what's wrong with me and why don't I get it
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on April 17, 2011, 06:04:47 AM
This is a thread dedicated to having Synthesis answer questions, not some random Korean woman. Please refrain from doing that, thanks.

Stop bullying me just because you're upset that I bit back the first time you bullied me. Deal with it. I'm one of maybe thirty people answering questions in this thread.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Is Friday on April 17, 2011, 10:57:21 AM
This is a thread dedicated to having Synthesis answer questions, not some random Korean woman. Please refrain from doing that, thanks.

Stop bullying me just because you're upset that I bit back the first time you bullied me. Deal with it. I'm one of maybe thirty people answering questions in this thread.
If I were a bully I'd have given up once you "fought back", right?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: NOFUN on April 17, 2011, 03:09:36 PM
Before the thread gets locked, I was wondering if carrots actually gave people night vision or if it's just a phase tricky parents use to get their children to eat them?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: SMuz on April 17, 2011, 03:20:04 PM
How easily do colds spread? I mean, can you get a cold just by being in the same room as someone? Does it spread by just breathing in the same air as a sick person? Or does it take something more complex, like sneezing into your hands, touching the doorknob, and someone else touching that doorknob and then touching their face?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on April 17, 2011, 03:30:13 PM
Why do smelly work-boot feet reek of hydrogen peroxide?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on April 17, 2011, 04:03:51 PM
Before the thread gets locked, I was wondering if carrots actually gave people night vision or if it's just a phase tricky parents use to get their children to eat them?

Radar.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2011, 04:04:57 PM
How easily do colds spread? I mean, can you get a cold just by being in the same room as someone? Does it spread by just breathing in the same air as a sick person? Or does it take something more complex, like sneezing into your hands, touching the doorknob, and someone else touching that doorknob and then touching their face?

Yes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2011, 04:27:49 PM
Before the thread gets locked, I was wondering if carrots actually gave people night vision or if it's just a phase tricky parents use to get their children to eat them?

Carrots are rich in beta-carotene:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/27/Beta-Carotin.svg/792px-Beta-Carotin.svg.png)

which as you can see is a precursor to vitamin A:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/All-trans-Retinol2.svg/457px-All-trans-Retinol2.svg.png)

which is a precursor to retinal:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a1/All-trans-Retinal2.svg/439px-All-trans-Retinal2.svg.png)

which is bound to an opsin protein:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/84/Rhodopsin_3D.jpeg/386px-Rhodopsin_3D.jpeg)

...which undergoes a conformational change when retinal switches from cis to trans (which occurs when it absorbs a photon), and initiates the signaling pathway that ultimately results in vision.

If you don't like carrots, you can eat some of this stuff (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_A#Sources).  I'd go with some fried liver and onions, with broccoli smothered in melted cheddar cheese and a buttered, baked sweet potato.

But don't overdo it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypervitaminosis_A).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on April 17, 2011, 04:31:04 PM
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

RADAR.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2011, 04:42:31 PM
Why do smelly work-boot feet reek of hydrogen peroxide?

It's unlikely that you're smelling hydrogen peroxide, but without sniffing them for myself, I couldn't say what exactly the smell is.

Basically it's because your feet are covered in bacteria that begin to reproduce in the presence of moisture (e.g. when your feet sweat), and their metabolic activity generates a bunch of foul-smelling waste molecules.  Supposedly putting a few pinches of baking soda in your boots helps.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2011, 04:44:15 PM
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

RADAR.

Yeah, I meant to say it doesn't give you abnormally keen night-vision, but it keeps you from losing whatever you've naturally got.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on April 17, 2011, 04:46:54 PM
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

RADAR.

Yeah, I meant to say it doesn't give you abnormally keen night-vision, but it keeps you from losing whatever you've naturally got.

Doubly so if you use an anal route of absorption. Like with alcohol.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on April 17, 2011, 05:21:01 PM
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

RADAR.

Yeah, I meant to say it doesn't give you abnormally keen night-vision, but it keeps you from losing whatever you've naturally got.

Doubly so if you use an anal route of absorption. Like with alcohol.

You're actually recommending we all shove carrots up our arses?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jhunter on April 17, 2011, 06:47:38 PM
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

RADAR.

Yeah, I meant to say it doesn't give you abnormally keen night-vision, but it keeps you from losing whatever you've naturally got.

Doubly so if you use an anal route of absorption. Like with alcohol.

You're actually recommending we all shove carrots up our arses?
I believe yams are a close relative to the carrot.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 17, 2011, 06:55:37 PM
http://www.snopes.com/food/ingredient/carrots.asp

RADAR.

Yeah, I meant to say it doesn't give you abnormally keen night-vision, but it keeps you from losing whatever you've naturally got.

Doubly so if you use an anal route of absorption. Like with alcohol.

That probably isn't true.  Most carotenoids are cleaved by carotenoid oxygenase (BCO1) in the mucosa of the small intestine, and the resulting retinyl esters are stored in the liver, so it doesn't seem like there would be any advantage to bypassing the portal venous system.  BCO1 is expressed in all sorts of epithelial cells, but so far it's thought that local expression is only important during times of vitamin A deficiency.  Also, it looks like carotenoids are only absorbed via chylomicrons, which aren't going to be present in the anus/rectum.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: racurtne on April 17, 2011, 07:02:06 PM
I've heard conflicting statements about this:

When doing cardiovascular exercise, is it better to maintain your heart rate or to vary it?

For instance, I normally try to run three miles in 24 minutes when I do my cardio, then walk for about six minutes to cool down.

Would it better serve me to run one mile and walk for two minutes before beginning the second mile and so on?

There would still be 30 minutes of exercise and at the same pace, but would my heart get more from one or the other?

I've also heard that option 2, alternating walking and running, is better for weight loss. I'm skeptical, though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on April 18, 2011, 05:00:25 AM
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/472156a.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/472156a.html)

Brain electrocution can help learning? Tell me more Synth. This sounds like BS.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 18, 2011, 06:09:25 PM
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/472156a.html (http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110413/full/472156a.html)

Brain electrocution can help learning? Tell me more Synth. This sounds like BS.

*shrug*
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on April 18, 2011, 06:56:02 PM
I've heard conflicting statements about this:

When doing cardiovascular exercise, is it better to maintain your heart rate or to vary it?  For instance, I normally try to run three miles in 24 minutes when I do my cardio, then walk for about six minutes to cool down.  Would it better serve me to run one mile and walk for two minutes before beginning the second mile and so on?  There would still be 30 minutes of exercise and at the same pace, but would my heart get more from one or the other?  I've also heard that option 2, alternating walking and running, is better for weight loss. I'm skeptical, though.

Yeah, high-intensity aerobic interval training is the new big thing, I guess.  Basically it tricks your body into thinking it needs to adapt to that high-point of the interval, when in reality you wouldn't be able to maintain that level of energy expenditure for long.  I'm not sure what significance it has for maintaining health, though.  I imagine there's a point at which further optimizing athletic performance no longer translates into life expectancy or risk reduction, but I doubt anyone's looked into that systematically for healthy individuals.  It's just one of those things that doesn't generate a lot of interest, because there isn't as much money involved--people tend not to increase their health-related expenditures until catastrophe seems imminent.  The entire Gym/Health-club industry is clocking in at something like $24 billion in revenue in 2010...but Pfizer Pharmaceuticals alone raked in $16 billion in revenue in the first quarter of 2010.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on April 18, 2011, 07:09:33 PM
Why does lack of skin leave you with paler sleep?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 02, 2011, 12:52:06 PM
I have a serious science question today.

I ride the bus. It skeeves me out a little - all those people coughing, sneezing, scratching, picking their nose, etc. then touching the hand rails and the doors, the bell to make the bus stop.

I carry a water bottle. I some that are dishwasher safe for just this reason, but they get an unpleasant soap odor. If I want to clean them with bleach what's the best water to bleach ratio to use?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 02, 2011, 05:37:59 PM
I have a serious science question today.

I ride the bus. It skeeves me out a little - all those people coughing, sneezing, scratching, picking their nose, etc. then touching the hand rails and the doors, the bell to make the bus stop.

I carry a water bottle. I some that are dishwasher safe for just this reason, but they get an unpleasant soap odor. If I want to clean them with bleach what's the best water to bleach ratio to use?

You can just rinse it with water a few times and it'll be fine, unless you're immunocompromised or something.  By the time you get done rinsing it, whatever infectious virions/bacteria that were in/on it will be so far diluted that they'll be below the infectious dose.  That is, if you're only carrying water in it.  If you've got some sort of sugary something in it, I suppose it would be possible for bacteria to colonize it and set up a biofilm that would resist rinsing...but meh, that's a pretty far-fetched scenario.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 02, 2011, 05:39:37 PM
Awesome!!!!!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on May 07, 2011, 05:48:35 PM
Is phenylephrine HCl really as good of a decongestant as pseudoephedrine HCl, and why or why not?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on May 07, 2011, 06:00:10 PM
To strengthen a fist would it be better to hit something hard with low force, something soft with high force, or something in between??
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 07, 2011, 06:13:03 PM
Is phenylephrine HCl really as good of a decongestant as pseudoephedrine HCl, and why or why not?

It doesn't look like it, but there's only been a few clinical trials comparing the two in the last 20 years.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on May 07, 2011, 06:13:56 PM
Is phenylephrine HCl really as good of a decongestant as pseudoephedrine HCl, and why or why not?

It doesn't look like it, but there's only been a few clinical trials comparing the two in the last 20 years.

Bastards...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on May 13, 2011, 04:20:20 PM
To strengthen a fist would it be better to hit something hard with low force, something soft with high force, or something in between??

I had a question of clarification here. Do you mean strengthening the muscles of the hand, hardening the tissues that pad the striking force, or increasing the striking force itself?

Obviously, this is a question I too am curious to have Synth answer  :)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 13, 2011, 05:39:51 PM
Ha, you know...the first time I read that, I was like..."this is unintelligible."  So now I realize you're talking about body hardening.  It's questionable whether there's anything that actually works with respect to increasing bone density in your knuckles or whatever.  The bigger question is:  why would you want to?  Unless you're like...competing in bare-knuckle muay thai or something, what's the point?  As far as science is concerned...science really isn't concerned with it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on May 13, 2011, 07:20:01 PM
Because I want to kill raging bulls by punching them in the skull.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 13, 2011, 07:33:06 PM
Ha, if you want to kill a raging bull, a Raging Bull would probably be more effective.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on May 13, 2011, 08:30:05 PM
http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=raging+bull&um=1&hl=en&biw=1280&bih=699&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=1114505378504743541&sa=X&ei=68zNTef2Nou5twejk4SHDg&ved=0CFsQgggwAA#
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 13, 2011, 08:36:14 PM
Is phenylephrine HCl really as good of a decongestant as pseudoephedrine HCl, and why or why not?

It doesn't look like it, but there's only been a few clinical trials comparing the two in the last 20 years.

Bastards...

Phenylephrine has a shorter half life. I was informed by a pharmacist it is active only about 30 minutes, whereas pseudoephedrine is 4-6 and is a far superior nasal decongestant.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on May 13, 2011, 08:54:13 PM
Phenylephrine has a shorter half life. I was informed by a pharmacist it is active only about 30 minutes, whereas pseudoephedrine is 4-6 and is a far superior nasal decongestant.

That's nice, but doesn't give any sort of answer to the question.

New question for Synthesis:

Is there any actual connection to caliber/power of the bullet to surviving being shot, or is all really just depend on where you get shot, how long before you get medical attention, and the skill of the people treating the wound?
The best example I can think of is being shot in the arm: seen people that did and did not die to this with several different kinds of bullets.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 13, 2011, 08:56:34 PM
Phenylephrine has a shorter half life. I was informed by a pharmacist it is active only about 30 minutes, whereas pseudoephedrine is 4-6 and is a far superior nasal decongestant.

That's nice, but doesn't give any sort of answer to the question.

lol, except it's everything. But okay, I understand you have an e-beef with me or whatever it is; I just answered the question. Longer lasting = more potent, phenylephrine ain't shit.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on May 13, 2011, 09:12:00 PM
lol, except it's everything. But okay, I understand you have an e-beef with me or whatever it is; I just answered the question. Longer lasting = more potent, phenylephrine ain't shit.

I guess dosage doesn't mean anything to you, then.

Looking at the two medicines I have here, the Phenylephrine is 5mg of the dosage (you also get pain-reliever and other crap that's in a sinus drug).  The box claims that the effects (which include decongesting) of the pill last 4-6 hours. As far as I know, they don't sell it solely as a decongestant in California.
The psuedophedrine is just straight psuedophedrine. 30mg of it.  As far as I know, you can not get a sinus medicine that contains psuedophedrine (OTC, at least) in the state of California.  You have to sign for this stuff, too, under penalty of fines or imprisonment if you're getting it without a need for it (i.e. to sell or to make meth out of it).  The box for that also says it lasts 4-6 hours.

Both work on me for 4-6 hours. (Though my personal preference is psuedo.)

If one takes 6x the amount to do the same thing, one has to wonder if the "new" chemical is superior, or if there is some strange reaction that differs between the two that makes them work.

Synthesis says that trials were not extensively done.  That is an appropriate answer.  Trying to add obvious/unrelated information when Synthesis has answered isn't really appropriate, so please go ahead and get over yourself and let the thread's topic resume.  If you can't leave it alone, take it to PM or something.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 13, 2011, 09:31:06 PM
Phenylephrine has a shorter half life. I was informed by a pharmacist it is active only about 30 minutes, whereas pseudoephedrine is 4-6 and is a far superior nasal decongestant.

That's nice, but doesn't give any sort of answer to the question.

New question for Synthesis:

Is there any actual connection to caliber/power of the bullet to surviving being shot, or is all really just depend on where you get shot, how long before you get medical attention, and the skill of the people treating the wound?
The best example I can think of is being shot in the arm: seen people that did and did not die to this with several different kinds of bullets.

Caliber loosely translates to mass, which loosely translates to kinetic energy, which loosely translates to tissue damage.  As far as survival is concerned, obviously location is the most important thing.

Going back to the phenylephrine thing, it sounds like the biggest problem with oral administration of phenylephrine is that it undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism by the liver, and most of it gets inactivated.  It probably works much better as a nasal spray or sublingual dissolving strip (if those formulations are even available over-the-counter).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on May 13, 2011, 09:47:56 PM

Caliber loosely translates to mass, which loosely translates to kinetic energy, which loosely translates to tissue damage.  As far as survival is concerned, obviously location is the most important thing.

Going back to the phenylephrine thing, it sounds like the biggest problem with oral administration of phenylephrine is that it undergoes extensive first-pass metabolism by the liver, and most of it gets inactivated.  It probably works much better as a nasal spray or sublingual dissolving strip (if those formulations are even available over-the-counter).

I was hoping for a chart of some kind...  :'(

I remember seeing once on some gang documentary, they showed a child that had been hit in the arm by a 7.62mm round (missing a huge chunk out of the arm) and lived, but also showed crime scene photos of ones that had died from a 9mm in the similar location. Neither from particularly close range.

Ah, well... I think it's interesting, at least.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 13, 2011, 09:50:42 PM
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Gray525.png)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Xeran Van Houten on May 13, 2011, 09:59:35 PM
Well played.

Now to find another suitable question...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on May 14, 2011, 02:58:16 AM
Why do people have hair on the top of their heads?!?

WHY?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 14, 2011, 11:06:15 AM
Why do people have hair on the top of their heads?!?

WHY?

That's not really the sort of question science can answer, except in a purely speculative way.  To that extent, there are a few theories...UV protection, heat conservation vs. evaporative cooling, ectoparasitism, and sexual selection.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on May 14, 2011, 12:02:38 PM
Lines from the movie, The Mexican:

Car Thief: If you're going to kill me at least tell me who it is that's going to send me to God. Tell me!
Jerry: Look, I'm not going to kill you. But I am going to have to shoot you.
Car Thief: But why, sir? Why?
Jerry: Why? Why? Because you stole from me and you know about the pistol and you're just gonna steal again and I can't have you coming back in the situation like a fly in the ointment.
Car Thief: No, I won't be a fly! You'll never see me again.
Jerry: Look, you're getting shot and that's it. It will take you time to get to the next town especially if you're limping.
Car Thief: Wait! Wait! What? Limping? Can't you just tie me up some more? I mean, fuck, you shoot me? Tie me!
Jerry: Yeah. I don't have a rope.
Car Thief: So you shoot me?
Jerry: It's the American way. Now where do you want it?
(no reply)
Jerry: Okay. (points gun)
Car Thief: No, no, not the leg! There’s arteries! I could bleed to death in mere seconds!

Highly recommend this flick. It has action, romance, mythology, cultural misunderstandings, humor, and a magic pistol.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marauder Moe on May 16, 2011, 02:22:07 PM
Dear Doc S,

Is this for real?  http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

-Moe
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 16, 2011, 03:33:36 PM
Dear Doc S,

Is this for real?  http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

-Moe

It might work in some cases, but I'd be very surprised if it worked generally.  Tumor biology is infinitely more complicated than "something something glycolysis something something mitochondria."

The claim that DCA has no side-effects is false:  it can cause neurotoxicity and hepatocellular carcinoma under certain conditions and can decrease the effectiveness of some other antineoplastic drugs.

The claim that nobody's noticed it is also false:  there have been about 50 papers about DCA and cancer in the past 4-5 years.  The problem is that the results are a mixed bag, and there haven't been any clinical trials published.  Interestingly, the researchers who prompted all this back in 2008 solicited funds for their own clinical trial and ended up not publishing the data...so much for that.  The only thing the primary guy has published since then is a single study in 5 patients with glioblastoma multiforme...which is the most common (primary) brain tumor (in adults...in children it's like...medulloblastomas, I think).  Even then, the incidence is only like 2-3 per 100,000 per year, so even if DCA had a 100% cure rate for GBM, it wouldn't be any sort of epochal event...basically the equivalent of adding an oil-filter wrench to your toolbox.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on May 16, 2011, 04:08:22 PM
...in children it's like...medulloblastomas, I think).

My sister had this, though I swore it was called a brainstem glioma.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 16, 2011, 04:31:30 PM
...in children it's like...medulloblastomas, I think).

My sister had this, though I swore it was called a brainstem glioma.

Yeah, there's some controversy about nomenclature because some dudes called it a medulloblastoma a while back, but nobody's ever identified anything like a "medulloblast" which presumably it would arise from.  Currently, I guess the prevailing view is that they arise from pluripotent stem cells that can give rise to either glial or neuronal elements.

"Glioma" is a supercategory for all the tumor subtypes that can arise from more-or-less differentiated glial cells:  astrocytomas, oligodendrogliomas, ependymomas, and schwannomas.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Symphony on May 16, 2011, 06:08:16 PM
Lines from the movie, The Mexican:

Car Thief: If you're going to kill me at least tell me who it is that's going to send me to God. Tell me!
Jerry: Look, I'm not going to kill you. But I am going to have to shoot you.
Car Thief: But why, sir? Why?
Jerry: Why? Why? Because you stole from me and you know about the pistol and you're just gonna steal again and I can't have you coming back in the situation like a fly in the ointment.
Car Thief: No, I won't be a fly! You'll never see me again.
Jerry: Look, you're getting shot and that's it. It will take you time to get to the next town especially if you're limping.
Car Thief: Wait! Wait! What? Limping? Can't you just tie me up some more? I mean, fuck, you shoot me? Tie me!
Jerry: Yeah. I don't have a rope.
Car Thief: So you shoot me?
Jerry: It's the American way. Now where do you want it?
(no reply)
Jerry: Okay. (points gun)
Car Thief: No, no, not the leg! There’s arteries! I could bleed to death in mere seconds!

Highly recommend this flick. It has action, romance, mythology, cultural misunderstandings, humor, and a magic pistol.

Reading this makes me want to watch it! Thank you!

And now I want to perform this scene in Arm! Ungh! Another odd urge to revolt against...   >:(


- Symph
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on May 16, 2011, 07:24:56 PM
How does a deep fry give chicken a delicious crackly skin? When I boil breaded chicken in booze or plain water all I get is a soggy mess. But a deep fry gives me golden-brown delicious artery choking perfection. Why?

Mmm... Chicken...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 16, 2011, 07:28:57 PM
How does a deep fry give chicken a delicious crackly skin? When I boil breaded chicken in booze or plain water all I get is a soggy mess. But a deep fry gives me golden-brown delicious artery choking perfection. Why?

Mmm... Chicken...

Dude! No. You never tried to boil breaded chicken in water!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on May 16, 2011, 07:31:48 PM
:( Barz calls me out on my bullshit. No, I never no. Booze or water. I was just eating a delicious chicken breast and was ruminating on the properties of it's skin, my fat ass, deep-fry grease, and the wonders of learning from the GDB. And I put that up to amuse myself.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 16, 2011, 08:10:28 PM
I imagine it's mostly because the boiling point of oil is much higher than the boiling point of water.  Also, when you drop a piece of chicken in oil, the water that's liberated evaporates off, whereas the chicken presumably remains mostly hydrated when boiled in water.  Anyway, there are a bunch of chemical reactions (e.g. the Maillard reaction) that take place with proteins and carbohydrates at high temperatures that don't happen or happen less at lower reactions, and we can taste the difference.

Also, breading is usually bread crumbs (duh), which is mostly granulated carbohydrates, which are going to be pretty hydrophilic.  So as soon as the breading hits the water, it's going to tend to be surrounded by water molecules to the greatest extent possible, which bodes poorly for the chances of the particles sticking to other particles and/or the chicken, where you want it.  This also has implications for when you remove it from the water, because water is going to come right along with it (hence the sogginess).  This isn't so much a problem for oils, because triglycerides are pretty bulky, hydrophobic molecules that really do not want to be anywhere near all of the hydroxyl groups on a polysaccharide.

Hmm...this is making me wonder how crawfish would taste if you used a deep fryer instead of boiling them.

(Warning: not a food chemist)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 16, 2011, 08:42:44 PM
There is a reason things are breaded before being fried. (I have a $30k culinary education I'm not using.) I feel like I should be able to say with some certainty why. Sadly I only have theories.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 16, 2011, 09:09:35 PM
Dear Doc S,

Is this for real?  http://hubpages.com/hub/Scientists_cure_cancer__but_no_one_takes_notice

-Moe

They also say high levels of intravenous vitamin C cures cancer too, but ...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Intrepid237 on May 16, 2011, 09:20:37 PM
What causes Mania? Scientifically speaking, what are the biological causes?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 16, 2011, 09:28:23 PM
What causes Mania? Scientifically speaking, what are the biological causes?

That's the $64,000 question.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ocotillo on May 16, 2011, 09:33:56 PM
Are there any notable methods other than exercising, seeing the sun regularly, and getting vitamin D in you for elevating general mood/seratonin intake?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: spicemustflow on May 16, 2011, 10:31:49 PM
What causes Mania? Scientifically speaking, what are the biological causes?

That's the $64,000 question.

What do you mean? Come on, this is one of the more interesting questions, don't disappoint your silent audience.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 16, 2011, 10:47:27 PM
What causes Mania? Scientifically speaking, what are the biological causes?

That's the $64,000 question.

What do you mean? Come on, this is one of the more interesting questions, don't disappoint your silent audience.

What I mean is:  nobody knows.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on May 16, 2011, 10:51:45 PM
Is knowing half the battle?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 16, 2011, 10:58:09 PM
Is knowing half the battle?

It depends on whether you're talking about known knowns or known unknowns.

You go to the battle with the knowns you have, not the knowns you would like to have.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Intrepid237 on May 17, 2011, 01:37:16 PM
All I know is... I go ham, but I wanna know why besides the fact that i'm a living God.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on May 18, 2011, 07:37:44 AM
Are there any notable methods other than exercising, seeing the sun regularly, and getting vitamin D in you for elevating general mood/seratonin intake?

MAOIs reduce the degradation of serotonin, although I really can't recommend them unless you're willing to follow a pretty strict diet (http://deoxy.org/maoidiet.htm) and avoid ALL tyramine otherwise Bad Shit (tm) will happen.

SSRIs (prozac and the like) are said to inhibit the reprocessing of serotonin after being released in synapses in some way, but I really know next to nothing about them other than the fact that they have really screwed over several of my friends.

I'd simply recommend you eat foods rich in tryptophan, B6, B3, and magnesium.  You should try to avoid drinks such as tea, coffee, fizzy drinks and anything else containing caffeine as these pretty much steal your B vitamins.  Take a multi B complex supplement and ensure you have a reasonable amount of calcium (which is needed to absorb B12 properly.)  Drink a shitload of water.

Disclaimer:  I'm no qualified chemist and all of this should be checked up on before following my advice.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on May 18, 2011, 11:19:14 AM
There is a reason things are breaded before being fried. (I have a $30k culinary education I'm not using.) I feel like I should be able to say with some certainty why. Sadly I only have theories.

Probably to keep it from drying out.

I'm not too certain, but I think when you fry birds without batter, you typically leave the skin on.  As a general rule, it seems frying requires a layer of something to act as a mild insulator to keep the oil from affecting the meat directly.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: NOFUN on May 18, 2011, 11:31:22 AM
If I some how managed to get a hot air balloon air born for 24 hours, would the world continue to rotate while I remain in one spot so that I could see the world with out needing to buy pricey tickets?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 18, 2011, 11:52:23 AM
If I some how managed to get a hot air balloon air born for 24 hours, would the world continue to rotate while I remain in one spot so that I could see the world with out needing to buy pricey tickets?

No, because the balloon isn't motionless...it only appears motionless with respect to the Earth.  In fact, you'd be traveling with a tangential velocity of somewhere around 1,000 mph (this will vary based on your latitude), relative to an outside frame of reference.  In order for this to work, you'd have to completely slow the balloon down from that ~1,000 mph so that things below you were moving at about that pace with respect to your frame of reference (which would be incredibly difficult to do, since the air around you presumably is also rotating with the Earth).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 18, 2011, 12:01:02 PM
I have three theories.

1.A barrier to keep food from absorbing some oil. (It helps not to think about this too hard. I doubt the validity. Itks breading, not lead.)
2. To keep oil from drying the interior out.
3. Because you can. That fried breading is delicious! 
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on May 18, 2011, 12:53:48 PM
If I some how managed to get a hot air balloon air born for 24 hours, would the world continue to rotate while I remain in one spot so that I could see the world with out needing to buy pricey tickets?
If you start a pendulum and it keeps going for a few hours or so, the earth turns underneath..
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on May 18, 2011, 01:00:37 PM
If I some how managed to get a hot air balloon air born for 24 hours, would the world continue to rotate while I remain in one spot so that I could see the world with out needing to buy pricey tickets?
If you start a pendulum and it keeps going for a few hours or so, the earth turns underneath..

Technically, it doesn't. The pendulum must be anchored, therefor it moves along with the surface of the earth. However, conservation of momentum causes the pendulum to resist this change in its velocity vector, creating the wobbling offset. You can feel this effect in action by trying to twist a gyroscope or spinning bike wheel.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on May 18, 2011, 01:49:50 PM
If I some how managed to get a hot air balloon air born for 24 hours, would the world continue to rotate while I remain in one spot so that I could see the world with out needing to buy pricey tickets?
If you start a pendulum and it keeps going for a few hours or so, the earth turns underneath..

Technically, it doesn't. The pendulum must be anchored, therefor it moves along with the surface of the earth. However, conservation of momentum causes the pendulum to resist this change in its velocity vector, creating the wobbling offset. You can feel this effect in action by trying to twist a gyroscope or spinning bike wheel.
Still don't get what's wrong with my statement?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 18, 2011, 01:50:19 PM
Are there any notable methods other than exercising, seeing the sun regularly, and getting vitamin D in you for elevating general mood/seratonin intake?

MAOIs reduce the degradation of serotonin, although I really can't recommend them unless you're willing to follow a pretty strict diet (http://deoxy.org/maoidiet.htm) and avoid ALL tyramine otherwise Bad Shit (tm) will happen.

SSRIs (prozac and the like) are said to inhibit the reprocessing of serotonin after being released in synapses in some way, but I really know next to nothing about them other than the fact that they have really screwed over several of my friends.

I'd simply recommend you eat foods rich in tryptophan, B6, B3, and magnesium.  You should try to avoid drinks such as tea, coffee, fizzy drinks and anything else containing caffeine as these pretty much steal your B vitamins.  Take a multi B complex supplement and ensure you have a reasonable amount of calcium (which is needed to absorb B12 properly.)  Drink a shitload of water.

Disclaimer:  I'm no qualified chemist and all of this should be checked up on before following my advice.

Eh, caffeine really doesn't have anything to do with B12 absorption.  Neither does calcium.  I'm noticing a lot of bullshit on the internet about it...but you (should) know how that goes.  There's some stuff about the diuretic effect causing water-soluble vitamins and calcium to be excreted more readily in the urine, but it's debatable whether caffeine really has a diuretic effect.

As far as depressed mood is concerned...yeah, there's not a whole lot of research regarding non-pharmacologic stuff.  If you have major depression, they might do electroconvulsive therapy or trans-cranial magnetic stimulation or vagus nerve stimulation, but those aren't indicated for dysthymia.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on May 18, 2011, 01:53:28 PM
If I some how managed to get a hot air balloon air born for 24 hours, would the world continue to rotate while I remain in one spot so that I could see the world with out needing to buy pricey tickets?
If you start a pendulum and it keeps going for a few hours or so, the earth turns underneath..

Technically, it doesn't. The pendulum must be anchored, therefor it moves along with the surface of the earth. However, conservation of momentum causes the pendulum to resist this change in its velocity vector, creating the wobbling offset. You can feel this effect in action by trying to twist a gyroscope or spinning bike wheel.
Still don't get what's wrong with my statement?
Hmm...maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.

Edit: Sorry about your toes, Synth. These science questions are just too tempting sometimes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 20, 2011, 12:26:00 PM
I was reading on my pharmacy's natural medications database that if you consistently intake high levels of vitamin c while pregnant that your baby could be born with scurvy. I was wondering how this could even be an issue, since your child takes part of what you eat as well, etc; and if you're eating a lot of fruits/vegetables high in C, wouldn't it have the opposite effect?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on May 20, 2011, 04:40:27 PM
You aren't taking into consideration the copious amounts of grog that your fetus is swilling.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 20, 2011, 05:06:03 PM
I was reading on my pharmacy's natural medications database that if you consistently intake high levels of vitamin c while pregnant that your baby could be born with scurvy. I was wondering how this could even be an issue, since your child takes part of what you eat as well, etc; and if you're eating a lot of fruits/vegetables high in C, wouldn't it have the opposite effect?

Eh, that's probably just dated info in the database.  I can only find one cited study in guinea pigs, where the mothers were getting 1g/day ascorbate, and some of the pups had symptoms of scurvy...but keep in mind that the RDA of Vitamin C for humans is only 0.07g/day.

The weight of a female guinea pig is ~0.7 kg.  Average weight for a human female is 74kg.  1g/0.7kg/day converted up to the weight of a female human is 105g/day.  That's uh...almost a quarter-pound of Vitamin C a day.  I'm not sure it would even be possible to eat that much.  To put that in perspective, an entire bottle of my vitamin C gummies only has 18g total vitamin C.  So...yeah, you'd have to consume 5 entire bottles of vitamin C gummies per day to get the equivalent amount of vitamin C they were dosing those guinea pigs with.

As a clinical phenomenon in humans, it just doesn't happen.  Some dudes speculated about it back in like...1965 (which led to the guinea pig study), but it looks like nothing else came of it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on May 21, 2011, 09:18:51 AM
I love vitamin gummies.

I never buy them though because I just know that if I have them I will eat too many of them and OD on vitamins.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 21, 2011, 10:39:33 AM
Vitamins make me nauseated, even the gummy ones.

Synth, why do vitamins make me nauseated, even the gummy ones?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 21, 2011, 10:43:46 AM
Vitamins make me nauseated, even the gummy ones.

Synth, why do vitamins make me nauseated, even the gummy ones?

Are you taking them on an empty stomach, darlin'?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 21, 2011, 10:44:41 AM
Nope.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on May 21, 2011, 12:38:53 PM
What's the deal with Vitamin D intake? Does sitting in the sun for twenty minutes every day actually make you healthier?

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 21, 2011, 01:12:58 PM
Vitamins make me nauseated, even the gummy ones.

Synth, why do vitamins make me nauseated, even the gummy ones?

Nobody really knows, but from my experience it seems to be related to the amount of certain vitamins in the supplement.  Have you tried switching to a kids' multivitamin and taking several doses per day, instead of one giant dose in the morning?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 21, 2011, 01:16:46 PM
Cool. I think I was eating two tj gummy vites, but maybe I'll try just one at a time.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 21, 2011, 01:19:33 PM
What's the deal with Vitamin D intake? Does sitting in the sun for twenty minutes every day actually make you healthier?

Yeah, UV light breaks down 7-somethingcholesterol into D3, then your liver does some funky business with it, then your kidney does some funky business with that, and voila:  calcitriol.  You need it to absorb calcium from your diet and maintain serum levels of calcium, which it does via a bunch of mechanisms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcitriol#Function) that you can look up on Wikipedia if you're really interested in them.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Booya on May 21, 2011, 01:27:40 PM
There was a report on our local news the other week with doctors saying there's been an increase in diagnosed Rickets in children - because some parents have got so scared about their children being exposed to the sun.  :-[
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on May 21, 2011, 03:20:31 PM
Why does the medical profession prefer to rinse with saline wash rather than (reasonably) pure water?  Is there any particularly beneficial affect to the salt solution, or is it just a mild anti-biotic effect good for long-term storage?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 21, 2011, 03:37:44 PM
Why does the medical profession prefer to rinse with saline wash rather than (reasonably) pure water?  Is there any particularly beneficial affect to the salt solution, or is it just a mild anti-biotic effect good for long-term storage?

If you're talking about rinsing mucous membranes or wounds, I imagine it's because saline is isotonic (or reasonably close) to the cells being exposed to it, so there isn't any movement of fluid into or out of them.  That is, to prevent damage or further damage to the tissue.  I doubt it's for any antibiotic effect, because I mean...it's not like seawater is sterile.  There are plenty of organisms that can deal with salinity.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on May 24, 2011, 08:13:02 PM
Tell me I'm not going to get compartment syndrome from running and hiking in my giant, meaty calves.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 24, 2011, 08:30:03 PM
Tell me I'm not going to get compartment syndrome from running and hiking in my giant, meaty calves.

It's possible...but only if you like...fracture your tibia or catastrophically rupture a muscle or something.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on May 24, 2011, 08:32:21 PM
Thank you  :)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on May 24, 2011, 08:35:10 PM
What causes the weird rash type thing some people get after shaving.  Are there any ways to prevent it?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 24, 2011, 09:32:02 PM
What causes the weird rash type thing some people get after shaving.  Are there any ways to prevent it?

If you're talking about razor bumps (pseudofolliculitis barbae):  It's caused by the hair growing into the skin, or back down into the follicle after it's cut at the surface.  The only guaranteed way to prevent it is to stop shaving, but you can reduce it by not shaving closely (e.g. shave only "with the grain" or with an electric razor instead of a blade).  Supposedly, shaving while the area is hot (e.g. during a hot shower) helps, as well.

If you're talking about a generalized skin irritation (that is, the entire area that's been shaved turns pinkish), it's probably the result of microtrauma caused by the razor that's recruiting an inflammatory response to the area, but it's not something that's been studied extensively, as far as I know.  The best long-term solution would probably be to shave with an electric razor or stop shaving altogether, if it's bad enough.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on May 24, 2011, 11:11:38 PM
Doc,

One time, when I was a kid, I got this rash that I couldn't actually scratch, because it was, apparently, subdermal.  My aunt called it a "bull's eye rash."  Are these common?  I had an itch under my calf the other day that I -could not- scratch, and it was pure agony.

Is that normal?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Sephiroto on May 24, 2011, 11:13:13 PM
Doc,

One time, when I was a kid, I got this rash that I couldn't actually scratch, because it was, apparently, subdermal.  My aunt called it a "bull's eye rash."  Are these common?  I had an itch under my calf the other day that I -could not- scratch, and it was pure agony.

Is that normal?

If you have ringworm or lyme disease, yes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on May 24, 2011, 11:24:40 PM
No ringworm ...  my stepdad has Lyme's Disease, he got it from a tick.  Thinking I don't have that either.  It was brief, but wow, what agony, but being able to scratch an itch ...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 25, 2011, 03:18:19 AM
Doc,

One time, when I was a kid, I got this rash that I couldn't actually scratch, because it was, apparently, subdermal.  My aunt called it a "bull's eye rash."  Are these common?  I had an itch under my calf the other day that I -could not- scratch, and it was pure agony.

Is that normal?

If it was/is scaly and itchy, it's probably ringworm (which is really a fungus, but anyway).  The "bull's-eye" rash of Lyme disease shouldn't itch, and the two rashes actually look quite different:

Lyme disease:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/Bullseye_Lyme_Disease_Rash.jpg)

Ringworm:
(http://isringwormcontagious.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/is-ringworm-contagious.jpg)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on May 25, 2011, 05:06:51 AM
Yeah, neither.  Whack nervous system?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 25, 2011, 06:44:00 AM
Well, if all I have to go on is "a circular rash," there are probably a good dozen things it potentially could be.  I seriously doubt it has anything to do with a neurological disorder...the only neurological-related rash I can recall off the top of my head would be herpes/shingles, and that would be vesicular and in a dermatomal distribution, not macular and ring-shaped.

There is a neurological (suspected) itching disorder, but if there's a visible rash present that hasn't obviously been induced merely by scratching, something infectious/inflammatory/autoimmune is going on.  It could be anything from contact dermatitis or eczema to like...pityriasis, lupus, or secondary syphilis.

If it doesn't happen often, it goes away on its own, and you don't have any other problems, it's probably nothing to be too worried about, unless it's exceptionally bothersome.  I'd try an over-the-counter antifungal cream first, then a hydrocortisone cream and/or antihistamine. (Even if you've convinced yourself that it's not ringworm, do the antifungal first, because if you slap hydrocortisone cream on ringworm, it has the potential to make it a whole lot worse.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on May 25, 2011, 07:10:27 AM
Obviously Morgellons.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on May 25, 2011, 09:20:55 AM
Why are zombies awesome?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on May 25, 2011, 09:38:00 AM
Why are zombies awesome?

They're corpses that can sex you back.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on May 25, 2011, 04:09:22 PM
The itch I had the other day had no rash, and I tried to scratch it for about twenty minutes, but when I stopped thinking about it, it was gone.  Located along the shin, just under the knee.  I was asking out of curiousity, because other than a subdermal rash (like the bull's eye), I thought the unscratchable itch was just a metaphor.

Cool answer, though, thanks.


Obviously Morgellons.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3589716749_f978a6a44d.jpg)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on May 25, 2011, 04:24:03 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/KhHU3.jpg)


Obviously Morgellons.

(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3589716749_f978a6a44d.jpg)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 25, 2011, 04:25:58 PM
How funny you both look like the respective pictures posted in some fashion.

Synth, does anything you know of cause geographical tongue? The source, I mean, not the symptoms. I know what the fuck makes my tongue swell, bumpy, and ache. God damn citrus!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on May 25, 2011, 04:36:25 PM
Lmao, I look like Spock!?   Yam does look like Kirk, though.  Freakin' sexy.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 25, 2011, 05:23:25 PM
How funny you both look like the respective pictures posted in some fashion.

Synth, does anything you know of cause geographical tongue? The source, I mean, not the symptoms. I know what the fuck makes my tongue swell, bumpy, and ache. God damn citrus!

It's probably some sort of psoriasis-like autoimmune process, but the exact details haven't been worked out.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 25, 2011, 06:07:59 PM
How funny you both look like the respective pictures posted in some fashion.

Synth, does anything you know of cause geographical tongue? The source, I mean, not the symptoms. I know what the fuck makes my tongue swell, bumpy, and ache. God damn citrus!

It's probably some sort of psoriasis-like autoimmune process, but the exact details haven't been worked out.

Fuckin' neato. Too bad there ain't any cortico-toothpastes. Ahaha.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 25, 2011, 06:24:39 PM
How funny you both look like the respective pictures posted in some fashion.

Synth, does anything you know of cause geographical tongue? The source, I mean, not the symptoms. I know what the fuck makes my tongue swell, bumpy, and ache. God damn citrus!

It's probably some sort of psoriasis-like autoimmune process, but the exact details haven't been worked out.

Fuckin' neato. Too bad there ain't any cortico-toothpastes. Ahaha.

I think there's a preparation of fluocinonide that's designed for oral topical use.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on May 25, 2011, 09:52:38 PM
How funny you both look like the respective pictures posted in some fashion.

Synth, does anything you know of cause geographical tongue? The source, I mean, not the symptoms. I know what the fuck makes my tongue swell, bumpy, and ache. God damn citrus!

It's probably some sort of psoriasis-like autoimmune process, but the exact details haven't been worked out.

Fuckin' neato. Too bad there ain't any cortico-toothpastes. Ahaha.

I think there's a preparation of fluocinonide that's designed for oral topical use.

Triamcinolone dental paste. But I'm not that desperate and it doesn't flare up often. I just like to whine, somedays. ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on May 26, 2011, 03:57:17 AM

Triamcinolone dental paste. But I'm not that desperate and it doesn't flare up often. I just like to whine, somedays. ;)

I like complaining too.

Question: Why does that 'haunted' railroad crossing in America look like it is uphill when it is, in fact, downhill? How does the optical illusion work?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on May 26, 2011, 06:35:00 AM
How funny you both look like the respective pictures posted in some fashion.

Synth, does anything you know of cause geographical tongue? The source, I mean, not the symptoms. I know what the fuck makes my tongue swell, bumpy, and ache. God damn citrus!

It's probably some sort of psoriasis-like autoimmune process, but the exact details haven't been worked out.

Fuckin' neato. Too bad there ain't any cortico-toothpastes. Ahaha.

I think there's a preparation of fluocinonide that's designed for oral topical use.

At first I read that as fluocyanide.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on May 27, 2011, 07:34:21 AM
Is it safe to take a half dose of nyquil a few times a week to get to sleep?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Saellyn on May 27, 2011, 07:39:01 AM
How funny you both look like the respective pictures posted in some fashion.

Synth, does anything you know of cause geographical tongue? The source, I mean, not the symptoms. I know what the fuck makes my tongue swell, bumpy, and ache. God damn citrus!

It's probably some sort of psoriasis-like autoimmune process, but the exact details haven't been worked out.

Fuckin' neato. Too bad there ain't any cortico-toothpastes. Ahaha.

I think there's a preparation of fluocinonide that's designed for oral topical use.

At first I read that as fluocyanide.

One good dose and all your swelling, pain, worldly worries, misery, and money troubles will go away! FOREVER!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on May 27, 2011, 07:36:24 PM
Is it safe to take a half dose of nyquil a few times a week to get to sleep?

Yeah, as long as your liver is intact and you aren't taking certain other medications.  But uh, there are other OTC sleep-aids.  Most of the effect is probably from the doxylamine, which is the stuff in Unisom.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on June 03, 2011, 02:39:14 AM
Would a cut from a sharper object heal faster than a cut form a duller object? Do wounds heal any better/worse when frequently submerged or in in water?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 03, 2011, 03:07:55 AM
Would a cut from a sharper object heal faster than a cut form a duller object? Do wounds heal any better/worse when frequently submerged or in in water?

Sharpness probably doesn't matter, assuming they're both cuts.  Water...I'm going to say...probably isn't going to help anything.  It's been a few hundred million years (plus or minus) since our ancestral split from aquatic organisms.  The best thing you can do is approximate the edges of the cut, keep them together with a band-aid, and slap some topical antibiotic (neosporin or bacitracin or whatever) on it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 03, 2011, 04:11:24 AM
Would a cut from a sharper object heal faster than a cut form a duller object? Do wounds heal any better/worse when frequently submerged or in in water?

Sharpness probably doesn't matter, assuming they're both cuts.  Water...I'm going to say...probably isn't going to help anything.  It's been a few hundred million years (plus or minus) since our ancestral split from aquatic organisms.  The best thing you can do is approximate the edges of the cut, keep them together with a band-aid, and slap some topical antibiotic (neosporin or bacitracin or whatever) on it.

Or, in case of immediate need, heat a clothes iron to maximum, and press to skin, amirite?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on June 03, 2011, 05:14:38 AM
Or, in case of immediate need, heat a clothes iron to maximum, and press to skin, amirite?

Totally, man, totally.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on June 03, 2011, 09:53:41 AM
Do wounds heal any better/worse when frequently submerged or in in water?

The phenomenon referred to here is when thin, papercut-sized wounds peel apart ever-so slightly due to nominally dry skin (as in how dry your skin probably is right now).  Band-aids can retain the moisture to slightly swell the skin, making a superficial wound appear less noticeable, and anti-biotic cream is double the fun.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on June 03, 2011, 03:23:06 PM
How effective is alcohol as a disinfectant? Like liquor store whiskey or vodka?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 03, 2011, 06:27:30 PM
How effective is alcohol as a disinfectant? Like liquor store whiskey or vodka?

As effective as any other sort of hand sanitizer, as long as the proof is high enough (120+).

I haven't checked the prices in a while, but I'm pretty sure a bottle of regular old isopropyl alcohol will be substantially cheaper for that purpose.

As far as disinfecting wounds is concerned...eh...it works, but it isn't going to be a pleasant experience.  I'd go with betadine if you're talking about antisepsis for an open wound.  If it's unbroken skin, it's basically the standard for pre-procedural antisepsis.  Everything gets swabbed with alcohol of one sort or another, so in a pinch, I guess some Bacardi 151 or something would do.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 03, 2011, 08:45:26 PM
Synth, why has my nose been bleeding nearly every day since I conceived?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 03, 2011, 09:58:48 PM
Synth, why has my nose been bleeding nearly every day since I conceived?

Apparently it's a pretty common thing (one study says it happens in ~20% of pregnancies).

There are a bunch of proposed etiologies, but...like dozens of other benign, common things...it doesn't look like anyone's done the footwork to thoroughly describe it.

Possibilities:
1. Hypertension
2. Physiologic thrombocytopenia
3. Autoimmune thrombocytopenia (unlikely, as this is supposed to manifest late in pregnancy)
4. Uncharacterized combination of genetic factors that together produce a subclinical coagulopathy that's compensated for when you aren't under the physiologic demands of pregnancy
5. Previously undiagnosed heritable coagulopathy
6. Apparently there's a certain type of nasal hemangioma that's associated with pregnancy

That's more or less in order of likelihood.  Maybe 1 and 2 could be switched around, though.  I don't suppose you know what your platelet count is?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 03, 2011, 10:11:34 PM
Nope. I only know my hemoglobin levels were spot on first trimester. Anything else to do with blood, I suppose they don't really want to take the time to explain to you, though you'd think with pregnancy and how many 'blood' issues (holes in your placenta, hypertension, etc.) they'd y'know, school you on it.

My blood pressure actually has been normal to very low during pregnancy. I've always had very good BP, but the last few times I've gone to the OB, it's been oddly low ... like 80/60.

And, well, my nose bleeds aren't excruciating gushers. It's just whenever I blow my nose in the morning times or during the day some comes out. I can ask the OB next time what my platelet count was last blood test they did.

Thanks, dude. ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 03, 2011, 10:26:50 PM
Yeah, supposedly there's a mild relative thrombocytopenia that occurs because your overall volume expands during pregnancy, but platelet production doesn't increase to the same extent.  As far as the nosebleeds are concerned, it's probably a combination of that and various other minor susceptibilities (other clotting factors, vessel friability/density, etc.) that ordinarily aren't noticeable.  That would be the most likely thing, anyway...assuming you don't have any risk factors, which...you know...I'm not going to take a complete medical history on the GDB for you, heh.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 03, 2011, 10:39:54 PM
Yeah, supposedly there's a mild relative thrombocytopenia that occurs because your overall volume expands during pregnancy, but platelet production doesn't increase to the same extent.  As far as the nosebleeds are concerned, it's probably a combination of that and various other minor susceptibilities (other clotting factors, vessel friability/density, etc.) that ordinarily aren't noticeable.  That would be the most likely thing, anyway...assuming you don't have any risk factors, which...you know...I'm not going to take a complete medical history on the GDB for you, heh.

Aw, why not?

Really, the only other overt 'problem' I have is hypothyroidism, but ... it's been so spectacular since I've been pregnant; my TSH every month has been ~2. *delight* And, well, 'asthma' attacks if you count them, since the fetus has gotten bigger. The little fucker likes to hit my bladder and then press up to make everything smoosh my lungs, so sometimes I have to take a few moments to catch my breath.

I'll bring it up to the OB though. Just in case. It can't hurt, and hey, yay, tests, that'll bring my just-reset deductible down so I don't have to pay for the delivery ...

Thanks again, toots.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: spicemustflow on June 05, 2011, 02:02:28 PM
Circumcised males are significantly less likely to contract HIV. (http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20070329/circumcision-new-weapon-against-aids)

Ok, how does that work? I would think circumcised guys to be more vulnerable, what with their mucous membranes being more exposed and prone to tearing and micro wounds.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kronibas on June 05, 2011, 02:15:59 PM
Synthesis,

How are cocaine dealers able to re-solidify their product after adding a "cutting" agent?


Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Is Friday on June 05, 2011, 04:05:10 PM
Will peeing on my feet toughen them up in addition to killing the fungus growing on them?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 05, 2011, 04:39:19 PM
Circumcised males are significantly less likely to contract HIV. (http://www.webmd.com/hiv-aids/news/20070329/circumcision-new-weapon-against-aids)

Ok, how does that work? I would think circumcised guys to be more vulnerable, what with their mucous membranes being more exposed and prone to tearing and micro wounds.

Actually, an intact foreskin presents more mucous membrane surface area.  The biological theory is that it begins with a basic hygiene issue (more bacteria), which induces a local inflammatory or immune response, and that this attracts more CD4+ T cells to the area.  These are just about the only cells HIV can successfully infect (but they can infect some other immune-related cells, so it doesn't change the pattern), so the more there are in the area (along with the increased surface area), the greater the likelihood of a productive infection.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 05, 2011, 04:42:39 PM
Synthesis,

How are cocaine dealers able to re-solidify their product after adding a "cutting" agent?


Are you talking about recrystallization from a solution, or repacking into bricks or rocks from a powdered mixture?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 05, 2011, 04:52:51 PM
Will peeing on my feet toughen them up in addition to killing the fungus growing on them?

There isn't anything in urine that's especially fungicidal and/or "toughening."  Do this (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov./pubmedhealth/PMH0001878/#adam_000875.disease.treatment).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kronibas on June 05, 2011, 05:57:05 PM
Synthesis,

How are cocaine dealers able to re-solidify their product after adding a "cutting" agent?


Are you talking about recrystallization from a solution, or repacking into bricks or rocks from a powdered mixture?

The latter, but not like rocks like crack rocks -- rocks that are like "chunks" of "soft" cocaine that appear to be unadulterated.  I'm down here in Texas and the cocaine is solid -- seemingly expertly "cut" as to appear solid, as opposed to crumbling up the coke and just mixing in some lame cutting agent.  Instead, down here they appear to be able to cut the coke and somehow bring it back into a solid state -- though in a way that it's still "powder" cocaine and not like, well, crack.

I wonder if this is done with something as simple as a heavy duty, industrial strength mechanical press or if chemicals are involved.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 05, 2011, 06:31:47 PM
Synthesis,

How are cocaine dealers able to re-solidify their product after adding a "cutting" agent?


Are you talking about recrystallization from a solution, or repacking into bricks or rocks from a powdered mixture?

The latter, but not like rocks like crack rocks -- rocks that are like "chunks" of "soft" cocaine that appear to be unadulterated.  I'm down here in Texas and the cocaine is solid -- seemingly expertly "cut" as to appear solid, as opposed to crumbling up the coke and just mixing in some lame cutting agent.  Instead, down here they appear to be able to cut the coke and somehow bring it back into a solid state -- though in a way that it's still "powder" cocaine and not like, well, crack.

I wonder if this is done with something as simple as a heavy duty, industrial strength mechanical press or if chemicals are involved.

It's difficult to say, without actually seeing it.  It could be some kind of binding agent, or possibly just residual moisture, if they're cutting it in a solution and then evaporating off the solvent.  If it's not cut, it could also be residual moisture from the last extraction step.  The exact details are a trade secret, I imagine.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on June 06, 2011, 09:31:09 AM
So around five or six months ago, I noticed about half of my wisdom tooth was missing entirely.

Being the broke bitch I am and without insurance, I haven't been able to do anything about it, and likely won't be able to for another good long while.

I can poke around with my tongue and feel the exposed pulp (Literally, around 85% of the enamel is gone completely), and if I get a potato chip jammed in there, I can feel it hit the nerve and all-- but just in general, while left alone, it doesn't hurt a bit. Don't even notice it at all.

My question is: Why doesn't it hurt?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on June 06, 2011, 09:55:35 AM
So around five or six months ago, I noticed about half of my wisdom tooth was missing entirely.

Being the broke bitch I am and without insurance, I haven't been able to do anything about it, and likely won't be able to for another good long while.

I can poke around with my tongue and feel the exposed pulp (Literally, around 85% of the enamel is gone completely), and if I get a potato chip jammed in there, I can feel it hit the nerve and all-- but just in general, while left alone, it doesn't hurt a bit. Don't even notice it at all.

My question is: Why doesn't it hurt?

My wisdom teeth hurt like fuck but look entirely okay. Let's combine our powers and go to a dentist.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on June 06, 2011, 02:44:03 PM
How do bubbles form?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 06, 2011, 04:25:56 PM
So around five or six months ago, I noticed about half of my wisdom tooth was missing entirely.

Being the broke bitch I am and without insurance, I haven't been able to do anything about it, and likely won't be able to for another good long while.

I can poke around with my tongue and feel the exposed pulp (Literally, around 85% of the enamel is gone completely), and if I get a potato chip jammed in there, I can feel it hit the nerve and all-- but just in general, while left alone, it doesn't hurt a bit. Don't even notice it at all.

My question is: Why doesn't it hurt?

There are a bunch of different types of neurons, and each type responds to a particular (or a set of particular) stimuli.  The simple answer is that it hurts when a stimulus that it can respond to is present, and it doesn't hurt when there isn't.  The complicated answer would include the exact neurons in question and the stimuli they respond to, but we don't really get into that level of detail, if they've even been characterized at all.

Here's (http://books.google.com/books?id=t6oAmPp6okgC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=tooth+nociceptors&source=bl&ots=R5IMGwhf9x&sig=TBNRL4wGAP-DTFoBEesU6x9vgFs&hl=en&ei=XzXtTfnxNM_r0QGVzdmmAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=tooth%20nociceptors&f=false) a short little blurb about tooth innervation.  tl;dr version is: it's complicated, and it hasn't all been hashed out yet.

On another note, though...if your molar isn't actively bleeding (or at least: wasn't actively bleeding at the time you fractured the tooth), it's not likely that the exposed material is dental pulp.  It's more likely to be exposed dentin.

On yet another note:  you really ought to get that fixed up, because you're setting yourself up for serious risk of infection.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on June 06, 2011, 04:40:49 PM
How do bubbles form?

They need to do way instain surface area.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on June 06, 2011, 05:24:58 PM
what
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 06, 2011, 05:26:38 PM
Shexplain correct good, amrit?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 01:04:28 PM
How do bubbles form?

That actually looks like a pretty complicated physics problem.  Surface tension created by the attraction of the liquid molecules to each other is the simple answer, but it gets more complicated when you add a second material (e.g. soap) to the solution.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on June 07, 2011, 04:30:26 PM
 I've never really thought about how awesome bubbles are.... Suspended domes of water that often contain rainbows.


Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on June 07, 2011, 06:59:53 PM
I've never really thought about how awesome bubbles are.... Suspended domes of water that often contain rainbows.

As this is a science-y sort of thread, I can't help myself:

Rainbows are the product of white light (light composed of the entire visible spectrum) being diffracted (i.e. bent) as it passes through the threshold between two dissimilar materials (or from vacuum to any more viscous matter). As the light is bent, each frequency (i.e. color) bends at a slightly different angle due to the varying wave-length. What you see is the spreading of the colors as they travel away from the point of diffraction. This is why we only see a band of separated color; your eyes only receive the rainbow at a specific angle. Technically, this is going on constantly in the sky due to high and low pressure, humidity, and other factors of viscosity, but it is chaotic enough that you still see a composite of white. Only when a specific point source is at the right angle for your eyes to be bombarded with the bent light will you see it. The bubble bends the light, allowing you to view the rainbow "inside", and a passing storm can be considered a similar effect on a more massive scale.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 07, 2011, 07:09:36 PM
Where does science currently think consciousness comes from?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on June 07, 2011, 07:21:59 PM
How do bubbles form?

That actually looks like a pretty complicated physics problem.  Surface tension created by the attraction of the liquid molecules to each other is the simple answer, but it gets more complicated when you add a second material (e.g. soap) to the solution.

There is soap involved, yes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 07:33:11 PM
Where does science currently think consciousness comes from?

Your brain?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on June 07, 2011, 07:39:18 PM
Where does science currently think consciousness comes from?

Your brain?

My brain.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 07:39:52 PM
How do bubbles form?

That actually looks like a pretty complicated physics problem.  Surface tension created by the attraction of the liquid molecules to each other is the simple answer, but it gets more complicated when you add a second material (e.g. soap) to the solution.

There is soap involved, yes.

Well, technically you can form a bubble from any liquid with a surface tension, so soap doesn't have to be involved.  It just makes water bubbles last longer...the mechanism by which it does this is apparently called the Marangoni effect, but...that's some physics that's at least a course or two higher than anything I ever took.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 07, 2011, 09:17:34 PM
Synth, how do you feel about DHEA? Especially for a person who just had a heart attack? Do you think that it has shown a track record of being helpful or not so much? I know you don't care for herbals, but I just wondered since this one has so much hype surrounding it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 10:07:31 PM
Synth, how do you feel about DHEA? Especially for a person who just had a heart attack? Do you think that it has shown a track record of being helpful or not so much? I know you don't care for herbals, but I just wondered since this one has so much hype surrounding it.

Helpful for what?

For that matter, what DHEA are we talking about, here?  Dehydroepiandrosterone is the only thing that's coming to mind, and that's not exactly "herbal."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 07, 2011, 10:28:44 PM
Just to be more specific about the bubble question, the surface tension (the point of contact between gas and liquid) must be in greater volume than the pressure of the gas pushing out.  An interesting way to look at this is effect is, while carbon dioxide bubbles are carried by buoyancy underwater, they retain their shape because water pressure is more than sufficient, and it can only deviate by joining with (or breaking off from) other pockets of gas.  However, once you reach the surface, the pressure of the gas is now greater than the surface tension.  Because, unlike gas, liquids naturally lean towards cohesion, the bubble bursts (or scatters into smaller bubbles).  Soap bubbles distribute this effect evenly in such a way that surface tension is in equilibrium with the pressure of the gas.  So, now, you have floaty bubbles.

Short version:  Gas is trapped inside water, and liquid does its thing.

Question:

Synthesis,

Is it true that man can live on a particular kind of algae indefinitely, without health concerns?  I can't remember what it's called, but it's used as astronaut food.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on June 07, 2011, 10:29:24 PM
Synthesis - assuming that this is the right thread for it, please explain scientifically why emergence is so very cool.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 07, 2011, 10:30:46 PM
Where does science currently think consciousness comes from?

Your brain?

Any chance of a little more detail than that?  I'm looking for specific parts of the brain and the interactions between them.  Assuming there's a solid theory on this yet.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 07, 2011, 10:52:56 PM
Synth, how do you feel about DHEA? Especially for a person who just had a heart attack? Do you think that it has shown a track record of being helpful or not so much? I know you don't care for herbals, but I just wondered since this one has so much hype surrounding it.

Helpful for what?

For that matter, what DHEA are we talking about, here?  Dehydroepiandrosterone is the only thing that's coming to mind, and that's not exactly "herbal."

Welp, it isn't an herbal. I suppose I just sort of stick everything in the herbal category whether it's supplement, blah blah, OTC. It's late and I wasn't very specific. Doh. ???

Anyway, apparently Vitamin Shoppe now stocks DHEA + tribulus and says it's a 'testosterone replacement', which I feel is false because it's not really ... testosterone. I know men make it in their testes, and it declines as you age. Do you think DHEA is safe to take after just getting out of the hospital after having a heart attack and a stint put in? They wanted to use it for testosterone replacement, which I said wouldn't work because it really ... well, it's -not- testosterone.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 10:57:21 PM
It's not about the blue. It's about the way thought emerges from a bunch of neurons doing random neuron things.

Well, they're not random.  If neurons acted randomly it would be impossible for us to have coherent thought.

This is not a question you're going to get a concrete answer on.  In Synth's thread you're likely to get something along the lines of "thought is an electro-chemical complex of logic signals or whatever he finds on Google or a book".  In a religion thread you're likely to get an "its because we have souls and god gave us brains capable of thinking" sort of answer.  In some other thread you'll probably get an answer like "when I think too much I smoke pot."

Nobody on this GDB is going to be able to give you a definitive answer.  Choose a paradigm and roll with it.  You are only one of billions of people who don't understand how the brain works.

If we understood how thought works, we would be programming self-aware AI by now.

Alright, here's the thing, broheims.

"Emergent properties" is just a fancy way of saying that, ordinarily, we walk around assuming shit is fairly simple, because it's easier to get around that way, and most of the time, it's not -too- wrong, so it isn't a problem...then we encounter something that doesn't conform to our simplicity assumption, and we're like, "whoa."

There isn't anything special about perception.  It's just enormously complicated, once you get to certain genera.

But here's a slightly deeper explanation, from an evolutionary perspective:

We perceive the differences that exist in wavelengths of light because that information has been useful in some manner to the propagation of our ancestral species.  There are plenty of species for which our visible light spectrum has absolutely no bearing on their survival and/or reproduction, and thus structures that enable the differentiation of wavelengths have not been selected for, and are not (or are no longer) present.

Functionally, we really do pretty much have it down to a molecular level (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_cycle).

Beyond that, you might as well ask why we have hands, or why we have skin, or why we...because ultimately, there isn't anything special about this particular physiological process, in the grand scheme of things.  It's just a matter of...billions of years ago, a random mutation produced a protein that did something different when exposed to light.  Then that protein got hooked up with a protein or system of proteins within a cell that enabled it to alter the cell's behavior.  This allowed that particular cell to outcompete the other cells, and so the mutation and the system attached to the mutation persisted.  Over time, the gene was probably duplicated and further mutated, such that the new proteins produced responded differently to -different- wavelengths of light, and then those were hooked up to other systems, and it worked well enough to be selected for, and hundreds of millions of years later, you have this enormous, complex system attached to other complex systems that all arose from relatively simple processes, but have acquired billions of years' worth of changes to produce what we call color vision.

We suspect all this because at least some of the cell lineages that never acquired such mutations (or acquired similar mutations, but hooked to different systems) continued to do well enough to remain in existence, so we've still got what is presumably relatively primitive, or at least homologous stuff lying around to compare our own stuff to.  Furthermore, we can decode the genes that lead to this stuff, and with the help of some free tools you can find on the internet, you can compare the sequences between phyla and you begin to see that there are remarkable similarities across phyla when you compare certain sequences that pertain to fundamental cellular processes.

So there isn't any mystical hoodoo about it, at all.  It's complicated, but it's not inexplicable.  But yeah, it is pretty fucking cool that some lame little adaptation that really didn't do much more than signal a bacterium when to move into the shade ultimately evolved into a piece of this enormously complex system that supposedly allows us to differentiate millions of different combinations of wavelengths of light.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: NOFUN on June 07, 2011, 10:58:18 PM
What's the quickest way to rott flesh?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on June 07, 2011, 11:06:39 PM
....

Is it true that man can live on a particular kind of algae indefinitely, without health concerns?  I can't remember what it's called, but it's used as astronaut food.

You're probably talking about spirulina.  Or wild blue-green algae.  Both are supposed to be extremely beneficial to one's health but I really don't know enough to preach about here in the Scientific Shit thread.  I do know though that they both come in various forms and still, apparently, retain their nutrient value, so I can see how it would be a consideration for astronauts.  Anything that has very high amounts of vitamins, minerals, live enzymes, amino acids, protein etc, and that can be made into teeny little tablets would be pretty handy in a space ship.

I don't know how well either one would go with Tang though...


Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 11:19:53 PM
Synth, how do you feel about DHEA? Especially for a person who just had a heart attack? Do you think that it has shown a track record of being helpful or not so much? I know you don't care for herbals, but I just wondered since this one has so much hype surrounding it.

Helpful for what?

For that matter, what DHEA are we talking about, here?  Dehydroepiandrosterone is the only thing that's coming to mind, and that's not exactly "herbal."

Welp, it isn't an herbal. I suppose I just sort of stick everything in the herbal category whether it's supplement, blah blah, OTC. It's late and I wasn't very specific. Doh. ???

Anyway, apparently Vitamin Shoppe now stocks DHEA + tribulus and says it's a 'testosterone replacement', which I feel is false because it's not really ... testosterone. I know men make it in their testes, and it declines as you age. Do you think DHEA is safe to take after just getting out of the hospital after having a heart attack and a stint put in? They wanted to use it for testosterone replacement, which I said wouldn't work because it really ... well, it's -not- testosterone.

Eh, from what I'm reading, it looks like most OTC DHEA supplements ultimately end up getting converted to estrogens, not testosterone.  So I mean...if grandpa wants some gynecomastia to go along with his coronary artery disease, it might be a good idea.  Otherwise, it's probably a waste of time.

So far it seems like the only real positive result that's been found is increased bone density in women who have or are at risk for osteoporosis...which really reinforces the estrogenic theory, there.

But yeah...hormone replacement therapy (generally) is kind of en vogue in certain circles, and there have been some studies supporting testosterone in certain cases of long-term heart failure, but there really isn't much evidence that exogenous DHEA actually gets converted to androgens, like we'd like it to.

Furthermore, there haven't been any rigorous studies regarding risk factors for taking the stuff, populations which are uniquely at risk, or uniquely stand to benefit, drug interactions, dosing requirements for it, etc., etc. but of course, that isn't going to stop some folks when there's a buck to be earned.

It reminds me of that line from "Storm:"  You know what we call alternative medicine that's been proven to work?  Medicine.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 11:22:36 PM
Where does science currently think consciousness comes from?

Your brain?

Any chance of a little more detail than that?  I'm looking for specific parts of the brain and the interactions between them.  Assuming there's a solid theory on this yet.

If you're talking about "consciousness" in the sense of "not being unconscious," you're looking for "reticular activating system."

If you're talking about "consciousness" in the sense of "executive function," you're looking for "prefrontal cortex."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 11:25:09 PM
What's the quickest way to rott flesh?

Leave it in a moist, bacteria-enriched environment at about 37 degrees Celsius.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 07, 2011, 11:26:38 PM
What's the quickest way to rott flesh?

Leave it in a moist, bacteria-enriched environment at about 37 degrees Celsius.

As a follow on question, what's the best way to get rid of those troublesome bones?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 11:34:21 PM
....

Is it true that man can live on a particular kind of algae indefinitely, without health concerns?  I can't remember what it's called, but it's used as astronaut food.

You're probably talking about spirulina.  Or wild blue-green algae.  Both are supposed to be extremely beneficial to one's health but I really don't know enough to preach about here in the Scientific Shit thread.  I do know though that they both come in various forms and still, apparently, retain their nutrient value, so I can see how it would be a consideration for astronauts.  Anything that has very high amounts of vitamins, minerals, live enzymes, amino acids, protein etc, and that can be made into teeny little tablets would be pretty handy in a space ship.

I don't know how well either one would go with Tang though...

Apparently you still need to get B12 from somewhere else, but...*shrug*  I think most people would rather violently object to a long-term forced spirulina diet.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 11:36:50 PM
What's the quickest way to rott flesh?

Leave it in a moist, bacteria-enriched environment at about 37 degrees Celsius.

As a follow on question, what's the best way to get rid of those troublesome bones?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8NV00luZurw&NR=1
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Sephiroto on June 07, 2011, 11:38:36 PM

As a follow on question, what's the best way to get rid of those troublesome bones?

Casey Anthony knows.  Ask her. 

*bad joke

Synthesis, why do men like breasts so much?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 07, 2011, 11:46:13 PM

As a follow on question, what's the best way to get rid of those troublesome bones?

Casey Anthony knows.  Ask her. 

*bad joke

Synthesis, why do men like breasts so much?

Weeeellll...there are several possible options for that:

1. Men who failed to respond to appropriate stimuli from the opposite sex reproduce less often or less effectively
2. Breasts are indicative of relative reproductive fitness, so men with disproportional stimulus response to flat-chested women reproduced less successfully
3. There's really no evolutionary trend, and it's mostly a matter of modern mass-media inspired conditioning
4. Boobies are niiiiiiiiiice  :P
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 07, 2011, 11:57:02 PM
I've always heard it was #2. Manboog didn't find big boobies all that enticing. TIL HE MET ME.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: LauraMars on June 08, 2011, 07:11:26 AM
Speaking of milk: Why does a glass of milk taste so good after eating cakes and cookies?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on June 08, 2011, 12:21:58 PM
Because they are so dry it makes you thirsty.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 08, 2011, 01:18:56 PM
Why do men have nipples?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on June 08, 2011, 01:27:02 PM
Oh!  I know, I know!  Because breast development begins before the sex of the baby is determined?  I think...someone back me up on that one...or tell me how wrong I am...*laughs*
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on June 08, 2011, 01:30:44 PM
Oh, and Synthesis, don't think that I'm here in your thread to steal your glory...I quite like scientific stuff, explaining it isn't necessarily my forté though...besides spirulina and nipples, I don't know what else I could try to explain in this thread...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on June 08, 2011, 01:40:32 PM
Oh, and Synthesis, don't think that I'm here in your thread to steal your glory...I quite like scientific stuff, explaining it isn't necessarily my forté though...besides spirulina and nipples, I don't know what else I could try to explain in this thread...

I, too, am drawn to the explanation of science (see "How Rainbows Are Made (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,40682.msg612292.html#msg612292)"), and I've found that Synth is very magnanimous about his thread. Just watch his toes on the health/biology questions  ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 08, 2011, 02:10:39 PM
Why do men have nipples?

Functionally, it's because the developmental processes that give rise to nipples are more or less identical between males and females.

Evolutionarily, it's probably because there's no compelling reason for such separate developmental processes to have formed, combined with the fact that nipples form very early in development (~4 weeks), and mutations that monkey around with the processes occurring during that period are fatal to the embryo, more often than not.  The processes that give rise to sex-based differences in breast tissue are largely the result of a program that's separate from the nipple development program.

Incidentally, it is possible to be born without nipples (athelia) or to have supernumerary nipples all along the mammary crest.  Presumably, if either of these conditions resulted from heritable genetic anomalies, and conferred a reproductive advantage, they would be selected for and become relatively more common, but as it stands, they aren't.  I suppose that, given enough time, male nipples could disappear...but I'm really hoping that evolution will get to working on the back hair and scrotum problems, first.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 08, 2011, 06:10:51 PM
Is ice wet?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on June 08, 2011, 08:20:43 PM
Is ice wet?

No, ice is dry. In fact, an icy surface is not really even very slippery. However, when pressure is applied, for instance from your foot or the tire of a car, the melting point of the ice drops, which creates a thin film of liquid water on the surface. It's the thin layer of liquid that makes it slippery. So called "dry ice" gets its name from the fact that it sublimates at room temperature and pressure. Sublimation is the change of state from solid to gas without going through the liquid state, therefore, dry ice is never wet.

Edit: Damn, I love physics.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: chrisdcoulombe on June 08, 2011, 11:32:20 PM
Why do whales have hips?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 09, 2011, 12:39:04 AM
Why do whales have hips?

Well...they don't really have hips.  They do have rudimentary/vestigial pelvic bones that, if they remain functional at all, are probably adapted to swimming or somesuch, I imagine.

As to the 'why' bit, you can't really give a good scientific answer to those sorts of things.  You can speculate about evolutionary driving forces and mechanisms of adaptation and all that, but really...it's pretty much just guessing.  My best guess is that it's pretty difficult to entirely get rid of a genetic developmental program once it's there, so when certain appendages are no longer useful, decreasing size/functionality is selected for until all that's left is a homologous/vestigial structure.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on June 09, 2011, 10:44:10 PM
Does this seem well tested? http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1Dl3sm/www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec10/BemStudy.html (http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1Dl3sm/www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Dec10/BemStudy.html)

Looks pretty darn interesting.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 09, 2011, 11:44:00 PM
no
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: chrisdcoulombe on June 10, 2011, 12:13:22 AM
Lol
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 10, 2011, 06:39:28 AM
Is ice wet?

No, ice is dry. In fact, an icy surface is not really even very slippery. However, when pressure is applied, for instance from your foot or the tire of a car, the melting point of the ice drops, which creates a thin film of liquid water on the surface. It's the thin layer of liquid that makes it slippery.
This is not true. I'm not sure why ice is slippery or whether or not anyone knows. It is definitely not the melting point, though. Even on ice skates, with your weight distributed on a pretty small area and a much higher pressuer than you'r get on normal boots, the melting point goes down less than a degree Celsius. You wouldn't be able to skate or slip on ice at temperatures further below the melting point.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on June 10, 2011, 01:26:28 PM
Is ice wet?

No, ice is dry. In fact, an icy surface is not really even very slippery. However, when pressure is applied, for instance from your foot or the tire of a car, the melting point of the ice drops, which creates a thin film of liquid water on the surface. It's the thin layer of liquid that makes it slippery.
This is not true. I'm not sure why ice is slippery or whether or not anyone knows. It is definitely not the melting point, though. Even on ice skates, with your weight distributed on a pretty small area and a much higher pressuer than you'r get on normal boots, the melting point goes down less than a degree Celsius. You wouldn't be able to skate or slip on ice at temperatures further below the melting point.

After looking into it further I see that there have been studies showing the accepted reason is wrong. I should go ask for my money back from all those physics classes as, clearly, they were just tossing out lies and misdirections.

However:

"We found the friction of ice to be very high," Dr. Salmeron said. That is, ice is not really that slippery, after all.

Dr. Salmeron said that this finding indicates that while the top layer of ice may be liquid, it is too thin to contribute much to slipperiness except near the melting temperature. In his view, friction is the primary reason ice is slippery. (The microscope tip was so small that its friction melted only a tiny bit of water, which immediately refroze and therefore did not provide the usual lubrication, he said.)

Dr. Salmeron concedes, however, that he cannot definitively prove that his view is the correct one.

"It's amazing," he said. "We're in 2006, and we're still talking about this thing."

(excerpt from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/21ice.html?pagewanted=1)
---

So, while my explanation for why it is slippery might not necessarily be the entire answer, the fact remains that ice is not inherently slippery, nor wet.

Edit: In the future, when discounting someone, it might be beneficial to say more than, "No, you're wrong, but I don't know why". It took me all of 3 minutes to find this article on the friction study.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 10, 2011, 04:43:39 PM
Edit: In the future, when discounting someone, it might be beneficial to say more than, "No, you're wrong, but I don't know why". It took me all of 3 minutes to find this article on the friction study.
I explained why you're wrong, just not what's the correct explanation. The article says "Eh, could be this, or that, or a combination of the two" but they aren't really sure, either.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on June 10, 2011, 05:24:48 PM
Edit: In the future, when discounting someone, it might be beneficial to say more than, "No, you're wrong, but I don't know why". It took me all of 3 minutes to find this article on the friction study.
I explained why you're wrong, just not what's the correct explanation. The article says "Eh, could be this, or that, or a combination of the two" but they aren't really sure, either.

You're absolutely right that the article states uncertainty on the matter.

My point is that, in declaring my explanation false, you fail to make a distinction between the true and valid parts of my post, and the, once accepted but now disputed, reasoning that follows.

True: Ice is dry.
True: Ice is not inherently slippery.

Still in Debate: What causes ice to become slippery.

My answer was being taught in college physics classes less than ten years ago, and has clearly not been fully routed by more valid explanations, but I am perfectly open to looking into the matter further. The scientist who did the afore mentioned study admits that there is a state change due to pressure, but that he does not believe it to be the overall cause of the increase in slickness.

I find your denouncement to be one-sided and uninformative.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bilanthri on June 10, 2011, 05:30:16 PM
Synth,

Can you explain the recent-ish findings on impulsive behavior and brain maturation. I read that the brain's ability to resist emotional impulse does not fully develop until the very early 20's, though I can't remember where I read it.

Edit: I think this would partially explain why I hacked my step-father's fiberglass truck canopy with a machete but then had no answer when asked why.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on June 10, 2011, 06:43:42 PM
Edit: I think this would partially explain why I hacked my step-father's fiberglass truck canopy with a machete but then had no answer when asked why.

You were trying to skin it for its shell?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: HavokBlue on June 10, 2011, 07:10:32 PM
skin truck
You ineptly hack a white, crew-cab pick-up truck to pieces.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 10, 2011, 09:43:39 PM
Synth,

Can you explain the recent-ish findings on impulsive behavior and brain maturation. I read that the brain's ability to resist emotional impulse does not fully develop until the very early 20's, though I can't remember where I read it.

Edit: I think this would partially explain why I hacked my step-father's fiberglass truck canopy with a machete but then had no answer when asked why.

Just to preface Synth, here, your frontal lobe finally like, matures, when you're 21-25ish.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 11, 2011, 12:24:33 AM
Synth,

Can you explain the recent-ish findings on impulsive behavior and brain maturation. I read that the brain's ability to resist emotional impulse does not fully develop until the very early 20's, though I can't remember where I read it.

Edit: I think this would partially explain why I hacked my step-father's fiberglass truck canopy with a machete but then had no answer when asked why.

Just to preface Synth, here, your frontal lobe finally like, matures, when you're 21-25ish.

Yeah, something like that.  I vaguely seem to recall it has something to do with myelination of the neurons there, but I don't really feel like looking up the specifics right now, since I've been studying-ish all day.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 11, 2011, 09:32:47 PM
I've been trying to quit tobacco with the aid of patches for a while now and have finally reached the point where I'm essentially nicotine free.  However, a really nice side effect of the patches seems to be having extremely vivid and memorable lucid dreams every night (so long as there's a patch on my arm.)  Would continuing to wear patches solely while sleeping have any undesirable effects?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 11, 2011, 10:59:12 PM
I've been trying to quit tobacco with the aid of patches for a while now and have finally reached the point where I'm essentially nicotine free.  However, a really nice side effect of the patches seems to be having extremely vivid and memorable lucid dreams every night (so long as there's a patch on my arm.)  Would continuing to wear patches solely while sleeping have any undesirable effects?

Heh, "vivid dreams" is a commonly-cited "adverse effect" of nicotine-replacement patches, but if you actually like it...well...there isn't anything especially toxic about wearing the patch at night, but at that point you have to realize it isn't helping with the smoking cessation, since it's kind of silly to expect to control cravings during a period you're unconscious.  That is, unless you frequently wake up in the middle of the night to smoke, I suppose.

The only problem I can see with it is that it will make it more difficult to taper the nicotine dose down, because the patch at night is an extra dose of nicotine, so the plasma levels won't fall as much, and your neurons won't start to return to a normal physiological state.

So I mean...it's a little counterproductive if your ultimate goal is to wean yourself completely off nicotine.  If your goal is only to quit smoking...*shrug*
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Drayab on June 11, 2011, 11:14:52 PM
Whaaat? If I put on one of these patches, will I get to have vivid dreams, too?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 11, 2011, 11:22:32 PM
Thanks Synth :)

I've pretty much eliminated the 'need' to actually smoke already (and carry a few emergency lollipops so there's something to suck on) so I should be safe to keep using patches at night then.  My main concern was that I might be depriving parts of my brain of rest.

@Drayab:  Please don't get hooked on nicotine (or anything else) if you're not already.  Addiction is a bitch, and nicotine is one of the most addictive drugs known to man.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 12, 2011, 12:17:02 AM
I'm not sure if nicotine's effect(s) on sleep patterns is well-studied in the context of people who want an effect that would be considered a sleep disturbance for most people.  For general populations, the occurrence of sleep disturbances with the nicotine-replacement patch is a predictor of smoking relapse, but again, I'm not sure that general observation holds true for someone for who the vivid dreams don't constitute a disturbance.  I suppose the best advice would be:  if you feel tired, stop doing it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jhunter on June 12, 2011, 01:00:46 AM
Why do men tend to build up fat in their abominal area and women about their hips, thighs and rear?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ghost on June 12, 2011, 03:02:32 AM
so syntehesis how come eggplant have nicotine but itdoes not make me as happy has a cigar
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 12, 2011, 10:45:30 PM
so syntehesis how come eggplant have nicotine but itdoes not make me as happy has a cigar

i dunno have you tried smoking it
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 12, 2011, 10:46:16 PM
i dunno have you tried smoking it

Ah, SCIENCE  :D
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 13, 2011, 12:12:40 AM
Why do men tend to build up fat in their abominal area and women about their hips, thighs and rear?

It mostly seems to be the relative balance of androgens and estrogens.  There are a few mouse models with defective ovaries or estrogen receptors/synthesis, and the female mice end up with a male fat distribution pattern, and if you administer estrogens to male mice, they end up with female fat distribution.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on June 15, 2011, 04:53:50 PM
What's mysoline?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bacon on June 15, 2011, 05:18:10 PM
Is it really impossible to get more energy out of something than the energy put into it? If so, why? Or is it just that nobody has figured out how to do it yet?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 15, 2011, 05:22:59 PM
What's mysoline?

Generic name is primidone, an anticonvulsant.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on June 15, 2011, 05:55:10 PM
Is it really impossible to get more energy out of something than the energy put into it? If so, why? Or is it just that nobody has figured out how to do it yet?

:-\
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Drayab on June 15, 2011, 06:12:56 PM
Is it really impossible to get more energy out of something than the energy put into it? If so, why? Or is it just that nobody has figured out how to do it yet?

You can get more energy out than you put in with an exothermic reaction, like a campire. I think the question you really mean to ask has to do with entropy, i.e. - the second law of thermodynamics. This is the part of physics that rules out things like perpetual motion machines, and yes, the second law seems to hold for any sufficiently closed system, at least up to galactic scales, but there is no guarantee that it holds for the universe as a whole.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on June 15, 2011, 06:26:19 PM
The only proven over-infinity machine I know of is the Dwarven Screw-Pump/Waterwheel Generator. But it's made for !!Science!!.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 15, 2011, 06:41:36 PM
Is it really impossible to get more energy out of something than the energy put into it? If so, why? Or is it just that nobody has figured out how to do it yet?

Well, it's a fundamental postulate of physics that so far seems to be holding up.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on June 18, 2011, 07:07:45 PM
How do you know if you're sad or depressed?

If you take Chromium Picolinate which may or may not work how long should you give it to work?

If you take Chromium Picolinate but you find that it makes you feel a little over-caffeinated because generally things like niacin, B12 etc make you feel that way should you keep taking it and see if you adjust and feel less wound up in time?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 19, 2011, 02:31:00 AM
How do you know if you're sad or depressed?

If you take Chromium Picolinate which may or may not work how long should you give it to work?

If you take Chromium Picolinate but you find that it makes you feel a little over-caffeinated because generally things like niacin, B12 etc make you feel that way should you keep taking it and see if you adjust and feel less wound up in time?

1.  Sadness is an appropriate response to some adverse life event.  Depression has a pretty long list of criteria for clinical diagnosis, but basically it's depressed mood that isn't congruent with anything going on in your life.  There's also a new-ish category of dysthymia, which is persistently depressed mood that isn't quite so bad to qualify for the MDD diagnosis.  Wikipedia is pretty good for the specific criteria for this stuff...it seems like most of the psych. diagnoses are cut&pasted from the DSM.

2.  Doesn't look like there's a whole lot of evidence for using chromium supplements for anything...and the problem with a lot of the herbal stuff is that it isn't regulated, so there's no telling what's in it.  If it's making you feel caffeinated...there's a pretty good chance that it's because there's some unlabeled stimulant in it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Thunkkin on June 19, 2011, 09:02:10 PM
OK, so we all know that those home "test your dna for diseases" kits are pretty much a sham according to various government investigations and sting operations.

That's fine with me, because I'm not really interested in testing my dna for diseases. (Well, I am, but only if it's really accurate, which it isn't, so thanks I'll keep my money).

I AM interested in DNA testing to investigate my ancestors/heritage. Specifically, I'm curious if I carry any of the DNA that is considered a dead give-away for having Jewish ancestry. Some of my ancestors were from eastern Europe and I've had quite a few people over my life either ask me if I'm Jewish (once I was asked if I was Palestinian ...) or assume that I have Jewish ancestry.

I know that quite a bit of the ancestry DNA stuff is either dodgy or just incredibly imprecise. But I've always had the sense that in the case of, say, Ashkenazi Jews, genetic tests can actually be fairly certain (though of course it's possible to have Jewish ancestors whose markers haven't been identified as Jewish yet, etc.).

How would a scientist like yourself go about deciding on whether DNA tests were accurate enough to detect if a person was Ashkenazi (that would probably be my background if I have Jewish ancestors) and how would you manage to pick a testing company that wasn't just peddling BS or going to to try to sell you products for conducting research on your ancestors, etc.?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 19, 2011, 09:21:05 PM
At least somebody didn't go and ask you if you were a Jew or an Injun to later tell you it was because of your nose.

:( :( :(
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 20, 2011, 12:02:09 AM
OK, so we all know that those home "test your dna for diseases" kits are pretty much a sham according to various government investigations and sting operations.

That's fine with me, because I'm not really interested in testing my dna for diseases. (Well, I am, but only if it's really accurate, which it isn't, so thanks I'll keep my money).

I AM interested in DNA testing to investigate my ancestors/heritage. Specifically, I'm curious if I carry any of the DNA that is considered a dead give-away for having Jewish ancestry. Some of my ancestors were from eastern Europe and I've had quite a few people over my life either ask me if I'm Jewish (once I was asked if I was Palestinian ...) or assume that I have Jewish ancestry.

I know that quite a bit of the ancestry DNA stuff is either dodgy or just incredibly imprecise. But I've always had the sense that in the case of, say, Ashkenazi Jews, genetic tests can actually be fairly certain (though of course it's possible to have Jewish ancestors whose markers haven't been identified as Jewish yet, etc.).

How would a scientist like yourself go about deciding on whether DNA tests were accurate enough to detect if a person was Ashkenazi (that would probably be my background if I have Jewish ancestors) and how would you manage to pick a testing company that wasn't just peddling BS or going to to try to sell you products for conducting research on your ancestors, etc.?

1.  There's nothing wrong with the DNA tests for unifactorial or oligofactorial diseases.  If you're carrying a common mutation, or at least a mutation that's tested for, it will pick it up.  The problem is when they use a bunch of markers that either aren't specific or well-studied, and they start playing the correlation game with them.  That's probably the controversy you're talking about.  But for stuff like Tay-Sach's, Gaucher's, and Niemann-Pick...the tests are going to work as well as they possibly can (that is...they won't pick up the 1-in-a-million novel mutation, but you're more concerned about the 1/7-1/8 carrier frequency with something like Gaucher's).

2.  It would all depend on what markers they're using, how many, the database of "known" genotypes they're comparing yours to, and whether they're testing autosomal, Y-chromosomal, or mitochondrial DNA.  The more markers, the better...the more knowns, the better.  Autosomal DNA isn't really useful for anything beyond a generation or two...at that point probably all you'd be able to say with relative certainty is a region (e.g. "northern Europe").  Y-DNA is a little better, but it can only tell you if you recently shared  common ancestor with a known.  Mitochondrial DNA testing is pretty solid, but only if you're a near-perfect match for a known.  If you're a perfect match, that's great...but if your mtDNA is off by even a little, mitochondrial DNA acquires mutations at such a slow rate that even a minor variation from a near-match could put you off by tens of thousands of years, using the "molecular clock" method.

That being said, if you're specifically looking for Ashkenazi Jewish ancestry, there probably isn't a better-studied group, as far as genetic testing is concerned.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: chrisdcoulombe on June 22, 2011, 02:28:05 AM
Who was more powerful Luke or Anakin?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 22, 2011, 02:49:06 AM
Who was more powerful Luke or Anakin?

Anakin was conceived by the force, duder.  I think the question you want to ask is:  WTF is a miticlorian?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: chrisdcoulombe on June 22, 2011, 02:51:42 AM
Who was more powerful Luke or Anakin?

Anakin was conceived by the force, duder.  I think the question you want to ask is:  WTF is a miticlorian?
That too.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 22, 2011, 06:00:38 AM
-edited-
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on June 22, 2011, 11:16:14 AM
Is he on the lease?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 22, 2011, 11:24:18 AM
What's the best way to get rid of an unwanted roommate that refuses to move out?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBvCPTK1MmY
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on June 22, 2011, 11:27:02 AM
Now I need to watch that movie. Again.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 22, 2011, 11:56:10 AM
-edited-
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on June 22, 2011, 12:16:01 PM
As per Breaking Bad you really need the plastic bins. The acid -will- eat through the bathtub.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 22, 2011, 12:16:21 PM
Yes, he's on the lease. Sixteen pigs are unavailable.

How many roommates do you have?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 22, 2011, 12:40:04 PM
-edited-
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 22, 2011, 12:52:33 PM
Yes, he's on the lease. Sixteen pigs are unavailable.

How many roommates do you have?
Four, three of them can stay, though.

Hmm...I hope they're hungry.  I'd suggest starving them for a few days.  Also, you may want to clear out some space in the freezer.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 22, 2011, 01:09:33 PM
-edited-
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 22, 2011, 01:11:19 PM
Yes, he's on the lease. Sixteen pigs are unavailable.

How many roommates do you have?
Four, three of them can stay, though.

Hmm...I hope they're hungry.  I'd suggest starving them for a few days.  Also, you may want to clear out some space in the freezer.
How do I make sure they eat the proper one?

Take him or her to the "supermarket" and return with a bunch of "steaks."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 23, 2011, 11:04:10 AM
What's the best way to get rid of an unwanted roommate that refuses to move out?

Assuming same sex heteros all round, the best way would be to walk in on them in shower whilst naked (rose between teeth optional) and then announce your undying love for them on bended knee.  Problem solved.

Alternatively, you could always sacrifice a bucket of kittens on their bed.  That one's always good for a laugh or two.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: wizturbo on June 23, 2011, 02:37:38 PM
Are cell phone or wifi signals hazardous to your health?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 23, 2011, 04:10:14 PM
Are cell phone or wifi signals hazardous to your health?

It's kind of an emerging issue, but as far as I know, right now the evidence is that the heat generated by the radio transmitter in cell phones can lead to damage (gliomas, especially), but only over extremely short distances, and usually only after long-term, frequent usage. Supposedly the transmitters in Bluetooth headsets aren't as powerful (they only have to reach as far as your pocket...not to the nearest transmission tower), and thus are substantially safer.

A few weeks ago the WHO released this (http://www.iarc.fr/en/media-centre/pr/2011/pdfs/pr208_E.pdf), and the INTERPHONE study was actually just put up online yesterday in Lancet Oncology.  If you have institutional access, you can find it here (http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045%2811%2970147-4/fulltext).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: wizturbo on June 23, 2011, 04:24:28 PM
Does the following diet pose any health risks?

1)  Eat very low carbs (less than 30 grams per day) for 6 days a week.
2)  Load up on carbs on the 7th day of the week, to keep metabolic rate high
3)  Ignore calories or fat content, and expect higher than average sodium intake.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 23, 2011, 05:03:25 PM
Does the following diet pose any health risks?

1)  Eat very low carbs (less than 30 grams per day) for 6 days a week.
2)  Load up on carbs on the 7th day of the week, to keep metabolic rate high
3)  Ignore calories or fat content, and expect higher than average sodium intake.

Well...the whole point of eating low-carb is to get your body to switch over to using stored fat for energy instead of glucose.  Loading up on carbs isn't really going to help that, and it's not going to "speed up your metabolism," either.  Carb-loading is generally used to maximize the amount of stored glycogen in your body prior to some athletic event.  That being said, if you use the high-carb meal as a sort of "cheat meal" to satisfy a craving for carbs...I doubt a single day or meal is going to derail the low-carb train, but I'd question the psychological aspects of holding back something you're trying to avoid as a reward.  It seems like that might be counter-productive over the long term.

As far as calories are concerned, obviously there's a point at which excess calories will be harmful, regardless of where they're coming from.  If you're trying to lose weight (I'm assuming you're male), 1500 kcal/day is probably a good target, paired with the low-carb strategy over the medium term (6 weeks).

Over the long term, the only thing that's going to work as a weight-loss strategy is a complete and lasting change in your diet and exercise habits, unfortunately.  I believe just about every intervention ever proposed fails without that.  Even people with gastric banding, sleeve gastrectomies, and gastric bypass eventually start gaining weight again, because over time they develop new ways to eat the same amount of the same bullshit they were eating before.  I say unfortunately because, well...it just doesn't happen that often.  Maybe something like 5-10% of people who go through prescribed weight-loss regimens actually manage to keep the weight off.

Now, if you're not trying to lose weight or anything, I don't think there's much of a point in going low-carb.  You definitely want to go with starch (glucose polymer) over sucrose (glucose-fructose disaccharide) carbs, though.  I'm pretty firmly convinced that our ability to metabolize fructose is limited, and has some pretty catastrophic effects with respect to metabolic syndrome, atherosclerosis, etc.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 23, 2011, 05:11:55 PM
That being said...for fuck's sake it's hard to give up sugar.  It's ridiculously cheap, tastes great, and it's snuck into just about everything you eat that you didn't kill yourself and take directly to the grill.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on June 23, 2011, 05:15:43 PM
Seriously. I eat so very little sugar compared to most people, but I probably eat a lot of it, regardless.

/firstworld problems
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: wizturbo on June 23, 2011, 05:36:47 PM
That being said...for fuck's sake it's hard to give up sugar.  It's ridiculously cheap, tastes great, and it's snuck into just about everything you eat that you didn't kill yourself and take directly to the grill.

It is, but you get used to it faster than you might think.  The first 3 days were harsh.  

I've been on that above diet for about 4 weeks now and I've lost 17 pounds (~10% of my body weight), and still going strong.  The 'cheat' day helps too, because on Saturday I can go out and act like a normal human being :-p

I survive on meats/fish/poultry/pork, cheese, eggs and nuts for the most part.  Which generally results in an omelette for breakfast, a light lunch, and a hearty dinner of steak/chicken/fish whatever.  It's almost impossible to eat out though, really requires you to go to the grocery store and stock up your fridge.

The "end game" is being on this low-carb diet Monday-Thursday, and eating normally on Fri/Sat/Sun, which for a friend seems to keep him in a state of equalibrium weight wise.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 23, 2011, 05:53:41 PM
Yeah, like I said...for long-term maintenance, you probably don't have to cut carbs out during the week or whenever.  Just make sure you're eating good carbs (rice, pasta, potatoes, etc.).

The problem with a lot of the studies of high-carb diets vs. low-carb diets is that they didn't distinguish between types of carbs, and although the molecular difference between fructose and glucose is minor, there are vastly different biochemical implications.  Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM), when you get a spare hour and a half.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on June 24, 2011, 05:32:02 AM
What sleeping pattern allows you the greatest amount of time awake without suffering too much for it?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: spicemustflow on June 24, 2011, 06:07:25 AM
What sleeping pattern allows you the greatest amount of time awake without suffering too much for it?

Probably highly individual but I'd also love to hear some pointers.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 24, 2011, 06:43:58 AM
-edited-
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on June 24, 2011, 08:46:52 AM
Assuming same sex heteros all round...
Sadly, no. Thirty-year old virgin that's declared his undying love for me. With jealousy issues.

The life of the nice (guy) is ended by the knife
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 24, 2011, 02:17:54 PM
Assuming same sex heteros all round...
Sadly, no. Thirty-year old virgin that's declared his undying love for me. With jealousy issues.

The life of the nice (guy) is ended by the knife

Tell him you like to 'eat da poo poo' and see what happens.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on June 24, 2011, 03:25:55 PM
A new caveat should be that synth only answers while drunk.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on June 24, 2011, 03:28:23 PM
What sleeping pattern allows you the greatest amount of time awake without suffering too much for it?

Probably highly individual but I'd also love to hear some pointers.

In other words: how much can I sacrifice sleep to play armageddon AND do everything else?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 24, 2011, 03:30:06 PM
A new caveat should be that synth only answers while drunk.

I'm all for upping the ante, but maybe we should just let drunken Ghost paraphrase Synthesis' answers.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Saellyn on June 24, 2011, 03:35:58 PM
Who was more powerful Luke or Anakin?

Anakin was conceived by the force, duder.  I think the question you want to ask is:  WTF is a miticlorian?

Anakin was created by Darth Plagueus, actually, so technically he was the "father", not the Force. Sith Alchemy does a lot of interesting things.

However, I would say Anakin was the more powerful of the two, simply because Luke was conceived by Anakin and a not-so-Force-sensitive Padme.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bacon on June 24, 2011, 03:41:19 PM
Who was more powerful Luke or Anakin?

Anakin was conceived by the force, duder.  I think the question you want to ask is:  WTF is a miticlorian?

Anakin was created by Darth Plagueus, actually, so technically he was the "father", not the Force. Sith Alchemy does a lot of interesting things.

However, I would say Anakin was the more powerful of the two, simply because Luke was conceived by Anakin and a not-so-Force-sensitive Padme.

Luke is far more powerful than Anakin for a few reasons. If you read the books, there is no contest between the two. For one, Anakin lost most of his potential in the force when he became Darth Vader and became mostly machine. The only artificial part Luke has is one of his hands. Secondly, in the books Luke went on to learn all sorts of force powers that likely Anakin never even heard of.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Saellyn on June 24, 2011, 04:49:31 PM
Who was more powerful Luke or Anakin?

Anakin was conceived by the force, duder.  I think the question you want to ask is:  WTF is a miticlorian?

Anakin was created by Darth Plagueus, actually, so technically he was the "father", not the Force. Sith Alchemy does a lot of interesting things.

However, I would say Anakin was the more powerful of the two, simply because Luke was conceived by Anakin and a not-so-Force-sensitive Padme.

Luke is far more powerful than Anakin for a few reasons. If you read the books, there is no contest between the two. For one, Anakin lost most of his potential in the force when he became Darth Vader and became mostly machine. The only artificial part Luke has is one of his hands. Secondly, in the books Luke went on to learn all sorts of force powers that likely Anakin never even heard of.

... Luke never created his own Force technique, first of all, second of all knowing a whole bunch of Force powers doesn't make you powerful. You realize Vader has access, through Palpatine, to some of the most insidious Force techniques that the Sith cult had access to, right? And that in terms of raw power, Anakin Skywalker was considerably more powerful than Luke? He didn't even lose his power when he became Darth Vader, if anything it -grew- right up until he got some body parts eviscerated.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 24, 2011, 04:52:38 PM
Anakin, died, too, and became more powerful than you can imagine.  He was standing, right there, with Obi-Wan and Yoda (ok, but I lost the version where it's not that annoying Hayden kid in my divorce)!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bacon on June 24, 2011, 04:56:50 PM
His capability in the force was capped off when he had most of his body replaced with artificial implants. Vader was never going to be able to reach master level in the force. It's in the books. Had he not had his body destroyed he would have been -capable- of becoming more powerful than the emperor and as powerful as Luke is at this point in the stories. Luke actually creates a few force techniques in the books as well. Anakin, at his most powerful wasn't as close to as powerful as Luke is, it is also supported by the books. It is also known that Luke has been powerful enough to return beyond death through the force if he chooses for a long time in his life now. Don't get me wrong, I like Vader too but the books support Luke being more powerful at this point in his life, in every way, in comparison to his father. And he's still alive and gaining in power. You don't have to like it but the books say how it is.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 24, 2011, 05:01:48 PM

wtf is this shit
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 24, 2011, 05:02:32 PM
I haven't read any of those books since KJA ruined the franchise (imho).  I always liked the comics, though ...  it's hard to say what's what with all of the errata.  And believe me, after what George Lucas has done to some of my childhood favorites, I could give a rat's ass what he puts his "stamp" to.

Btw, this is Synthesis' science thread, not who has the bigger symbiote.  ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 24, 2011, 05:02:54 PM

wtf is this shit

Beat me to it.  :P
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 24, 2011, 05:04:37 PM
Dear Synth,

Why do hair and nails grow after death?  I can't recall if that's been asked, but I'm curious.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Bacon on June 24, 2011, 05:07:04 PM

wtf is this shit


wtf is this shit?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 24, 2011, 05:18:16 PM
Dear Synth,

Why do hair and nails grow after death?  I can't recall if that's been asked, but I'm curious.

Wow, that one's easy:  they don't.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on June 24, 2011, 05:51:22 PM
Dear Synth,

Why do hair and nails grow after death?  I can't recall if that's been asked, but I'm curious.

Wow, that one's easy:  they don't.

A complete myth!  Ha.  But why does it appear that way, then?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 24, 2011, 06:35:38 PM
Your skin and fingers shrink and expose more of the nail. Same with hair, although that's probably just noticable when the hair is really short.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on June 28, 2011, 07:20:05 AM
What is String Theory?

Can you explain it slow and simple so we (I) can all understand?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on June 28, 2011, 09:13:49 PM
I don't really do physics
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on June 29, 2011, 09:54:36 PM
Can you explain why we see at a "frame-rate", when our eyes and brain take in and process light at a constant rate. Why do colors, or pictures blend together when flashed at high speeds?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on June 30, 2011, 05:35:52 AM
Most of the diet advice these days seems to be about avoiding obesity. I don't put on weight very well. If I stuck to low-carb, low-fat all the time, I'd probably starve in the end (or spend a lot more time eating). I still don't want to die from a heart attack before I'm 50 (seems to run in the family for me). So what would be a healthy diet if you scrap all the weight issues?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on June 30, 2011, 11:01:47 AM
Most of the diet advice these days seems to be about avoiding obesity. I don't put on weight very well. If I stuck to low-carb, low-fat all the time, I'd probably starve in the end (or spend a lot more time eating). I still don't want to die from a heart attack before I'm 50 (seems to run in the family for me). So what would be a healthy diet if you scrap all the weight issues?

Not to steal Synth's thunder here, but my mother is a dietitian and I could ask her if you'd like! Just shoot me a PM with your favorite foods and this little tidbit if you want, and I'll ask her on FB, since I'm not sure if I'm gonna see her tonight or tomorrow.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on June 30, 2011, 02:02:18 PM
Most of the diet advice these days seems to be about avoiding obesity. I don't put on weight very well. If I stuck to low-carb, low-fat all the time, I'd probably starve in the end (or spend a lot more time eating). I still don't want to die from a heart attack before I'm 50 (seems to run in the family for me). So what would be a healthy diet if you scrap all the weight issues?

High fat diets aren't bad for your heart if you aren't eating trans fats and you aren't fat.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Anaiah on June 30, 2011, 02:59:26 PM
Well, RGS, that's actually one entire type of memory used of the three (sensory, vs short or long term). While you might take in light constantly, your eyes don't actually process motion. They take flashframe images of things going on, and sensory memory strings them together into the perception of a constant, moving world, where in reality it's a series of snapshots.

[At least, that's what one learns in psychology class.]
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 01, 2011, 08:39:08 PM
If you're talking about single neurons, then clearly there's a sort of "frame rate," i.e. the absolute refractory period post-action potential.  However, unless every neuron in your visual system is synchronized, that single-neuron ARP is meaningless in terms of your entire visual field.  (This frame rate would also be exceptionally high...on the order of 300 frames per second, since the ARP of a typical neuron is around 3ms.

The short answer is:  we don't see at "frame rates."

The truth of the matter is much more complicated, and it can only be framed in terms of what sorts of stimuli we can effectively resolve.  This varies quite a bit by image type.  For instance, we can resolve images with very sharp edges at very high effective "frame rates" (i.e. we are no longer able to resolve the images as distinct at a measurable presentation frame rate); images with indistinct or blurry edges, less so.  The exact details haven't exactly been hashed out yet, though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Marauder Moe on July 03, 2011, 12:51:27 AM
Dear Dr. S,

How come muscle aches don't come until a day or so after the strain/workout/whatever that causes them?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 03, 2011, 01:15:01 AM
Dear Dr. S,

How come muscle aches don't come until a day or so after the strain/workout/whatever that causes them?

Believe it or not, nobody knows why that happens.  There are a bunch of theories (lactic acid, free radicals, microtrauma, etc.), but nothing definitive.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on July 03, 2011, 11:21:22 PM
Dear Dr. Synth,

Are there any known mental or emotional disorders in which randomly-generated strong emotions can wake you in the middle of the night, or become produced in the presence of others more often than when by yourself? Random negative emotions that have zero to do with how you actually feel at any given time.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 03, 2011, 11:37:18 PM
I've had "episodes" like that dozens of times in my life now. I've just likened it to a panic/anxiety attack, or something similar.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on July 03, 2011, 11:43:44 PM
I've had "episodes" like that dozens of times in my life now. I've just likened it to a panic/anxiety attack, or something similar.

ugh... really? to a point where you don't have a moment of peace and can't think or concentrate on anything? it happens really, really often. by often meaning that there is never a time when it is not happening. but i don't feel that way inside apart from the chemical actuality of it happening.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 04, 2011, 12:00:32 AM
Let me try to describe it in more detail.

I wake up, glancing around the area, somewhat confused as to where I am. I recognize the place I'm at but I can't readily think of where it is.  Right off the bat I feel like something is wrong. It's an indescribable feeling. Just that nothing that is happening, nothing in existence is right, and that something bad is going to happen. I also feel sort of like the world, or objects are way, way to big, or small, or the wrong shape and size Or that I'm not the right size, in a world that great a deep and hollow and I'm lost... but at the same time claustrophobic, like something is bearing down on me. I feel like I'm sort of trapped inside of myself, yet looking at myself from far away, and an observer. All the while I usually am in a state of panic (well hid, if I'm around others.)

These episodes usually happen when I just wake up, but it's hard to say that's what I was doing before-hand, because when it happens I lose all perspective of what was going on before. Only what is going on right there in that state of mind exists to me. Almost like I have no memory.

I've talked to a lot of people about it, and I'm not the only person it happens to. They all have their own way of describig it, but it's always very similar to my own experiances. But I don't know if this is specifically what's going on for you.



Edit: I should add, that this feeling is sort of like some of the paranoia that can come with smoking marijuana.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 04, 2011, 12:10:11 AM
Dear Dr. Synth,

Are there any known mental or emotional disorders in which randomly-generated strong emotions can wake you in the middle of the night, or become produced in the presence of others more often than when by yourself? Random negative emotions that have zero to do with how you actually feel at any given time.

Primary intrinsic stuff would be:
Schizoaffective disorder
Bipolar disorder
Depression with psychotic features
Hypomania
(depending on details of the history)

Could also be:
Generalized anxiety disorder
Post-traumatic stress disorder
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
Rabies
(again, depending on details of the history)

Could also be delirium secondary to another medical condition (hyper/hyponatremia, meningitis,Wilson's disease).

Could also be acute drug intoxication, or the effects of drug withdrawal.

There are probably dozens of other things, most of which would be ruled out by a more detailed history and a quick physical exam.

Based on your posting history, bipolar disorder and hypomania would be at the top of my list, but that's not really the best way to go about it. I suppose it would really hinge on whether you'd ever had a legitimate manic episode or not.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 04, 2011, 12:14:26 AM
Let me try to describe it in more detail.

I wake up, glancing around the area, somewhat confused as to where I am. I recognize the place I'm at but I can't readily think of where it is.  Right off the bat I feel like something is wrong. It's an indescribable feeling. Just that nothing that is happening, nothing in existence is right, and that something bad is going to happen. I also feel sort of like the world, or objects are way, way to big, or small, or the wrong shape and size Or that I'm not the right size, in a world that great a deep and hollow and I'm lost... but at the same time claustrophobic, like something is bearing down on me. I feel like I'm sort of trapped inside of myself, yet looking at myself from far away, and an observer. All the while I usually am in a state of panic (well hid, if I'm around others.)

These episodes usually happen when I just wake up, but it's hard to say that's what I was doing before-hand, because when it happens I lose all perspective of what was going on before. Only what is going on right there in that state of mind exists to me. Almost like I have no memory.

I've talked to a lot of people about it, and I'm not the only person it happens to. They all have their own way of describig it, but it's always very similar to my own experiances. But I don't know if this is specifically what's going on for you.



Edit: I should add, that this feeling is sort of like some of the paranoia that can come with smoking marijuana.

I'd strongly suspect temporal lobe epilepsy with that kind of history. (Not every seizure is tonic-clonic.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on July 04, 2011, 12:22:56 AM
Let me try to describe it in more detail.

I wake up, glancing around the area, somewhat confused as to where I am. I recognize the place I'm at but I can't readily think of where it is.  Right off the bat I feel like something is wrong. It's an indescribable feeling. Just that nothing that is happening, nothing in existence is right, and that something bad is going to happen. I also feel sort of like the world, or objects are way, way to big, or small, or the wrong shape and size Or that I'm not the right size, in a world that great a deep and hollow and I'm lost... but at the same time claustrophobic, like something is bearing down on me. I feel like I'm sort of trapped inside of myself, yet looking at myself from far away, and an observer. All the while I usually am in a state of panic (well hid, if I'm around others.)

These episodes usually happen when I just wake up, but it's hard to say that's what I was doing before-hand, because when it happens I lose all perspective of what was going on before. Only what is going on right there in that state of mind exists to me. Almost like I have no memory.

I've talked to a lot of people about it, and I'm not the only person it happens to. They all have their own way of describig it, but it's always very similar to my own experiances. But I don't know if this is specifically what's going on for you.



Edit: I should add, that this feeling is sort of like some of the paranoia that can come with smoking marijuana.

RGS, if I understand you correctly, I've had those experiences my entire life.  I actually ...  enjoy them.  Uncommon, though, about once a month.

I also have very vivid nightmares that often involve my own gruesome death ...  again, I love them.  I can't describe it.  It's a rush.

Often, the above two are related.  It takes some time after awakening before I no longer feel disjointed from reality.

I also have the symptom of speaking, but not having a voice.  Instead, I desperately try to "find air" to speak, and nothing is exerted.

Maybe we can compare notes?

Apologies, Doc.

/derail
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 04, 2011, 12:48:24 AM
I've always enjoyed the experience as well. Heh. Well, maybe not the first couple.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Gunnerblaster on July 04, 2011, 12:58:28 AM
What's the pro's & con's of building a space shuttle on the planet and having one constructed in space (ie. at a space station in atmosphere, etc.)?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cindy42 on July 04, 2011, 01:03:05 AM
Good, I don't believe in demons anyway. My pastor is convinced that that stuff is related to evil spirits.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 04, 2011, 01:15:57 AM
It's pretty disheartening when a complex, deep feeling of ascendance and super awareness is describes as: You had a seizure, dude.

I transcended my own body, and all I got was this lousy fawlbakjw;aui73879efaaaaaeagfaffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Gunnerblaster on July 04, 2011, 01:16:55 AM
Lmfao.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: BleakOne on July 04, 2011, 05:55:23 AM
Good, I don't believe in demons anyway. My pastor is convinced that that stuff is related to evil spirits.

We talkin' evil bottle o' Jack or more of a Slimer thing?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 04, 2011, 07:46:53 AM
It's pretty disheartening when a complex, deep feeling of ascendance and super awareness is describes as: You had a seizure, dude.

I transcended my own body, and all I got was this lousy fawlbakjw;aui73879efaaaaaeagfaffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff



Yeah, I've seen a video of a kid who had sort of a prophet or god-like sensation when he had his seizures.  Felt like he suddenly understood the meaning and purpose behind the entire universe, or like everything made sense and he was at peace with it.  Pretty much any human sensation or emotional experience can be simulated by a seizure with the right focus.

I'd say "if it doesn't bother you, don't worry about it," but there's some evidence that with every seizure (if it's seizures) you're incurring excitotoxic damage to the neurons in the area, so over time you might start to lose functional areas of brain that would bother you...but once you've lost it, there's no way to get it back.  Of course, the medications to control it could be worse than the seizures, as well...but there are about a half-dozen different meds...so it's a bit of a guessing game + balancing act as far as treatment goes.

I'd try to get an appointment with an epileptologist (subspecialty in neurology) and see what the deal is.  EEG and MRI should be able to tell pretty quickly whether there's abnormal electrical activity going on, and whether there's an epileptogenic lesion in the first place. It could be something benign like hypnopompic hallucination, now that I think about it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on July 04, 2011, 10:56:07 AM
There are newer, better, less side-effect ridden meds for epilepsy now.

Though ... a lot of my patients go back to the tried and true stuff due to cost or otherwise. If you do get prescribed something like Vimpat, it's hella expensive, but I can find you a coupon.

I am the pharmaceutical coupon lady. :[
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on July 04, 2011, 11:56:06 AM
What's the minimum pressure in which a human can survive, given ample time and supplies?

Specifically, I mean the minimum the body can take, with an external air supply available and the possibility of treatment in a hypobaric chamber to adapt to low pressure.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jdr on July 05, 2011, 05:10:06 PM
Dr. Synthesis is really sounding like a Mad Doctor name the more we say it.

On topic of Mad Doctors: who would win in a fight: Dr Wiley or Dr Robotnik (Eggman)?

We're not talking a fistfight, we're talking a science showdown here.

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Sephiroto on July 05, 2011, 05:26:27 PM
Let me try to describe it in more detail.

I wake up, glancing around the area, somewhat confused as to where I am. I recognize the place I'm at but I can't readily think of where it is.  Right off the bat I feel like something is wrong. It's an indescribable feeling. Just that nothing that is happening, nothing in existence is right, and that something bad is going to happen. I also feel sort of like the world, or objects are way, way to big, or small, or the wrong shape and size Or that I'm not the right size, in a world that great a deep and hollow and I'm lost... but at the same time claustrophobic, like something is bearing down on me. I feel like I'm sort of trapped inside of myself, yet looking at myself from far away, and an observer. All the while I usually am in a state of panic (well hid, if I'm around others.)

These episodes usually happen when I just wake up, but it's hard to say that's what I was doing before-hand, because when it happens I lose all perspective of what was going on before. Only what is going on right there in that state of mind exists to me. Almost like I have no memory.

I've talked to a lot of people about it, and I'm not the only person it happens to. They all have their own way of describig it, but it's always very similar to my own experiances. But I don't know if this is specifically what's going on for you.



Edit: I should add, that this feeling is sort of like some of the paranoia that can come with smoking marijuana.

When I was in my teens I would occasionally feel strange while playing video games.  Suddenly things felt very far away or small or really big.  It was like I could reach out with my hand and wrap it around my entire television.  My controller felt small.  The TV looked small and so far away, yet I felt like I could reach it without getting up.  I never forgot where I was or how I got there.  No lapses in memory ever, but while I experienced it I felt like the whole world was different.  It was like my entier perspective was skewed or distorted, like a bulge in spacetime or something.  The big/small and close/far perceptions were very off.  Usually within a few minutes of me just sitting and experiencing whatever it was, it would go away.  I've only experienced this feeling once in my adult life, that I can recall.  Every time I ever recall feeling it I had been playing a video game or sitting in front of a television.  Usually the room was dark too.

Now, as an adult, I often experience very lucid or vivid dreams and on a regular basis.  The only thing is, I usually don't remember the dreams very long unless I make an effort to do it.  I also feel disconnected sometimes too.  No drugs were ever involved in any of these experiences.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 05, 2011, 05:55:11 PM
What's the minimum pressure in which a human can survive, given ample time and supplies?

Specifically, I mean the minimum the body can take, with an external air supply available and the possibility of treatment in a hypobaric chamber to adapt to low pressure.

I doubt anyone could answer that satisfactorily, since the only data we have is from experiments and accidents without the benefit of supplemental oxygen, with the exception (apparently) of some guy in a balloon who somehow decompressed only his hand. 

Assuming you've got an oxygen supply, I think the two major problems are heat dissipation and keeping water from grossly evaporating from your exposed mucous membranes.   You could probably solve the water problem without affecting pressure by sealing off the mucous membranes (goggles over the eyes, mouth covered and sealed by ventilator, plugs in nose/ears/urethra/vagina/rectum).  Your skin is pretty good at preventing water from escaping, otherwise.  I'd still be concerned about sweat glands, maybe...but my suspicion is that the rate of leakage there would be slow enough that you could compensate with intravenous fluid administration...but that's just sort of idle speculation, all around.

Heat dissipation is apparently still pretty slow, even in a vacuum.  Since we already have an IV line going, you could probably just make sure it was body temperature going in, and that would keep your temperature more or less constant.

But yeah, you'd definitely have to acclimate in order to slowly ease all the dissolved nitrogen and other inert gases out of your body.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on July 05, 2011, 07:09:57 PM
It generally costs me ~£10 or an hour wandering a certain field to experience things like the above posters have described.  Colour me jealous.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Symphony on July 05, 2011, 11:09:28 PM
How coem i always have the shits for an entiere morning after downing the tequilas?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 05, 2011, 11:57:43 PM
Jsut a morning? You lucky basterd.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 06, 2011, 01:16:59 PM
My thumb has felt sprained for the last month. It's in the second knuckle down, closer tot he palm. It's a 1 on the pain scale, and only when i push it certain ways(flexing backward against the natural bend of the knuckles). But I manage to catch it every so often just enough to let me know it's there. I've never had what felt like a sprain for this long. Why wont it go away, I don't seem to be injuring it any further and i hardly do anything to use it. It's annoying as fuck.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Gunnerblaster on July 07, 2011, 11:35:09 AM
Once, every several days or so, I wake up with lower back pain in the morning. It seems to primarily originate from just to the right side of my lower spine.

Whenever I push up on a stable surface, such as a table or sink counter - I feel a sort of 'stretching' pain in that area.

Any ideas how I can alleviate it? What might be the cause?

I've done hard lifting, in the past, and pull/strained muscles in my back. I was also in an accident about a year ago. I spend about 9 hours a day standing in roughly the same area. About 3-5 hours sitting and 5-8 hours laying down (sleep).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 07, 2011, 03:07:56 PM
Take 2 Motrin and walk it off.  :P If it doesn't resolve in 4 weeks and you have good insurance, someone might want to scan it...but I'm guessing you're in the military, so I'd be surprised if you got anything more than an X-ray and maybe a muscle relaxant, if the doc is feeling really generous.  The differential for lower back pain is pretty large, yet supposedly 90% of cases resolve without complications.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Sokotra on July 07, 2011, 03:18:45 PM
Once, every several days or so, I wake up with lower back pain in the morning. It seems to primarily originate from just to the right side of my lower spine.

Whenever I push up on a stable surface, such as a table or sink counter - I feel a sort of 'stretching' pain in that area.

Any ideas how I can alleviate it? What might be the cause?

I've done hard lifting, in the past, and pull/strained muscles in my back. I was also in an accident about a year ago. I spend about 9 hours a day standing in roughly the same area. About 3-5 hours sitting and 5-8 hours laying down (sleep).

There's certain stretches and exercises that help, as silly as some of them may seem.  There's some I do that seem to help keep my back "in place" because at time it feels like it gets pulled out of position or jammed up and gets worse and worse.  Being careful how you lift is pretty obvious, that is what usually gets my back hurting again if I lift stuff wrong.  That and sitting with poor posture for too long.  Sometimes laying flat on my back for a while on a somewhat hard surface will help get it back in place. 

I would say to try to stop sitting or standing the wrong way or for too long without stretching and doing whatever little back exercise that helps.  I usually do this one where you kinda put your hands on your hips and push your lower back forward while trying to keep the rest of your body from moving.  It only takes a minute and seems to help.  You should be able to look it up on the internet pretty easy.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on July 07, 2011, 03:19:09 PM
Only 2 Motrin? Jesus, Synth!

You can take up to 4, which is 800 mg, 3 times a day. :P If it's worthy of that much ibuprofen.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on July 07, 2011, 05:44:02 PM
My thumb has felt sprained for the last month. It's in the second knuckle down, closer tot he palm. It's a 1 on the pain scale, and only when i push it certain ways(flexing backward against the natural bend of the knuckles). But I manage to catch it every so often just enough to let me know it's there. I've never had what felt like a sprain for this long. Why wont it go away, I don't seem to be injuring it any further and i hardly do anything to use it. It's annoying as fuck.

My thumb has felt sprained for the last month too. Same knuckle. It's really, really annoying. I've had them before though and though they last a long time, they go away.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 07, 2011, 06:18:59 PM
 I suppose the repetitive stress it receives from daily random use is enough to keep it sore. It really is a bitch though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on July 07, 2011, 07:54:48 PM
How coem i always have the shits for an entiere morning after downing the tequilas?

Does any other alcohol give you stomach problems?  I might suggest you investigate whether allergies are a cause.  The same thing happens to me whenever I drink anything that isn't from a $20+ bottle.  Most anything under that has a little grain alcohol in it, and I'm allergic to wheat.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Sephiroto on July 07, 2011, 08:00:47 PM
Once, every several days or so, I wake up with lower back pain in the morning. It seems to primarily originate from just to the right side of my lower spine.

Whenever I push up on a stable surface, such as a table or sink counter - I feel a sort of 'stretching' pain in that area.

Any ideas how I can alleviate it? What might be the cause?

I've done hard lifting, in the past, and pull/strained muscles in my back. I was also in an accident about a year ago. I spend about 9 hours a day standing in roughly the same area. About 3-5 hours sitting and 5-8 hours laying down (sleep).

I've been having issues with that recently too.  It started with me because I injured my back and then, from then on, favored one side of my body.  The muscles on the other side were less developed and were more prone to injury, so I started having sciatic nerve issues.  As suggested above, routinely doing stretches can help a lot, especially if there is a muscular imbalance.  If you have good healthcare, I also suggest you have a lower back x-ray and scoliosis survey done.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Gunnerblaster on July 07, 2011, 11:00:57 PM
Take 2 Motrin and walk it off.  :P If it doesn't resolve in 4 weeks and you have good insurance, someone might want to scan it...but I'm guessing you're in the military, so I'd be surprised if you got anything more than an X-ray and maybe a muscle relaxant, if the doc is feeling really generous.  The differential for lower back pain is pretty large, yet supposedly 90% of cases resolve without complications.
Sadly, I'm not in the military.

Fortunately, I realized what it was. It's just been such a long time since I've done it that I didn't instantly recognize it for what it was. When I crack my back, I twist my spine from left to right. After the accident, I stopped doing it because 1.) I once accidentally twisted my spine too badly and it became mis-jointed because the spinal plates locked incorrectly when returning to their 'original' posture. I did it last night, right as I was laying down to go to sleep, so I didn't realize I had did it until I woke up this morning.

I tried self-chiropractic on myself (or what I know how to do safely) but it wasn't enough to entirely re-posture my spine, just ease some of the pain. I'm just going to have to swing by a chiropractor and pay out of pocket to have them do a readjustment session on my spine.

There's certain stretches and exercises that help, as silly as some of them may seem. 

I usually do this one where you kinda put your hands on your hips and push your lower back forward while trying to keep the rest of your body from moving.  It only takes a minute and seems to help.

Tried this out for myself and it hurt like a bitch while doing it but it felt a little better. Any other little stretches I can try?

I've been having issues with that recently too.  It started with me because I injured my back and then, from then on, favored one side of my body.  The muscles on the other side were less developed and were more prone to injury, so I started having sciatic nerve issues.  As suggested above, routinely doing stretches can help a lot, especially if there is a muscular imbalance.  If you have good healthcare, I also suggest you have a lower back x-ray and scoliosis survey done.
I am, currently, uninsured so I'm kind've sol as far as healthcare goes - At least for the next few months, until I can register for it with my job.

I know, for a fact, because doctors have already done a few x-rays on me in the past, that I have a minor degree of scoliosis but it's about midway up my spine. The spine protrudes a little ways.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Sokotra on July 07, 2011, 11:26:52 PM
There's certain stretches and exercises that help, as silly as some of them may seem. 

I usually do this one where you kinda put your hands on your hips and push your lower back forward while trying to keep the rest of your body from moving.  It only takes a minute and seems to help.

Tried this out for myself and it hurt like a bitch while doing it but it felt a little better. Any other little stretches I can try?

Careful, don't make it worse.  Heh.  I do that one several times in a row whenever I get a chance to stop and stretch or whatever... putting just enough pressure on my back to give it a stretch.  Making the repeated motion of slowly thrusting your hips forward is kinda goofy, but if it helps my back from locking up I really don't care.  There's a bunch of "treat your own back" type of exercises you can probably look up... I guess you'd just have to try them or figure out which ones seem to help.  Find a good website on the subject that can explain them better than I can.  ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on July 08, 2011, 03:37:00 AM
What does Synth have to say about building up muscle around your back/stomack/sides for support?

I remember getting physical therapy as a child for scoliosis, and they basically made me do the same exercises that coaches got me to do for the next ten years after that. I never had any back pain when I was still working out. That was explained as any torso muscles supporting your spine and keeping things where they should be instead of letting one muscle group do all the work. When you get that cramped, you'll change that posture to avoid the pain, which makes the muscle problems worse etc.

Could be complete bullshit, though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 08, 2011, 06:51:15 AM
I'm pretty sure good physical fitness has never led to back broblems, aside from obvious strain injuries. And I'm willing to bet that the more fit you are the less likely to have back issues you are.

All assumptions though.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on July 08, 2011, 07:12:39 AM
When I had excellent core strength, my back problems disappeared.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on July 08, 2011, 07:14:43 AM
I'd buy that. I also think the inverse is true. When I was obese I had chronic back pain. Now, I don't.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 08, 2011, 07:16:59 AM
I've never had back pain. Always been fit. Practically 3/4 people I've met has had some sort of back trouble. Some of them were in really good shape though so meh.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on July 08, 2011, 07:20:54 AM
Gymnastics tend to fuck up your back if you're not careful (I wasn't).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 08, 2011, 12:53:18 PM
(http://i.acdn.us/image/A9314/931409/300_931409.jpg)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on July 08, 2011, 01:37:09 PM
(http://i55.tinypic.com/whnq60.gif)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Sokotra on July 08, 2011, 03:21:19 PM
(http://listsoplenty.com/pix/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/Funny_Pictures_Animated_Star_Trek_Cast_Night_Out.gif)

Next day...

"Ow, my neck and upper back are killing me for some weird reason."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on July 11, 2011, 02:42:47 AM
Guys don't break this thread and scare Synth away. We need him.

Mister Synthesis, is this for real or utter bullshit. http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/dangers-of-soy.html (http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/dangers-of-soy.html)

I ask because I can't seem to find these warnings anywhere but questionable health-food websites.

And I fucking love soy milk because I'm lactose intolerant.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on July 11, 2011, 07:28:08 AM
lol, you can reintroduce yourself to milk slowly, and build up tolerance to milk. I didn't read the link, but soy also has properties that inhibit your thyroid in it, and that's why I don't personally partake in anything, if I can help it, that has soy in it.

Oh. Just read the first little bit. Yeah. I mean, that's why they stick soy into everything cheap that you can get. Burgers, etc. Cheap and bad for you. I don't know about the milk per se, but I know that I stay away from soy purely because I like my thyroid to be uninhibited.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on July 11, 2011, 07:49:01 AM
Also, it tastes like ass.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jingo on July 11, 2011, 09:47:02 AM
lol, you can reintroduce yourself to milk slowly, and build up tolerance to milk. I didn't read the link, but soy also has properties that inhibit your thyroid in it, and that's why I don't personally partake in anything, if I can help it, that has soy in it.

I'm pretty tolerant to begin with actually. I have yogurt and icecream all the time. But a bowl of cereal and then more in my coffee? That will give me some ugly digestive problems for the rest of the day.

Also, it tastes like ass.

/disagree
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on July 11, 2011, 11:26:04 AM
Kefir.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 11, 2011, 08:32:30 PM
Guys don't break this thread and scare Synth away. We need him.

Mister Synthesis, is this for real or utter bullshit. http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/dangers-of-soy.html (http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/dangers-of-soy.html)

I ask because I can't seem to find these warnings anywhere but questionable health-food websites.

And I fucking love soy milk because I'm lactose intolerant.

That's basically a "dangers of dihydrogen monoxide" page.  I'd be willing to bet that eating food you dropped on the floor is statistically much more dangerous than any of the crap they list.  I suppose you could probably find certain folks with JUST the right set of predisposing factors or folks consuming MASSIVE quantities of soy that would start to suffer ill effects, but assuming you're not being a complete moron about your soybean consumption, it doesn't matter.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 11, 2011, 08:55:14 PM
With respect to the lactose intolerance thing, if you're genetically deficient in lactase, either congenitally or developmentally, you can't get suddenly get tolerant.  The enzyme either isn't in your genome, or the gene isn't being expressed anymore, and there's nothing you can do about it but supplement exogenous lactase.  As far as I know, there isn't any feedback system that would cause the gene to be up-regulated by lactose in the diet.

There are, however, varying degrees of lactose intolerance, which would probably contribute to the perception that reintroducing small quantities suddenly made you tolerant, when in fact you merely reduced your intake below the saturation point of your particular level of enzyme expression.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Drayab on July 12, 2011, 12:43:26 PM
Dr. Synth,

I was not lactose intolerant as a kid, but around the time I turned twenty I noticed milk was beginning to give me problems. When it got bad enough, I swore off dairy for a while, which was sad because I love it. However, a year or so ago, I discovered lactose free milk, which from reading the label means that they have added lactase enzyme to it.

Here is my question: I think I have noticed that regularly drinking the lactose free milk (liberally added to my morning coffee) also lets me enjoy other dairy products without any problems, so I have speculated that there must be some extra enzyme from the milk that persists in my digestive system. Do you think that's a reasonable guess? Or do you think something else might be going on?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: wizturbo on July 12, 2011, 03:06:27 PM
How much power/cost savings is there in setting your computer to sleep for 8 hours, instead of letting it idle normally?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 12, 2011, 06:34:19 PM
Dr. Synth,

I was not lactose intolerant as a kid, but around the time I turned twenty I noticed milk was beginning to give me problems. When it got bad enough, I swore off dairy for a while, which was sad because I love it. However, a year or so ago, I discovered lactose free milk, which from reading the label means that they have added lactase enzyme to it.

Here is my question: I think I have noticed that regularly drinking the lactose free milk (liberally added to my morning coffee) also lets me enjoy other dairy products without any problems, so I have speculated that there must be some extra enzyme from the milk that persists in my digestive system. Do you think that's a reasonable guess? Or do you think something else might be going on?

I suppose it's possible, but it would only be effective if you drank the lactase-containing milk along with whatever other dairy product you were consuming.  The enzyme isn't going to hang around and wait in your gut or anything.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on July 12, 2011, 08:18:02 PM
I used to be able to eat eggs but within the last few years they give me problems.  If I eat something with egg in it, within half an hour I feel nauseous, bloated and crampy.  I sometimes feel a real lack of energy after having something with eggs but I don't know if that's related.  It usually lasts 3 or 4 hours and then just sort of goes away.  It doesn't seem to be an issue with store bought things but anything that is homemade is problematic.
Is this an allergy or an intolerance or what?  I thought that it was rather rare for an egg allergy/intolerance to develop in an adult, particularly an adult with no history of food allergies or sensitivities....
And why would the egg that is in store bought things not be a problem while homemade stuff is?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on July 12, 2011, 08:29:22 PM
Erm. Are the home cooked things cooked enough?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 12, 2011, 08:42:11 PM
I used to be able to eat eggs but within the last few years they give me problems.  If I eat something with egg in it, within half an hour I feel nauseous, bloated and crampy.  I sometimes feel a real lack of energy after having something with eggs but I don't know if that's related.  It usually lasts 3 or 4 hours and then just sort of goes away.  It doesn't seem to be an issue with store bought things but anything that is homemade is problematic.
Is this an allergy or an intolerance or what?  I thought that it was rather rare for an egg allergy/intolerance to develop in an adult, particularly an adult with no history of food allergies or sensitivities....
And why would the egg that is in store bought things not be a problem while homemade stuff is?

Sounds pretty classic for food allergy (allergic gastroenteropathy-type), yeah.  There are a few tests an allergy specialist can do/order to confirm or rule out eggs as the culprit.  I'm not sure why store-bought vs. homemade would make a difference, unless there's some sort of difference in which part of the egg they're using in the processed stuff.  Less yolk, maybe?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on July 16, 2011, 01:34:03 AM
Thanks doc.

@boog: No chance it's from things being undercooked  ;) That's what I first thought when it started becoming a problem but I'm sure that's not the case.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on July 16, 2011, 10:03:51 AM
When you say store bought do you mean mass produced? I have a suspicion that mass produced products may be made with powdered eggs. That might account for it. (That answer is only intuitive and not scientific.)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cind on July 18, 2011, 08:44:13 PM
Dear Dr. Synth,

Would applying urine to one's shampoo have harmful effects on one's hair?

Yours truly,

Cindy

EDIT: sorry about that. when i'm tired i'm more open about myself and dumber and i secretly have an ego the size of jupiter.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 18, 2011, 09:30:08 PM
Dear Dr. Synth,

Would applying urine to one's shampoo have harmful effects on one's hair?

Yours truly,

Cindy

Yes, if you consider "reeking of urine" to be a harmful effect.  Just don't overdo it (http://www.youtube.com/user/ashrafkaddu).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Seeker on July 18, 2011, 09:41:06 PM
We should have seen this coming.  Giving you your own thread was guaranteed to have consequences.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cind on July 19, 2011, 02:24:38 PM
We should have seen this coming.  Giving you your own thread was guaranteed to have consequences.

no, i've been an awesomegoose since i was ten.

Reaction to Synth's link: Jesus
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on July 25, 2011, 07:25:24 PM
Sometimes my eyes are so sensitive to light it makes it impossible to go out without sunglasses. Why? Too much computer games?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on July 26, 2011, 07:41:16 PM
Sometimes my eyes are so sensitive to light it makes it impossible to go out without sunglasses. Why? Too much computer games?

I get the same thing if I spend a whole night in front of a PC and try to go outside without sleeping.

Cindy:  Why do you want to piss on your own hair?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on July 28, 2011, 02:06:48 AM
I get the same thing if I spend a whole night in front of a PC and try to go outside without sleeping.

Problem solved.

As for Rogue's problems, I've had them for most of my life.  To the point where I find LED lights on appliances in my bedroom painfully bright as I go to sleep. I find taking a lot of caffeine can ward it off, but some extra sleep might help.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Cind on July 28, 2011, 01:46:30 PM
Sometimes my eyes are so sensitive to light it makes it impossible to go out without sunglasses. Why? Too much computer games?

I get the same thing if I spend a whole night in front of a PC and try to go outside without sleeping.

Cindy:  Why do you want to piss on your own hair?

naw. i was reading the one thread where someone suggested pissing in someone's shampoo. you then replied, do not fuck with the hair.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 30, 2011, 12:13:55 PM
Sometimes my eyes are so sensitive to light it makes it impossible to go out without sunglasses. Why? Too much computer games?

Photophobia by itself?  My guess would be eye strain or dry eyes.

Try some eye drops, and if that doesn't work, get a bigger monitor or corrective lenses.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jengal on July 30, 2011, 02:29:59 PM
Is bond-breaking exothermic or endothermic?

If exothermic, wat about electrolysis?

If endothermic, wat about ATP?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on July 30, 2011, 03:10:03 PM
Is bond-breaking exothermic or endothermic?

If exothermic, wat about electrolysis?

If endothermic, wat about ATP?

I don't think endothermic or exothermic is something that's 100% congruent with bond breaking or forming.  It all depends on the thermodynamics of the particular reaction, and that's something that's largely going to be unique to the reactants involved.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Zoan on July 31, 2011, 12:00:29 AM
Synth reminds me of Walter White on Breaking Bad, when he starts getting all Super Chemist at people.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on August 05, 2011, 10:24:45 AM
Herr Doktor, is there any reason for males between the ages of 18 and 50 to go to the doctor, absent something being Clearly Wrong?

A few years ago a physician told me to come back at age 30 for a baseline EKG or something.  I think he actually means to fit me with a dull black gem.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 05, 2011, 08:51:06 PM
Herr Doktor, is there any reason for males between the ages of 18 and 50 to go to the doctor, absent something being Clearly Wrong?

A few years ago a physician told me to come back at age 30 for a baseline EKG or something.  I think he actually means to fit me with a dull black gem.

It would probably be helpful from the perspective of "keeping shit from going wrong," but not from the American way of doing things (i.e. "fixing shit that's done gone wrong").

Even for screening, it probably wouldn't be cost-effective from a public health perspective, so those sorts of things aren't covered by state plans or most private health insurance (outside of immunizations and STD tests, I guess).  Of course, if you want to pay for lab tests and stuff out of pocket, I'm sure no doctor is going to turn you down.

Then again, if you know exactly what you want tested, I think there are some labs around now that will do the tests without a doctor's order, if you pay out of pocket.  It's pretty simple stuff to keep track of, really...if you keep your BMI, blood pressure, cholesterol, and blood sugar within normal ranges, and don't smoke, drink excessively, engage in dangerous work or hobbies, or have unprotected sex, you've just eliminated basically every modifiable risk factor for dying early.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on August 07, 2011, 05:20:17 AM
Why do I feel the strong impulse to cough whenever I clean my ears?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 07, 2011, 03:14:39 PM
Why do I feel the strong impulse to cough whenever I clean my ears?

The posterior part of the external auditory meatus (your earhole) is innervated by a branch of the vagus nerve (posterior auricular nerve), and the afferent (incoming/sensory) pathway of the cough reflex is also mediated by a branch of the vagus nerve (internal laryngeal nerve).  Probably some sort of cross-irritation thing going on, but it's anyone's guess as to where exactly in the pathway it's happening.

Some other interesting related things:  the Marcus Gunn phenomenon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcus_Gunn_phenomenon) and crocodile tears syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears#Diseases_and_disorders).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on August 07, 2011, 04:07:36 PM
Years ago, before surgery a doctor questioned my allergy to codeine, which turns out is actually a "sensitivity." Then he said, "You probably don't drink either." Which is true. What was he talking about?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 07, 2011, 04:57:31 PM
Years ago, before surgery a doctor questioned my allergy to codeine, which turns out is actually a "sensitivity." Then he said, "You probably don't drink either." Which is true. What was he talking about?

Not sure, really.  They operate on two completely different systems, and they're ordinarily metabolized by two completely different mechanisms.

The only thing I can think of is that, in long-term drinkers, a P450 enzyme starts picking up some of the slack off of alcohol dehydrogenase.  If it's the same enzyme that metabolizes codeine, then -not- being a heavy drinker would mean you'd tend to have lower levels of that particular enzyme expressed, leading to a slower metabolism of codeine, and more side effects.

Anyway, just looked it up and the microsomal ethanol oxidizing system is mostly CYP2E1, while codeine is CYP2D6, so it wouldn't be a direct effect.  The problem is that a lot of these things are a bit "loosey-goosey" in terms of regulatory mechanisms, because they share common signaling molecules/transcription factors/etc., and these CYP450's aren't terribly specific for particular substrates in the first place...so something that up-regulates CYP2E1 might up-regulate CYP2D6 also...but then again, it's just as possible that it could down-regulate CYP2D6, having completely the opposite effect, or CYP2E1 might chew up a little codeine on the side as a hobby or something.

Unless he did undergraduate/post-graduate research in the molecular biology of cytochrome P450's, with a specific emphasis on effects of ethanol, my guess is that he just remembered that you aren't a drinker from looking over your medical record, and then applied that bit of information where it may or may not be relevant, but you know...it sounds plausible, or maybe he was just mis-remembering something.  He could have been mistakenly associating drinking and tolerance to benzodiazepines, which is a pretty well-known phenomenon.  Or, if he was older, he might've been remembering older information that just generally clumped all the P450's together, before scientists really started teasing out the difference between all the sub-families.  I can't find any studies linking chronic ethanol use with codeine tolerance or sensitivity, so....  Actually, I just found one that didn't find any association between ethanol and oxycodone, so there you go (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov./pubmed/19948383), that's pretty close, since the difference between codeine (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Codein_-_Codeine.svg/298px-Codein_-_Codeine.svg.png) and oxycodone (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/Oxycodone.svg/460px-Oxycodone.svg.png) is pretty minor...although I suppose it could have functional significance, given that the difference is between an alcohol and a ketone group, and we're talking about cross-reactivity with an alcohol.  But I suppose the take-away point is that it isn't a sure thing, and there's only a slim bit of reasoning to support the guesswork, there.

I'm pretty sure the fact that you're female (right?) is a greater independent predictor of both alcohol and codeine sensitivity than drinking status would be as a predictor of codeine sensitivity.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: NOFUN on August 07, 2011, 06:13:44 PM
Hi, what causes a fetish?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: spicemustflow on August 14, 2011, 06:28:31 PM
Synthesis, have you heard about Draco and its potential to cure almost any viral infections, from herpes to HIV and in between? What do you think, is it bull? Should we get excited?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Jdr on August 14, 2011, 06:43:33 PM
It smells like I Am Legend to me.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: spicemustflow on August 14, 2011, 06:46:30 PM
It smells like I Am Legend to me.

Still worthy being excited about.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on August 14, 2011, 06:53:46 PM
Isn't intentionally causing cell death en masse a little risky though?  Especially if the patient has an immune system weakened by HIV?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on August 14, 2011, 09:55:37 PM
Isn't intentionally causing cell death en masse a little risky though?  Especially if the patient has an immune system weakened by HIV?

"There are some challenges, such as DRACO being too large a protein to enter cells with ease. Also, the  way the drug functions would make it effective only in very early stages of infection.

In advanced viral infections, destroying all infected cells could lead to organ failure, as may happen if the infected cells are the hepatocyte cells in the liver. In children, people over 65 years and those with compromised immunities — such as people with HIV or liver disease -- the generalised weakness induced by mass cell death could heighten sickness and cause death. The drug would also not work against viruses have evolved ways to conceal their double-stranded RNA."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 16, 2011, 09:30:47 PM
There are probably some good reasons that this was published in PLoS One, instead of Nature or Science.

Some methodological issues:

1. All the cell-culture studies that involved anti-virus effects were done in such a way that the DRACO was delivered by a FuGene6 medium, which is basically a sort of soap bubble-ish type of polymer that can fuse with cell membranes, delivering the stuff inside to the cell.  This isn't the kind of thing you would be injecting into someone who is alive, because it's completely non-selective...it would just fuse with whatever cells it first encountered, which means the vast majority of your stuff would be delivered to the vascular endothelium, not the organ being affected.  (You also see this problem skipped around later, when they administer the stuff to mice intranasally...against a virus that is also administered intranasally...mighty convenient work, there.)

2. The only cell-penetration study without a nasty delivery medium is basically a joke.  They incubated the cells with the DRACOs, then "thoroughly washed" them, then lysed all the cells, then measured the DRACOs.  We're supposed to take their word that the washing was "thorough?" That entire experiment is just...weaksauce.  I'm pretty sure reviewers for a bigger journal would've told them to take that one back to the bench.  I mean, lysing the cells is the scientific equivalent of shredding documents before the IRS shows up--after the cells are lysed, you don't know what was inside and what was outside.

3. In the in vivo mouse studies, the mice received the DRACOs before the virus...so the results technically don't support it as a cure so much as a preventive measure.  Now, this raises the interesting question of why they chose to publish only this particular method, when, clearly, administering the virus first would be the obvious thing to do.  My suspicion is that indeed, they did run a virus-first-method experiment that produced mediocre results, so they trashed it.

4. All those problems notwithstanding, it still wouldn't be a cure for viruses that lie dormant (most of the members of the Herpesviridae family, for example).  (Also, inducing apoptosis in your sensory ganglion cells would be a Very Bad Idea, because you know...those things don't exactly grow back.)

5. Again, all other problems notwithstanding, this isn't the sort of thing you could use repeatedly to cure common viral infections, because it's an exogenous protein.  Your immune system might let it slip by once or twice, but eventually it's going to start freaking out and trying to kill it after repeated injections.  It's also going to be extremely expensive, like pretty much every other protein-based sort of therapy. (E.g. Enbrel is about $2000 for 50mg.  Humira is about $2,000 for 40mg. Krystexxa is about $2,300 for 8mg.)

6. On the same note...to get the DRACOs into cells without the nasty delivery medium, they're tagging them with the HIV TAT-PT domain.  Amusingly, this is one of the target proteins for anti-HIV vaccines, so development of such a vaccine would render this particular delivery mechanism functionally obsolete, because everyone would be walking around already jacked up with anti-TAT antibodies.  It also makes it a questionable therapy for people who have HIV, because the likelihood of them having an anaphylactic reaction to the TAT domain is theoretically fairly high.

Now that I think about it, it might be a good treatment as a topical agent for warts and molluscum contagiosum, though.  Of course, the price would have to be pretty low for it to be used in that regard, for anything but spectacularly disfiguring cases of warts.  It might get some play as an agent against really, really deadly viruses...but sadly, those sorts of things tend to live where brown people live, and you know how that goes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on August 17, 2011, 05:07:51 PM
I'm still curious about the whole "What causes fetishes" thing. Isn't it brought on by some psychological trauma in that area during life that has an effect on your sexual arousal pattern or something?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jstorrie on August 17, 2011, 05:13:46 PM
The human mind is a complicated mechanism. I wouldn't expect that trauma is necessary for it to develop in unusual ways. Some people just have some kinks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on August 17, 2011, 05:31:52 PM
Synth, how do you feel about perineal massage? I've read a lot of conflicting stuff.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Desertman on August 17, 2011, 05:52:02 PM
I'm still curious about the whole "What causes fetishes" thing. Isn't it brought on by some psychological trauma in that area during life that has an effect on your sexual arousal pattern or something?

I'm actually curious about this too.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on August 17, 2011, 05:58:25 PM
oh my god you all are crazy
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on August 17, 2011, 06:01:28 PM
Synth, how do you feel about perineal massage? I've read a lot of conflicting stuff.

oh my god you all are crazy

boog, that's hilarious  :)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on August 17, 2011, 06:06:07 PM
Synth, how do you feel about perineal massage? I've read a lot of conflicting stuff.

oh my god you all are crazy

boog, that's hilarious  :)

Hey. I'm asking so I don't -tear-. Not because I have a taint fetish, my brotha. ;)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on August 17, 2011, 06:09:27 PM
I'm still curious about the whole "What causes fetishes" thing. Isn't it brought on by some psychological trauma in that area during life that has an effect on your sexual arousal pattern or something?
There's a bunch of conflicting theories about this. None of them sounded all that convincing to me.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on August 18, 2011, 05:53:34 PM
Doctor Synthesis, why have I suddenly started getting headaches on a daily basis at around the same time every day for the past two weeks? I've noticed a slight change in my diet, I suppose. I haven't really had the urge to eat, really. It's kind of a forced routine when I know I'm hungry.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 19, 2011, 06:20:28 AM
Doctor Synthesis, why have I suddenly started getting headaches on a daily basis at around the same time every day for the past two weeks? I've noticed a slight change in my diet, I suppose. I haven't really had the urge to eat, really. It's kind of a forced routine when I know I'm hungry.

You're going to have to describe the headache a little better than that.  Here's a little pearl for all of you that will make your doctor happy next time you show up for pain or whatnot:

L - Location - Where does it hurt, and does it radiate anywhere?
O - Other symptoms - Is anything else going on when you feel the pain?
C - Character - What kind of pain is it? (Sharp, dull, aching, stabbing, throbbing, etc.)
A - Alleviating and Aggravating factors - What makes it better? What makes it worse?
T - Timing - How long has it been going on? Does it occur at a particular time of day? Has it happened before? How long does it last?
E - Environmental triggers - Do you notice anything that sets it off? (E.g. going outside, pollen season, movement)
S - Severity - On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is minimal and 10 is so bad you're completely incapacitated, how bad does it hurt?

If you can organize your complaint thusly, and think about it in those terms prior to your arrival at the clinic/hospital, it will save quite a bit of time.  Don't get carried away with the O, though.

And no, if you are sitting upright and talking, the pain is not a 10.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on August 19, 2011, 06:50:56 AM
How do they feed someone through a mediport?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 19, 2011, 10:49:52 AM
How do they feed someone through a mediport?

The port is just a sort of permanent/semi-permanent catheter, so they use the same stuff they'd use for regular parenteral nutrition.  It's basically a liquid mixture of amino acids, sugar, salts, lipids, and vitamins.  Probably a little different than the stuff that they'd be putting through an NG tube, because it bypasses the GI tract (and the liver) and goes right into the circulation, since the end of the port usually sits in the superior vena cava.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on August 19, 2011, 03:10:05 PM
The scuba-diving in whale arteries remark got me to thinking...

Would whale blood keep me afloat?

Human blood?

If I got you the stuff could you cook me crystal meth?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on August 22, 2011, 07:40:30 AM
My grandpa told me that the shells in popcorn help to clean out your intestines.

Old wives tale?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 22, 2011, 04:51:49 PM
My grandpa told me that the shells in popcorn help to clean out your intestines.

Old wives tale?

(http://www.fao.org/docrep/W8079E/w8079e03.gif)

Where "acceleration of transit time" is a poophemism for "it makes you crap faster."  Sufficient intake also decreases your risk of developing diabetes, heart disease, diverticulosis, and hemorrhoids.  (This is with respect to all sources of dietary fiber, not just popcorn husks.)

I was just thinking about this the other day, actually....There was some OH MY GOD DID YOU KNOW??? article in the news about how manufacturers of shredded cheese were adding cellulose to the cheese to keep it from clumping together, and a bunch of folks were like "OMG I'm shredding my own cheese with a grater from now on," and I'm like, "...the cellulose is harmless at worst, and there's a very high likelihood (approaching certainty, really) that it's actually good for you."  But, you know...you say "eat more fiber" and people are like "yeah, fiber is all natural!," but if you say "cellulose," it's "SCARY CHEMICAL ALERT!"
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on August 22, 2011, 04:55:19 PM
cell u lose

u lose cells WHAT ELSE IS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPING FROM US?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 22, 2011, 05:11:38 PM
cell u lose

u lose cells WHAT ELSE IS THE GOVERNMENT KEEPING FROM US?

Did you know you're inhaling dangerous dihydrogen monoxide RIGHT NOW???

www.dhmo.org <<<LEARN THE TRUTH!!!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on August 22, 2011, 08:43:08 PM
Is soaking my sprained thumb in epsom salts going to do anything.

Is so should I use hot or cold water?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on August 22, 2011, 09:19:35 PM
i guess he has no opinion boo hoo :(
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 24, 2011, 06:42:29 PM
Is soaking my sprained thumb in epsom salts going to do anything.

Is so should I use hot or cold water?

Epsom salts won't do anything.  Use RICE (rest, ice, compression, elevation) and an NSAID.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jriley on August 24, 2011, 07:38:26 PM
Epsom salts won't do anything.  Use RICE (rest, ice, compression, elevation) and an NSAID.

Synthesis -- reading your many posts I am astounded at your medical and scientific knowledge. I always knew that you were bright, but this is really something.  I am glad to play in the same role-playing game as you.

-Joe

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on August 24, 2011, 10:56:30 PM
Is soaking my sprained thumb in epsom salts going to do anything.

Is so should I use hot or cold water?

Epsom salts won't do anything.  Use RICE (rest, ice, compression, elevation) and an NSAID.

Lets say this sprain is actually a fracture. Same thing? No compression though? I was keeping it immobilized with a figure-8 ace bandage wrap, but it kept feeling uncomfortable with low pain levels, so I stopped.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 25, 2011, 06:56:57 PM
Is soaking my sprained thumb in epsom salts going to do anything.

Is so should I use hot or cold water?

Epsom salts won't do anything.  Use RICE (rest, ice, compression, elevation) and an NSAID.

Lets say this sprain is actually a fracture. Same thing? No compression though? I was keeping it immobilized with a figure-8 ace bandage wrap, but it kept feeling uncomfortable with low pain levels, so I stopped.

It depends on what kind of fracture it is.  If it's just a hairline fracture that hasn't messed with the general alignment of the bone, immobilization is fine (but you'll probably want to get a real splint for it).  However, sometimes seemingly simple fractures can do weird things and you can end up with significant deformities in the bone.  On the other hand, if it doesn't involve a joint, such an outcome would probably be mostly cosmetic.

I'd still get it x-rayed though, at least, just to be on the safe side.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on August 25, 2011, 08:00:28 PM
You, my friend, are a most valuable resource. I'll rue the day I don't have you around to answer my questions.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Hot_Dancer on August 27, 2011, 11:11:58 PM
Doctor Synthesis, I work in a shop that maintains roughly 105-110 degrees since the DFW heatwave began.
I am relatively dry at work unless I get stuck in direct sunlight too long.

After work, in a 78ish degree gym during exercises that do not exactly ramp up the heartrate (weight-lifting),
I sweat like a pig.

At the house. My roommate will set the temperature to 78ish. She'll be in shorts and a T and freezing/wants a blanket.
I'll be in shorts and T and lightly sweating.

This is not an issue during seasons with a more mild climate. It's normal for me to barely sweat at all during weight lifting.

Why?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 28, 2011, 12:46:54 AM
Doctor Synthesis, I work in a shop that maintains roughly 105-110 degrees since the DFW heatwave began.
I am relatively dry at work unless I get stuck in direct sunlight too long.

After work, in a 78ish degree gym during exercises that do not exactly ramp up the heartrate (weight-lifting),
I sweat like a pig.

At the house. My roommate will set the temperature to 78ish. She'll be in shorts and a T and freezing/wants a blanket.
I'll be in shorts and T and lightly sweating.

This is not an issue during seasons with a more mild climate. It's normal for me to barely sweat at all during weight lifting.

Why?

Meh, you'd have to collect some more rigorous data to support those observations before I'd try to answer that.

If you really want an answer, get yourself a rectal thermometer and record your body's core temperatures under your various conditions, there.  Otherwise, the best you're going to get is some vague generalities about basal metabolic rate and thermoregulation.

Although, really, your heart rate doesn't strictly matter very much when it comes to thermoregulation, since it's not a very large muscle, comparatively.  The heat being generated by skeletal muscle during exercise is what's getting your core temperature up, resulting in sweating.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kol on August 28, 2011, 11:42:17 AM
Why do people stutter?


Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 28, 2011, 05:45:56 PM
Why do people stutter?

Quote from: Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology, 9th ed.
Theories of causation are legion, attesting to a lack of actual explanation.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kol on August 29, 2011, 12:52:00 AM
Why do people stutter?

Quote from: Adams and Victor's Principles of Neurology, 9th ed.
Theories of causation are legion, attesting to a lack of actual explanation.

I want your damn library dude.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on August 30, 2011, 10:42:38 AM
Hey Synth,
How flexible are your ribs supposed to be?  I mean, when I put my hands on the sides of my ribcage and press inward, am I supposed to feel them being pushed in?   ???
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: zalanthasNomad on August 30, 2011, 12:51:09 PM
Doctor Synthesis, I work in a shop that maintains roughly 105-110 degrees since the DFW heatwave began.
I am relatively dry at work unless I get stuck in direct sunlight too long.

After work, in a 78ish degree gym during exercises that do not exactly ramp up the heartrate (weight-lifting),
I sweat like a pig.

At the house. My roommate will set the temperature to 78ish. She'll be in shorts and a T and freezing/wants a blanket.
I'll be in shorts and T and lightly sweating.

This is not an issue during seasons with a more mild climate. It's normal for me to barely sweat at all during weight lifting.

Why?

Meh, you'd have to collect some more rigorous data to support those observations before I'd try to answer that.

If you really want an answer, get yourself a rectal thermometer and record your body's core temperatures under your various conditions, there.  Otherwise, the best you're going to get is some vague generalities about basal metabolic rate and thermoregulation.

Although, really, your heart rate doesn't strictly matter very much when it comes to thermoregulation, since it's not a very large muscle, comparatively.  The heat being generated by skeletal muscle during exercise is what's getting your core temperature up, resulting in sweating.

It might be considered bad form to be using a rectal thermometer at the gym ... .. . might I suggest an alternative?
http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/hm_1.html (http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/Spinoff2006/hm_1.html)

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on August 30, 2011, 09:43:19 PM
Hey Synth,
How flexible are your ribs supposed to be?  I mean, when I put my hands on the sides of my ribcage and press inward, am I supposed to feel them being pushed in?   ???

Yes, the joints are flexible.  If they weren't, it would be rather more difficult to breathe.  I'd advise against testing the boundaries of that flexibility by pressing on them out of amusement and/or curiosity though, because they can also be sprained and dislocated, which tends to make breathing very painful.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Gunnerblaster on September 03, 2011, 10:32:26 PM
Everytime I bite down while chewing food, the right side of my jaw - beneath my right ear (that soft sensitive spot where the jaw meets your ear) hurts. Several days prior, it felt like I had wisdom tooth pain - but it felt much deeper in my jaw.

Any idea what's up with me, Synthesis?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 03, 2011, 10:56:18 PM
Everytime I bite down while chewing food, the right side of my jaw - beneath my right ear (that soft sensitive spot where the jaw meets your ear) hurts. Several days prior, it felt like I had wisdom tooth pain - but it felt much deeper in my jaw.

Any idea what's up with me, Synthesis?

I'd go with:
1. Temporomandibular joint disorder (etiology unspecified)
2. Wisdom tooth impaction
3. Dental caries
4. Trigeminal neuralgia

If you were older, I'd throw temporal arteritis and carotid stenosis (atherosclerotic) in there as well.

It's more of a dental thing, really.  If you don't feel like going to the dentist, the only thing you can really do is take some NSAIDs and see if it gets better.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 04, 2011, 11:36:36 AM
They're saying now that it's an auto-immune disease.[citation needed]

I read it on the pharmacy intranet. I'll try to find the source and print it at work. I'm not sure how to access the information from my home computer because it's super secure.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=alzheimer%27s+autoimmune&ei=UTF-8&fr=moz35

I'll look at those websites later, but I'd read it on a very well-to-do website available at work. Like I said, I'll go and try to find the information since I'm sure your doc-senses are just tingling right now.

And, @biscuits: We would have taken care of my great grandma. The thing is, is that she was supposedly being taken care of by her daughter. Next thing you know, there's a lien on the house and they force my great grandma out of the only house she's ever lived in since she moved here from England, in the early 1900s. She lived in a small apartment and eventually fell. They all fall. They always fall and, maybe this is a question for Synth, but after Alzheimer's patients fall, *especially*, there is no going back, no getting better, and it's just something I've come to cope with. My other great grandma, on my father's side, fell at least 20 times and always got back up. She had 2 hip replacements and still walked around, cussing people, things, etc, out, until she died at 96.

But yeah. It's one of the most horrible diseases. To be forgotten, and to forget nearly everything? Whew.

As far as I can tell, there have only been a couple of papers published that support the idea that it has an autoimmune etiology.  One guy found immunoglobulins attached to degenerating neurons in some brain samples (which I believe were mouse brains), and another guy who published some sequence homologies between some HSV-1 proteins and tau, amyloid precursor protein and/or presenilin (which doesn't constitute evidence, per se).

There are some known dementias that are clearly autoimmune in nature, but they're much rarer than Alzheimer's, and they're typically very acute in onset (on the order of weeks, not years).  I think where you might be getting confused is the difference between "autoimmune" and "immune-mediated."

To be classified as autoimmune, you have to demonstrate self-reactive antibodies or self-reactive cytotoxic T cells, neither of which has been consistently demonstrated in cases of Alzheimer's disease.  These things are not methodologically difficult to demonstrate, and there are many known neurological conditions with an autoimmune etiology, so I can pretty much guarantee you that the lack of evidence supporting the autoimmune theory is not due to scientists not looking hard enough.

On the other hand, immune-mediated is a different story.  It's pretty clear that there are inflammatory changes in Alzheimer's disease that contribute to or underpin neuron degeneration.  However, these changes are (as far as anyone has been able to tell) not due to an immunoglobulin or cytotoxic T cell response, thus they do not qualify as autoimmune in nature.

Of course, it's possible that there is some cryptic autoimmune process involved that nobody has thus far been able to elucidate, but given the prevalence, importance, and sheer amount of dollars being thrown at this disease, I find it highly unlikely that the autoimmune hypothesis is going to ultimately pan out.  It certainly isn't a popular or accepted hypothesis, and it isn't even mentioned in any medical textbook that I have access to.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 04, 2011, 02:12:23 PM
It wouldn't surprise me if my place of work handed out false information. It was on the "Pharmacist's Letter", on an article, I'm pretty sure, about Aricept, and I'll have to look into it more, but I appreciate you giving it a looksee. I appreciate you explaining the  difference between the immune-mediated and autoimmune and I think perhaps the article-managers at PL were just using that "shade of grey" in order to be able to refer to Alzheimer's as autoimmune.

It's one of the saddest things to happen to a human being, at least, in my opinion. Thanks, doll. <3
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on September 04, 2011, 02:14:19 PM
I think it's worse for those who have to deal with it, than those who have to go through it, personally.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 04, 2011, 02:45:36 PM
I think it's worse for those who have to deal with it, than those who have to go through it, personally.

Would you like to forget how to use the bathroom? Or that the toilet is what you use to piss in, and not the chair? Would you like to forget how to sign your own name? Sure, they might not be fully aware it's happening to them, but it's debilitating, on both ends.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on September 04, 2011, 03:25:01 PM
I'm not getting your point. This isn't an argument, it's my opinion.  I've been in states of mass confusion, paranoia, and memory loss before(all at the same time). I've had to take care of someone close to me with Alzheimer. These are what I base this opinion on.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on September 04, 2011, 03:29:31 PM
Could we not go any further with this one guys?

There's little point debating things this subjective, especially when the subject is so touchy.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on September 05, 2011, 08:18:05 PM
Why do I, and people in general, have cleft chins? 
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on September 05, 2011, 08:40:31 PM
Why do I, and people in general, have cleft chins? 

I'm not Synthesis, but I'm pretty sure that's a recessive-dominant trait thing from evolution.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 05, 2011, 09:02:23 PM
Why do I, and people in general, have cleft chins? 

I'm not Synthesis, but I'm pretty sure that's a recessive-dominant trait thing from evolution.

Descendants of those who used their chin to hammer things down!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on September 05, 2011, 10:09:15 PM
whoops wrong thread
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on September 08, 2011, 05:26:28 PM
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-140rnyPbq7Q/TmhuzdclDDI/AAAAAAAAAso/gANPZn_Voy0/s1600/tumblr_lpn910zCRI1qhh3bco1_500.png)

Assuming you left the room first (somehow) why isn't this possible?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on September 08, 2011, 05:42:06 PM
Assuming you left the room first (somehow) why isn't this possible?

To a first order, ignoring all the wibbly wobbly subtleties of electromagnetism:

The mirror does not reflect 100% of the incident light.  The reflections between mirrors thus die out after a few hundred or few thousand round trips.  Because light travels through air extraordinarily quickly, the time it takes for those reflections to attenuate to nil is far too short for you to perceive the process.  Therefore, as far as you can tell, the light goes away immediately when you turn off the flashlight.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on September 08, 2011, 05:43:19 PM
Assuming you left the room first (somehow) why isn't this possible?

Better answer:  How do you know that it isn't?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kismetic on September 08, 2011, 11:22:19 PM
Ah, yes, a classic -- Schroedinger's flashlight.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on September 10, 2011, 10:33:46 AM
Hey Synth...
So, I know that bruises occur when there is damage to the capillaries and the blood seeps into the tissue etc etc...But I sometimes get bruises, usually on my shins or the outside of my thigh, that are about the size of my fist and very black and blue.  It sort of looks like someone came at me with a baseball bat or something.  The thing is, I can never recall any sort of trauma or injury to the area and it seems like they come up overnight, nothing there one day and then the next day I'll be getting in the shower or something and it's like "What the fuck?!"      It doesn't happen all that often and once they go away (which is fairly quickly I think, usually less than a week), I forget about it until it happens again...I'd say maybe every 2 or 3 months I notice it.  Why would I get big, fist-sized bruises that don't hurt when I touch them and don't seem to be the result of any injury?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 10, 2011, 01:35:54 PM
Hey Synth...
So, I know that bruises occur when there is damage to the capillaries and the blood seeps into the tissue etc etc...But I sometimes get bruises, usually on my shins or the outside of my thigh, that are about the size of my fist and very black and blue.  It sort of looks like someone came at me with a baseball bat or something.  The thing is, I can never recall any sort of trauma or injury to the area and it seems like they come up overnight, nothing there one day and then the next day I'll be getting in the shower or something and it's like "What the fuck?!"      It doesn't happen all that often and once they go away (which is fairly quickly I think, usually less than a week), I forget about it until it happens again...I'd say maybe every 2 or 3 months I notice it.  Why would I get big, fist-sized bruises that don't hurt when I touch them and don't seem to be the result of any injury?

Broadly speaking, this sort of thing is going to be due to structural problems with the underlying vasculature, to a clotting deficiency, or a coagulation problem.

I'm assuming this is a relatively new thing, so that eliminates all the congenital bleeding disorders.

The relapsing-remitting course is strongly suggestive of either an autoimmune or behavioral process.  In the vascular category, it could be a small-vessel vasculitis or vitamin C deficiency.  In the clotting category, it could be something like lupus or idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura.  In the coagulation category, it could be vitamin K deficiency or some sort of liver disease.

There are easily a dozen other things that can cause that sort of bruising picture, though.  Go see a doctor, and they'll probably run some basic tests (complete blood count, prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, maybe an antinuclear antibody, maybe liver enzymes, maybe ANCA) to see what the deal is.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on September 10, 2011, 02:35:17 PM
Hmm, I see.
Thanks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on September 11, 2011, 06:52:37 PM
Dr. Synthesis

Sometimes I feel so miserable and unhappy that I spend hours and hours thinking of creative ways to kill myself. This is a frequent thing. Sometimes it happens because bad things happen to me. Other times I just feel like a blemish on the face of the worlds.

And then, sometimes I'm in such a pumped mood that I feel like going out and fighting somebody and laughing and telling people how great they are. This usually happens for no reason and just sort of comes out of nowhere.

And the rest of the time I'm a mostly-normal person who responds reasonably on an emotional level to stuff.

I read up on stuff like this and I think I might be depressed or bi-polar, but then again, I always think self-diagnosis is stupid and flawed and I feel like a hypochondriac for thinking things like this.

Do you have any thoughts on this?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 11, 2011, 08:27:48 PM
Dr. Synthesis

Sometimes I feel so miserable and unhappy that I spend hours and hours thinking of creative ways to kill myself. This is a frequent thing. Sometimes it happens because bad things happen to me. Other times I just feel like a blemish on the face of the worlds.

And then, sometimes I'm in such a pumped mood that I feel like going out and fighting somebody and laughing and telling people how great they are. This usually happens for no reason and just sort of comes out of nowhere.

And the rest of the time I'm a mostly-normal person who responds reasonably on an emotional level to stuff.

I read up on stuff like this and I think I might be depressed or bi-polar, but then again, I always think self-diagnosis is stupid and flawed and I feel like a hypochondriac for thinking things like this.

Do you have any thoughts on this?

Sounds reasonably well enough like something along the bipolar spectrum...maybe bipolar II or cyclothymia unless you've had an actual manic episode.  You could probably get meds for that from a primary care visit.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 11, 2011, 08:35:19 PM
I want to just say you're an immature, young man. (In the kindest way possible and mostly referring to frontal lobesssss action.) But Synth is prolly right.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: MeTekillot on September 11, 2011, 09:39:14 PM
I want to just say you're an immature, young man.
(http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/276838_154704481276071_3697112_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 15, 2011, 02:14:04 PM
So, okay. Mommaboog is getting a little frazzled and frustrated.

Last night around 1am I had a dizzy spell. I went and laid down with manboog to go to sleep. I then began to see spots in my eyes; I only noticed this because we keep the bedroom door cracked and keep a light on downstairs. I woke up after approximately 5 minutes of tossing and turning and finding no comfort in bed. I noticed I had started to sweat profusely, but I was not exerting myself in any way other than just getting up out of bed. I went to the computer and googled about the spots in the eyes, which has been linked to pregnancy induced hypertension or preeclampsia and felt like maybe my vision was off or a little blurred. I'm already suffering from pregnancy induced carpal tunnel due to water retention, though I haven't swelled in numeric weight gain, and yesterday was the worst it has been yet; my hands alternatively went numb day long, my right arm was in a lot of pain and numbness also up in the shoulder, and by the time I got home, my blue tinted feet were numb on and off as well. Then, I had some sort of reaction, though I had bought no food out and nothing I ate all day long needed to be prepared, that kept me ... ehm, awake and occupied for about an hour and a half. When finally my wretching and other GI symptoms went away and I was done with my final game of solitaire on the cell phone, I returned to bed, covered in sweat (thank god the baby wipes were right beside me so I could clean up. Yick. I hate pregnant sweat.). My breathing was still very quick in coming and this morning at 8am when I took my blood pressure at work it was 140/80 which is -supremely- high for me. Normally my blood pressure is 70-90/60-70. So, I call the doctor's office today and they say they want to see me immediately. I go in, but to see a different doctor as mine is not working today. My blood pressure is fine when they take it and after waiting an hour, I finally get to see the fill-in. She is not very pleasant and in fact does not let me tell her about the symptoms I had had; she just assumes, based on what I  told them and how fine my blood pressure is that I am alright. She does not address the spots before my eyes the previous night or the slight blur of vision I had because she will not let me get a word in. When my mother, who picked me up from work to take me since manboog had the car, asks about my blue feet, the doctor shrugs and says, "Maybe it is a blood clot. I couldn't tell you. But we'd need to see her feet blue, first," and then, when my mother asks me about the possibility of taking me out of work is replied to with, "I'm not her normal doctor so I don't know. But normally we don't take people out just for swelling," even when after she asked me where I worked, and being informed of the place and telling me, "Oh, we've fought with that pharmacy for ages about letting pregnant women be able to sit," (still, though, I am not allowed to, even with a doctor's note), still was a complete and total waste of my time, considering I paid a copay to be spoken to for 5 minutes about how "not sick" or "fine" I was/am. (Also, please, Synth, if you ever have to do a pap, vaginal exam, or otherwise, don't tell the patient you're not going to do a follow up or what have you because you "assume their cootchie is still fine.")

Anyway, is it wrong of me to be concerned? Do any of my symptoms have validity to the fact that I might just have some episodes or periods where my blood pressure spikes? I just don't understand how unconcerned these doctors are. I have such a little bit left, and to not even write a note to reduce my hours at work seems a little insensitive to me; it's not like at 4 months I complained that I couldn't work anymore because I was pregnant. Should I be worried about any of the above episodes? I'd just really like to have a rather healthy final period and a decent birth, without having to be hopeless in terms of the care I'm given and receive.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Desertman on September 15, 2011, 02:21:48 PM
I have nothing of value to add to this except...

Please dont call it a "cootchie", for some reason, that gives me the willies.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on September 15, 2011, 02:23:02 PM
Please dont call it a "cootchie", for some reason, that gives me the willies.

...

You're doing it wrong.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Desertman on September 15, 2011, 02:24:07 PM
Please dont call it a "cootchie", for some reason, that gives me the willies.

...

You're doing it wrong.

Huh?

Edited to Add: Ahahaha, you are from Europe right? I just realized that "willy/willies" means something entirely different to you guys over there.

Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 15, 2011, 02:24:38 PM
I have nothing of value to add to this except...

Please dont call it a "cootchie", for some reason, that gives me the willies.

That's what the doctor called it. The doctor. To ME. She told me she was having a "day from hell" and that since I had my cervix examined a few days ago she, "assume your cootchie is still fine."

YYYYYYYYYYEAAAAAAAAH. She won't be getting my vote for best doctor ever.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on September 15, 2011, 02:25:09 PM
Boogie, babe, you gotta stand up for yourself with those doctors. Put your proverbial foot down and MAKE them listen to your concerns. That's their job!

She sounds like a real hosebeast though. Sorry. :(
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 15, 2011, 02:28:44 PM
Boogie, babe, you gotta stand up for yourself with those doctors. Put your proverbial foot down and MAKE them listen to your concerns. That's their job!

She sounds like a real hosebeast though. Sorry. :(

Thank GOD she isn't my doctor. I would have switched eons ago. If my regular doctor was there today though, I'm afraid babushka (my mother in this instance, heh) might have gone postal on his poor, delicate soul and ripped him a new one. I see him for my weekly on Wednesday and will tell him I simply can't do it anymore and if he can't write me out I'll find another doctor in the practice to take my money, who will.

I just mostly want to make sure blood pressure spikes on occasion and my blue feet aren't too much of alarm. It seems I need all the ammunition I can get with these dillholes.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 15, 2011, 08:07:47 PM
Well, for starters, if you had a typical venous thrombosis, the affected leg would be swollen (larger than the other) and would probably be red and very painful.  There's something called phlegmasia alba dolens where the affected leg turns white, which is (or was) fairly common in pregnancy, but that's from the iliac artery getting pinched between your pelvic bone and your giant uterus.  It can turn into phlegmasia cerulea dolens, but only after a while...and at that point, things are getting all gangrenous.  If you're sitting in your gynecologist's office complaining about your "bluish" leg, chances are quite high that it doesn't have anything to do with that.  So yeah, it's a little weird that she'd suggest it was from a blood clot.  Anyway....

The visual disturbance is a little problematic, because that particular presentation ("seeing spots") can occur both when you're hyper- and hypo-tensive.  It's possible that it could be a subclinical sort of posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome, given the transient spike in blood pressure.  It's also possible that you started seeing spots due to hypotension, and your recorded blood pressure was the result of temporary physiological over-compensation.  Either way, there isn't much to be done about it, as far as I know.  I mean...they could send you in for a CT+MRI to look for the typical cerebral edema due to PRES, but the treatment for PRES due to hypertension is just blood pressure control...so if your blood pressure is already under control, the additional information from the MRI wouldn't really change anything from a management perspective.  It would mostly be a very expensive bit of trivia.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kol on September 15, 2011, 08:39:25 PM
Dear Dr Synth. A few weeks ago, My knee gave out while I was in work, and I was taken to hospital. They said I had a sprain due to taking up running again, and not being used to the distances I was doing.

This I accepted silently, knowing I can do a few mile run every day without problem, as I've been running a few miles once or twice a week for almost two years now, it helps me think, relax, and sleep.

I was on crutches for the better part of two weeks, and have managed to comfortably, and without too much pain and limping, walk without them for the last 3 days.

However, I can now feel my knee-caps grating every time I bend them now (yes, both of them, not just my injured leg) Is there a reasonable explanation for this? Or should I start to worry about having key-hole surgery on my knees at 24?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on September 16, 2011, 03:22:13 PM
What sorts of thing can gene sequencing do to help the medical world? Has it helped already? Does it have tons of potential like I keep being told?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 16, 2011, 07:47:29 PM
What sorts of thing can gene sequencing do to help the medical world? Has it helped already? Does it have tons of potential like I keep being told?

It's kind of a big deal, sure.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 16, 2011, 07:55:08 PM
Dear Dr Synth. A few weeks ago, My knee gave out while I was in work, and I was taken to hospital. They said I had a sprain due to taking up running again, and not being used to the distances I was doing.

This I accepted silently, knowing I can do a few mile run every day without problem, as I've been running a few miles once or twice a week for almost two years now, it helps me think, relax, and sleep.

I was on crutches for the better part of two weeks, and have managed to comfortably, and without too much pain and limping, walk without them for the last 3 days.

However, I can now feel my knee-caps grating every time I bend them now (yes, both of them, not just my injured leg) Is there a reasonable explanation for this? Or should I start to worry about having key-hole surgery on my knees at 24?

Might be tendinitis or a meniscal tear...you could always have a pal do the McMurray test on you.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dan on September 17, 2011, 09:17:17 PM
I am in an area where people are known to get malaria.

I am currently taking my daily dose of 100MG Doxycycline. I also work nights at times and am exposed and bitten dozens of times by mosquitos each shift. A few people in the area have gotten malaria recently, but it isn't sure if they have been taking their meds.

How big of a chance do I have of getting malaria?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 17, 2011, 09:25:22 PM
I am in an area where people are known to get malaria.

I am currently taking my daily dose of 100MG Doxycycline. I also work nights at times and am exposed and bitten dozens of times by mosquitos each shift. A few people in the area have gotten malaria recently, but it isn't sure if they have been taking their meds.

How big of a chance do I have of getting malaria?

Quote from: ACP PIER Essentials
A randomized, placebo-controlled trial conducted in 204 Indonesian soldiers with limited immunity found 1 out of 67 cases of malaria with doxycycline prophylaxis, 0 out of 68 cases of malaria with mefloquine prophylaxis, and 53 out of 69 cases of malaria with placebo prophylaxis (19).

A randomized, placebo-controlled trial in 152 Indonesian adults with limited immunity showed 96.3% protective efficacy of doxycycline against P. falciparum malaria relative to placebo (20).

So...between 1.5% and 4%, I suppose.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Socko on September 18, 2011, 04:15:04 AM
Synthesis:

I understand that there was a study linking excessive Folic Acid intake to colon, lung and prostate cancer.  Do you know if they ever proved those findings in subsequent studies?  I'd really like to start eating cereal again.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Kol on September 18, 2011, 06:35:00 AM
Synthesis:

I understand that there was a study linking excessive Folic Acid intake to colon, lung and prostate cancer.  Do you know if they ever proved those findings in subsequent studies?  I'd really like to start eating cereal again.

Like, Cornflakes for Cancer? Really? Your worried about cornflakes for cancer when they say 'This could possibly promote cancer in you' every other week?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 18, 2011, 11:00:36 AM
Synthesis:

I understand that there was a study linking excessive Folic Acid intake to colon, lung and prostate cancer.  Do you know if they ever proved those findings in subsequent studies?  I'd really like to start eating cereal again.

Well, it's a little more complicated than that.  There are two sort of opposing forces at play, with respect to folate.  At the most basic level, it functions as a cofactor in DNA synthesis.  So when you don't get enough of it, cells in your body start to fuck up the replication process, and this can lead to the development of cancer.  On the other hand, cancer cells need to replicate DNA also, so if there's a ton of folate available, it makes it much easier for the cancer cells to do their thing.

So there are two sort of take-away general points:

1) In healthy people who don't already have cancer or precancerous lesions, there is probably a bimodal dose-dependent curve:  too little folate increases your risk, and too much also increases your risk.

2) In people who are at high risk for developing cancer (or who already have a diagnosed cancer or precancerous lesions), lower levels of folate might be protective against tumor progression.  So if you smoke like a chimney, drink like a fish, get regular sunburns, follow a charred-meat-and-low-fiber diet, huff asbestos, or have a strong family history of cancer, consuming extra folate probably isn't going to have any beneficial effects.

From what I can tell, 400 micrograms per day is the recommended sweet spot (assuming you're otherwise healthy and aren't pregnant).
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on September 28, 2011, 12:13:27 PM
Dr. Synthesis,

I injured my knee when I was 16. It still pops and aches occasionally, but it's not severe. I get semi-frequent, mild pains and cramps in my left leg and hip.

Now it has started tingling after I work out... not all the time, just sporadic, weird tingling along and around my kneecap.

Worth it to get this examined with x-rays and such, or are they gonna tell me 'sucks to be you, let it rest and heal, and gimme some money'?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on September 28, 2011, 12:16:58 PM
It would help him to know what, and to what extent the original injury was, probably.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on September 28, 2011, 12:20:40 PM
Fell on it, and a sharp rock went under my kneecap. Entire leg was swollen up and looked bruised. It was a bit strange.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on September 28, 2011, 12:20:46 PM
Why are things easier to read if you highlight parts even if the highlights are random.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: rishenko on September 29, 2011, 04:22:22 PM
Why don't more people (hell, society in general) care about themselves (http://www.nutristrategy.com/econcost.htm) or try and make a difference? Do you think it's all socioeconomically related?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on September 29, 2011, 07:04:24 PM
Why don't more people (hell, society in general) care about themselves (http://www.nutristrategy.com/econcost.htm) or try and make a difference? Do you think it's all socioeconomically related?

I'm going to pop in and say I think a lot of it is. How is a person who lives in a poor neighborhood that is a single parent that makes only 25-30k a year going to support 2 children with the proper nutrition on top of all other expenses? They can't afford a CSA box, and they probably don't have time to fix meals at home. You can work out all you want, but if you don't supplement that with proper nutrition, you can still be severely under or overweight.

My mom works for WIC and says she sees that a lot of the poorer Mexican families have obese children (I think this might be culturally related. All of my Latino friends ... well, I've never known them, at least in America, to eat a lot of fruits and vegetables other than peppers and bananas) and that they primarily consume carbohydrates and meat. The African-American families have severely underweight children, (I'm not sure what her reasoning was for this. I'd have to ask her again.) and I know both of these ethnic minorities give their children a lot of the cheap, sugary drinks available at the supermarkets without necessarily looking for (or knowing what to look for) the 'right' ingredients.

I try to eat healthy, but I'm not in the best of financial situations, all the time. Also, it is so much easier to eat healthy when I have an easy or relatively stress-free day at work and don't feel like collapsing in my bed after pulling a peon-salary-wage day at my job. I can totally relate to the struggle of being healthy and maintaining a healthy BMI and weight when you aren't so fiscally sound.

Cheap, genetically modified and additive rich foods could be considered class warfare! I can only think of maybe 5 people I personally know who could afford a CSA box for 5 months @ $400. But then, you also have to know how to cook chard, beets, radishes, and the other stuff they put into it.

/ramble ramble, I am not Synth, my mother is a dietitian, ramble ramble, I just thought I'd weigh in, tooooo.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on September 29, 2011, 07:31:14 PM
I don't quite understand it when people say it's expensive to eat healthily.  I manage a balanced diet which includes ~7 portions of fruit or veg a day and it costs next to nothing.  £40-50 a week feeds three of us (assuming nobody eats out that week) and I still end up giving excess food to the neighbours about 3 times a week.  Unless meat costs a shit load of money, I have absolutely no idea why people think food is expensive.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on September 29, 2011, 07:54:44 PM
Well, yeah. I could get roughly two weeks' worth of apples for the cost of a pack of ground turkey.

But, I can get a whole roast chicken for $5 from Giant every friday - and make a fuckton of food out of it.

$5 is the cost of the average fast food meal... frankly, I think it's a combination of cultural mores, lack of education, and sheer laziness. It's hard work to build yourself up from nothing.

Hell, even Ramen can be dressed up in 10 mins if you're truly desperate for cheap filler, and it's gotta be better than a big mac. Veggies, scrambled eggs, etc.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Saellyn on September 29, 2011, 08:01:34 PM
Well, yeah. I could get roughly two weeks' worth of apples for the cost of a pack of ground turkey.

But, I can get a whole roast chicken for $5 from Giant every friday - and make a fuckton of food out of it.

$5 is the cost of the average fast food meal... frankly, I think it's a combination of cultural mores, lack of education, and sheer laziness. It's hard work to build yourself up from nothing.

Hell, even Ramen can be dressed up in 10 mins if you're truly desperate for cheap filler, and it's gotta be better than a big mac. Veggies, scrambled eggs, etc.

Starch, sodium, preservatives...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Delirium on September 29, 2011, 08:03:50 PM
Cook it in the broth, but don't eat the broth. :P

I'm not claiming it's healthy, just... better than eating at McDonald's, and cheaper, too.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on September 29, 2011, 09:48:51 PM
Synth: How do I make greek fire?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ghost on September 30, 2011, 12:44:26 AM
synth if i do fitness like lifting weights and stuff but not cardio does my cholesterol get better
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nao on September 30, 2011, 04:33:49 AM
Fresh meat is really expensive. Veggies are cheap but just take so much time, like Barzalene said. I don't think they're all eating fast food, but cheap stuff from the supermarket that doesn't take much time is usually high in anything but the things you should actually be eating.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on September 30, 2011, 09:24:43 AM
Fresh meat is really expensive. Veggies are cheap but just take so much time, like Barzalene said. I don't think they're all eating fast food, but cheap stuff from the supermarket that doesn't take much time is usually high in anything but the things you should actually be eating.

I tried to refer back to what I had said, but it wasn't in this thread and I post way too much. I'll assume I was commenting on the poor and their dietary habits.

I wanted to say (assuming I'm talking about what I think I'm talking about) that counter intuitively, fresh vegetables cost more in poor areas. There's also less availability and the produce is of lower quality.

I'm posting a link to a fairly upbeat article about a farmer who is working to bring farm goods into midwestern markets where fresh food is less available. http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/food-for-everyone/growing-power-in-an-urban-food-desert. Googling will turn up other articles.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on September 30, 2011, 10:16:47 AM
Quote
Growing Power is in what Allen calls a “food desert,” a part of the city devoid of full-service grocery stores but lined with fast-food joints, liquor stores, and convenience stores selling mostly soda and sweets.

Yar, I drive through several miles of that each day.  It's very strange.  (And, yeah, it's essentially the "bad part" of the county.)

Synthesis, why don't the chain grocery stores build in those areas?  You'd think they could easily undersell a primarily organic outfit.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on September 30, 2011, 10:19:59 AM
jesus christ brytta
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on September 30, 2011, 10:23:22 AM
Bob and Tom the other day had a story about Wal Mart and a couple of east-coast grocery chains taking steps to do exactly what your talking about. My memory of it is a little vague as that was like 415am that day, but I seem to recall that they're recieving some sort of little tax breaks for, as a group, making an effort to build more  grocery stores in low-income neighborhoods and to increase the availability of -fresh and affordable- produce in particular.

I forget the name of the program. This was only like a week ago.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on September 30, 2011, 10:25:31 AM
jesus christ brytta

??? redo from start
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 30, 2011, 09:35:46 PM
Well, yeah. I could get roughly two weeks' worth of apples for the cost of a pack of ground turkey.

But, I can get a whole roast chicken for $5 from Giant every friday - and make a fuckton of food out of it.

$5 is the cost of the average fast food meal... frankly, I think it's a combination of cultural mores, lack of education, and sheer laziness. It's hard work to build yourself up from nothing.

Hell, even Ramen can be dressed up in 10 mins if you're truly desperate for cheap filler, and it's gotta be better than a big mac. Veggies, scrambled eggs, etc.

A whole roasted chicken is about 1000-1400 calories, with the skin, no drink.  A double quarter-pounder with cheese extra value meal at McDonald's is 1330 calories.  So, I mean, the calorie density is roughly equivalent.

Also, there are a lot of people who don't have access to convenient things like whole rotisserie chickens, believe it or not.  Food deserts, education, culture, poverty, vicious cycles, etc. etc.  It's far from a simple matter, and I really wish people would stop trying to treat it like it's such a perfectly obvious thing.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 30, 2011, 09:42:15 PM
Dr. Synthesis,

I injured my knee when I was 16. It still pops and aches occasionally, but it's not severe. I get semi-frequent, mild pains and cramps in my left leg and hip.

Now it has started tingling after I work out... not all the time, just sporadic, weird tingling along and around my kneecap.

Worth it to get this examined with x-rays and such, or are they gonna tell me 'sucks to be you, let it rest and heal, and gimme some money'?

I doubt an x-ray would be helpful.  At best it's just a nutrient problem (calcium, potassium, B12).  At worst it's some neurological condition that a) isn't likely to be treatable and b) couldn't be diagnosed with any kind of imaging, anyway.

From what I'm hearing here, I wouldn't be worried about it.  But I mean, the only way to really know is to have a doctor personally run through all the history and physical which obviously I can't and won't do here.  So I suppose if it really, really bothers you, or you start having other bizarre, inexplicable symptoms, maybe it's worth it to have it checked out.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 30, 2011, 09:45:09 PM
Why are things easier to read if you highlight parts even if the highlights are random.

Are they easier to read?  What does "easier" mean?

I read a study a while back that showed retention is actually better when you use fonts that are difficult to read.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 30, 2011, 09:48:07 PM
Why don't more people (hell, society in general) care about themselves (http://www.nutristrategy.com/econcost.htm) or try and make a difference? Do you think it's all socioeconomically related?

If you want to be cynical, there was a study done over in Denmark (okay, maybe it wasn't Denmark...but you know...one of those European places over there that I, as an American, don't really pay that much attention to) that purported to show (I didn't scrutinize it very extensively) that obesity-related illnesses actually save society money over the long term, because when people die of heart attacks at age 50 instead of living until they're 90, it saves you a bit of cash on treating other age-related illnesses.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 30, 2011, 09:53:42 PM
synth if i do fitness like lifting weights and stuff but not cardio does my cholesterol get better

Yeah, but cholesterol isn't the end-all of health.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 30, 2011, 09:56:30 PM
Quote
Growing Power is in what Allen calls a “food desert,” a part of the city devoid of full-service grocery stores but lined with fast-food joints, liquor stores, and convenience stores selling mostly soda and sweets.

Yar, I drive through several miles of that each day.  It's very strange.  (And, yeah, it's essentially the "bad part" of the county.)

Synthesis, why don't the chain grocery stores build in those areas?  You'd think they could easily undersell a primarily organic outfit.

Because the margins on selling shit to poor people are pretty thin, especially nowadays that easy credit has dried up and state governments are generally slashing assistance programs.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Barzalene on September 30, 2011, 10:21:11 PM
Hah
I meant more like
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf
adkja cdfjra akfja dakjdf
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf
adkja cdfjra akfja dakjdf
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on September 30, 2011, 10:23:44 PM
Hah
I meant more like
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf
adkja cdfjra akfja dakjdf
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf
adkja cdfjra akfja dakjdf
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf
adkja akdjfa akfja dakjdf


Probably has to do with evolutionary adaptation of our visual systems to focus more attention on areas of contrast and areas that are divergent from a background pattern, presumably to find prey and avoid predators.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ghost on October 01, 2011, 01:16:36 PM
synth if i do fitness like lifting weights and stuff but not cardio does my cholesterol get better

Yeah, but cholesterol isn't the end-all of health.

are you saying that not doing cardio but doing manly weight lifting and swinging swords at invisible enemies about twenty minutes everyday my health is still getting worse?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Saellyn on October 01, 2011, 03:56:41 PM
synth if i do fitness like lifting weights and stuff but not cardio does my cholesterol get better

Yeah, but cholesterol isn't the end-all of health.

are you saying that not doing cardio but doing manly weight lifting and swinging swords at invisible enemies about twenty minutes everyday my health is still getting worse?

I think he is...
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 02, 2011, 06:10:07 PM
synth if i do fitness like lifting weights and stuff but not cardio does my cholesterol get better

Yeah, but cholesterol isn't the end-all of health.

are you saying that not doing cardio but doing manly weight lifting and swinging swords at invisible enemies about twenty minutes everyday my health is still getting worse?

Not necessarily worse, but I doubt it's an optimal approach.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ghost on October 02, 2011, 10:44:31 PM
the optimal approach is walking 30 minutes?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on October 02, 2011, 10:46:02 PM
And eating less of the bad food for you!
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 02, 2011, 11:54:41 PM
the optimal approach is walking 30 minutes?

That all depends on your desired end-point.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: rishenko on October 03, 2011, 08:01:45 AM
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on October 03, 2011, 04:46:37 PM
Pff. That should be "questions for Boog's momma". ;)

Which also makes me wonder how many nutrition classes Synth took. The med school students I know hardly take any at all.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: charas on October 03, 2011, 07:34:39 PM
Why does a very faint sound, like the falling of a single raindrop, become positively loud when that very same faint sound occurs in a much higher quantity?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on October 03, 2011, 08:02:42 PM
Why does a very faint sound, like the falling of a single raindrop, become positively loud when that very same faint sound occurs in a much higher quantity?

Simple answer: amplitude.  It's the same reason two speakers are louder than one or a choir singing in unison is louder than single person.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on October 03, 2011, 08:05:49 PM
waves that pulse together plus together
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on October 03, 2011, 08:25:01 PM
Why does a very faint sound, like the falling of a single raindrop, become positively loud when that very same faint sound occurs in a much higher quantity?

This phenomenon is described in wave theory.  When two waves overlap, their amplitude can combine to either increase the effect or dampen it.  When you think about it this way, it's fairly fun.  For all the loud sounds you hear, there is likely a nearly equal amount of sounds that are dampened.

Of course, it could be partially psychological as well.  In an abundance of similar sounds, your mind may piece them together into a more complete sound.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 03, 2011, 09:22:38 PM
  • Six meals a day in which you evenly spread your calories. Is it that much better than eating two or three meals a day? Does the latter actually induce a starvation mode in the body and cause it to hoard fat?
  • Is it necessary to consume very large amounts of protein when cutting to avoid loss of muscle mass or should you maintain a more balanced diet?
  • Is it better to have a proportional diet, a la 50/30/20 for carbs/protein/fat or should one jump on the fat/protein and low carb diets that have been the rage the last ten years?
  • Mayo Clinic's Mediterranean diet or the Paleo diet? Why?

I think pretty much every diet has been shown to fail at around 12 months out when it comes to weight loss (that is, none of them work long-term), if the dieter doesn't undertake serious behavioral changes as well.  If you do diet, exercise, and really make an effort to change behavior, they all have relatively similar results, so it's just a matter of which one you can really stick with and incorporate as part of your regular routine.

As far as overall health is concerned (that is, a diet focused on maintaining health, rather than losing weight), I don't think there's enough evidence to support "Paleolithic" over Mediterranean or vice versa.  As long as you're getting all your macro- and micro-nutrients, plenty of fiber, not taking in excess calories...you're good to go as far as scientific consensus at the moment is concerned.  That's not to say that evidence won't accumulate over time that one is better than the other, but currently strong claims one way or the other are likely to be exaggerated.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 03, 2011, 09:23:18 PM
And yeah, everyone has already jumped all over the amplitude thing.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on October 03, 2011, 11:54:52 PM
Amplitude / interference patterns with explicatory picture:
(http://www.scienceclarified.com/images/uesc_06_img0317.jpg)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: brytta.leofa on October 03, 2011, 11:56:46 PM
Synth, pain in my mid-to-low back: started a few weeks ago, can't think what I did wrong, usually doesn't bother me unless I stoop or otherwise do stuff, annoying but not horrifically intense:  nothing to worry about and it'll probably go away on its own?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Dalmeth on October 04, 2011, 02:04:43 AM
Probably has to do with evolutionary adaptation of our visual systems to focus more attention on areas of contrast and areas that are divergent from a background pattern, presumably to find prey and avoid predators.

Does this suggestion really make sense when the mechanism is also the primary means one gets distracted?

I'd suggest the mind focuses on it because there's just more there compared to the background, making it easier to digest mentally.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Qzzrbl on October 04, 2011, 04:22:34 AM
Probably has to do with evolutionary adaptation of our visual systems to focus more attention on areas of contrast and areas that are divergent from a background pattern, presumably to find prey and avoid predators.

Does this suggestion really make sense when the mechanism is also the primary means one gets distracted?

I'd suggest the mind focuses on it because there's just more there compared to the background, making it easier to digest mentally.


Part of his suggestion involved avoiding predators....

So if it's distracting you-- that means it's drawing your attention.

Which is what you want when you're trying to avoid predators, methinks.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on October 05, 2011, 01:37:46 PM
Dear Synth,

I have never been stung by a bee/wasp and I have an extreme fear of them.  This is mostly because I worry that I'm allergic to them and just don't know it yet.  One of my kiddies at day care has a peanut allergy and carries an EpiPen Jr with him.  If we're walking back from 'big school' and I get stung and have an anaphylactic reaction, would a junior dose of his epinephrine be enough to make a difference?
Also, are there different types of epinephrine for different allergens or is it all the same shit?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on October 05, 2011, 01:53:01 PM
Epinephrine is epinephrine. It is adrenaline and it works for all anaphylactic reactions, it is the 'drug' of choice. I'm not sure if an Epi-JR will work as well as the adult dose, but I do know a woman who accidentally stabbed herself with one (her child is allergic to nearly everything you can be allergic to), and she had to go to the ER because it made her heart rate spike and they needed to make sure no adverse reactions would occur, since the poor thing wasn't having an allergic reaction.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on October 05, 2011, 03:15:10 PM
Why not get your own epi, or get tested for allergens if you've got some sort of phobia with them? Odds are you're not allergic enough to die from a random bee sting. And what are the odds you'll be around that kid when it happens. :)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on October 05, 2011, 03:31:46 PM
Why not get your own epi, or get tested for allergens if you've got some sort of phobia with them? Odds are you're not allergic enough to die from a random bee sting. And what are the odds you'll be around that kid when it happens. :)

Yeah. Allergy testing would be best. Um.

I wouldn't just randomly try an Epipen if you didn't need it.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 07, 2011, 07:39:52 PM
Dear Synth,

I have never been stung by a bee/wasp and I have an extreme fear of them.  This is mostly because I worry that I'm allergic to them and just don't know it yet.  One of my kiddies at day care has a peanut allergy and carries an EpiPen Jr with him.  If we're walking back from 'big school' and I get stung and have an anaphylactic reaction, would a junior dose of his epinephrine be enough to make a difference?
Also, are there different types of epinephrine for different allergens or is it all the same shit?

If you've never been stung by a bee or a wasp, it would be highly unlikely that you'd have an anaphylactic reaction to your first exposure.  That particular reaction requires memory B cells that are generated by a first exposure, and then cause the severe reaction on subsequent exposures.  However,  I suppose it's possible that there's some cross-reactivity between antigens, and sensitization to something else could lead to a reaction to those venoms (probably some sort of similar insect bite).

If you did have an anaphylactic reaction, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to use someone else's EpiPen, assuming you actually know the appropriate signs and symptoms and/or trigger.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 07, 2011, 07:47:02 PM
Probably has to do with evolutionary adaptation of our visual systems to focus more attention on areas of contrast and areas that are divergent from a background pattern, presumably to find prey and avoid predators.

Does this suggestion really make sense when the mechanism is also the primary means one gets distracted?

I'd suggest the mind focuses on it because there's just more there compared to the background, making it easier to digest mentally.


Is distraction really distraction, in an evolutionary sense?

It's quite possible that what we're consciously focusing our attention on isn't the most important thing in our sensorium, and that there exists an evolutionarily-honed subconscious override to make sure we don't miss things that could potentially kill us.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: manipura on October 09, 2011, 02:01:06 PM
Why not get your own epi, or get tested for allergens if you've got some sort of phobia with them? Odds are you're not allergic enough to die from a random bee sting. And what are the odds you'll be around that kid when it happens. :)
Pretty high actually.  I do spend about six hours a day with this kid and part of our time together is the walking from school.  This is where it becomes a problem because we walk down a street with several houses that have fancy gardens that have won Trillium Awards (some Ontario nice-garden thing) and the gardeners are quite proud of this.  Because they are so into their gardens they are also quite content to share their space with a number of hives of bees.  Every day on our way back to day care the bees buzz around us.  Garbage collection day is the worst. 
For the most part, I avoid stinging insects if at all possible.  If they are around, I'm outta there.  I cannot however be a big scaredy cat and run for cover while there are bees buzzing around my little creatures.  As their Almighty Protector, I have to muster up every last drop of courage and shoo the bees away from them.  I'm just waiting for the day that the bees get tired of me shooing them and decide to go for the kill.  ;)



If you've never been stung by a bee or a wasp, it would be highly unlikely that you'd have an anaphylactic reaction to your first exposure.  That particular reaction requires memory B cells that are generated by a first exposure, and then cause the severe reaction on subsequent exposures.  However,  I suppose it's possible that there's some cross-reactivity between antigens, and sensitization to something else could lead to a reaction to those venoms (probably some sort of similar insect bite).

If you did have an anaphylactic reaction, it wouldn't be a terrible idea to use someone else's EpiPen, assuming you actually know the appropriate signs and symptoms and/or trigger.

Thanks Synth.  In Ontario, ECEs working in a day care setting are required to complete an annual certification program through Anaphylaxis Canada.  So I'm very confident in my ability to recognize the signs and symptoms and to administer the epinephrine properly...you know, as opposed to seeing the area get a little red and panicking and injecting the epi in my forehead or something  ::)

Oh, other questions...Epinephrine/adrenaline is, I assume, produced by the adrenal glands which are near/on the kidneys, right? 
My knowledge of word origins is telling me that 'renal' and 'nephro' are kidney-related but maybe I'm wrong...

I imagine -waaay- back in the day it was derived from animals, but nowadays it must be synthetically manufactured, correct? 
And just because I'm curious, what animals would they have derived it from a hundred or so years ago?  If I had to guess I'd say something like a pig or sheep but I really have no clue...



Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 09, 2011, 03:24:56 PM
Renal is from the Latin for "kidney," nephros is the Greek.  And yeah, it can be synthesized from animal extracts or from simpler precursors.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on October 13, 2011, 06:48:01 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika_Laughter_Epidemic

Is there anywhere I can read up more on either this or similar incidents?  What's your take on it?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 13, 2011, 09:09:33 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanganyika_Laughter_Epidemic

Is there anywhere I can read up more on either this or similar incidents?  What's your take on it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd2B6SjMh_w&ob=av3n
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on October 13, 2011, 09:11:05 PM
Quote
In total 14 schools were shut down and 1000 people were affected.

C'mon, you can't just sweep all that under the crazy mat.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on October 13, 2011, 09:46:44 PM
Seriously those town goes crazy with stuff things are usually from food borne illnesses. Like ergotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism). Schools in the area get a shipment of infected whatever. Kids eat it. Get sick. It gets misreported.

From that wiki on Tanganyika

Quote
The following symptoms were reported on an equally massive scale as the reports of the laughter itself: pain, fainting, respiratory problems, rashes, attacks of crying, random screaming
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 13, 2011, 09:58:12 PM
Seriously those town goes crazy with stuff things are usually from food borne illnesses. Like ergotism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ergotism). Schools in the area get a shipment of infected whatever. Kids eat it. Get sick. It gets misreported.

From that wiki on Tanganyika

Quote
The following symptoms were reported on an equally massive scale as the reports of the laughter itself: pain, fainting, respiratory problems, rashes, attacks of crying, random screaming

http://rltz.blogspot.com/2007/05/from-central-african-medical-journal.html
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on October 13, 2011, 10:09:48 PM
I wonder how many Ebola virus outbreaks went undocumented before 1976
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Ghost on October 15, 2011, 07:39:30 PM
synth what are the negative effects of smoking weed

that is, once the high status is gone are there any negative effects of this stuff?

i did a quick google search and all i find are the effects while you are "high" with the stuff
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 15, 2011, 08:08:57 PM
synth what are the negative effects of smoking weed

that is, once the high status is gone are there any negative effects of this stuff?

i did a quick google search and all i find are the effects while you are "high" with the stuff

It hasn't been studied well enough to say for certain, but there are isolated studies hinting at decreased testosterone, cognitive deficits, decreased sperm count and motility, immune suppression, intrauterine fetal growth retardation, and precipitation/exacerbation of psychosis in certain persons.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on October 15, 2011, 10:17:03 PM
decreased testosterone, decreased sperm count and motility

I actually view those two as benefits :)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Is Friday on October 17, 2011, 11:46:35 PM
decreased testosterone, decreased sperm count and motility

I actually view those two as benefits :)
Society benefits from people that smoke themselves stupid not reproducing. :)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: WarriorPoet on October 20, 2011, 10:17:32 PM
Synth: Today I watched a guy (a Menonite, for those following the ows thread derail...) find four different water lines under 10 inches of concrete and another 28 inches of earth. The four lines crossed a building the size of a football field with no pattern.

With dowsing rods. Two L shaped pieces of copper 18 inches or so in length.

For the reals. Super cereal. I condemned it as voodoo bullshit when they told me he was really going to do that. It worked man. Four times. I am  100% certain this guy had no previous knowledge of the underground water's location and he fucking nailed their locations to within a few inches, preventing a lot A LOT A LOT of extra work for WP.

Your fancy pants 'science' with it's supercolliders and flasks and love potions says it's bullshit. Do I rouse the mob to burn this black wizard or is he just a very lucky and clever charlatan?

Given recent discussions of the dangers of Mennonitism, I'm quite alarmed.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 20, 2011, 10:32:18 PM
 ::)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: RogueGunslinger on October 20, 2011, 11:03:31 PM
Sounds like he knows something about plumbing. Likely it's easy to judge where the pipes will run if he knows where they start.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on October 20, 2011, 11:30:30 PM
Synth, could anything other than a contaminant change a gram negative blood culture to a gram positive? Originally, babyboog's culture result was gram negative, which made them think he was infected with e. coli and then today it changed to gram positive ... Do you think they should redraw the blood if so? I really don't wanna wait another 2 days in the hospital to be told he has one thing and then not the next day, again, so they can start and stop him on his antibiotics.

Just wonnerin'.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on October 21, 2011, 12:27:30 AM
Synth, could anything other than a contaminant change a gram negative blood culture to a gram positive? Originally, babyboog's culture result was gram negative, which made them think he was infected with e. coli and then today it changed to gram positive ... Do you think they should redraw the blood if so? I really don't wanna wait another 2 days in the hospital to be told he has one thing and then not the next day, again, so they can start and stop him on his antibiotics.

Just wonnerin'.

There are a few possibilities:

1) Infected with both a gram positive and a gram negative organism, but only the negatives grew the first time around.

2) First infected with a gram negative, then subsequently infected with a gram positive.

3) Culture contamination.

4) Gram-indeterminate bacteria like Actinomyces or acid-fast bacteria like Mycobacteria.

5) Infected with both at birth, but it took longer for the Gram positives to grow.  This is the most likely scenario.  Usually Gram negative infections get going pretty quickly, and it takes a couple of days before Gram positive infections become apparent, so it fits the picture.

The smart money would be on Group B Streptococcus or Enterococcus and E. coli.  I don't know how they do it there, but here you'd be in the hospital 48 hours post-partum anyway, if you're GBS+. 
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: boog on October 21, 2011, 06:22:33 AM
Yeah. I had Group B and was treated with PVK during labor. I was kept in the hospital, but they did absolutely no testing on the baby and in fact, would they have tested his bili levels before we left, we probably would have stayed longer because they were quite high upon leaving and subsequently got worse.

Anyway, the docs have thought it to be e.coli all along, since they got the gram negative results back. Yayyyyyy. 14 days in the hospital sounds like such a nice fucking jaunt to me. :/
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on November 12, 2011, 07:44:54 PM
Dr. Synth, keep posting. For the love of god, keep posting. You're one of the few interesting posters left.

pssst he's not in medical school, look at the ask synthesis thread. the answers are a 50/50 mix of links to wikipedia and vague enough wording that a freshman bio major could throw together.

If any freshman bio students want to take a shot at the title, come get some.

Let's start with "33 yo aaf s/p tsvd over 2° rmle."
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Yam on November 12, 2011, 07:49:23 PM
Shutup Synth now we all know you're just a pretend medical student to get forum cred. This is a no lie zone and you got busted, pal.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jcarter on November 12, 2011, 08:00:42 PM
Dr. Synth, keep posting. For the love of god, keep posting. You're one of the few interesting posters left.

pssst he's not in medical school, look at the ask synthesis thread. the answers are a 50/50 mix of links to wikipedia and vague enough wording that a freshman bio major could throw together.

If any freshman bio students want to take a shot at the title, come get some.

Let's start with "33 yo aaf s/p tsvd over 2° rmle."

dr. jcarter in the house

33 yo: 33 year-old
aaf: african-american female
s/p: status post
tsvd: term spontaneuous vaginal delivery
rmle: right mediolateral episitomy

that was your freebie. now you're going to have to start paypaling me some cash to answer questions to terminology you looked up on pubmed.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Synthesis on November 12, 2011, 08:07:25 PM
(http://www.bananalogic.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/kirk-khan-shout.jpg)

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOGLE
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Rhyden on November 12, 2011, 08:11:06 PM
Well at least Synth can find one of the shift keys. ::)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Taven on November 12, 2011, 08:17:55 PM
Well at least Synth can find one of the shift keys. ::)

Hey now, let's not be hasty. That could totally be a caps lock.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jcarter on November 12, 2011, 08:17:55 PM
Well at least Synth can find one of the shift keys. ::)

if i capitalized everything correctly, the only thing you would have left to attack would be the content of my posts.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Case on November 12, 2011, 08:22:34 PM
Well at least Synth can find one of the shift keys. ::)

if i capitalized everything correctly, the only thing you would have left to attack would be the content of my posts.
yeah. they shit.
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: lordcooper on November 13, 2011, 01:41:14 PM
Well at least Synth can find one of the shift keys. ::)

if i capitalized everything correctly, the only thing you would have left to attack would be the content of my posts.

Do so then?
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: jcarter on November 13, 2011, 02:31:43 PM
Well at least Synth can find one of the shift keys. ::)

if i capitalized everything correctly, the only thing you would have left to attack would be the content of my posts.

Do so then?

http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,42068.msg644970.html#msg644970 (http://www.zalanthas.org/gdb/index.php/topic,42068.msg644970.html#msg644970)
Title: Re: Shit you want Synthesis to explain scientifically.
Post by: Nyr on November 13, 2011, 02:47:07 PM
Looks like we can't have nice things like discussion without flaming or trolling, so this discussion has been locked.  Continued flaming or trolling will be met with a ban.