Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 August 21

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.

August 21

Different number of heart valves in the heart sides

I've taken the liberty of transferring this question from Wikipedia talk:Reference desk Wnt (talk) 02:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there any logical explanation why in one side of the heart (right) there are 3 valves -triquspidal, while in the second side (left) there are 2 (mitral)? Tov17 (talk) 21:56, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You should post this Q to the Science Desk. This is the talk page where we discuss problematic questions. StuRat (talk) 22:01, 19 August 2016 (UTC) When you're there, they may explain that the heart has only four valves, not five. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:43, 19 August 2016 (UTC) If you provide an answer when someone asks in the wrong place, you not only encourage more misplaced questions, you encourage others to answer in the wrong place. Please stop doing that. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC) And, more importantly, please stop giving wrong and unreferenced answers to questions which you are obviously unqualified to answer. The human heart has six valves: the bicuspid valve, the tricuspid valve, the aortic valve, the pulmonic valve, the coronary sinus valve and the eustachian valve. The eustachian valve has no known function after birth, leaving five functional valves in the normal human heart. Additionally, about 80% of people have a vieussens valve of the coronary sinus, which could be counted as a sixth (or seventh) heart valve.--William Thweatt TalkContribs 05:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Four "main" valves, as noted in Heart valve and two other valves as you note. As to the OP, there's nothing stopping you from moving the question there yourself, if you're so concerned about it. Also, amidst your nannyistic scolding, you did not actually answer the OP's question. Way to go. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I suspect the question that the OP meant to ask is the one answered at [1]. - Nunh-huh 08:36, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, thank you. Tov17 (talk) 17:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

What the OP tried to ask is why the tricuspid valve has three leaflets while the bicuspid valve has two. The tricuspid separates the right atrium and ventricle while the bicuspid separates the left atrium and ventricle. Well, the answer is that it's complicated - we don't know the full network of biological and regulatory processes behind morphogenesis of any system in the level of detail needed to really give "why" type answers to these sort of questions with confidence. We can say that they're different and show particular factors which if altered might alter whether they are different, but I'm skeptical we've even gotten to that point, though properly I ought to look it up. But in this case the situation is a little weirder and a little simpler - the number of leaflets or cusps in the tricuspid can vary from two to six. Here's a reference that argues they are fundamentally divided in two: [2] So the difference in the anatomy is subtle - subtle enough that it might readily be ascribed (but this would be purest speculation, and probably wrong) to properties like how much resistance there is from lungs versus somatic tissue, or asymmetric development of the heart as a whole. Wnt (talk) 02:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
You and Nun-huh have it right. Macon and FGF do not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Yes, the OP was confusing number of valves with structure of valves. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC) The OP wasn't confused at all. He made it crystal clear which part of the heart he was talking about. You simply didn't bother looking up "tricuspid" and "mitral" before answering. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC) You're wrong, I did. And the OP agreed that Nunh-huh's link answered his question - which you didn't bother trying to do. So shut your own valve. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC) The OP explicitly mentioned the vales they were asking about. The question was unambiguous. You were clearly wrong. Stop answering questions you haven't got a clue about. It wouldn't hurt to look up the word 'civility' while you're at it. Fgf10 (talk) 22:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC) You, lecturing others about civility? That's funny. You pop in here to fire shots at others rather than answering the OP's questions. You're of no use here. Go back to ITN and nominate some more frauds for the "recent deaths" column. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC) "The most hostile group was the one with high but unstable self esteem. These people think well of themselves in general, but their self-esteem fluctuates. They are especially prone to react defensively to ego threats, and they are also more prone to hostility, anger and aggression than other people. "These findings shed considerable light on the psychology of the bully. Hostile people do not have low self esteem; on the contrary, they think highly of themselves, But their favorable view of themselves is not held with total conviction, and it goes up and down in response to daily events. The bully has a chip on his shoulder because he thinks you might want to deflate his favorable self image." Source: Roy F. Baumeister, Evil: Inside Human Violence and Cruelty, p 149 --Guy Macon (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC) The perfect description of someone who comes here to attack other editors. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:05, 21 August 2016 (UTC) You're literately making no sense at all. The question was already correctly and exhaustively answered (no thanks to you) in the end. I'm not even active on ITN any more. I think you might need a holiday away from here. Can some passing admin just close this nonsense down? And preferably refer BB to ANI while they're at it....? Fgf10 (talk) 23:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC) I applaud you for abandoning ITN. But before you return to the ref desk, if ever, be sure to come here for the sole purpose of answering an OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Using plastic glove as condom

Can you still get a girl pregnant if you use a plastic glove as condom? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.214.148.164 (talk) 18:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Even regular condoms are no guarantee against pregnancy, though they reduce the odds. But when used with spermicida foam, it's very near zero percent chance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:20, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

What about plastic gloves used with spermicide? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.214.148.164 (talk) 19:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Just get free condoms somewhere. The condom won't be like 3 inches long either. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Condoms are specifically tested to make sure that they are strong enough not to tear or leak when used during sexual intercourse. Rubber gloves are not tested for that, so are less likely to be safe. Wymspen (talk) 20:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Some limited info here [3] Nil Einne (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

There are actually a lot of gloves that are sold without any strong guarantee against breakage. The usual idea with lab gloves is merely to keep something sanitary given gentle usage, where not keeping it sanitary is no big deal. Often they're labelled as being for "comfort" or such, rather than being surgical gloves. Our article on Medical gloves talks about people who do double-gloving even with high-quality latex gloves. Some people who do work where glove integrity would be critical, like using hydrogen fluoride solutions, actually do without gloves but simply wash their hands after each and every potential contact because they fear the effect of an unseen leak. I can tell you for sure that with the usual cheapest-of-the-lot lab gloves that people use for non-critical scientific procedures, holes are not even uncommon. Of course, condoms aren't entirely impenetrable either, but at least they're designed to do one thing and do it as best as possible. Wnt (talk) 20:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Add to it that plastic gloves (or the powder within it) are not tested for allergic reactions when used this way. Latex gloves and latex condoms are also made from a different type of latex. Llaanngg (talk) 20:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

In short, "no glove no love" is not meant to be literal. The same can be said about putting on your sombrero. :) Wnt (talk) 17:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• Who the hell has a five-pronged penis? μηδείς (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Platypuses have a two-pronged penis. That's's not five but at least it's progress towards the goal. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Typical, frigging backwards-flushing Aussies. Bet someone will point out that most lacertillians also have two-pronged penises, that the petastomatids have five, and then there's beer pong!

I, for one, refuse to put up with nine-bladed swords, Nein! μηδείς (talk) 04:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)