Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2006 December 1: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MartinBotIII (talk | contribs) substing dates and categorising, Replaced: {{#time: → {{subst:#time: (10) using AWB |
m Bot: Fixing lint errors, replacing obsolete HTML tags: <font> (11x) Tag: Fixed lint errors |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown) | |||
Line 4:
! colspan="3" align="center" | [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science|Science desk]]
|-
! width="20%" align="left" | < [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/
! width="25%" align="center"|<< [[Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/November
! width="20%" align="right" |{{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/
|}
{| align=center width=95% style="background: #FFFFFF; border: 1px solid #003EBA;" cellpadding="8" cellspacing="0"
|-
! style="background: #5D7CBA; text-align: center;
|-
| The page you are currently viewing is {{#ifexist:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2006 December 11|an archive page|a [[Wikipedia:Transclusion|transcluded]] archive page}}. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the [[Wikipedia:Reference desk|current reference desk]] pages.
Line 26:
Not likely to shutdown, but it is likely to slow. by how much and what the effect will be is unknown, but Northern Europe will become colder and Labrador/Newfoundland wil become warmer.--John
:I ''still'' don't understand how it could possibly shut down. The THC has lasted through ice ages and thick and thin. It only moves and has probably broken at times, but has it ever STOPPED? The ocean will ''never'' stop having currents, on all scales even up to the THC. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mac_Davis <
:[[Gulf_Stream#The_effect_of_global_warming]] mentions a research published in Nature that showed a weakening of the flow by 30% since 1957. 30% in just half a century. And more ice will melt, which would make it worse. But this is all still very sketchy. The problem is we may be heading for disaster and the indications are there, but we don't yet know how big a disaster it is and some see a reason in that to not do anything about the causes. And since such actions would cost us, those who don't know would rather believe the sceptics. It's russian roulette. We have strong indications that there a bullets in the gun, but we don't know how big they are or how many, so we take our chances and pull the trigger anyway. [[User:DirkvdM|DirkvdM]] 09:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
::The basic theory is that a sudden slug of fresh water from the melting of the northern polar regions could disrupt the flow. A recent article in ''[[New Scientist]]'' magazine seemed to suggest that this was unlikely, though, and I sure hope it doesn't happen. - [[User:Atlant|Atlant]] 13:35, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:::That happened several times before, like in [[Meltwater pulse 1A]] (which I will expand someday!), maybe during the [[Bølling-Allerød|Bølling-Allerød interstadial event]], and also the Hudson megaflood at the end of one or two ice ages ago. [[Glacial dam]]s broke around the [[Canadian shield]]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mac_Davis <
The planet has been siginificantly warmer and colder than it is now. I don't think there is any evidence that the circulation stopped in any of those periods. --[[User:Tbeatty|Tbeatty]] 07:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 111:
What exactly do people have against a little ionizing radiation? It's discrimination really, ions are people too you know--13:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
:I wouldn't consider it discrimination as the ions as such don't even exist until you ionize something. –[[User:Mysid|m<
I'll charge right in and say that some people's views of ions are positive, and just about as many are negative. [[User:StuRat|StuRat]] 14:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 160:
:Shouldn't it stand to reason that if a plastic container is safe enough to drink the original contents out of after it has been sitting on the store shelf for who knows how many months then it should also be equally safe if you are drinking water or whatever that you ''just'' put in it? The leach levels of various volatile organic compounds from plastic containers is so absurdly low that it is absolutely not worth worrying about with ''possibly'' one exception. The exception may (and I heavily stress ''may'') be the use of lexan/polycarbonate bottles such as in Nalgene bottles which leach out tiny amounts of [[bisphenol a]] an estrogen analogue. But then these containers were DESIGNED for reuse(!!) and at the levels found from such bottles even after numerous studies in several different countries there have been no restrictions or regulations on use for such products. Seriously, imnsho, worry about driving safely/wearing a seatbelt and not becoming one of the one million people who die every year in road traffic accidents, not the 5 parts per billion levels of ''possibly'' harmful chemicals from your plastic containers.--[[User:Deglr6328|Deglr6328]] 09:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
::I usually drink the refill within 12 hours or so. From all the responses so far, I think I`m pretty safe. I`m not going to worry about it. Thank you all. Dave[[User:172.163.70.157|172.163.70.157]] 10:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
:: Not necessarily. The plastic definitely ages; I left a bottle of water in my car for approximately five months, because I completely forgot about it, then one day, when I was really thirsty, I opened it... and let's say that "it tasted like plastic" was a severe understatement of the situation. While the water may accelerate the solution of the plastic, exposure to sunlight also has a damaging effect on the containers; but of more importance is that the taste will become intolerable, and that's why 18 truckloads of unused water bottles were thrown into a sewer following [[Hurricane Katrina]].<sup class="plainlinks">[
Bit worried about peoples suggestion to use bleach - if it's hypochlorite bleach then that can react with organic chemicals - chlorinating them - plastics aren't stable to bleach like glass is.[[User:83.100.253.51|83.100.253.51]] 14:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Line 198:
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12707195&query_hl=16&itool=pubmed_docsum This article] makes me think that nasal epithelial cells may respond directly to estrogen. One effect of estrogen in epithelial cells is to regulate [[Nitric oxide synthase]]. Our article on [[erectile tissue]] fails to mention the fact that humans have erectile tissue in [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10188352&query_hl=21&itool=pubmed_docsum some parts of the nasal passages]. It may be that during evolution there have been species for which effects of estrogen on nasal mucosa cells was important for reproductive behavior. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
: Further, its interesting to speculate of a possible relationship between olfactory function and hormonal changes during menstrution per that paper. Especially considering the [[McClintock effect]]. [[User:Rockpocket|<
== Does spoilt soy milk contain Lactobacillus? ==
Line 207:
:This sounds like a good science project. You might be interested in [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=15614733&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum this article]. --[[User:JWSchmidt|JWSchmidt]] 02:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
[[Category:Wikipedia Reference Desk
| |||