Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 August 3

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 3

Crescent Moon illumination

I was just watching the crescent Moon (it's about an hour before sunrise here), and I noticed that, while I could see the sunlit crescent, I could easily see the dark part of the Moon as well. The thing is, the edge of the Moon on the dark, non-lit part seemed to be brighter than the center. Is it due to the Moon geography (lighter/darker parts), or due to some real effect? Thanks 208.80.154.136 (talk) 02:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think most likely what you are seeing is Mach bands (an optical effect). Looie496 (talk) 02:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I second that - it's a classic example of a mach band...essentially just an optical illusion. SteveBaker (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, makes sense. 78.0.225.163 (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the reason you can see the dark part at all is due to earthshine, that is, sunlight which reflects off the Earth to the dark side of the Moon, and then back to us (I can't help but think of the pinball opening credits at the start of 3rd Rock from the Sun). StuRat (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Airliner emergency exits

Every commercial airliner I've ever been on had emergency exits of some type with clear instructions on how to open the door in case of a crash. Usually, if you're sitting in an exit row, the hostesses even come and instruct you on how to open it in case the pictographs aren't clear. Do these emergency exits only open if the plane is stopped on the ground? Could criminals/terrorists open the doors in flight for bailing out, or just for the chaos caused by loosing cabin pressure? 202.155.85.18 (talk) 03:25, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

According to this, you can't open them while the cabin is pressurized since they have to swing in. Dismas|^(talk) 03:31, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the ones I've seen don't swing at all. Pulling the lever actually detaches the door like a manhole cover, and then you throw it outside the aircraft, so I don't think pressure will hold those on. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Do they go straight out or do you have to pull them in and then push them out lengthwise? Dismas|^(talk) 04:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they just fall outside, but my hostess on that flight was from Thailand so she spoke a bit funny and maybe they do come in first. Googling around a bit I found that a new trend it apparently outward swinging doors that avoid having to pull the door inward against a throng of desperate passengers in fear for the lives. These are locked electronically in a fail-open arrangment. 202.155.85.18 (talk) 04:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

These say there is no possibility of opening them in flight.[1] [2] Apteva (talk) 04:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Re. the overwing exits (which are the ones that "detach like manhole covers"), they DO have to be pulled INWARD to open -- so, in fact, cabin pressure WILL prevent them from opening. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Supposedly most of them must come inwards slightly to unlatch then they pop outwards. This prevents them from opening at altitude.

I dunno if they also have other locking mechanisms that stops you from popping them open.

This wasn't always the case. Check out D._B._Cooper.

And also check out Door#Aircraft_doors, which lists four cases where the doors were opened during flight.

APL (talk) 07:23, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

All four of those doors were cargo doors, not passenger doors. Dan Cooper (D.B.) (not likely his real name) specifically chose that aircraft because it was the only type that you could parachute from, because it had a rear door. He asked the pilot to depressurize the plane so that the door would open. Whether he survived is unknown, but some of the money was recovered years later, on the beach. An unreferenced statement in our article says that instead, "The crew soon noticed a subjective change of air pressure" when the read door was opened. I will look for a reference to change that. Apteva (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

That line isn't surprising. I'll bet it's true. You can notice a change in air-pressure when you open a car window on the highway. (On some cars anyway. It has to do with air-flow around the car.) APL (talk) 00:30, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course if the door opens outwards then the cabin pressure won't help. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 07:27, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, a smaller aircraft is easier to open the door, but not easy. That one was not supposed to be possible to open. Apteva (talk) 17:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

A few weeks ago, I was up front in an Bonanza when my door popped open. (Our pilot was fidgeting with the door because he thought the seal was leaking, and "pop" it went). The cabin is unpressurized, and we were only starting our climbout, some 3500 or 4500 feet over the San Jose hills. But the airflow kind of wedged the door into a steady-state configuration, cracked at an exact angle so that air rushed into the cockpit and held the door fixed. Now, we were only going about a hundred fifty knots, but let me tell you: there was no amount or force that I could exert against the air pressure to move the door in either direction - not to open it any wider, nor to slam it shut. It was held exactly at the steady angle that the airflow dictated it should hang at. High-velocity air acting on a few square feet of door can easily generate hundreds of pounds of force.

The Bonanza's door swings outward, and is notorious for popping open in flight; the rushing air slamming my face was about the loudest air I've ever heard, and I was pretty glad I didn't have to land the aircraft. A few times, my Citabria's door has popped open, but I can usually slam it shut without effort, or slow to fifty miles per hour and slip it to get the door to close on its own; or my backseat passenger/co-pilot takes care of it for me. Because the Citabria flies so much slower, and the door hinge is a lot simpler, it has never been an issue to close in-flight. But we had to make the call to land the Bonanza with the door open (or continue on with the wind blasting me for another forty minutes or so). We landed at KLVK, and the tower didn't even acknowledge anything out-of-the-ordinary.

This is yet another good reason why pilots are legally required to keep their seatbelts fastened at all times; and shoulder harnesses must be fastened for takeoff and landing (FAR 91.107). Everyone thinks it's really stupid when the pilot falls out of an aircraft. Nimur (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Slipping a plane at 50 knots? I hope this is at 1000 feet AGL or higher, and that you're current on spin recovery! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yessir, and compliant with 91.119 (minimum safe altitudes) and all other applicable regulations. As a pilot of a conventional gear, aerobatic aircraft - and one without flaps - we slip all the time - it's a normal operation as part of every crosswind landing, whereas a lot of Cessna pilots (and even my pal with the Bonanza) tend to treat the slip as an emergency-landing-procedure only, and crab it in every time. I have to know how to slip without stalling - it's a maneuver that gets checked as part of my tailwheel type rating (FAR 61.31(i)(1)(i)). But it'd be hard to spin even if I wanted: when I'm soloing, I'm way under maximum gross weight, well inside the aerobatic envelope, and the Citabria usually stalls (power off) at just about forty (40) miles per hour (mph, not knots, on our airspeed indicator). 50 mph with power gives me plenty of margin, especially because the buffeting onset of a stall is so obvious at those low speeds - everything starts rocking and rolling and the stick goes limp - long before the pitch-over, and long before I lose altitude. And remember - you cannot spin unless both wings are in a full stall. With engine power, it's sometimes not possible to pitch the Citabria to the stall (I just keep... pitching up and climbing. Fortunately, on the checkrides, there's always gonna be some extra dead weight in the back seat).

My door's popped open once in the pattern, in a climbing turn to crosswind at just about 400' absolute altitude, and on that instance my CFI in the backseat closed it for me. One other time I recall, the door popped open while I was by myself at around 3000 feet MSL somewhere over the foothills near Skyline Boulevard. If you read the Airmen Practical Test Standards, we're supposed to be able to handle these sorts of "reasonable distractions" without panic or loss of control of the aircraft. It's probable that my CFI opened our door on purpose, on at least one occasion, just to check if I could handle a "realistic" distraction and maintain safe flight. He's definitely created more serious distractions: most memorably, he tried to take my eyes off the runway at short final by tapping me on the shoulder to point out a P-51 downwind in the pattern on the other runway. He later told me it really was a real P-51 and that I missed a pretty rare sight. I was unable to ever verify independently.

The point of all this side-story, as pertains to the original question: a door opening in flight does not need to be an emergency. In fact, a door falling off in flight is not even an "emergency" or an "incident" according to the legal definitions of those terms, as specified in the FARs or the NTSB safety regulations. Now, an airliner at 30,000 feet with a pressurized cabin is not equivalent, obviously, to a small general aviation aircraft. For one thing, passengers require supplemental oxygen if the door opens and the cabin depressurizes. Even still, that scenario is neither an emergency nor an incident, unless the pilot in command believes the open door jeopardizes the safe outcome of the flight. Nimur (talk) 02:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. For my part, all of my flight training was in the faster and heavier Cessna 172, which starts to mush at 55 knots with flaps up (although it can fly as slow as 40 with them down) and has a safe landing speed of 65 knots -- which is why I thought 50 would also be close to a stall in your case. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 01:04, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

The small emergency exits operated by passengers are plug doors so they cannot be opened by a human being when the cabin is pressurized. To be opened on the ground, the passenger must open the door inwards and then dispose of it. This is best done by moving the door to a horizontal position, rotating it through 90 degrees so it will pass easily through the exit, and then throwing it out onto the wing or onto the ground. (In some genuine emergencies, conscientious passengers have passed the door back to other passengers in the cabin, out of concern that throwing the door outside onto the ground will damage it. However, this is misguided because in an emergency when the cabin is to be evacuated the value of this small door is insignificant.)

In an unpressurized aircraft, it would be possible to open the small emergency exit in flight. Dolphin (t) 05:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Where do kangaroos come from and what are they made of?

I don't mean Australia and meat, but in an evolution sense. Do we know what common grandparents they share with each of the mammals they sort of look like (goat, possum, human, rabbit, etc.)?

I've tried Googling, but only find archaeological and zoological stuff (I don't really trust those guys). I don't understand genetic terms enough to Google efficiently, but I can mostly understand them in context once I have them (same with French). A push in the right direction would be nice, if nobody has a definitive answer. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Does Marsupial#Evolution help? Ghmyrtle (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Macropodidae, the taxonomic Family (biology) of kangaroos may also be of interest. Try also "zoological stuff" at "Macropodidae (kangaroo)". The Paleobiology Database. Australian Research Council. 2011. The evolutionary split between mammalsplacentals(us) and marsupials (kangaroos) was apparently 160 million years ago, as near as we can tell so far. See New York Times, August 24, 2011 "A Small Mammal Fossil Tells a Jurassic Tale", and Daily Mail (UK), 19 November 2008 "Kangaroos 'are closely related to humans', scientists claim". "Kangaroos: Biology of the Largest Marsupials" page 6, dated 1995 so out of date now. --220 of ^Borg 14:45, 3 August 2013 (UTC) Corrected! --220 of ^Borg 06:29, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick clarification/correction. Marsupials *are* mammals. Certified, paid-in-full, card-carrying mammals. The distinction you wish to draw between marsupials like kangaroos and possums and other mammals like humans, goats, rabbits, dogs and elephants is the difference between marsupials and placentals. (Here we should also mention monotremes, which are also true mammals, but are considered neither marsupials nor placentals.) - I agree, though, that looking at (modern) taxonomy, as refelected in the trees given in most taxonomic articles, is probably the best way to get a sense of how closely related things are, and what sort of diversity you get from the common anscestor. -- 71.35.121.78 (talk) 17:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Whoops, IANAZOS! (I Am Not A Zoologist Or Similar!) Corrected! Thank you 'IP 71.' --220 of ^Borg 06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Another correction: Our common grandfather with kangaroos is apparently 150 million years old, not 160. Not sure if that was a typo, or if there was something in that Google book I didn't see (says I reached my viewing limit, which is apparently zero). Strange to hear it was about 80 million years before we split from mice. Can't judge a book by its cover, I guess. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:53, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I suppose either could be considered a good enough guess. I see the first link went with 160. Ten million years seems like a long time, but it's small, percentage-wise. I'm sure the exact answer doesn't end in round zeroes, whatever it is, but we'll never know the exact one. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:05, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Do marsupials carry their cards in their pouches ? :-) StuRat (talk) 22:13, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The kangaroos native to the Greater Nottingham area of the UK (!) apparently do. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Naturally, they don't have wallets, though they can be made into wallets. (and coin purses) --220 of ^Borg 06:08, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I recall Craig Ferguson using a kangaroo's "coin purse" as a prop on his show. :-) StuRat (talk) 22:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, people. It all helps. These creatures have baffled me for long enough! InedibleHulk (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What part of your brain is "You"?

Is there a section of your brain that contains nothing but your knowledge that you are you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.65.3.227 (talk) 06:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any one part of the brain responsible for the sense of self (despite what popular science books often tell you, for most tasks, activity is spread to some extent in pockets across the brain, and the precise pattern can vary from person to person and even thought to thought). Nevertheless, neural basis of self has a lot of information you'll probably find interesting. Smurrayinchester 06:58, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You may also be interested in the philosophical mind-body problem. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I recommend Consciousness#Neural_correlates which covers this exact issue. SteveBaker (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe interesting in this context: persons with split-brain . In some situations two identities seem present, for example one half slapping the other half's hand when it interferes during a test. http://www.legiontheory.com/split-brain.html Ssscienccce (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Your question is a category mistake. Most people equate themselves with their consciousnesses (potential and active) which is not a physical part of your brain like a neuron, but a relationship between your body and the world. This is in a similar way metaphysically that your bank account balance is not a drawer, but a relationship between you and your bank. "You" are an emergent phenomenon of your body. μηδείς (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

As I read it, the question is asking whether there is a part of the brain responsible for the sense of personal identity. It's a difficult question, partly because we have no real understanding of the way our brains assign identity to parts of the world in any respect. Looie496 (talk) 21:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There are parts of your brain, which, if destroyed, will cause you to lose your selfhood in some sense, such as the ability to make command decisions with your frontal lobe, or your ability to make new memories or recall old ones. But these are all parts or faculties of your self. Even Terri Schiavo still has a certain self after the trauma she suffered. μηδείς (talk) 21:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I've pondered this for years, mostly in the form of worrying whether this part, if it exists, will be absorbed by a tree's roots after I die. I don't ever want to even be vaguely aware that I'm wood for the foreseeable future. That's still all I know for sure. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

There isn't a shred of scientific evidence that would support your concern; i.e. once you have decomposed, there is no scientific evidence that your consciousness persists. The rest is religion and superstition, not science. -- Scray (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Before even that. Electrical signals through the brain are what makes thought possible. The definition of death in most parts of the world is "brain death" - defined as the time when no electrical activity is detected in the brain. At that point, there can be no more consciousness. So you'll certainly be unaware of anything beyond that point. Think of it like a computer (which is what your brain mostly is) - when you turn off the power, all of the programs stop running. Even though the computer is still fully functional - without power, it can do no work. Same deal with the brain. SteveBaker (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the assurance, but maybe I should have been clearer. I'm not talking about my "self" as my thoughts, memories and self-image. I'm fairly certain that's erased. But there's some reason "I" am locked to this particular body rather than you or the next guy (or your's or the next guy's). Maybe associating with just one brain is an automatic consequence of having/being that complete brain. But maybe the awareness is only the piece the consciousness (or whatever mysterious senses trees have, if any) is built around (like a computer's non-volatile memory), as essential and recycled as the pieces that give physical form to new life. The lack of evidence for this is somewhat comforting, but the lack of proof against it leaves me wondering. No big deal, I guess. I won't remember worrying about it, anyway. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:48, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but from the computationalist point of view, you could still argue that you will always find yourself subjectively alive in the World as it existed before you died. If what we are is the program that the brain is running and if the hardware doesn't matter, then you can look at the World as it exists now and say that some machine is executing some particular program, but you can also apply the time evolution operator to the entire World and argue that the World as it is exists now is a scrambled version of the World that existed yesterday, so there are then machines that execute different programs which are experiencing yesterday's World. Count Iblis (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Or just "No". SteveBaker (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What is "your knowledge that you are you"? If you mean the learning of a name, perhaps you can rummage about in the hippocampus for it. The argument can certainly be made that you aren't you from a different time in your life, either physically or mentally, and that you merely have access to some memory of your former selves. In the opposite direction, all people may be instances of the same algorithm, manifestations of a common atman. In addition to these things I entertain a fringe theory of the soul as related to a progression of parallel universes; but parallel universes are not subject to scientific investigation. Wnt (talk) 20:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

You have two insulae, one on either side of the brain. Each is buried at the bottom of a deep, almost horizontal fissure that separates the temporal lobe (the large region above your ears) from the rest of the brain. Most of the brain's cortex {the wrinkled gray matter containing the nerve cell bodies) lies on the surface of the brain hemispheres, but the insulae are "islands" of cortex, buried deep within each hemisphere. "Insula" is Latin for "island".

This "insular" cortex seems to be involved in awareness/consciousness. Five or six years ago I noticed a report of some brain-scans, where the researchers inflicted mild pain on the subjects, which, as usual, activated the anterior (front) and middle portion of each insula and the other parts of the pain network - the pattern of brain regions that is activated by pain. Then the researchers presented something so interesting to the subjects that they were temporarily distracted from the pain. As the subjects lost consciousness of the pain, the anterior insula activity returned to the default level.

AD (Bud) Craig proposes that this area is the key to consciousness, and so self-consciousness. In this 2011 interview he discusses his theory, as explained in his (very difficult) much-cited 2009 paper. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

One article of interest might be Philosophical zombie (that's what a fully functioning "human" without consciousness would be called). You might also wish to read some blog posts (many linked from [3]) by Edward Feser (red link - I wonder if he would be notable in sense of Wikipedia:Notability..?), where, in effect, he explains why your question makes no sense. At least from perspective of Aristotle and St. Thomas Aquinas. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

R/C control of a 12v drive motor

I am working on a cart that I would like to operate by R/C. It would drive ,reverse and steer hopfully using hobby R/C transmitter and reciever. The current draw for the driver motor is 11 amps. This is to much current for the receiver contacts. So, I need a way to vary the drive motor speed, reverse this motor as well as control the motor that would handle the steering. If this is feasible, I would like to know the following:

1. What type of relays (drive & steering) are needed?
2. Should the relays be of a latching type?
3. can you reccomend relay part numbers that might be used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campy2 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't use relays...those are ON/OFF devices and to drive this thing in a reasonable fashion, you'll need analog controls.

The simplest "do it yourself" way to do this if you are clueless about electronics is to rig up a rotary potentiometer to control speed and to use an R/C servomotor to turn the knob...that avoids any complicated electronics and reduces the problem to a mechanical matter.

It's hard to comment on steering without knowing how this machine steers - are you doing skid-steering (by having one motor for the wheels on one side of the cart and a separate motor for the wheels on the other side) or are you turning the wheels as you would on a car? The former is fairly easy because you just need two speed controllers and you don't have complicated linkages to rig up.

This gizmo (for example) provides two 20Amp motor drives at anywhere from 7v up to 30v and can be controlled from an R/C receiver. At $175, it's not cheap...but it's a one-stop solution that solves all of your problems in one go. That's just the first one that Google turned up - I'm sure there are many robotics parts vendors making and selling such things - so you should probably shop around for a cheaper one.

SteveBaker (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Chinese shops are cheap, which may also reflect the quality, but still.. http://www.hobbyking.com is one, there's also a search engine for such sites: http://chinaprices.us/ give in "speed controller 20A" and you get a listing of sites with the component , price and conditions. Starts at $8.13, shipping included. Obviously not so versatile as the one Steve mentions; only one motor, max 16v and 20A continuous or 25A peak and needs an R/C receiver.. Ssscienccce (talk) 15:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Usefulness and accuracy of racialist website

http://www.geocities.ws/racial_reality/race.html This site, is it's racialist view true to current science? I'll quote part of the above page below:

"Anti-racist PC agendas and the American Anthropological Association's recent confirmation of the unity of the human species have led to the belief that race is a socio-political invention that promotes racism. An ironic accusation since the denial of the science behind race is what's politically motivated."

The above site is also claiming that there is aside from genetic a morphological basis for race and that race has a taxonomic significance, it also holds that the works of Carleton S. Coon are very relevant to the understanding to race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 13:42, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

See our articles Scientific racism and Race and genetics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Will do, but any comments on just the above site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia would not consider a geocities site a reliable source. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:01, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the information on said site good though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

The website does not present a balanced view of the current perspective on the issue. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Would you say that the site uses good sources? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 August 2013‎

Cherry-picking sources to supposedly prove a point is never good. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

There's also one question I have about the above site's claims, are Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Australoid and Capoid actual viable taxa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

They are not recognised as such. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Does race have a taxonomic basis then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 14:47, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• It's an oversimplification to deny the validity of anything that has to do with race. A look at Y-DNA haplogroups and Mt-DNA haplogroups show that humans do separate roughly into African and extra-African populations. Of the extra-African populations, some retain early traits (Negritos, Australians, New Guineans). Earlier old-adapted groups exist in Siberian and the Americas. In the Eurasian west blond hair and blue eyes arose, probably due to sexual selection, while in the east the epicanthic fold perhaps arose for the same reason. Continental and subcontinental populations will have distinctive blood types and markers [4] and resistance for various diseases such as tuberculosis and malaria. None of this is false, although little of it is very important, and its implications are only statistical, with a huge amount of variation and exception. The problem academically is the overreaction on the left to prior invalid political arguments made on the right. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza's work on the correspondences between genetics and language is impeccable, Carleton Coon's work is rigorous, if merely descriptive and speculative. He's certainly a must read if this sort of topic interests you. And it does interest a lot of people, in the same way people collect rocks or figurines; people are fascinated by variation and classification. μηδείς (talk) 17:22, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• Does the site claim that any particular race is superior to the others? If so, then it's automatically bogus. The pre-emptive quote "Anti-racist PC agendas..." is particularly telling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Our taxonomy article says, "Taxonomy is the academic discipline of defining groups of biological organisms on the basis of shared characteristics and giving names to those groups." The name of our own group is the species Homo sapiens. Anyone in the species with functional reproductive systems can mate with an opposite-sex member of that group likewise having a functional reproductive system, and that mating will produce another member of Homo sapiens. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Taxonomies don't really work well at a below-species level, since branching implies genetic isolation, and true isolation is speciation, while our models have multiple migrations with at least three into the Americas, various ones back into Africa by pastoralists (all the Way down to the Zulu of the Cape by way of the Nile, across the Sahel, and down the slave coast. Europe was invaded by the PIE peoples from the Eurasian Steppe followed by the Huns/Bolgars/Turks/Mongols out of Central Asia. The latter groups also invaded China Korea and Japan in various waves. So strict taxonomies are very much vague approximations. μηδείς (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if you want the site reviewed or just that page. That page is about results from [5] (online at the author's site) and obviously you'll get more respect quoting Science than quoting "Racial Reality website". But skimming the website's page I didn't notice them saying anything too outrageous - we know that you can tell what race someone is by looking at them, and the same is going to be true if you do AMOVA on their genes. It crushes what is almost a strawman - the claim that race is purely a fiction. This isn't really something that is actually believed; it is more the result of some well-meaning people saying factual things to dismiss the role of race without clarifying the things that give it some meaning, and other well-meaning people summarizing that down without realizing what was being left unsaid. To be clear, you can tell what race some people are by looking at the shape of their skull ... which would seem to imply different brains ... the problem is, phrenology never worked. It's by no means obvious why it never worked - given how easy it is for a small injury to cause major disability, you'd think that any variation in the brain is super important. Yet in practice there are huge internal variations including having large portions outright missing that can have no obvious effect on the person's intelligence or behavior. When brains are consistently smaller (women) the function is no different even on average. The uniformity of human general intelligence is one of the great mysteries of science. Wnt (talk) 05:00, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it true that Carleton Coon's work is still useful in the study for race? Also, isn't Peter Frost's hypothesis is not more popular than others (IIRC)? And if there is an answer to this, how many races are there based only on biology, and how they are delineated, and can looking at DNA tell one their race. Also, since race does exist, can it mean different traits in different races, such as intelligence or capability? Most of these questions are related to things asserted on the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Coon's work predates the genetic study of human populations. For that reason it is of interest now historically, in the same was as the work of Georges Cuvier or John James Audubon. His data may still be of some interest. His theories were never tested or refined against the genetic data started to become available the decade he died. He shouldn't be quoted now as a theoretical authority. μηδείς (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

So does craniofacial studies of Coon hold any water in current scientific field? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

See Carleton S. Coon. Personally, I don't have the patience to figure out his implications and their role in political development; my feeling is that if Mawr had a good word for it, it wasn't bad science, but of course, having genome sequence from many individuals really matters. Wnt (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

You mean Mayr. You don't get better than a recommendation from him. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Cranio-facial studies provide data. One can then say certain features are typical of and make a certain population distinct. To abstract from such studies and posit a theory of the origins of the white race is just that, theorizing. Some current data agree with Coon in various aspects--whites apparently do have Neanderthal admixture (but so do all extra-Africans). Mediterraneans do form a coherent wave out of the Middle-East according to Cavalli-Sforza. But reams of other new data have no place in his theories--for example, the PIE peoples are a late introduction into europe, and if one identifies them with the true whites one use modern data to say Mediterraneans invaded their land. It is not really helpful to keep asking if he is authoritative. Topics like this require years of broad study--neither acceptance of an authority figure nor ideological dismissal. Ignore the man and look at the data. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What ideological dismissal? I asked the question on a scientific basis, would you say that his data would be good proof for the existence of race? And if his racial theories are actually proven in some fashion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 22:09, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not accuse you of dismissing things based on ideology, I suggested one not do it. Race is a concept whose usefulness depends on how you define it and in what context. If the coroner tells you the body was that of a black female between 18 and 30 you don't ask him to prove races exist; neither do you actually expect proof of the existence of races if someone tells you black people bear the Mark of Cain. μηδείς (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

But then what are the objective scientifically determined races? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.41.170 (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Zyprexa interacting with vitamins.

Can Zyprexa interact with vitamins? Pubserv (talk) 18:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

It is a very simple matter to google that question; we are not medical experts, and if you have Zyprexa you have a doctor who prescribed it and a pharmacist who filled it, both of whom will answer your question. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have access to Google on my computer. Pubserv (talk) 08:26, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you Cuban? What kind of people has access to Wikipedia but not Google? OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:04, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Those people that have restricted access to websites. I hope I'm not the only one. Have, not has. Pubserv (talk) 19:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

No. It's has not have. This kind (of people) has access to something. OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have encountered other WP editors with the same restrictions, e.g. access only at work, which allows WP but not Google. -- Scray (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

How does that work??? - is WP on a whitelist, or is Google on a blacklist? Is Ixquick allowed to them? How are they supposed to use the web at all without a search engine? Wnt (talk) 01:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

How? Do you need a search engine when you only have access to 4 sites/themes, like me? Pubserv (talk) 18:11, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

How much vitamin B6 for akathisia?

How many tablets are needed to relieve akathisia? Or how much? Pubserv (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

I"m sorry, we're not allowed to offer medical advice. SteveBaker (talk) 19:17, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You need to see a doctor about that. Whatever he deems the right treatment to be, your doctor would recommend a dosage based on appropriate factors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:01, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't see a doctor. Pubserv (talk) 08:25, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Then ask your pharmacist, they can also provide qualified advise, and they are free. OsmanRF34 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I can only see a psychologist, that's not a pharmacist, right? Pubserv (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

What kind of people has no access to a pharmacist? OsmanRF34 (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

They might at least have a clue, and could have a direct conversation with you about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

See here. Count Iblis (talk) 19:36, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I would advice you against trying this out yourself unless a qualified doctor prescribes it. I would not go to a farmacist unless you live in a country where they can be trusted to give qualified advice (in most of the Third World countries farmacies cannot be trusted, they are just interested in selling as much as they can). The potential problems that a doctor will have to look into are the following. The dose you need to take is of the same order as the dose where toxicity symptoms can start to manifest itself if you were to use this long term. Also, for long term use, even if you take large but not extremely large near toxicity level dosages, you should normally not do that for any specific B-vitamin (with the exception of B12) and instead use a vitamin B-complex. The different B-vitamins have a similar structure and if you take a large dose of one, your body will increase the excretion of not just that one but also of other B-vitamins, causing you to be come deficient in these other B vitamins, even if you get normal dosages of these other B vitamins via your food.

These are just some potential problems that a doctor will have to verify are not going to be relevant in your case during the course of some specific treatment. Count Iblis (talk) 13:18, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

What's a "farmacist" -- a farmer who grows medical herbs? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

• Our article has a section Vitamin_B6#Toxicity - I would say this and especially the sources it cites are advisable to read if you're contemplating any B6 treatment, with or without a doctor's help. (The sourcing is still weak in places...) Wnt (talk) 20:26, 5 August 2013 (UTC)