Miscellaneous desk
< May 9	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 11 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

May 10[edit]

Steroids[edit]

I was prescribed 5 days worth of steroids (and some antibiotics) by my doctor for an ear infection. So, this is not a medical advice question...I am simply wondering if this is basically the same stuff that athletes are getting in trouble for taking? If I was playing first base for the Yankees, would I have anything to worry about on the next random drug screening? The Steroids article is a bit technical, and is not really helpful in answering my question. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 02:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Steroids is a giant class of biomolecules whose only commonality is the the specific 4-ring structure evident in all of them. Steroids have a wide variety of function. Cholesterol is a steroid, for example. Athletes taking cholesterol supplements (I don't know, maybe in the form of bacon cheeseburgers?) aren't doing any performance enhancing as far as I can tell, indeed any meat or animal product in general usually contains some level of cholesterol, so everyone but vegans are eating steroids every day. Certain types of steroids are used as Performance-enhancing drugs (a class of drugs which also includes non-steroids like human growth hormone and amphetimines). The steroid usually being abused is anabolic steroids, which are those steroids that mimic testosterone, another steroid compound. The medication you are taking is most likely a type of Corticosteroid, which are used to reduce inflamation, and which AFAIK, do not have performance-enhancing properties. Indeed, shots of corticosteroids are commonly used to treat athletes injuries, and are perfectly within the rules, typically cortisone. --Jayron32 04:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that steroids are not the only performance enhancing drug class prohibited by professional sports organizations, just the most well recognized. For example hormone adjustment is commonly forbidden too, and frequently harder to detect. i kan reed (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I read that excessive caffeine was banned as well, at least for some sporting events though I am not sure how effective caffeine would actually be in said events. Googlemeister (talk) 20:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense that excessive 'anything' that might increase strength, recovery, endurance, energy, etc, would trigger a positive test depending on the test...so it's not surprising that caffeine could trigger a positive result. Expert opinion incoming (My qualifications are that I played some JV high school ball): Athletes that are serious about avoiding issues with their respective leagues on drug policies will make sure that their doctors/trainers review everything they plan to ingest/inhale to avoid potential conflicts between the treatment/training and the league's drug policy. --Onorem ♠Dil 20:42, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caffeine improves your reaction time, which for something like the 100-meter dash is fairly important -- being able to get out of the blocks 0.05 seconds before the other guy can easily be the difference between first and second place. --Carnildo (talk) 00:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could a drug test flag your medication as something illegal? Most likely, since some corticosteroids can contain certain protein markers found in banned substances. You can read which substances are banned in baseball at the Major League Baseball drug policy. Livewireo (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Holden apollo 2.2 litre 4 cylinder engine[edit]

My car has a loss of power under acceleration and is intermitant, new spark pligs, fuel filter, air filter, so just runs bad. Any ideas please help and give me some ideas! John K —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.181.16 (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sound like a vacuum advance problem. When you accelerate, the ignition system needs to spark earlier. The unit that does this might just have a leaky pipe from the carb or a perished diaphram-(thats if its not a fuel injected engine). --Aspro (talk) 13:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the air-fuel mix is off. Check that out. StuRat (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Houseplants that don't mind the dark[edit]

I though I could brighten up my bathroom with a small houseplant. Unfortunately, the bathroom has no windows, the door is usually closed and the light is usually switched off. Is there a houseplant that could survive such conditions - basically under very low lighting most of the time? Astronaut (talk) 11:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might be better having a fake plant, or a painting/stencil of plants. The prolonged darkness and large humidity range probably won't do even the most shade-tolerant plants much good. CS Miller (talk) 11:35, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I can think of is a fern of some description. Or you could learn to love the black mould I find grows under such conditions in bathrooms ... ;) --TammyMoet (talk) 11:58, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Searching around a bit, Pilea mollis thrives in high-humidity, full-shade areas. CS Miller (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe a nice-looking plastic one? Kingsfold (Quack quack!) 12:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could grow a giant mushroom!! Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fungi are not plants. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:13, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are set on real plants (they do freshen the air), mature Sansevieria and Zamioculcas can both tolerate very low light. They will grow very slowly in such low light, but probably survive. If the plants look very unhappy after a few weeks, you could do a complementary rotation with two plants, i.e. put plant 1 in the bathroom while plant 2 is in a brighter location for ~1-2 weeks, then switch. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:14, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could grow a gigantic fungus!! Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 14:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In all seriousness, if the room is going to be dark most of the time and only get the relatively weak light of a light bulb the rest of the time, grow mushrooms. --M @r ē ino 14:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the spores 'shrooms give off to reproduce might be an annoyance. Perhaps the ghost plant ? You would need to feed it wood pulp, though. StuRat (talk) 21:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just make sure it's not this sort. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.134 (talk) 15:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could grow an enormous toadstool!! Jeremy Wordsworth (talk) 15:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could invest in a small bulb, perhaps fluorescent, to provide a small amount of light the rest of the time.Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 21:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Try Lucky bamboo. Maybe if you have an outlet you could install a fluorescent grow light on the wall to keep on sometimes. Quinn ^{✩ STARRY NIGHT} 04:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. A grow light with full spectrum light will do the trick. Just read the instructions on how long to leave the light on each day for the type of plant that you pick. Most plants need 6 to 8 hours a day. Good Luck!50.36.184.49 (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]