Science desk
< February 3	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 4[edit]

Acupunture for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis[edit]

request for medical advice

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dear Sir, I was diagnosed for Cerebral Venous Thrombosis, bilateral papilloedema, left VI nerve palsy, Neck Supple, Plantar↓. I have been under conventional medication for the past 2 years and there are no signs of reducing my drug dosage. I started having side effects and when I spoke to my Neuro Physician about the side effects. I was told it is to be expected due to drug effects.

For a holistic approach for my medical condition, I started taking Acupunture for the past 3 weeks. I feel lot of relief.

But I need to know if there is any document on positive relief for CVT. I am unable to locate any document, article on effects of Acupunture treatment for CVT.

Can you please guide me on the topic.Marhabha (talk) 06:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give any medical advice. Articles may be at acupuncture and Cerebral venous thrombosis. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme is right; we cannot give medical advice. Talk to your physician again and ask him the specific question you asked here. Typing the name of the medication in the Wikipedia search box may lead you to other relevant Wikipedia pages. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

freezing insect eggs?[edit]

Various sources suggest putting insect prone food (oatmeal, rice, etc.) in the freezer to kill the eggs; but I'm dubious. Does that really kill the eggs, or just keep them from hatching while it's actually in the freezer? Because if it does kill the eggs, why don't they treat the food at the plant before selling it? Gzuckier (talk) 07:34, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to reliably survive freezing is a rare trait in insects. I think you can be confident the eggs really do die. No clue why they're not so treated before hand if its a real concern. My guesses would be that either some of in the insect contamination is post-shipping, or they are being cheap. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is pure anecdote but you can take what you want from it. I found a superb local baker but unfortunately his flour has flour moth and after a couple of weeks I had some flying out of my bread box. I bought in batches of a dozen loaves, putting most in the deep freezer until needed. This action had no effect on the viability of the eggs, they survived the freezer for up to 3 weeks. I now reheat the loaves in a hot oven for 5 minutes. No moths. Richard Avery (talk) 08:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

woah dude, I'd be looking for a different baker myself ---- _nonsense ferret 13:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

For good bread I go the extra mile! Richard Avery (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have our very own baker for that. He may be a bit off your beaten track, Richard. You may have to go the extra 5,000 miles. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Different insects have different amount of resistance to freezing[1][2] and even different basic strategies.[3] One surprising aspect of this is that many insects are better at surviving freezing if they have experienced winter weather in the previousmonth[4] -- insects generally do not maintain their cold protective systems when their environment remains relatively warm. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is doubtful that the moths came from eggs in the baker's flour; they wouldn't survive the bread baking process (note your 5-minute re-heat). I had this problem until I lined my pantry with "Spanish cedar" (which is neither Spanish nor cedar). ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no way the moths came from the baked loaves. They probably simply live in your house and are attracted to the crumbs left over in the bread box. So your experiment of freezing them did not determine anything. If reheating them does anything, you are simply killing eggs that are laid, in your house, on the outside of the loaf. As a practical suggestion buy a pheromone sticky trap made for pantry moths. Ariel. (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like freezer temperatures should kill any stage of Ephestia kuehniella [5] [6] (99% of eggs in 5 hours). But the other one... would you believe somebody wrote a book about it? But no freeview. Still, [7] says that eggs are the hardiest stage and 99% of them die in 6 hours. Then again, I don't know the species for sure. Wnt (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens I had a detailed conversation with the baker and they are aware of the problem and are embarking on a new pheromone based capture strategy. They flour the baked loaves with unbaked flour and this is the source of the eggs, so there we are - I came to offer some personal advice not seek comments about my eating habits. I'm not complaining, they bake the best bread I've ever eaten. Richard Avery (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouraging advice; particularly since I could potentially stash stuff outside in winter for a bit.... but anyway, in regard to the tangent re contamination in said baker's place; the reason I asked is because I'm getting so many products contaminated. I did at first think perhaps they were getting contaminated by a domestic infestation, although why certain products would or wouldn't get infested is a question, so I started stashing each item I bought in a tupperware or similar container as soon as it got home, but that didn't improve things, so I assume they're getting imported in the food. Not just the usual stuff you'd expect like flour or rice, but processed stuff like spaghetti, hot cocoa mix, etc. Of course, FDA regulations are always grosser than the layperson expects. Gzuckier (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would they flour the baked loaves with unbaked flour? It's normal to use some flour as a release agent, but that flour gets baked. Why add unbaked flour after? Ariel. (talk) 19:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that bread, flour, rice, spaghetti and hot cocoa mix all have the same insects even when stored in Tupperware? So what is common to all? Same store? Same warehouse feeding multiple stores? Could it be something weird like always leaving the food on the same rug or in the same auto trunk for a while or maybe all your Tupperware has loose lids? (Not that I believe that any of those could be the common factor, just asking what all the foods have in common) --Guy Macon (talk) 20:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like the same guys; they never get past the larvae stage, those little beige guys with dark heads. I've wondered the same thing. For stuff like spaghetti in the usual box, I can see that the parents could get in anywhere along the line, but the cocoa baffled me. (Individual single serving foil packages in the box). Only some foil packs had bugs, and you could tell a priori because they had little holes in the foil; i'm convinced those were the larvae chewing from inside out, rather than outside in because 1) it was only some of the foil packs, not all 2) there was no evidence of insects outside the foil, despite the holes 3) logically, how would the eggs hatch and grow into larvae that could chew through the foil outside the pack without anything for them to eat? And some brands had the problem, some didn't, which may be just random sample variation. So i'm somewhat baffled. If I ever find holes chewed in tin cans, I'm going to panic. Gzuckier (talk) 16:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like weevils, which are known to infest pantries and then be found in all your starch boxes. When I was little and we moved from the US South to the North we brought them with us and they took keeping everything in tins or the freezer finally to get rid of. μηδείς (talk) 01:10, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary purpose of non-reproductive sex[edit]

From the perspective of evolution, the purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction, and the purpose of reproduction is species continuation. But some species such as bonobos, dolphins and humans have non-reproductive sex. From the perspective of evolutionary biology, what is the purpose of non-reproductive sex? Even from an evolutionary perspective, non-reproductive sex may be harmful to a species as it will create continuous sexual competition and resulting injuries and death. So does it provide any evolutionary benefit? --PlanetEditor (talk) 17:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Animal sexual behaviour which despite its flaws, goes in to this in a variety of ways. Our article Bonobo#Sexual social behavior also discusses it as specific to bonobos (notably it appears to function somewhat the opposite of what you're suggesting). We have a large number of articles like Human sexuality covering sex among humans and related topics (Concealed ovulation for example may be of interest) although if you're old enough you may have ample knowledge that sex can serve many purposes among humans many of which will have a variety of possible evolutionary benefits. Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pair bonding - "sex for pleasure" keeps the male close enough to the female to contribute (directly or indirecty) more than just his gametes to raising offspring. Roger (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fallacy, selectionism, to assume that every aspect of biological organisms has to be seen as serving some evolutionary purpose. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Gould was a known anti-sociobiology writer. You need to find a neutral source. It is absolutely possible to explain each and every physiological and behavioral feature of a species, including humans, in evolutionary terms. --PlanetEditor (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. And if we accept the suggestion that there's competitive advantage in making reproductive sex pleasurable, the pleasure in non-reproductive sex appears to come as a trivial side-effect. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at Why Is Sex Fun?, which gives many evolutionary arguments for why it is so. Shadowjams (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-reproductice sex exists because sex conveys an evolutionary advantage, and prevention of non-reproductive sex doesn’t. - Nunh-huh 02:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's a non-answer, it just restates the question in different terms. What the OP is asking about is what the evolutionary advantage is. --Jayron32 04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Nunh-huh's answer is correct if you add the premise that non-reproductive "side effects" arise from successful reproductive ones. If females being attracted to males is a well successful strategy, but it results in certain males also being attracted to other males, it will exist because the first is a very successful strategy and the second doesn't matter. Evolution doesn't care about the homosexuality of the male in that circumstance so long as his mother and sisters are successful. μηδείς (talk) 05:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You could add any number of sentences to Nunh-huh's answer to make it correct. He didn't add any such sentences. What he wrote, however, is neither correct nor incorrect, merely a redundant restatement of what evolution is. --Jayron32 05:30, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you can't just add any old sentence to his claim and make it true. The logical premise that "non-reproductive "side effects" arise from successful reproductive ones" is very specific, and seems quite likely what Nunh Huh meant--I simply made it explicit--I didn't make it or any old sentence up from scratch. μηδείς (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OP, you say that some species have non-reproductive sex, and you mention bonobos, dolphins and humans as examples. I prefer to believe that pretty much all species engage in this behaviour. Can you show me a single species where conception occurs every time they have sex? Or that the participants could care less either way? (other than humans; we seem to be the only species for whom this is an issue) They enjoy getting their rocks off as much as we humans do. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 05:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution isn't trying to weed out those traits that do not contribute to survival and reproduction. Evolution describes how small advantages in survival and reproduction tend to be perpetuated in succeeding generations. Non-contributory traits, as long as they are not too disadvantageous or are merely neutral vis-a-vis survival and reproduction, tend to be perpetuated as well. Bus stop (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more question. Are only the animals with menstrual cycle exhibit non-reproductive sex? --PlanetEditor (talk) 06:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. Many types of birds pair up for life, or at least long periods of time, and enjoy sex for bonding purposes. Birds do not menstruate. Wickwack 121.221.92.200 (talk) 06:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I remember reading a book titled "Hung Like and Argentine Duck" which provided a rather interesting overview to the evolution of sexual intimacy (as the author termed it). As I recall, the author provided several examples where non-procreative sexual behaviors carried distinct benefits for the individual. For example, 'homosexual' behaviors in male garter snakes led to them being warmer than their counterparts and therefore more attractive to females. In species with social structures increased cooperation also increased the likelihood of one individual in that group being able to pass on their genes, or for a close relative to do so. So it may be possible that some of these these behaviors may have actually been positively selected for. 130.102.158.16 (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee[edit]

How many typical styrofoam cups of caffeinated coffee, filled approximately 3/4 of the way, does an average person needs to drink consecutively in order to be killed by caffeine overdose? 140.254.121.34 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is perhaps a trick question. Ignoring the size of a "cup" for now, the article caffeine says 80 to 100 cups of coffee have a 50% chance of doing the trick. But if a cup is indeed a cup, then this is 40 pints, 20 quarts, five gallons of water, and water intoxication would probably set in sooner than that. Therefore, you should not be able to die of caffeine overdose because something else would kill you first. :) But ... differences in cup size, and the length of time required to clear water versus caffeine from the system, might undermine that. Funny, I just can't interest myself in doing this math, though I feel like for some reason differences in cup size should normally be more interesting. :)Wnt (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes quite a large amount of caffeine to be dangerous. Caffeine can start causing problems once you consume more than 1 gram of the substance and be lethal at 10 grams, so doctors like [Cleveland Clinic cardiac surgeon] Gillinov recommend that people don't consume more than 400 to 500 milligrams a day. For comparison, he said an average cup of tea has about 40 miligrams while a tall cup of Starbucks coffee (12 ounces) has about 260 milligrams of caffeine, though other brands average about 100 milligrams for a regular sized cup. —Castillo, Michelle (October 24, 2012). "Can you overdose on caffeinated drinks?". CBS News. CBS Interactive, Inc. ~:74.60.29.141 (talk) 19:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Now you have me craving coffee! Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 20:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It might also be worth noting that there are adverse health effects other than caffeine poisoning, such as increased risk of kidney stones, from consuming too much caffeine.202.155.85.18 (talk) 08:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you might have that backwards. --Srleffler (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Twin fingerprints[edit]

Are identical twins born with identical fingerprints, and then the prints diverge later as they grow, or are they born with different fingerprints? RNealK (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different fingerprints. Uncle Cecil says so. Identical twins are only identical genetically. They will develop in non-identical environments, and as a result will have subtle differences, including fingerprints. This NYT column briefly explains the effect of subtle environmental difference, and itself links to more in depth documents. --Jayron32 23:17, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. RNealK (talk) 23:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]