Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2019 June 11

Science desk
< June 10	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 12 >

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.

June 11

Drunkenness before alcohol

It has long been my impression that I'm rather susceptible to "contact high", especially where alcohol is concerned. When I was a little kid, before I ever had heard of the idea, a couple of glasses of wine to the adults would nonetheless make me rambunctious. One time later on I recall a time when I simply blundered into a group of college students coming out of a sports game and not merely felt drunk from being with them but was literally unsteady on my feet for a bit. Now one possibility is I'm E.T., but more likely is that there's some psychological state of inebriation, which a person can be brought into by social cues, or which can be triggered chemically. According to this model, early man would have developed a tendency to party in a drunken way, perhaps not dissimilar from some of the orgiastic rites recounted the world over where people use things that aren't alcohol and don't seem inebriating to some impartial observers, ranging from invocation loa spirits to kava-kava, to achieve something akin to alcohol inebriation. Alcohol might trigger that accidentally, or perhaps the profuse availability of near-rotten fruit created a situation where it was beneficial for early man to drop everything and hang out on the ground swapping stories and munching, to the point where the propensity to drunkenness literally evolved. Contact high would then result from a strategic requirement for such a state to be widely shared among participants, a sort of social peace treaty where people would somewhat let down their guard to enjoy a common feast.

But is there anything to back up such an idea? Has anyone demonstrated a state of drunkenness without alcohol from some festivity by fMRI, or observed primates acting oddly while enjoying the end of a fruit harvest? It's kind of an annoying thing to search for because of all the more practically oriented alcohol research. Wnt (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, a state of drunkenness without alcohol from some festivity is often associated with the release of endorphines to the brain (that's why we're a bit looney when enjoying something). Also, alcoholic vapors produced by a drunken person towards some susceptible sober people may play a role - this is the principle a breathalyzer is based upon. Brandmeister^talk 14:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I googled "placebo drunkenness" (a slightly different concept to what you're describing) and found this 2003 report on BBC news, as well as a couple of academic articles. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Only a hypothesis, but it's possible that it also has to do with nonverbal communication. I failed to find exactly the term I was looking for, but a common aspect is involuntary mimicry (of facial and body expressions, language accent, etc)... —PaleoNeonate – 14:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There's a somewhat disputed theory of mirror neurons that might figure into this. 67.164.113.165 (talk) 10:13, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

gluing together two parts of a broken stone (limestone)

The following question is destined to the those who have the knowledge or the skills: what's the right way to glue two parts of a stone, that has broken up into two pieces as a result of a hit ? what material/s are recommended for that purpose ? Thanks, בנצי (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) השאלה מיועדת לבעלי ידע או ניסיון: איך מדביקים שני חלקי אבן (גירנית), ובאיזה חומר/ים יש להשתמש ? שני החלקים הם יחידה אחת, שנחלקה לשניים עקב מכה. תודה, בנצי (talk) 10:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Please, WP:SPEAKENGLISH. Bazza (talk) 10:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  Please, use translate.google.com or something. It's just the same thing in (presumably) Hebrew. Wnt (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

  @Wnt: I'm not sure who that comment is aimed at. WP:SPEAKENGLISH doesn't mention translate.google.com, or any other translators. The OP could have translated their second text to English (for the English Wikipedia) using such a translator first. Common courtesy, rather than expecting people you want to help you to do it for you. Google says the extra text is "The question is for those with knowledge or experience: how to glue two pieces of stone (chalk), and what material (s) should be used? The two parts are one unit, divided by two due to a blow. Thanks, Bentzi". Bazza (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

As Wnt said, Hebrew and English parts of the question are identical in meaning. For repair, I'd use a landscaping adhesive. Pick a color that matches the stone in case some adhesive squeezes out. Try to match the two parts exactly as they were before the break, and use as little adhesive as possible so it doesn't squeeze out. Dr Dima (talk) 19:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

• Impossible to say precisely without knowing more details. In particular, how neat the result needs to be - the answer is different for a garden wall vs. a museum conservation repair.

Mostly such a repair would involve insetting a non-corroding metal dowel. This is glued into place (traditionally) with lead-based alloys (or Cerrosafe, for good work), or even molten sulphur! Modern work would use an acrylic adhesive (these are sold commercially for putting screws into stonework). You could also use an epoxy adhesive, which is what most people would think of first. Use a good epoxy though, like West System.

Really though someone, who is skilled at such repairs, needs to look at the piece. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A very quick search turns up [1] as a top hit. Is that a stab in the right direction or do you have a different application? Wnt (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Another important factor is what conditions it will be subjected to following the repair. If it will sit on a shelf in an air conditioned room, that's relatively easy. If it will be outside and subject to all ranges of weather, that's quite a bit trickier. SinisterLefty (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Dosimetric values for sensing ionizing radiation

I have read in a blog that immediate physiological clues of ionizing radiation - smell of ozone (apparently due to ionization of air), metallic taste and eye irritation - begin at or above 10 roentgens. Are there reliable sources for this, mentioning minimal dosimetric threshold for such feelings? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 13:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Although many effects are possible, the most common immediate signs and symptoms of radiation poisoning are nausea and vomiting.

Here is Understanding Radiation, a guide for emergency first responders from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.

Here is Radiation Sickness from the Mayo Clinic. Again, the early signs are nausea and vomiting.

Nimur (talk) 14:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I know. I'm more interested in corresponding dosimetric values, e.g. to what value do ozone smell and metallic taste correspond to? I only know that this means strong radiation. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not certain that there's any meaningful threshold: ozone can be produced by chemical reactions that have nothing to do with incoming radiation; and ozone can also be produced by low doses of ultraviolet radiation (which, to be fair, may qualify as "ionizing" radiation - but not always); meanwhile, arbitrarily-high incidence of certain wavelengths of ionizing radiation might produce negligible ozone. Here's a detailed, scientifically-accurate FAQ from NOAA: How is ozone formed in the atmosphere?

As far as the symptom of "metallic taste," that's also one whose correspondence to ionizing radiation is weak, at best. For example, Burning Mouth Syndrome (from Mayo Clinic) lists "metallic taste" as a common symptom. I recall reading about this symptom, because not too long ago, that exact article came up in a discussion on Wikipedia's Science Reference desk - ... about peach allergies.

After reviewing a bunch of reputable sources that I trust - things like the radiology health guides at our national labs - and finding zero discussion of user-reports of "ozone smell" and "metallic taste" associated with radiological health, I would personally conclude that these are not common symptoms. If you found a blog or other discussion, they may be repeating apocrypha that is unfounded in scientific experiment.

If a subject smells ozone, it is probable to conclude that they are being exposed to ozone, not to radiation. Any direct connection between radiation exposure and ozone is tenuous and scenario-dependent.

If a subject reports a metallic taste, that may be a sign of a different underlying condition - possibly connected in some fashion to an acute or chronic radiological exposure, and possibly not.

I don't think I can find any reason to associate those two symptoms with particular dose thresholds; and I can't find any reliable resource that makes that connection either. At low doses, a subject might not notice exposure (even if harm is being caused); at higher doses, a subject will typically experience nausea; and even if we raise the acute exposure to exceptionally dangerous levels, a subject will begin experiencing the more grisly symptoms, like rapid hair loss, diarrhea, blood-loss, and exhaustion or unconsciousness; but I cannot find reports of "tastes" and "smells."

If anything comes to my mind, it sounds like somebody's mixing up symptoms - after all, a lot of emergency and military training doctrine lumps together all the chemical and radiological safety into one set of doctrine - because whether the cause is radiological or chemical, many of the "next steps" for containment, evacuation, and treatment are exactly the same. Bad smells and bad tastes can also be an indication of exposure to lots of chemical hazards, but I do not think they are commonly associated with nuclear (or ionizing) radiation exposure.

Nimur (talk) 20:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you link us to the blog post you referred to? Ionizing radiation can, by definition, ionize the oxygen in air, which can generate ozone; it can also produce a lovely blue glow. But as Nimur notes, this is not a guaranteed way to measure radiation, as the amount of ozone produced will depend on environment. Air is an uncontrolled mixture of chemicals which can produce a lot of different chemical reactions when energized. Also, as the article notes, the roentgen is an old unit that is generally avoided today. The roentgen itself measures air ionization, which does not have a simple relationship with things such as the amount of radiation absorbed by tissue, which is what matters for symptoms of radiation sickness. Obligatory meme: "Only 3.6 roentgen. Not great; not terrible, like a chest X-ray." --47.146.63.87 (talk) 23:46, 11 June 2019 (UTC)