Science desk
< February 10	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 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.

February 11[edit]

Is it normal to never get angry?[edit]

I've been annoyed but never angry. Ennyone57 (talk) 03:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is for you. GangofOne (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Emotions, like most all mental phenomena, are highly subjective and hard to quantify--so, it's hard to give any empirical comparison of whether your mental state with regard to anger (or most any emotion) is atypical. All of that said, human being clearly vary quite considerably in how they react to vexing or personally offensive stimuli. You may want to take a look at our articles affect (psychology), affect display and blunted affect, though note that each of these focuses more on behaviour than mental stimuli (again, going back to the deep issues with try to study the emotions themselves, which many cognitive scientists feel may present some by-nature-insurmountable difficulties). I will say this much--if you feel that you have no problem with the intensity of your other emotional states, I (personally) wouldn't waste any time feeling "abnormal" for a lack of particularly strong anger. Some people just run cool by nature and the result is often a very positive influence on those around them. That said, if your lack of intensity of emotion in this, or any, context makes you feel uncomfortable, incomplete or confused, a qualified psychiatric professional may be able to help you sort those feelings. Unfortunately, our policies here prevent us from digging too deep into that topic, since it impacts at least somewhat on our "no medical advice" standard. Snow ^{let's rap} 06:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Macmillan Dictionary defines ANGER as the strong feeling you get when you think someone has treated you badly or unfairly, that makes you want to hurt them or shout at them. That definition may be extended to the case of someone close to you being treated badly. If the OP considers their own reaction to such an event, which in this stressed world is not hard to visualize, then that qualifies as the OP's own anger reaction. It need not present visible symptoms or have to match the anger reactions of other people. AllBestFaith (talk) 13:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good functional definition, though it doesn't actually get at whether the process internally is different for the OP. I wonder if a more meaningful approach wouldn't be to do comparative measurements with fMRI or something. Such studies exist [1][2] though it seems dicey to measure "genuine" rage except in weird scenarios like the first. I mean, as much as in speech we might correlate the feeling you get when you read an article about camps in North Korea to the feeling you would have if you actually caught your wife's rapist between a blind corner and a baseball bat, I don't know if it's really the same emotion at all - how much of it lies in the actual intent to do actual harm? (AFAIR there is an aspect of repression from the frontal lobe in all this, but I'm not sure that "without it" it is "the same thing") Wnt (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the amygdala is the main center in charge of emotions like this, the adrenal gland produces the main associated hormones. If you don't feel much anger you might not feel much fear either as in the fight or flight reflex. A bit is good but we don't have to fight or flee saber toothed tigers nowadays. Dmcq (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'd have to ask how you know you're not angry? It's a bit like asking whether the color you see as "red" looks the same to me. How would you ever know? It's quite possible that your feeling of annoyance "feels" the same as the feeling I'd describe as "anger" - but that your external manifestations are kept more firmly under control. It's very difficult to compare inner sensations between individuals like that. SteveBaker (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For anyone wanting to dive more into this topic, the fancy-pants philosophical term for these "inner sensations" is qualia. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. SteveBaker (talk) 02:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles exist on Anger and Anger management. Two quotations are:

"We all experience anger; anger only becomes a serious concern when an individual is angry too frequently, too intensely, and for too long." - Novaco

"Anyone can become angry, that is easy...but to be angry with the right person, to the right degree, at the right time, for the right purpose, and in the right way...this is not easy." - Aristotle

AllBestFaith (talk) 14:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Making a slushie without sugar[edit]

Slush (beverage)#Sugar states that sugar is needed to act as an antifreeze. My question then, is if some other "edible antifreeze" could be used (excluding salt, because I don't think anyone would want that, even if it worked). StuRat (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glycerol. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could try using ethanol. DuncanHill (talk) 16:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of course Stu should try using ethanol, but given it is a less viscous liquid than water, rather than a solid like sugar that dissolves in water, it might defeat the slush goal. I am partial to protein shakes, which I make with skim milk, which does have its own inherent sugar. Perhaps Stu can hint at what his underlying goal is? Oh, and I also love milkshakes made with Breyer's low carb/no sugar added ice cream. μηδείς (talk) 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two words: margarita, daiquiri. --Trovatore (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like the ability of a slushie to cool me down more quickly than just a drink with ice cubes (no doubt because I actually consume the crushed ice in the case of a slushie, rather than waiting for it to melt first). However, I don't want all that sugar. I drink zero calorie iced peppermint "tea", no sugar or artificial sweeteners, so if I could make that into a slushie, that would be ideal. StuRat (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sucralose? (Disclaimer, I have never actually tried this.) shoy (reactions) 15:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't want sucralose in anything I intend to consume. StuRat (talk) 19:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the importance of freeze point depression by sugar may be a bit overstated. Have you simply experimented with a no-sugar peppermint shlushie? Also I do think a touch of glycerine may help as Duncan suggests, and it has a sweet taste too. You can usually find it at larger drug stores, or buy it online. It is not, however, zero calorie [3]. Propylene_glycol is used in many processed foods in small amounts, it's not as easy to come by though, and some people have concerns about ingesting it, though it is an FDA approved food additive. Some other counties have stricter limits on propylene glycol, hence this recent kerfluffle over flavored whiskey [4]. Ethylene_glycol is of course right out. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:37, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I do actually have some food-grade propylene glycol. I don't yet have a slushie machine, as I didn't want to buy one unless I could find a good recipe for peppermint tea that doesn't use sugar. I will see if I can find a recipe with propeylene glycol. StuRat (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain you can buy glycerine in most supermarkets and many corner shops, as well as in chemists. DuncanHill (talk) 15:45, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it seems more commonly used and sold in UK compared to USA. Not sure why, that might be its own interesting question... SemanticMantis (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you ruled out sucralose, but there's some stevia+erythritol stuff I like to use that is semi-comparable with sugar. Searching erythritol slushie turns up a bunch of references, including a bunch of patents from 2010, since after all, no idea is too obvious to patent; still, courtroom proceedings can be a good thing, provided the defendant shows up nicely manicured and wearing his very finest suicide vest. Wnt (talk) 22:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want any sweetener at all, if it can be avoided. Now I'm thinking maybe I need to make snow cones out of peppermint tea ice cubes, to get something cold and healthy without involving a chemistry experiment. Snow cones deal with the crystal formation a bit differently, by letting ice crystalize, but just shaving it down so the crystals are small enough to be edible. You do need to eat it with a spoon, though, instead of a straw. StuRat (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I ordered a snow cone machine, due here next week. It shaves ice off ice cubes you put in, and I intend to use peppermint tea ice cubes. Hopefully that will be the solution I was looking for. I would have preferred to make slushies, but from the discussion above, it seems that would require adding something unpleasant. StuRat (talk) 03:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The mask should defend on the sick or from the sick?[edit]

I saw in Eastern Europe people that put masks on their faces. My question about is: Is this mask defends on the person that put it on his face or it defends on the people around that worried about the sneeze and cough? It's not clear for me this issue. In addition, How could it be that very small viruses and bacteria can not get out of the mask while having sneeze or cough that are considered powerful. 18:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.126.95.68 (talk)

A mask could either protect the wearer from the world, or the world from the wearer. Our article Surgical mask says that people in Japan who are ill often wear masks to reduce the risk of passing the disease on. Our article has a photo of a situation in the USA where people were not permitted onto public transport unless wearing a mask - and clearly that would be to prevent them from passing on disease rather than for their personal protection from an external source. A simple mask won't prevent all bacteria and viruses from spreading but certainly it would reduce the degree of risk. Our article points out a surprising 'bonus' benefit which is that they "remind wearers not to touch their mouth or nose, which could otherwise transfer viruses and bacteria after having touched a contaminated surface". SteveBaker (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank yoou for the answer.93.126.95.68 (talk) 13:36, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really mean Eastern Europe? I have only seen people in East Asia using them. At least I have never seen them around Poland, Ukraine. --Scicurious (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In which time have you been there? Have you been there in the summer time or in the winter? Of course, I'm not saying that the entire people here or even most of them wear it as you can find in East Asia, but it's not uncommon here especially in this time. 93.126.95.68 (talk) 00:16, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes see people wearing masks here in Auckland, New Zealand, and they are without exception Asians. Akld guy (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It was surely not winter, but even then. I associate mask wearing while you're sick with Asia. I thought it was a kind of respect for the community type of things. Far away from the fuck you attitude of the West.--Scicurious (talk) 21:15, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why do doctors give saline to the patient instead of water?[edit]

I know that the saline is near to our physiological level of our blood (isotonic), and water is hipertonic or hypotonic, but my question is about the management of liquids through the vein (IV), that it's different from management of liquids through the mouth. So if I understand well the water that comes though the mouth latter transforms to isotonic. What is the way or the mechanism that it happens? 93.126.95.68 (talk) 18:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great question! Blood contains a balanced mixture of contents from the food you eat (which contains more salt than you need on most modern diets) and from water you drink. In addition, your body gets rid of excess water and/or salt as needed through urine to keep its tonicity at the right level. Blythwood (talk) 19:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your headline question is because it's sterile, doctors don't give saline water to drink, they use saline solution in a drip (through the veins, as you put it) in some cases to rehydrate patients (and also to administer medication). I'm not too sure about your question re hypertonic vs hyponotic, as I understand those terms they are relative to the overall balance of water and salts/sugars in your blood. A biologist will give you a better answer, but in a healthy person I think osmosis will balance the water your cells need and your internal organs (Kidneys in this case) will process and excrete the excess salts Mike Dhu (talk) 19:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both the question and the answers above are a bit confusing, but if I'm not mistaken you're asking why it's fine to drink water, but you have to use isotonic saline for intravenous ('through the vein') administration? You are entirely correct that normal saline is isotonic to our blood, ie it doesn't disturb the finely regulated levels of solutes in the blood too much. Water is indeed hypotonic to blood, and directly infusing it would rapidly lead to things like hyponatremia or hypokalemia. (Note: there are medical reasons to use hyper or hypo-tonic saline) Why doesn't this happen when you drink water? The answer is that is does happen. See water poisoning. The trick is to eat food or another source of salts (oral rehydration therapy) along with the water. This will be digested and absorbed in the blood stream, which, together with the regulatory mechanisms in the kidney, maintains healthy levels in the blood. Of course, with our modern Western diets we generally get too much sodium, leading to problems such as high blood pressure. It's a fine balance. Fgf10 (talk) 20:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is exactly what I meant to ask. Thank you for the answer. But according to what I know (and you can correct me if I'm wrong) normal people can survive with water some days, then according to what you're saying that they need to use the trick of eating something with the water, how can they survive for a long? I thought about other two possible options: 1) The body has a store of salts - as it as for sugar. and when coming hipotonic water the body secrete salts. 2) The body knows how to take the water and divide it into parts. Then it takes the salts that it needs for isotonic liquid and the rest of the H2O it removes by the urinary system. I would like to get your opinion about.93.126.95.68 (talk) 00:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's the second. The kidneys regulate the amount of solutes excreted in the urine, to maintain homeostasis. As to why isotonic solutions are used for IVs, it's because if the tonicity of your blood becomes out of whack, it can kill you. Cellular processes will be disrupted, and cells can even rupture. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The body can regulate the expulsion of water through the kidneys, and the intake of water through the intestines, to a point. Injecting water intravenously can easily overwhelm your body's sophisticated homeostasis and cause rapid illness, while it normally takes a prolonged period of time to get water poisoning through simply drinking it. That is, your body is equipped to handle large (but not absurd) amounts of water entering through the mouth, but not directly into the bloodstream. And, really, why would it? It's not something that was reasonably possible until somewhat recently in human history. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The critical reason for using isotonic saline is to avoid hemolysis. Red cells exposed to hypotonic solutions will lyse, and in sufficient quantity, the hemoglobin can cause kidney injury ((hemoglobinuria). There is nothing to prevent the sterilization of deionized or distilled water, and they are used as the diluents for some drugs. Bacteria will grow better in saline solutions (a variety of balanced salt solutions are used in microbiology laboratories) than distilled water. A 5% (weight/volume) solution of dextrose is also isotonic, and a commonly used solution. Hypertonic solutions may be used when the goal is to replace electrolytes rather than water. The choice of solutions for intravenous therapy is a complex subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BiologicalMe (talk • contribs) 18:13, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]