Science desk
< November 9	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 11 >

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.

November 10

First Nations/Native American peoples in the Americas

This question should probably have been asked at the Humanities desk but I can't ask a question there (semi-protected . . .)

Anyway, I was recently at a Conference where the First Nations speaker (who has a PhD and is well published) asserted that his people have been on the American Continents for 500,000 years. My readings suggest maybe 50,000 years at most. Is there any evidence to support the 500,000 year assertion of this presenter? Lonewolf19000 (talk) 01:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, definitely not - Indigenous peoples of the Americas says that "The Clovis culture, the earliest definitively dated prehistoric Paleo-Indian culture in the Americas, appears around 11,500 RCBP (radiocarbon years before present), equivalent to 13,500 to 13,000 calendar years ago." - it also says that "The time range of 40,000–16,500 years ago is debatable and probably will remain so for years to come."

500,000 years ago, there weren't even modern humans - Homo heidelbergensis or something like that. If native americans had been cut off from the rest of humanity 500,000 years ago, they'd have evolved separately from Homo heidelbergensis onwards - and we'd be looking at a different species of humans altogether...this simply isn't plausible.

So, at most 40,000 years ago - but much, much more likely 13,000 years ago. No way, 500,000...just no way. SteveBaker (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's also good geologic reasons for that time frame. The Bering land bridge was only traversable at certain times, during the window between 22,000 years ago and 15,000 years ago. Since there's no evidence of oceangoing people that long ago, they would have had to have walked. And the earliest they could have walked was during that window of time. There is also some evidence of the land bridge being open during an earlier glaciation period, at around the 40,000-35,000 year ago window mentioned by SteveBaker above; except that no human remains anywhere in the Americas date to that long ago. --Jayron 32 02:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The information at History of Australian_Aboriginals#Origins is shockingly uncertain, but there seems to be consensus that somehow humans got across the Wallace Line (and Weber Line, Lydekker line...) to Australia some 40,000 years ago. This seems to suggest that ocean voyages were not out of the question. I imagine quite a few boats and docks await excavation at the old shorelines of the world, a few tens of meters beneath the sea. Wnt (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Seems to suggest" is an understatement. There's absolutely no way humans could have reached Australia and New Guinea without crossing open ocean -- not for very long distances by modern standards, but beyond the distance at which the other side was visible. Looie496 (talk) 12:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, during the periods of highest glaciation, Australia and New Guinea would have been one land mass, and other islands would have been much larger. The narrow straits from Sundaland to any number of enlarged smaller islands within Indonesia, such as Sulawesi and Buru, to the Sahul continent (merged Australia and New Guinea) would have been navigable by small craft, and would not have required ocean-going vessels capable of supporting people more than a day or two at the outside. It would have required boats, but not anything that would require protection from the open oceans. Each landing would have been in sight of the previous landing. --Jayron 32 13:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

More precisely, they would have had to cross several open-water gaps on the order of 50 miles wide. Looie496 (talk) 14:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

At today's sea levels, I can trace such a path whose longest gap between landings is 50 miles. During the period of lowest sea level, there would have been smaller gaps between the islands still. --Jayron 32 15:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be increasing evidence that there was some cross-Pacific human migration to the Americas, in addition to migration across the Bering Strait. But yeah, there is no serious scientific support for the idea that modern humans are 500,000 years old. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 05:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SteveBaker and Jayron32. It is gratifying to know that I am smarter than the average bear! I was tempted to take the presenter to task but thought it was not the forum to do so. Perhaps I will email him for clarification as to where he gets his information from. Lonewolf19000 (talk) 03:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some thoughts:

1) I agree that 500,000 years is absurd.

2) As for the need for "oceangoing ships", it's possible (but unsafe) to cross the ocean in much less substantial boats, rafts, etc. For example, a fisherman in a raft only made to go out a few miles might get lost, blown out to sea, etc., and end up drifting across the ocean while feeding himself by fishing and getting enough water to survive by collecting rain.

3) Getting to the other side and making a go of it are quite different things. You would need enough unrelated men and women to avoid a population bottleneck, and they would need to survive in a strange environment. So, even if we do find human remains from 40,000 years ago, they might just be from a failed expedition, not a successful colony. Note that Europeans didn't do very well the first times they came to the Americas, either. The Vikings gave up and went home after a while, and the first Pilgrims had a high death rate, despite better technology, like firearms (and they had native Americans to observe and imitate, as far as which crops to grow, etc.). StuRat (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Looie496: The reason why I said "seems to suggest" about boats at the Wallace Line is that we're talking about a long time in which unusual events might have occurred. For example, oceanic dispersal by rafting occurs in many species, and it is possible that the swimming capabilities of humans gave them an extra advantage. Conceivably, a tsunami could hit a village, survivors cling onto the remnants of their huts, and when they finally see land in the distance they swim for it. I bet they had boats but I don't know it. Of course, clinging to logs in the water works better near tropical Pacific islands than in Beringia! Wnt (talk) 08:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure 3) (from Sturat) is a big deal for fishermen who have survived 2). They can just stay on the coast and continue to feed from fish until they figure out the local game and then only move inland. (Note that the Norse Greenlanders had a fish as a food Taboo for some strange reason + had to fight the local tribes to stay alive, so a couple of issues on top of everything else for them). --Lgriot (talk) 18:48, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even fishing could be difficult long-term. They might not know which fish are edible in the new location, might not know where to look for those edible fish (shallows, deep water, at the surface, on the bottom, up rivers, etc.). And whatever materials they used to make fishing nets, spears, boats, etc., might not exist in the new location. Then there might be sharks to watch out for in the new location, too.

And food is just one concern. Can they build shelters in the new location ? Can they survive the winters or monsoon season ? Can they defend against the wild animals, parasites, and diseases there ? Can they even build a fire (perhaps they lack the flint that was common in the old location). StuRat (talk) 05:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Blue not blue

Please see this image. Three rows, let's call the squares 1,2,3,4,5 ; 6,7,8,9,10 ; 11,12,13,14,15

They are all shades of blue to me. I am sitting next to a person who said many have no blue and a minute later said "Wow, now even more suddenly have no blue." Is this something to do with the gold/blue dress?

By the way, I am not Chinese, but the person sitting next to me is. I do not know if that is a factor. I also have a slate blue sofa and many Chinese friends here say it has no blue.

What is going on? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of issues with color perception, which is primarily a psychological and biological rather than physics problem, in the sense that the colors you perceive are largely a function of your own unique combination of visual cells, neurological processing, etc. Also, the issue with seeing "more suddenly have no blue" may also be due to Neural adaptation, that is the tendency of the brain to "ignore" or "tone down" inputs that it gets overloaded with (c.f. olfactory fatigue, a related concept). --Jayron 32 03:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a contrast effect, eg 4 looks blue when viewed directly, but pink when you look at another square. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As jayron32 suggests it is an extremely complex topic. It even depends on which language you speak. Fundamentally, it even comes down to Qualia. Color is even mentioned as an example in that article's opening paragraphs. Vespine (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with colors is that you are also dealing with linguistic and cultural aspect. For example, something could be close to purple in another culture and in that culture, purple is NOT BLUE. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should say that. Just this second, the person sitting next to me said "#7 is purple. No blue. Purple is purple and has no blue and #7 is purple." Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you!!! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Threshold at the colorpicker

See this? So, move the dot to the middle of the donut, to the heart of a colour, not the edge, not the black middle. Now, slide the vertical bar down. Ask the person beside you to say when they no longer see anything but grey. I continue to see a colour component while the person next to me sees only grey way before the vertical bar gets to the bottom. Odd. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Different people and cultures have different threshold for linguistic terms for color and grey. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 03:26, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must understand, the linguistic terms for color is nothing but a mapping for human visual perception to a linguistic term. You learn this mapping when you are a young child from other humans. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is a distinction between "blue" as a learned color and "blue" as a primary color/component of RGB. We can look at the colors and think that a certain amount of blue must be coded in their projection without seeing them as strictly blue - for example, personally I'd define #2 and perhaps #13 as "indigo", to the degree that is a color at all, and #3 as "cyan", and #7 as "purple" to the degree that is a color, and #12 as a gray (that one I'd have to put under an imaging program to see if it even has excess blue). These are basically vocabulary items, apart from my reluctance to think of purple as being quite as real as other colors because it isn't a true spectral hue. Some of the other shades I'd call "light blue", "sky blue", "dark blue" etc. and aside from the arbitrary incorporation of "blue" in their demonyms they might too be defined out of the blue club. Wnt (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Surprisingly, nobody has linked Distinction of blue and green in various languages yet. It may be of interest as well.--William Thweatt ^Talk^Contribs 05:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see blue, gray and purple which are similar but my own personal experience is that while they may be close to blue they are different colors. It would be interesting whether cultural factors that identify regal colors (i.e Jade or Royal Purple) play on perception. --DHeyward (talk) 07:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say #7 was just a whiter shade of #11 and that #12 was the same colour greyed out and #13 was it darkened. We have an article Shades of blue, I had a look down it and Pantone Blue seemed to me to be the closest - but I certainly wouldn't have called it the standard blue, I think of blue as what they call RGB blue there. Dmcq (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Purple is red + blue. The squares are all shades of blue or blue + something else. The TV show "brain Games" brings up this kind of thing from time to time. As others have noted above, colors can look different when viewed individually than when viewed in groups like this. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you!!! Very interesting and informative! I still say this refdesk is the best kept secret on the net. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

is so that the earth was 2000 times greater than now first time when it was formed

an IRANIAN researcher --Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well Iran is an ancient culture. Does that mean it's 10000000 greater after U.S. or is that a different question? --DHeyward (talk) 07:45, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean larger? - Supdiop (T🔹C) 08:04, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

yes my meaning is size and volume.--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 10:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The question is not entirely clear, nor the answer. By most definitions, the Earth has been more or less the same size it is now for the last 4.5 billion years. Our models of planet formation are still evolving, but to my mind it is certain that at one time the solid nucleus of what would become Earth was a lot smaller (even 2000 times, if by weight, volume, or longest diameter), and it is similarly true that the distance between rocks that would eventually merge into Earth was a lot greater than the diameter of Earth is now. Of course, if you call this predecessor states of Earth "Earth" and if you accept the size of a swarm of asteroids as the size of this "Earth" is a matter of definition, and conventionally I would say "no" ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the OP is referring to Expanding Earth theory, which is now generally rejected in favour of plate tectonics MChesterMC (talk) 09:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

the age when volume of earth be 2000x1.087x10^21 M^3 . then its density might be 2.8 kg/ m^3 about twice air density ,(1.34 kg/m^3)--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 10:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The volume of earth when it was first formed is not 2000 the current volume because of conservation of mass. If the volume was that great then the density would be too low. As the mass is the same, the gravity will condense the volume immediately so that kind of volume is not stable. 110.22.20.252 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

two times larger than giant Jupiter!!--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 11:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where you are getting these numbers from. They certainly do not come from anything resembling planetary science as it is understood to be. If you wish to know about the current accepted history of the formation and evolution of the Earth, start at History of Earth. --Jayron 32 12:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think there was an idea a long time ago that the Earth might have started forming as a gas giant but then the Sun blew away the hydrogen. (I'm thinking this is the kind of thing you might have read in a 1970s Time-Life book, but I'm not sure) I don't know if it was ever taken seriously by astronomers, but certainly Hot Jupiters have put the idea to rest for good. I assume a protoplanetary disk is sorted out for volatiles at an earlier stage. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Earth didn't start forming as a gas giant, exactly, but the terrestrial planets did have a much thicker primary atmosphere of mostly hydrogen. As you say, the sun blew away the hydrogen (along with the remaining solar nebula). The thing that's open to debate is whether the heavier components of the primary atmosphere were retained to any significant degree after the hydrogen was lost. This is important for understanding whether the atmosphere was oxidizing or reducing at the time of the first life on Earth. In the '70s it was often assumed that enough of the primary atmosphere was retained to give a reducing environment as in the Miller–Urey experiment. Today it seems likely that there wasn't much primary atmosphere left, and the resulting oxidizing conditions with high CO₂ have different chemistry. Hot Jupiters are a different story: they form beyond the frost line, like the giant planets in our solar system, and migrate inward later. I can't tell one way or the other whether the original poster is talking about the primordial hydrogen envelope, but it's a good guess. --Amble (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many hairs does a human have on its head?

If its different, could you give me it for males and females, and I'm talking about your average, adult, healthy, human. This is not for homework, by the way, its just a question.Megaraptor12345 (talk) 10:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Typing your question into google would give results faster than waiting for me to type it into google and tell you what I found. --Jayron 32 12:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're splitting hairs. --Dweller (talk) 12:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32:, I thought that this was a reference desk. I googled for it, and did not find anything that would satisfy our WP:RS requirements. Just the other day we were talking about how google is not an RS, no? I did eventually find one relevant RS through google scholar, but it took some digging. Perhaps OP had already done some searching, and was looking for something more reliable. In any case you could have ignored the question instead of getting WP:BITEY. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I typed the exact question into google, and this reference from Harvard University came up on the first page. --Jayron 32 15:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there are about 100k hair follicles on an average scalp, with some variation by hair color and other factors. Neither Hair nor Hair follicle contains relevant info or refs. Here [1] is a freely accessibly scholarly article with information on hair follicle density at various locations on the human body. Table 2 shows that there are ~350 follicles per cm^2 on the scalp, and perhaps surprisingly, 600/cm^2 on the ear, and 765/cm^2 on the forehead. So the number of hairs on the whole human head must be much much larger than 100k. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did early humans have longer periods of gestation?

I heard a speaker mention this recently. He said that changes in our hips, related to walking upright, meant that our babies had to be born sooner. Do we have an article that refers to this? --Dweller (talk) 15:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not, gestation period in mammals is almost directly related to body size, as the chart in that article shows. Since the nearest ancestors to humans were smaller, we would expect a similarly shorter gestation period. --Jayron 32 15:46, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's a generally discredited theory now, but a while ago (i.e. in the 1980s) it was believed that Neanderthals had year-long pregnancies. Smurrayinchester 16:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

He was probably talking about the obstetrical dilemma, and he probably meant only that the human gestation period is short relative to what it ought to be given the time needed for brain development, not that it's short relative to our ancestors. -- BenRG (talk) 18:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Notably, the biochemistry of gestation is pretty straightforward stuff. It's basically a chemical kinetics problem: the amount of time it takes for mammalian tissue to grow in utero is roughly constant across all mammals. So, all you need to know to approximate the time necessary to grow that much tissue is how much tissue you need to grow. That's why the gestation period chart is roughly what it is: the size of the baby is proportional to the amount of time the baby spends in the womb (my initial analysis mentioned only the size of the animal, but really it's the size of the baby that matters, because you see that kangaroos have relatively short gestation periods; that's because the infant is born highly undeveloped, spending the rest of its time in the marsupial pouch...) So, if human ancestors had smaller babies, they would have had shorter gestation periods. Human babies actually spend, on average, a bit longer in gestation to allow human brains to grow a bit more before birth; the problem with human birth is that the skull is so darned big compared to the pelvis of the females. A unpright-walking pelvis and a giant brain case kinda work against each other, this is the Obstetrical dilemma noted by BenRG above. --Jayron 32 19:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mice or rats swimming in a bucket for researching how hope influences behavior

I am searching an experiment where hope influences behavior. I thought it was from Curt Richter, but the article does not mention it. The experiment is often cited by motivational speakers, in several versions, so I wonder if it really happened as a scientific experiment. It could be rats or mice, and the hope inducing element could be an open window, food, or letting the mouse grab a stick while swimming in the bucket.--Scicurious (talk) 15:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article in Psychology Today mentions it and several related studies, and appears to contain links to more information about them. --Jayron 32 16:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be thinking of studies using the Morris water navigation task. Who introduced the word "Hope" as the motivation to continue swimming?DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The test you're probably thinking of is known as the behavioural despair test or (Porsolt) forced swimming test. (The Morris water maze mentioned by DrChrissy is a test of memory.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If I remember correctly, there have been studies using the Morris water maze where the platform/s have been removed, making it effectively a forced swimming test. It is those studies I was eluding to.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OP here: I followed the paths above. And I could found some similar studies to what I described. However, they are not about research which lends itself to the conclusion "hope makes the rats swim longer", or something that could be the base of a motivational mindset. Is it safe to conclude that motivational speakers are wrong on this one? --Scicurious (talk) 02:16, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that "hope" is a very anthropomorphic interpretation of such studies. Do rats experience hope? When swimming, they might be "predicting" there is a platform or other means of escape if they have learned this before. They might also be swimming simply because it is a survival behaviour, perhaps motivated by fear, perhaps not.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TenOfAllTrades that the test in question is the behavioural despair test. As an additional pointer, the theoretical justification can be found in our article on learned helplessness. Looie496 (talk) 13:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Richter performed all kind of despair tests, but did he draw himself any conclusion implying that rats have hope or are hopeless/feel helpless? Did he performed any 'hope-testing' experiment (whatever it might be)? Or, was the add-on conclusion that rats have hope an interpretation of others? Richter's rats were on antidepressants, and I fail to find an experiment, where 'hope-inducing' information was the only difference between rats which give up and those which endure. Martin Seligman's research implies that one group was made to feel helpless. The scenario I described above implies two groups of rats, both healthy - one hopeful after seeing a way out, and the other hopeless. --Scicurious (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Water film thickness

If I have a shaft that rotates in a bush. It is not functioning as a bearing but only a seal to prevent the water to move from the one side to the other. What should the gap be of the water film to reduce leak rate to the max - but still adequate not to increase rotational/friction losses. Bush dia. is 80mm and 100mm in length. Rotation very slow. Max 300r/m What type of surface finishing is required. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.100.123 (talk) 17:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the answer, but suspect that whoever does answer would need to know the pressure on both sides. Also, is there oil on the shaft ? That would repel water and reduce the rotation friction. However, if this water is supposed to be potable, you'd need to use an edible oil (it still might be distasteful to have an oil sheen on your drinking water, but at least it wouldn't be poisonous). And what materials are used ? If it's steel, in the presence of water, then rust may be a problem. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a trivial problem. I dare say whether you have water or not it almost insignificant, the significant factor is how accurate you can get the fit between the shaft and bush, which is not an easy problem. It's called Engineering tolerance and you are trying to solve hole and shaft limits This shows the tightest "clearance fit" is called Locational Clearance. another article with a calculator, another calculator. The question is, do you have access to engineer a bush with inner diameter accurate to within less than 0.02mm? Unless you can answer that question, the rest is academic. Vespine (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See Stuffing box for our article on the subject, although it doesn't give details on how to calculate any dimensions. Some sort of stationary seal (rather than relying on the bearing clearance) might be a better practical solution. Tevildo (talk) 23:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to achieve a seal relying on nothing but the smallness of the difference in diameters of the shaft and the bore will prove to be impossible. Many practical applications of this requirement make use of O-rings. For example, there is an O-ring in every tap to prevent water flowing out the bore into which the tap's handle enters the body of the tap. When this O-ring fails, water leaks out past the handle. Dolphin (t) 10:47, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Practically speaking, a stuffing box (or packing gland, or whatever you want to call it) doesn't really prevent leakage, it just reduces it to acceptable levels. There is always a certain amount of loss around the shaft. O-rings don't really work in rotating equipment (too much wear), so if you want to completely prevent leakage, you'll need to go to a double mechanical seal (our article, which could use some work, is at end face mechanical seal). shoy (reactions) 15:14, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"I have a shaft that rotates in a bush" sounds odd. Isn't "bushing" the usual term? Is this one of those terms used in the UK? I've seen Oilite bearings used in devices like auto water pumps, bread machines and blenders to keep liquid on one side while allowing fairly high speed rotation of a driveshaft. Edison (talk) 16:00, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

'Bush" does in fact seem to be the UK/British Commonwealth term. 'Bushing' sounds very odd to me. Collins Dictionary says bush is the term for a thin metal sleeve or tubular lining serving as a bearing. Also says it's used as a verb; to fit a bush to a casing or bearing, etc. You should understand that because the British Empire and more recently the British Commonwealth encompassed bigger populations than the current US sphere of influence, 'bush' is possibly the more widely-used term throughout the world. Akld guy (talk) 07:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Bushing" and "bush" are not quite the same thing.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:06, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stinky chunks

Request for medical advice Tevildo (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I don’t know how to say this, but here it goes.

Sometimes, this off-white colour (looking like) small chunks (looking like asteroids) come out of my mouth, I think from the top part of my mouth, near from where the nose stuff come out. It stinks worse than my breath.

What is it? And what is the cause of it.
A ‘list’ of possible ways to mitigate this problem.

Note: When I was young, someone said that it happens to them too. It stinks too. So, I guess its a normal human thing.

Space Ghost (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dental_plaque mostly discusses it as a "film" but it can be chunky too. Dental floss may help. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tonsilloliths ? They can contain ammonia, which is quite stinky. StuRat (talk) 20:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, please. This is a request for a diagnosis and a treatment. It may not be a serious condition (on the other hand, we can't say that it isn't. Russell.mo should see a doctor if he's worried about it), but we can't answer the question here. Tevildo (talk) 23:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

unhelpful bickering: take it to the talk page to discuss further please --Jayron 32 13:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

OP is asking primarily about terminology. Please do not offer any medical advice. Please remove any responses that violate our guidelines, as is suggested by our guidelines at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Guidelines/Medical_advice#Dealing_with_questions_asking_for_medical_advice, and please let respondents give references to information if they wish. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:20, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only appropriate 'terminology' here is, "See a doctor." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tevido and Bugsy, sorry if it came this way. I understand why you guys think the way you guys are thinking, its because I requested for a "list of possible ways"... I was expecting a guideline in a page or more than a page. Stu's and SM's information covers both of the bulletins, the reason why it's 'occurring' and 'how to mitigate'. They didn't even go to an outsource...

Firstly, thank you guys (SM & Stu). I found out the cause, its because of 'too much' Coca Cola and Cigarettes, non stop - both are destroying my teeth, I guess not plaguing it, but actually shrinking them...cause my teeth are bright white and is flossed day and night time, appropriately, and Coke and Cigarettes are the only two problem I could find as 'the reason(s)' after your guidances.

2ndly, if you guys don't mind (bugsy and Tevido who minded), can you guys let me know 'what to write' the next time when I'm requesting for a 'list' of possible ways'? For my Analysis...? This is so that others who think like you guys, don't think like that again...

Note: I believe a 'list of possible ways' is better to know and refer to, and is less problematic than a direct advice on how to mitigate which is illegal in here. The guideline article is refereed above too. Anyway, let me know.

Regards.

Space Ghost (talk) 07:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"List of possible ways" is fine by me, but that will get other people to shut things down. The best advice I can give for asking questions is: never use "I" or "me", "mine" or "myself" - that makes some people think that you want diagnostic or treatment advice, and we can't give that. Always say you are looking for informational purpose only. Never ask for any treatments of anything, because you'll have to fight to keep the question from being closed/deleted. The main problem here is several users don't follow our guidelines, and I can't make them. Reasonable people can disagree on what is and isn't considered advice, but I don't know what to do about people sanctioning questions instead of answers. I've pointed out our guidelines several times, and the same people just keep ignoring them. Oh well. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:25, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You must have heard the saying, "Talk the talk but never walk the walk". A lot of Wikipedians are boastful of being a Wikipedian, what confuses me is that, how they boast about it when they are not good at it in the first place... Its not a rocket science to view Wikipedia in "Wikipedia's point of view", still some go and view it as a "Wikipedians point of view". Although its appreciated by some when a reply is received, don't the replier ever think to themselves, that it is trying to help someone, and should help by keeping both sides in mind? I mean what do they think before they click the 'edit source' link? Is this why WP guidelines were created or is because, so that you refresh your memory?

Regardless, because its in human nature, to act smart and tough and disobey; just to prove a quality i.e. you can't be better than me/you can't control/tell me what to do... After all, these make a human unique! Religions are created for a reason, I guess now you know why...

I don't mind anymore, cause I did not drop on Earth to show Wikipedians the right way of life. I'm struggling with my own life... I've made my mind up though based on 'WP RD talk page' and i.e., the world is filled with 'human Satans', and Wikipedia is filled with humans; some are Wikipedians and some are Wikipediots. -- Space Ghost (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've closed the unhelpful side discussion. The phenomenon noted by the OP are called Tonsillolith. They were given this link. Further discussion is unnecessary on this page. Use WT:RD to discuss matters unrelated to linking the correct Wikipedia article. --Jayron 32 13:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 November 10

Contents