Science desk
< July 6	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 8 >

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.

July 7[edit]

Freezing[edit]

When most people speak colloquially about freezing temperatures (such as, "Man, it's freezing in here!"), they are referring to the freezing point of water and remarking about how chilly it is. Since materials like aluminum and gold are solid at room temperature, does that mean that they are frozen, in the sense of freezing point referring to the temperature at which liquids turn to solids, the same as melting point, only in the opposite direction? So that's my first question -- are these sorts of materials properly (technically) referred to as being frozen at room temperature?

My second question, based off of this idea, is about jello. If jello sets at, let's say, room temperature, so that when it's made by boiling up in a pot and then left to cool in the mold on the counter, is that referred to as frozen at room temperature? Because unlike aluminum, say, which if it were to be placed in a freezer, would just get cold, and not undergo any phase change, jello placed into a freezer does turn into ice, which sort of betrays it's solid nature at room temperature as not really being solid. Is this is same problem with, say, a human body or an animal which, at room temperature, is what, 60% water but presents as a solid, but that if put into a freezer does indeed become a new type of solid at 0 degrees F.

Thanks! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 04:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of solid metals, yes, they are frozen. Though it's worth noting that as water/ice is being held together by hydrogen bonds, it does not display the same ductility near the melting point as do most metals, held together by metallic bonds. Jello is actually a gel, which is a complex phase of matter. It is not purely liquid or solid, but rather contains a liquid mass held to shape by a less dense solid scaffold. When molten jello solidifies, that is the solidification, or rather, immobilization-by-crosslinking of the gelatin it contains. The water is still in a liquid phase. When you then cool jello even further, the water itself eventually freezes, giving you another level of "frozen". Someguy1221 (talk) 04:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reiterating some points in the previous reply: yes, they are frozen, though because of the connotation of "frozen" in everyday language with the specific behavior of water, you don't hear the word much in such contexts. And, regarding the second question, the bright-line division between solid, liquid, and gas states is a property only of pure substances, which include water (with negligible contaminants) and pure elements. Mixtures like gelatin can have all kinds of complex behavior, and cannot be described accurately with the classical states of matter. Gelatin is a gel, with the collagen molecules forming a dispersed network throughout a liquid water solution. If you freeze the water, now you have a block of ice with stuff in it. The gel properties require liquid water to be present. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 07:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as freezing a human or other animal, there are many distinct materials, with different freezing points. Pure water freezes at 32 F, but most of the water in animals is mixed with other constituents, so has a variety of freezing temps. Then there are oils, which behave somewhat like gels, in that they undergo viscosity changes at different temperatures, but don't actually freeze solid until quite low temps. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:42, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Health and safety[edit]

Is health and safety subjective? Many countries like the UK or Germany who have high health and safety standards often criticise practices in other countries such as USA or UK which also have high health and safety standards but just do things differently. So at a certain point, does health and safety just become subjective? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.62.45 (talk) 07:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death rates are objective measures. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:44, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But death rates are often similar between countries with high health and safety standards regardless of differing practices. 90.194.62.45 (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's why you need a much more specific query. The United States has similar death rates to some other countries for some causes, and very different death rates for others. See [1] for an overview. Certainly, "Western Europe good, America bad" is an oversimplification, and even if based on some average safety/health outcome, is an example of the ecological fallacy (assuming that every member of the group has the average qualities of the group). However, there are certainly examples where the United States is far behind other developed nations in health and safety, as you can see in that link. There are also objective measures beyond death rates. But essentially, you need to look at the individual practices being criticized to judge whether the criticism makes sense. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In everything you'll find some subjectiveness. Still, Health can be assessed by a number of objective measures (vaccination, food intake Vs need, drinking of uncontaminated water,...). Same for safety (car-crash, death and injuries at work, ...). Gem fr (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This summary has comparisons of worker deaths in the U.S. and EU. The overall rate is similar (2.8/100000 EU vs. 3.1 for U.S.) but individual industry rates vary more widely. Rmhermen (talk) 17:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting example of "doing things differently but with the same goal" is that eggs in the US must be washed before they are sold, to eliminate contaminated feces on them, while in Europe, they are banned from washing them, because this also removes an anti-microbial natural barrier layer (https://www.forbes.com/sites/nadiaarumugam/2012/10/25/why-american-eggs-would-be-illegal-in-a-british-supermarket-and-vice-versa/#47b28b3f4050).

Note that mortality from some causes can't be equalized. Suicides, for example, seem more prevalent in Arctic regions where sunlight is wildly uneven. This is related to seasonal affective disorder. Meds and bright light to simulate sunshine help, but do not eliminate, this problem. SinisterLefty (talk) 18:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One example I find interesting is railway safety. Rail travel has a much better safety record than car travel, which is why even minor accidents to passenger trains make the news. But in order to keep rail travel as safe as possible, its regulatory authorities may insist on measures being taken which add to the cost of operating trains (thus raising ticket prices), or reduce the capacity of the railway (by reducing the speed or frequency of the trains). The regulators are happy because the deaths due to rail travel go down, but if the detriments I mentioned make people choose car travel instead, the total deaths may very well go up. --76.69.117.113 (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they need to take a holistic approach. Similarly, doctors sometimes treat patients for one condition, not worrying about the side effects it may cause, which may be worse than the original problem. They need to look at what improves the patient's health overall the most, not just the condition they are treating. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Another factor that comes into play is that enforcement can be highly subjective. Jurisdiction A might have stricter rules on the books than jurisdiction B, but if in jurisdiction B the rules are enforced fairly and uniformly across the board, while in jurisdiction A they're routinely ignored, or enforced depending on how well the inspector knows the family owning the inspected entity, or on how big a bribe the inspected entity pays to the inspector, then jurisdiction B might have better outcomes. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Lalande Prize recipients[edit]

Hi, I was wondering if anyone can advise how to find Lalande Prize recipients from 1939-1969. Article does not have a complete list, and I could not find any mention of such winners (although I found sources for one winner in 1960, and that the prize was until 1970). Golan's mom (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They seem to be published in L'Astronomie each year in a section labelled "Nouvelles de la Science, Variétés, Informations". I have added a couple. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:51, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graeme Bartlett for adding and showing me where to look. I will try to see if I find some more. Golan's mom (talk) 07:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Marchand (surgeon): Is this article legit?[edit]

Many of the cites are misleading. Like an inline cite to biographical info takes to a blog where he is quoted on when to induce labor. I am guessing an elaborate hoax or a quack going on a publicity rampage because no links I click from the article gives anything helpful, instead it looks like a lot of circular referencing. Did he really invent the things it says he did? Does that make him notable? Are the papers listed published in reliable medical journals? Independent search yielded some promotional coverage in local media, one other source said his methods are unacceptable because it can spread cancer cells throughout the body. Couldn't find more. I don't know if this is the kind of thing that this place is for. But I don't know of any place else more suitable. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Methink it is not legit, but I am on the "perfection is when you cannot cut a single word" side. Ref desk is indeed not the place to discuss such matter, however Ref Desk do can link to the proper place: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Gem fr (talk) 22:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There really is a Dr. Greg Marchand in Arizona [2]. No comment on the content of the article, though. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

being real is far from enough to deserve an article, so far (although I suspect WP will end with a bio of just every person and their pets) Gem fr (talk) 00:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is now being discussed on WikiProject Medicine. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:12, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, editors. I didn't want to rush into AfD with the level of uncertainty I had but moving the discussion to the project page seems the best thing. Thanks for already taking it there. I will follow the discussion there.Thanks everyone. Feel free to close this discussion here. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:20, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]