Science desk
< April 27	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	Current desk >

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.

April 28[edit]

Vertigo[edit]

Is acrophobia amenable to treatment by exposure therapy, or does it require more invasive treatment (like anti-anxiety drugs, intensive psychotherapy, etc.), or maybe it's not amenable to treatment at all? (Not medical advice -- I suffer from mottaphobia (or, more precisely, papiliophobia or even more precisely, papilioglaucophobia), not acrophobia, and in any case this question was inspired by the film Vertigo.) 2601:646:9882:46E0:C6F:1E80:4BE5:575F (talk) 08:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Vestibular rehabilitation therapy (VRT) is one such treatment.^[1] --136.56.52.157 (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a therapy for vertigo, a condition in which the world seems to spin, also for patients at ground level. This condition is unrelated to acrophobia, "fear of heights". --Lambiam 17:47, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The OP seems confused about this. They asked about acrophobia, but the header is Vertigo. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because that's the name of the movie which inspired the question -- so it wasn't me who was confused, it was Hitchcock! 73.162.86.152 (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first time that that movie has been referred to in this thread. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not so -- I referred to it in my original post, how come you didn't notice? 73.162.86.152 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm old. Some faculties fade, others are enhanced. You'll find out. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 08:28, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Look on the bright side: You're too old to die young. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:36, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shall try and remember that as my back aches and my joints creak! ;-) Martin of Sheffield (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2023 (UTC) [reply]

In Latin, vertigo is a non-medical term for "giddiness", such as may be experienced when gazing down from a great height or after imbibing a great deal of wine (or both). In English the term occurs as a non-medical term borrowed from Latin in the general sense of "giddiness"^[2][3][4] as well as the medical term for a specific condition, usually caused by a problem in the vestibular system. --Lambiam 11:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article from a reliable source gives a good account of vertigo and some of its causes/treatments. Mike Turnbull (talk) 17:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A meta-analysis of the efficacy of different interventions for acrophobia, including "VR coach-delivered psychotherapy", "in vivo exposure augmented with oppositional action" and "VR exposure therapy with 20 mg cortisol administration", found that these were "significantly superior than the placebo/control interventions", with "VR coach-delivered psychotherapy" (a term not further defined or explained in the article) being ranked as the most effective intervention for acrophobia.^[5] However, in the concluding section, the authors warn that the overall evidence was not sufficiently strong for this conclusion. So, apparently, exposure therapy for treating acrophobia is given in different forms that are at least somewhat effective. --Lambiam 12:41, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, there are some promising treatments, but these are somewhat more involved than ordinary exposure therapy (such as me looking at pictures of tiger swallowtails to get over my own phobia of them, which has been somewhat effective so far, at least in the case of the smaller Papilio rutulus), and they're not quite sure just how effective these treatments are yet -- right? 73.162.86.152 (talk) 21:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unusual bird call[edit]

I’ve recently heard a bird call I’ve never heard before, I was hoping someone may recognise it by description as I’ve not been able to get it on recording. It’s a short, sub-1 second, guttural deep warbling type call that essentially sounds like someone gargling mouthwash. It’s coming from a copse of mixed deciduous trees near my home. I live in the south west of the UK on a tidal estuary. The only bird I’ve visually identified in the copse is a group of jackdaws but not seen it to be them that make the noise. Googling it just brings me male brown cowbird but on YouTube comparison the cowbird is far too high pitched and too quiet, and I think are only found in the USA. This call is really loud. Thoughts? 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:B5B4:AFF3:7763:AD63 (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jackdaws and rooks often roost together, and your description does sound vaguely corvid. Try an online birdsong identifier such as https://www.british-birdsongs.uk/ - if you're in the South West UK it could also be a carrion crow or a raven. Turner Street (talk) 09:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a toad? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:30, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A fair question! But if it is it’s a toad that can throw its voice to the top of a cedar tree! I’ll YouTube some Corvid calls and see what comes up. 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:5F:1DB4:4B22:FD1E (talk) 19:05, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heard it again this evening. It’s like someone talking underwater, or for a more niche reference it sounds like Richard Nixon shaking his jowls in Futurama… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:30A4:1EAB:F159:428E (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I managed to get a clip of it. You’ll have to turn the volume up a bit. Ignore the chirp at the very end, that’s something else and it was too close to the call I’m trying to ID to cut out. It’s the lower pitched, more guttural call I’m trying to identify. Here is the video 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:5D4D:A32D:F2BF:F282 (talk) 06:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MYSTERY SOLVED!! It’s a Little Egret. We finally spotted them. Never seen them in trees before. 2A02:C7F:2C68:D500:296A:F26B:CEF5:2400 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Little Egret ~ Bird Call ~ Bird Song on YouTube. --Lambiam 19:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Harmless smoke[edit]

From what I've read it appears that every smoke and vapour (except possibly water vapour) is harmful to humans, regardless of its source (including herbal cigarettes). Is there a known substance whose burning would produce a harmless smoke/vapour in terms of inhalation? Or does burning in itself always inherently produce a toxic smoke, regardless of source? 212.180.235.46 (talk) 17:46, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Any smoke has a complex composition because the high temperature facilitates chemical reactions that result in a large number of chemical compounds. Many of them will be toxic. So, yes any smoke is highly likely harmful. As to vapour: this term can be used for the gaseous phase of any chemical. So, a vapour many be harmless: oxygen, nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon dioxide etc. Ruslik_Zero 20:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article on theatrical smoke and fog which discusses how smoke effects can be obtained safely. Mike Turnbull (talk) 21:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Burning itself tends to produce toxic chemicals. When you burn something organic at a few hundred degrees Celsius (like when people are smoking, or in a burning building), you get incomplete combustion, which produces a large number of different chemicals, many of which are toxic (expect some PAHs), along with some carbon monoxide. At higher temperatures and plenty of air, combustion tends to be more complete, but now you get NOx. PiusImpavidus (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This being the Science desk, it intrigues me that Control of fire by early humans tells us that our ancestors have been deliberately using fire for maybe 2 million years, yet in modern times we seem to have discovered a lot of ways in which it does us harm. I would love to see discussion on those negative effects over those 2 million years. HiLo48 (talk) 00:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's 8 billion people can produce a lot more smoke than 100,000 people could some 100,000 years ago. --Lambiam 05:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, with the low life expectancy of early humans, the adverse implication of smoke breathing, aside from straight-out suffocation, were practically non-existent. Zarnivop (talk) 15:32, 1 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

They also might have been smart enough to stay upwind. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some aerosols are not produced by combustion, though. David10244 (talk) 06:13, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neurology: How does a Lobotomy affect the Patients Religiousity ?[edit]

Well, the USA has practiced Lobotomy intensivly in the 50s and is also a very religious country. Also Medical sites are ofter Churchrun or even staffed by Nuns. This means, that a Patient who had a Lobotomy certainly has encountered Religion. Was there any Notable change ? As Lobotomy does (as Dr. Freeman himself putted it) "Smash abstract thinking", and abstract thinking is important for Religion, you would expect them to loose faith, or at least ignore abstract concepts like Trinity and focus on nonabstract things, like Crosses, Jesus and the like. However, a Lobotomy also may reduce intelligence, and the Churches are often into Antipsychiatry, so some might turn to Religion even more. Also, the most interesting Question is: Has a Lobotomy ever been performed on a Salafist (maybe in a black site ...) ? Since Salafists hate everything nonabstract, you would expect them to completely lose touch with Islam. --87.168.89.233 (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The effects seen on people who survive the procedure are unpredictable and random, but generally not for the better. The impairment is often completely debilitating, requiring permanent care taking of the patient. --Lambiam 08:53, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Warning: My comment has little to do with the original question.) A fascinating read is My Lobotomy, by one Howard Dully, who was subjected to the procedure at a young age and managed to recover somewhat, possibly thanks to neuroplasticity. I picked it up in an airport just because it looked interesting. I was startled to recognize the description of the medical plaza where the operation was done — it was more or less in my home town, and I think I had medical appointments there as a kid. There seems to have been little justification for doing the operation on him even by the standards of the day. --Trovatore (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]