Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.
I am wondering whether exposure of a wound to sunlight increases , decreases or has no effect on the development of a visible, permanent scar? 67.253.78.55 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seattle Children's Hospital says "Scars should be carefully protected from the sun for at least 1 year after surgery or injury. Sun exposure can darken scars permanently, making them more noticeable. After about 2 weeks of healing, you can start applying sunscreen over your child's scar. Apply sunscreen in every season, not just in the summer."[2] --Guy Macon (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
That's not exactly a request for medical advice, as it's asking for general information. On the other hand, I can see how it might be inspired by a desire for medical advice. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIPEDIA HAS NO POLICY THAT SAYS THAT MEDICAL ADVICE IS NOT ALLOWED. We do, however, have a Wikipedia behavioral guideline at WP:TPOC that says that deleting other editors comments is not allowed except in certain circumstances -- and deleting an answer from the refdesk because of an imaginary rule about medical advice isn't listed on that page.
Some medical advice ("don't risk eating rotten food. Throw it out and thoroughly clean anything it touched") is OK, and is vastly preferable to "ask your doctor if eating rotten food is OK". Other medical advice ("go ahead and eat rotten food") is definitely not OK. The difference is that telling someone not to eat rotten food is not a harmful post as defined at WP:TPOC, but telling someone that it is OK to eat rotten food is a harmful post.
There are some misguided editors who believe that Wikipedia has a policy against giving medical, legal, and business advice, but no such policy or guideline exists. (If you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where the Wikipedia community approved them).
Here is some medical advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will screw up your health. Don't bother asking a doctor if crystal meth is good for you. It isn't. (medical disclaimer) Here is some legal advice: Don't do crystal meth. It is likely to get you arrested. Don't bother asking a lawyer if crystal meth is illegal. It is. (legal disclaimer) Here is some professional advice: Don't do crystal meth. It will use up all of your money and is likely to get you fired. Don't bother asking a certified financial planner if becoming a meth addict is good for your finances. It isn't. (general disclaimer, risk disclaimer)
There. I just provided medical, legal, and professional advice, and while I did make a point, I did so without being disruptive.
Feel free to report my behavior at WP:ANI if you believe that I have violated any Wikipedia policy or guideline. But don't delete other people's edits. Do that again and you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia for ignoring an actual guideline while enforcing an imaginary one. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's better to refuse to give any medical advice. Abductive (reasoning) 05:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether you have a personal opinion that it's better to refuse to give any medical advice. There is no rule against it. The IS a rule against deleting other people's comments.
Also, I disagree with your personal opinion. How, exactly. is it better to not tell people "Don't do crystal meth" or "don't eat rotten food"? That last one is an actual answer to a real question. Somebody left food in a cooker at room temperature for almost a full day and asked the medical question "is it safe to eat?" Giving that person the medical advice "throw it out" was the right decision. Telling them we don't give medical advice would have been the wrong decision, and would have been based upon an imaginary rule. We have enough real rules. We don't need made-up ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide a link to this imaginary "Rule/guideline against giving professional medical advice." It does not exist. Please stop making up guidelines and policies. There is a rule/guideline (which I just made up) against doing that. :) I think we have a rule against an anonymous editor or anyone without a medical degree claiming to be a doctor, but I could not find it with a quick search. Anyone?
I am not sure what the "professional" signifies. Are you talking about M.D.s posting on Wikipedia discussion pages? We do say that any advice given by an M.D. on Wikipedia who has not examined the patient in person may not be correct, but we don't forbid it. Any M.D. reading this is free to advise the reader to not do crystal meth. And of course harmful advice is forbidden at WP:TPOC, but saying "don't do crystal meth" is medical advice but is not not harmful advice.
Wikipedia has several disclaimers that were written by the WMF lawyers that make it clear that:
Any medical advice given on Wikipedia is not to be considered professional (as in "from a doctor") medical advice, even if the person answering is an M.D. Medical advice from an engineer is definitely not professional medical advice. See Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, which says "The medical information provided on Wikipedia is, at best, of a general nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a medical professional (for instance, a qualified doctor/physician, nurse, pharmacist/chemist, and so on). Wikipedia is not a doctor." (Emphasis in original) Note that is clearly states that [A] Medical advice is given on Wikipedia, and [B] Any medical advice given on Wikipedia is not to be considered professional. Also note that the lawyers have been asked multiple times to make an official WMF policy forbidding the giving of medical advice and have always declined. Similar requests regarding legal and financial advise have also been refused.
Wikipedia cannot guarantee the validity of the information found here. Not in articles. Not on talk pages, Not on noticeboards. Not on the reference desks. This is made crystal clear at Wikipedia:General disclaimer.
Any information you may find in wikipedia may be inaccurate, misleading, dangerous, addictive, unethical or illegal. Do not rely upon any information found in wikipedia without independent verification. This is made clear at Wikipedia:Risk disclaimer and applies everywhere; the refdesks. articles, the whole lot. Note that the WMF legal team did not say in the disclaimer that you are not allowed to post information that is inaccurate, misleading, dangerous, addictive, unethical or illegal, but the the English Wikipedia does forbid illegal and dangerous advice (see WP:TPOC).
Again, either quote the exact wording of the policy/guideline or stop saying that is exists. Again. if you are about to cite the reference desk guidelines, please read WP:LOCALCON and then show me where and when the Wikipedia community approved them. --Guy Macon (talk)
"Borromée was a ?French natural history and botanical illustrator and engraver during the 1700s and 1800s". This article has ground to a halt because of a dearth of information - I can find none of the usual biographic data on the web. Possibly this was some sort of pseudonym..... It is also an Italian family name, so there might be a link. Any sort of help would be welcome. Paul venter (talk) 10:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clelia Borromeo 1) was not called Borromée, 2) she was not a Frenchman and 3) did not illustrate books. This one is possibly Charles [Jean Félix Borromée] Dhéré, author e.g. of "De la nutrition, considérée anatomiquement et physiologiquement dans la série des animaux", 1826, maybe the same Borromée of the drawings [[3]].2003:F5:6F0F:6500:F06A:2BDF:7CE8:C074 (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Marco PB[reply]
Is there a simple, non-laboratory test to verify whether a given alcoholic beverage (vodka, rum, etc) indeed contains ethanol and not toxic methanol (or whether methanol is present)? Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Laboratory test kits used by distillers that indicate presence of methanol by a change of color are not cheap. See [4][5][6].
How did the seafloor appear on the island of Fuerteventura?[edit]
Thesepublications discuss the presence of seafloor rocks on the island of Fuerteventura. Does anyone know any publication that discusses how these rocks ended up on the island in the first place? It's a volcanic island and none of the sources discusses tectonic phenomena that would induce such an uplift process. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how reliable this is, but according to [7]: "Some 70 million years ago... the seabed fractured, generating the output of molten rock, which on contact with water rapidly solidified... Plutonic and volcanic rocks are also mixed with marine sediments (sand and mud) that came from Africa, so that the Basal Complex is composed of different types of rocks that we explain the origin of the island of Fuerteventura... at one point (17 million years ago), this volcano submarine surfaced and showed what would be the island Fuerteventura."
Could it be that underwater eruptions alternated with calm periods where normal seafloor was formed until eventually the volcano reached the surface?. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but what would be the mechanism to get them from the seafloor to the surface? That's really the central question I am positing. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The papers written about this sequence are less than clear about the mechanism. In the very similar occurrence on the island of Maio (see Casson et al. 2020), the Mesozoic sequence crops out around the margin of the central plutonic complex, which they overlie and dip away from. This may suggest that the sequence was uplifted above a laccolithic intrusion. Offshore Gabon, Cretaceous rocks are similarly uplifted above the Loiret intrusion by more than 2 km and were once exposed at the seabed. The laccolith was intruded at the interface between the oceanic basement and the sedimentary cover. Unfortunately, the only reference to that is my own paper given at the PESGB/AAPG Africa conference last year in London, which is not otherwise published so OR I'm afraid. Mikenorton (talk) 21:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Help. I found these under my dogs inside water bowl. I picked up the bowl and dumped the old water and was cleaning it. I did not notice any in bowl. But was not until I flipped the bowl over that I then saw them all over the bottom moving. I went back to wear we keep his bowl and many were on the ground. His food bowl I cleaned yesterday and was next to it. But does not seem to have any. My daughters chore is to refill our dogs bowl. I am freaking out thinking she has touched them and did not realize it. She’s knows to wash her hands after, but she’s also 5. So I’m so worried we now all could have them. Can you tell what kind they are? I truly don’t know which steps to take first. I did clean them up. One was in my shirt and looked like it was making a hole through it. 😷
I’m trying to attach a photo or video. But it’s not working 😩. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.34.130.31 (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But at a guess, rat-tailed maggots frequently appear in stagnant water; they are the the larvae of hoverflies and are harmless except as a carrier of bacteria, so don't eat them. Alansplodge (talk) 11:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Erp%C3%A9tologie_g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale%2C_ou%2C_Histoire_naturelle_compl%C3%A8te_des_reptiles_%285981839049%29.jpg){kind=link}