Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2016 October 26

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

October 26

Alien signals

So could there be a grain of truth in all the fuss facebook is full of these days about NASA having detected alien signals? --Eleven oh seven (talk) 01:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's just noise, but the tabloids love to report that aliens sent us a distress signal. And they are also quite bad at correcting past news which turned out to be wrong.

For analysis, see [1] or [2]. Hofhof (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

an article here is HD 164595. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:00, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Facebook is about as reliable as a guy shouting stuff on the street corner. Considering NASA's budget cuts, "we found aliens, give us money" would be all over their website if it was true. These sorts of fusses start when someone misrepresents a legit news story like this or this (which are about SETI, not NASA, checking on a signal Russian astronomers found last year and dropped the ball in asking someone to confirm. The original story was "SETI si looking at a signal that could've been a defunct satellite or planetary disturbance or mixed signal but aren't sure." Tabloid reporters then misrepresented (i.e. lied) that story to make it sound more like "scientists maybe found aliens," after which crazy bloggers further distorted to fit conspiracy theories (see Circular reasoning). Then someone on Facebook shared that or a similar blog post, a friend of theirs just copied-and-pasted the title but not the link as a new post, another friend paraphrased that post, and so on until you get people posting "we found aliens" on Facebook. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Can humans train to sleep less?

In the same way that we can train to run longer and farther, or lift heavier weights, could humans also train to sleep less?Hofhof (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Nope, you need about eight hours of sleep per twenty-four hour period. It is a built in function, though there's some debate on how badly breaking up those eight hours throughout the day can be. Either a solid eight hours or biphasic (say, a two hour nap and six hours later; or two four-hour blocks during the night) are almost universally accepted as reasonable; while trying to go with something like a half-hour nap every six hours is generally regarded as crazy. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

But what makes it non-trainable? Why won't the body adapt to less possibility of sleep? Wouldn't sleep be more intense, if you are really in the need of it? Hofhof (talk) 02:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's a basic human need. It would be like training to do with less water. In short, self-defeating. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

We can be trained to do with less food. The body would adapt to this situation and reduce our size.Hofhof (talk) 02:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

For extreme consequences of not sleeping, read Fatal familial insomnia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Starvation isn't training to do with less food. If you continually get less food than you need, you die, period. Inedia is regarded as lethal quackery by pretty much everyone who doesn't practice it.

If it's short of starvation, then it's not training, it's dieting. Even that can cause trouble. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

For more extreme consequences of not sleeping, refer to Donald Trump[3] (and Margaret Thatcher[4]). Thincat (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is clearly a reasonable one: In fact, one of the major problems with weight-loss diets is thsat when you eat less, the body conserves calories - which means that you need less food. While this can only be done to a limited degree, the point is that it can be done - and the question is if sleep can also be trained in that way. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The analogy to eating is somewhat apt. For a fixed amount of activity, a heavier person uses somewhat more energy. As a result, if you vary your total food intake by a little bit, then your body will tend to gain or lose a little bit of weight and stabilize. That is probably what you had in mind by an "adaptation", right? A change in the body to adjust to the changed conditions without requiring other changes in lifestyle. Of course if you decrease food intake too far, the body can't adjust on its own. You'll start to starve. Up to a point, one can also compensate for loss of food by reducing activity. Someone faced with a substantial food shortage can "adapt", up to a point, by a combination of losing weight and reducing activity. That's an adaptation too, though it comes with negative consequences to lifestyle. Persistent moderate reductions in sleep (say 6 hours a night) is a little like the person who is forced to adjust to food shortages by curtailing their activities. The body and mind may suffer and function less effectively, and your lifestyle is likely affected, but you can maintain that state for a long time if you have to. Are you "adapted" to less sleep? Perhaps, but it may come at a cost of reduced quality of life. As far as I know there is no way to train your body and mind to function at the same capacity level with reduced sleep. There is no analogy to a sleep muscle that you can develop, for example. The body has a certain amount of mental and biochemical work it needs to do when you sleep. If you prevent your body from accomplishing that then your body won't function at optimum capacity. Depending on needs, that may be okay or even necessary for a while, but I wouldn't recommend operating on reduced sleep for extended periods if you can avoid it. Dragons flight (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

There are also mechanisms that will favor using less efficient but more energy efficient ways of recuperation if you don't push your body very hard (your body becomes lazy). This allows the body to be able to deal with harsher conditions without paying any price in performance provided there is enough energy available. A bit less sleep time simply means that the body will expend more energy/nutrients to do the same repair jobs in less time. You need to cross some threshold before you'll see your performance deteriorating, at some point the body will not be able to ramp up the processes needed to do the job. For some people this limit may be 6 hours sleep, but it's know that there are people who do fine on just 4 or even 3 hours sleep a day. And by "fine" it's not that they function barely within acceptable limits, suggesting that 8 hours sleep would benefit them a lot. Take e.g. Stanley A. McChrystal, the article says: "McChrystal is reported to run 7 to 8 miles (11 to 13 km) daily, eat one meal per day, and sleep four hours a night." Count Iblis (talk) 01:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

While the amount of actual sleep doesn't change much, people who exercise regularly tend to require less time in bed. The fall asleep faster, stay asleep longer, and wake up faster. In a paper I wrote a few years ago, I referenced articles all the way back to 1966 (Baekeland and Lasky) that found a strong correlation between effective sleep and exercise. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, there are different stages of sleep, and for some stages we could get by with less, while others are critical. So, if you can change your sleep patterns, possibly less would be sufficient. The question might come up as to why we even have "shallow sleep" stages, if "deep sleep" is better. Well, you can wake up more quickly from shallow sleep, so in some situations this is the only safe way to sleep. Also, before artificial light, in winter there were many more hours of darkness than we needed for deep sleep, so filling in the rest with shallow sleep makes sense (cats are masters of this, but, in their case, during daylight). StuRat (talk) 14:18, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Have a read of Circadian rhythm sleep disorder. DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does a bear sleep in winter? Because he had a hard summer and needs a rest? No. He sleeps because he cannot find much to eat anyway and while sleeping he saves energy and avoids risks. Some kind of standby. Same with humans sleeping in the night. Now you might say: "oh there have been clinical experiments with humans that did not sleep. They get ill or even can die". Humm...what happens if you delete or corrupt standby.dll in your PC? It might hang or crash. Is this a proof that standby is existantially important for the PC? No, it's not. It only means if you disturb a build-in machanism, the whole body gets out of balance. --JMS (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Except humans are not bears. And humans are not computers. "Do humans need sleep to survive or live normal lives?" can be answered by looking to see if, on the balance, they either die or have their quality of life reduced substantially if they do not sleep. Whether or not bears sleep or computers sleep is irrelevant to answering the question. --Jayron32 17:28, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, hybernation is not sleep. Bears sleep regularly in the summer. 209.149.113.4 (talk) 19:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• The question was whether people can train themselves to sleep less, but several of the responses seem to be about whether people can learn to stop sleeping completely. Anybody who uses an alarm clock to wake up is sleeping less than the biological default, and many people who use alarm clocks find that they tend to wake up around the time the clock would usually go off even if they don't actually have it set. So I would say yes, to at least some degree people can train themselves to sleep less. Looie496 (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Looks like we have trained our bodies to need more sleep, see here:

"Members of three hunter-gatherer societies who lack electricity—and thus evenings filled with Facebook, Candy Crush, and 200 TV channels—get an average of only 6.4 hours of shut-eye a night, scientists have found. That’s no more than many humans who lead a harried industrial lifestyle, and less than the seven to nine hours recommended for most adults by the National Sleep Foundation."

"Though the San, Tsimane, and Hadza often average less than seven hours of sleep, they seem to be getting enough sleep. They seldom nap, and they don’t have trouble dozing off. The San and Tsimane languages have no word for insomnia, and when researchers tried to explain it to them, “they still don’t seem to quite understand,” Siegel says." Count Iblis (talk) 21:33, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

No, sleeping less is known to come with diabetes and depression. Influenza interferes the chronobiology. Keeping a human out of sleep is a way of torque. If somebody tells to you, people use least 10 % of brain, and sleeping too much in their lifetime, he may be interfered by the «L. Ron Hubbard Club». So do not trust! --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 12:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but consider this question: How old is Donald Trump? You can look this up and find out that he is 70 years old. But he sleeps only 3 hours per night. What if he had taken your advice and had slept 8 hours per night? He might have been in better health, perhaps he would not need the statin he uses. However, consider that while every day contains 24 hours, someone who sleeps for 8 hours only has 16 hours available. Donald, on the other hand has 21 hours a day available. This means that one "Donald day" is equivalent to 21/16 = 1.31 "normal days". This means that Donald at the age of 70 years has had available the same time as a normal person has at the age of 1.31*70 years = almost 92 years. But even a huge improvement in physical fitness due to sleeping 5 hours longer per day would not have countered the effects of aging 22 years more from 70 years old to 92 years old. Count Iblis (talk) 18:18, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The plural of anecdote is not data. The fact that humans are variable does not negate the fact that there are minimum sleep requirements for people. In other words, the minimum recommended sleep required by people in a given night is not invalidated because you found one example where a person does fine on less than that. 1 divided by the entire historical population of earth is not significant enough to bear mentioning in a discussion such as this. --Jayron32 18:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but this reasoning is valid at the individual level. So, Donald's minimum could be 3 hours, and he could presumably decide to sleep (or try to sleep) a lot longer. A more typical example may be someone who gets the minimum 7 hours sleep, but who could sleep 8.5 hours. My point is then that only looking at improved health of sleeping 8.5 hours a day instead of 7 hours does not give you the full picture, because you're not taking into account the 1.5 hours lost per day. A similar calculation will show you that by sleeping 7 hours per day, by the age of 70 you'll have been awake for for the same time as someone who sleeps 8.5 hours a day at the age of 76.8 years. Count Iblis (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Post-nasal drip

Why does post-nasal drip cause soreness in the throat? Our article mentions this but doesn't attempt to explain it, and the same was true of a lot of sources that I found through Google. Nyttend (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think you may be misinterpreting: post-nasal drip is a symptom that is often coincident with other symptoms, including pain, that are ultimately caused by an inflammation (rhinitis, sinusitis, and so on), frequently because of a bacterial or viral infection. One symptom does not strictly cause the other symptom. Our medical articles use terminology like pathogenesis and causal inference to help guide you toward the style of thinking that medical professionals use. The disease is the abnormal condition; the symptoms include post-nasal drip and pain or soreness; the pathenogenesis is, for example, the specific bacteria that is infesting the patient. Nimur (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The answer is apparently, officially, "it doesn't" This paper in 2008 seems to address your exact question, with the answer (in scientific terms) "It doesn't exist as a syndrome". To wit "...medical textbooks do not mention PNDS [post nasal drip syndrom]. The term is in common use in the modern literature, but some authors report that there is no accepted definition of the condition" I.E. even the concept of the existence of the condition is not even widely accepted by medical literature. This is from 2008, so fairly recent. To piggy back on what Nimur has said, the symptom of your nose dripping back into your throat exists, but there is no evidence that that symptom causes a sore throat, though both a sore throat and post-nasal drip may be simultaneous symptoms of something else. --Jayron32 18:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Then I misunderstood something; I thought "post-nasal drip" was the mere symptom of nasal mucus going down the throat, while the syndrome was a situation of disputed reality in which, allegedly, post-nasal drip happens without some sort of illness that naturally would force increased mucus production. I was merely asking about the symptom. Both personal experience and plenty of websites testify to the fact that drinking water (or basically anything else) temporarily softens the sore throat, which I'd always taken as an indication that the mucus caused the pain. Since that's not the case, why does consumption of liquids temporarily relieve the pain? Simply that the liquids temporarily wash away the pathogens (i.e. pain returns as they spread back into the throat), or that wetter throat-surface cells are less susceptible to the pain-causing effects of the pathogens, or something else? Nyttend (talk) 18:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid we cannot tell you why your sore throat goes away with any certain treatment. We can say that both heat and cold can be used to treat pain That article discusses mechanisms for each. --Jayron32 18:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Pardon me, but I'm not asking for medical advice. Nyttend (talk) 18:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I never said you did. I gave you a reference for mechanisms of pain relief. --Jayron32 23:26, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

If gravity on Mars is around 38% that of Earth, how rovers there stay in contact with the ground and don't float?

Thanks in advance.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Because 38% of a number that is not zero is also not zero. For example, if the rover has a weight of 100 Newtons on Earth, then it has a weight of 38 Newtons on Mars. You'll notice that 38 does not equal zero. --Jayron32 18:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• There seems to be an unstated and incorrect assumption there, that any nonzero weight would keep the rover on the surface. That's not true. If you tried to put a rover on a tiny asteroid with hardly any gravity, it would be difficult to keep it from flying off into space, say from inertia when it drives over a hill. It would need to move very slowly, or have some other method to maintain contact. Also, even when not reaching the (minimal) escape velocity on such an asteroid, the tendency to bounce and flip over would make current rover designs impractical there. StuRat (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• I've decided I like when you talk, because it confirms how smart you really are... --Jayron32 23:23, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I have seen many balloons in the air and this was not a place with zero gravity. --JMS (talk) 18:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

That's because the balloon's weight is less than an equivalent weight of air that it displaces. This is due to buoyancy and not literal weightlessness. A helium balloon in a vacuum on earth will still sink to the ground. Watch this video for an explanation. Unless the rover was less dense than the surrounding air on Mars, it will not float on that air. Since the Martian atmosphere is considerably less dense than even Earth's, it seems unlikely that a 38-N weight rover would float. --Jayron32 18:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed - and just to clear up a bit of earlier confusion in some now-removed discussion: the weight changes when the force of gravity changes - but the mass stays the same. Objects appear to "float" when they have zero net force, which is a totally different thing than having no mass, and it's even a different condition than having zero weight. Objects float when the net force is zero, not when the weight is zero. Examples can occur in static- or dynamic- conditions, including: neutral buoyancy here on Earth, which is common for a SCUBA diver or certain biological organisms like some fish, especially when they have a swim bladder, and so forth. Net-zero force can also occur on some roller-coaster rides - see our article on the physics of roller coasters; or during some instants inside an aerobatic airplane doing a maneuver. The same effect can occur in many other normal situations where it is a little less obvious, like when a construction crane is holding a massive object with a cable.

Although the force of gravity on the surface of Mars is lower than the force of gravity on Earth's surface, it is still a force, and it still tugs the rovers toward the planet. They "stick" there, even though their weight is lower than it would be on Earth. That "sticking" to the ground is the effect of the normal force exactly counter-balancing the weight.

As strange as it is to have to spell this out, the normal force is what keeps you from falling through the floor: it's why you can simultaneously have a weight, but also not be falling right now, because you have zero net force on your body, so you aren't accelerating downward.

Take a look at our articles on weight, and on mass, and let us know if you're still confused.

Nimur (talk) 18:27, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The Martian atmosphere has a surface density around 0.020 kg/m³.[5] That's 60 times less than Earth's atmosphere and 50,000 times less than water so rovers ain't gonna float off. If you think of temporarily going airborn when they drive over a bump then consider that their speed is measured in metres per hour. Curiosity (rover)#Specifications says: "It can travel up to 90 metres (300 ft) per hour but average speed is about 30 metres (98 ft) per hour". 90 metres per hour is 2.5 cm per second. Exercise for the reader: How high would it reach if it suddenly travelled straight up at that speed? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

high doses of dextromethorphan leading to a false positive test for Phencyclidine

Consider a *hypothetical* patient F, an addict and a habitual user of dextromethorphan at very high plateau 4 or sigma level doses, but only consumes dextromethorphan. She often passes out on the street, gets picked up by emergency medical services, gets admitted to the emergency room in a hallucination-filled haze, and twice in the morning she has been told she has tested positive for phencyclidine, much to her amazement. (This is generally of no legal or medical consequence whatsoever, because she gets discharged the very next day.)

Out of PURE scientific curiosity, and not a request for medical or legal advice, how is it possible to get high off of a completely legal over the counter drug but test positive for an illegal category 1 controlled substance? I know DXM and PCP antagonize the same receptor, but are they literally using a close homologue of the NMDA receptor as an antibody for the drug screen?

Hypothetically, how bad would be an issue like this be grounds for issuing an FDA consumer complaint about the test? (If this is, a legal advice request letme know. I am not asking for professional advice at all.) 50.200.152.3 (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Read This. --Jayron32 18:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Look at the articles for the two drugs. Both contain a phenyl ring, and both contain a cyclohexyl ring attached to it. They also both contain a piperidine ring, but in DXM it shares two carbons with the cyclohexyl ring while in PCP it is separate. So it is conceivable that an antibody or the like might cross-react. A proper test with some sort of chromatography should not be confused; a "drug screen" etc (emphasis on the screen) could be. Of course, it may not matter to a company if they fire a few people wrongly, or fail to fire people when they say they want to; provided they get a bureaucrat's or investor's smile at the right moment, their price is paid. Wnt (talk) 00:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Or, he could read the article I pointed him to... --Jayron32 02:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

True, but it didn't explain the structural similarities the way I'd prefer. But while we're at it let's expand the references it lists (because it really just passes through this tidbit with little elaboration):

Schier J, Diaz, JE. Avoid unfavorable consequences: Dextromethorphan can bring about false-positive phencyclidine urine drug screen. J Emerg Med. 2000;18:379–381. (one case, sounds like a very high dose)

Rogowski R, Krenzelok, E. Averting the medical, social, and legal implications of a false positive phencyclidine determination (Abstract No.167-NACCT Annual Meeting). Clin Toxicol. 1997;35:551.

Desai S, Aldea D, Daneels E, et al. Chronic addiction to dextromethorphan cough syrup: A case report. J Amer Board Fam Med. 2006;19:320–323. (one case, positive urine test in a chronic DXM addict. A bit disturbing that this was hospital "urine toxicology", given this was already known in the literature)

Wnt (talk) 19:27, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does my neighbors' kitten have such a small tail?

I don't know who the father is. It's a young Tuxedo cat and as far as I know, all its relatives have regular tails, but this kitten looks like it has a large black caterpillar attached. I don't think it has ever been injured.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Could it be part Manx cat ? If not, perhaps it has a spontaneous mutation, similar to the one in the Manx cat. StuRat (talk) 20:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Manx have shorter tails. I've never taken a good look at the stray cats in the area, though.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Manx cats' tail lengths are variable: could be a "stumpie" or a "longie" – read the "Appearance" section in the article StuRat linked. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.211.130.104 (talk) 02:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

If I have an opportunity I'll provide a photo. I don't know whether my neighbors have one, and I don't have a camera or the type phone that takes photos. This question will probably be archived by that time.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

It's about the length of a "longie", but not as neat.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions •

How sure are you that the cat hasn't been injured? This sounds very much like the cat has experienced multiple breaks in his/her tail and a portion has been removed. This would give it the appearance of a large caterpillar as stated in the OP. DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Why can't I smell a dead animal in my house?

On Friday morning I smelled what I believe to be a dead animal near what I believe is called a return for the furnace. I have smelled animals that died in the basement (not tall enough to stand up) through this vent before. I don't know how it could have died since even though I still have poison out for mice, I haven't seen or heard one that I am aware of, and my neighbors' cats now have an opening if they want to get in, so I can let them take care of mice. They used to before one opening was closed after the cats misbehaved in my basement. If a cat or cats killed something I doubt they'd leave it behind but you never know. I haven't heard anything this time to suggest what the animal was.

On Friday evening in my living room I could smell that smell again, but when I went in my bedroom which is directly off the living room, I couldn't. Later that night I could smell the animal in my room all night long, which was unpleasant. The next morning, no smell in my room but I could smell something in the living room unless I stayed in there for a long time. And coming in to the house, even the kitchen, from the outside, I could smell the animal. I can't smell anything in my room now and if I enter the living room from elsewhere, or come in the house from outside, the smell is still there.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Some points:

1) Don't combine poison and cats, as the poisoned mice might be eaten by the cat, and the cat may be sickened or die.

2) Smells don't spread evenly. If you watch smoke rise from the tip of a cigarette, you will get an idea for how uneven the distribution is. It may blow one way or another, depending on the air currents at that moment.

3) Smell generation will vary with the decay state. For example, a gas bubble may build up inside, then find it's way out all at once, greatly increasing the stench at that moment. Temperature will also have a major effect.

4) In a house, smells may travel thru the walls, ceilings, and floors, past one room and into another, depending on the air currents, locations of openings, etc. StuRat (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding noticing the smell more when coming in from outside: see olfactory fatigue. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

What I would do is break this down into simple steps. First, it is quite common for perfectly healthy people to sometimes get brief episodes of [6]. As smell is the most primeval of our senses it can sometimes becomes over exited. So get a friends in (much better then a mere neighbour). Then, without giving him/her any description of the smell just ask them if they can smell something out-of-place. Without that hint, they may be too polite to volunteer a report of an unpleasant odour. Also, two-heads are better than one. They may be able to look beyond the obvious and identify the real problem, as often, a home owner can't see the wood for the trees. This seems to call for someone that you can trust to have a good look around for indications that you may have missed.--Aspro (talk) 13:39, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate the warning about cats and poison. I never thought about it but I would assume even if the cat finds the mouse it's already dead. I wasn't getting results with traditional traps so someone suggested glue traps.

As for my getting someone else to smell my house, I'm not planning on it.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Why poison mice anyway? Whole idea of a trap is recovery. Some traps are designed to be more humane if that is your preference, though they can also be useful to secure volunteers for, ehm, experiments... Wnt (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Glue traps must be one of the most inhumane ways to kill a mouse. The mouse runs into the glue, gets stuck and then dies of dehydration/starvation. A totally unethical method of pest control IMHO. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The lucky ones get their little mouths/noses covered in the stuff and suffocate. The unlucky ones die by dehydration, probably. The really unlucky ones don't die before you remember to check the trap... Wnt (talk) 21:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

The man who sold it to me said the mouse takes the poison back to its nest. It didn't make sense since it sounds like the mouse will get stuck. I have no interest in humane or ethical. I want the dirty pest gone. Anyway, I still don't know what died or how.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

I am seriously questioning whether this question should be on this reference desk. We are dealing with individual circumstances of human perception, a single location and a highly idiosyncratic context. This is not science. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:53, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My hypothesis would be that if you poison mice in your house, you're going to get stink in hard to find places pretty reproducibly. Wnt (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is why the OP can't smell the dead animal - we do not even know it is a mouse. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:58, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I sure smelled it last night, in the one location where I first smelled it. But I didn't smell it when I walked in the house this afternoon. It sure seems like science to me.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:01, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As smell is such an important sense it may be heightened at night, even in humans. Fos in the olfactory pathways depends on the phase of the circadian clock. For Fos see c-Fos . During the day your home may be better ventilated also but after darkness when the wind drops the odours may accumulate at the same time when your sense of smell becomes more sensitive. Also, don't see why you don't what people sniffing around the house, they might just find which cupboard you have stored your Durian fruit in and forgotten about -as if thats possible ho ho.--Aspro (talk) 13:44, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I have my reasons for not letting people in. I didn't really smell anything last night, though occasionally there was something very faint, especially around the door to my bedroom which is next to that return. Also, I have slight cold or allergy symptoms.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Not really useful here, but I did smell it around the heat return last night.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)