Science desk
< November 2	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 4 >

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.

November 3[edit]

Atmosphere suitable for humans?[edit]

Let's ignore possible airborne pathogens as factor for this question. How much differences an atmosphere of an exoplanet could have compared to the Earth's current one in order for humans to still be able to function effectively without negative effects on the body? For example, if a planet has an atmosphere like the one on Earth during the Carboniferous period with 30% oxygen in composition, would it still be safe for humans to breathe freely in it? What about increased pressure at the surface? 70.95.44.93 (talk) 01:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a great idea to get into theoretical questions. Though are you sure the Earth's atmosphere has ever been 30%? I've seen a table in a microbiology textbook on how long the atmopshere was been 21% - since 800-900 million years ago, 10% at 1.25 billion years ago, and 1% at 1.9 million years ago. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Regarding the 30% figure, the graph at the start of our Great Oxidation Event (showing the upper and lower estimates for peak P_O₂ of about 0.33 atm & 0.20 atm) is from Heinrich Holland who wrote in 2006 that "Atmospheric oxygen levels during stage 5 (0.54 Ga–present) probably rose to a maximum value of ca 0.3 atm during the Carboniferous before returning to its present value.".

Also, the lede of Carboniferous says, "The atmospheric content of oxygen also reached its highest levels in geological history during the period, 35%[7] compared with 21% today, allowing terrestrial invertebrates to evolve to great size.[7]"" with the reference being David Beerling's 2007 The Emerald Planet. -- ToE 15:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since we don't use nitrogen from the air, it could be completely removed, and either replaced by another inert gas, or we could have lower pressure but with the partial pressure of oxygen similar to what it is here. We also don't need carbon dioxide in the air, so that could be eliminated. Of course, plants would die, but you didn't ask about those. So, when you get right down to it, all we really need is oxygen, and some water vapor so we don't dry out. SinisterLefty (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] The human body can cope with pressures several times the current norm, as when using Scuba or other apparatus in deep dives. Problems with the bends may arise when returning to normal atmospheric pressure, but living for extended periods, or permanently, under such pressure seems to be possible.

Markedly lower pressures will be limited by the body's requirement, even after acclimatization, for a minimum amount of oxygen – biologically this would be around 1/5 current atmospheric pressure if 100% oxygen, but such an atmosphere would be impractically flammable in combination with fuel materials such as plants. Of course, an absence of toxic gases (where toxicity is dependent on their partial pressure) would be a prerequisite.

Permanent use of relatively simple breathing apparatus might well extend the limits of atmospheric composition somewhat. A more critical restraint might be ambient temperatures. Such considerations have of course been studied in the context of a future Mars habitat. {The poster formerly known as 87.821.230.195} 2.122.179.237 (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe 100% oxygen would increase flammability, as long as the partial pressure of oxygen remains the same, because no more oxygen is available than before. Or are you thinking the nitrogen in our air interferes with combustion ? SinisterLefty (talk) 03:19, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The nitrogen interferes with combustion by taking away some of the heat. Suppose you burn one carbon atom with one oxygen molecule. That gives one very energetic carbon dioxide molecule. Now add four nitrogen molecules. The heat gets spread over all molecules (not completely equally, as the carbon dioxide has more internal degrees of freedom), resulting in less kinetic energy per molecule and therefore a cooler flame. PiusImpavidus (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Oxygen Partial Pressure and Oxygen Concentration Flammability:Can They Be Correlated? (Journal of ASTM International, 2016). Last sentence of abstract: "The findings presented in this paper suggest flammability is more dependent on oxygen concentration than equivalent partial pressure." I was looking for an older NASA paper which said the same thing (without proposing a mechanism) when I found this one. I think the phenomenon is at first counter-intuitive to those who work with hyperbaric physiology where equivalent partial pressure is paramount. -- ToE 12:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does the (partial or real) pressure of carbon dioxide of air in respiration affect the exchange of CO₂ out of the blood, and therefore affect things like carbonate pH buffering? Or is 0.04% too low to have a relevant effect? DMacks (talk) 02:35, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is too low to matter, since those filling oxygen tanks don't bother to add in carbon dioxide. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Depends which air. Hypercapnia#Tolerance and Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity seem to say that you need a couple percents to see some acute effect (though I am not sure that effect is due to chemical equilibrium in hemoglobin or something else entirely) and there are recent papers showing chronic effects at a fraction of percent (in animal models). 0.04% seems too low from those numbers. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 10:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Earth's atmosphere may be relevant (note that they don't include water vapor in the pie chart, since the proportion is too variable). SinisterLefty (talk) 03:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inert gas partial pressure may be a concern at elevated absolute pressure due to Nitrogen narcosis. Extended exposure to oxygen at elevated partial pressure may be a concern due to Oxygen toxicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E34:EF5E:4640:6450:7CCB:76D1:CFE1 (talk) 08:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From a question on the science reference desk three years ago: if you are the sort of person who regularly breathes an artificial atmosphere... there are a few things you should know...

And just about a month ago, we also talked about the effects of spaceflight on the human body, and I linked to Introduction to Aviation Physiology, a great starter-book for readers interested in aerospace health at large. There are so many considerations for breathing special atmospheres that it's hard to know where to begin - but the textbooks are usually going to start by talking about laws of physics like the gas laws and the rules about partial pressures that we learn in high school chemistry; and the human cardio-respiratory system, like we learn in high school biology; and then get into more advanced details about how the biology of the human breathing apparatus works under normal conditions; and then we start throwing the curve balls about unusual gases and unusual pressures, and the profound physiological and psychological adaptations and limitations that relate to these subjects.

There are many standard books that will walk you through the various health hazards associated with breating unusual gas. The most significant disorders are going to be those associated with hypoxia in all its various forms. The next set of disorders will relate to gas toxicity. All gases can be hazardous to breathe under certain conditions. And there will also be coverage about the physical physiological problems of pressurized gas applied at the wrong pressure - barotrauma - in all of its gruesome forms. And finally, there are long-term - chronic - considerations if you plan to expose humans to abnormal conditions for extended time.

Even today, many humans - miners, divers, aviators, astronauts, and other specialists - regularly breathe abnormal atmospheres. We know lots of stuff about the benefits and hazards of those. For example, a "tech-diver" can breathe enhanced- or enriched- air, or trimix. Submariners and divers often breathe helium mixtures. If we just take Earth atmosphere, and remove some nitrogen and replace it with oxygen to get a 30% O₂ concentration - well, that's a pretty mild and standard form of enriched air nitrox and it's so common that even I breathe it - at multiple pressures! We know a lot about what happens to the human body when exposed to such atmospheres. Some of these conditions can be perfectly safe, if the highly-trained operator correctly uses well-specified procedures and good-quality equipment. Some procedures are safe enough that we allow recreational tourists to experience them - for example, one can buy SCUBA-dive vacation packages where divers will breathe an unusual or even-more-exotic gas mix at high pressure. In other cases, many of the other effects of these atmospheres are ... not good for the poor little humans. Generally, we aim for minimizing harm and minimizing long-term consequences, especially when the goal is to have fun, as opposed to the goal of staying usefully conscious and/or alive - for just long enough - to complete a job.

There is a lot to learn; if a hypothetical astronaut encountered an atmosphere that we have not really studied, we would need to learn about its unique hazards.

A great start for the real enthusiast is to get in to basic SCUBA - you'll get a book and formal classroom instruction in all the benefits and hazards of breathing!

Nimur (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iron-rich food[edit]

If blood slightly tastes iron, why iron-rich food doesn't taste iron as well? Also relevant to food reach in other elements. Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The taste or smell is actually due to Oct-1-en-3-one. This is made when oxidised skin lipids meet ferrous iron ions. The food may not contain free iron in this form. The iron will usually be trapped in metalloproteins in a sulfur rich cluster and not be free to make the odorant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't liver have an iron taste ? SinisterLefty (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really taste like iron, it just tastes like liver. Which is gross enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to taste metallic to me, which is why it's so nasty. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're supposed to cook it first. 93.136.71.107 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cook it long enough, and you can use it to re-sole your shoes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The taste we associate with metals isn't really a taste, it is a smell. What we think of as "flavor" is mostly smell, strictly speaking we can only taste the 4-5 basic tastes of bitter, sour, sweet, salty and umami. Any other aspect of taste is really smell which your brain interprets as taste as your mind merges the two senses into a single sensation. What we think of as "metallic" actually isn't the metal at all. Metals neither activate taste buds nor produce a vapor that you can pick up in your olfactory senses. Instead, what you smell or taste is usually the compound Oct-1-en-3-one, or other related compounds, which is mentioned above. This class of compounds are produced when metals react with various compounds (such as the oils in your skin or components of your saliva) to produce a sensation we learn as "metallic". This video is a pretty good explanation. --Jayron 32 14:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What's an easy method or solvent to remove the odor from strongly metal-scented metal objects? That would be a real nose opener about the common myth that metals evaporate far below their melting point. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the video. He explains that. --Jayron 32 19:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are also other elements that contribute to the experience of consuming a food, such as mouthfeel. Fatty foods tend to "coat" the inside of the mouth, and depending on composition may also start to melt from body heat, chocolate being a good example. Tannins and some other compounds create an astringent sensation. Spicy foods contain chemicals that don't act on taste receptors, as you noted, but instead on other receptors located on skin and mucous membranes. --47.146.63.87 (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Touchscreens.[edit]

Some of these touchscreens like at the self-checkout at grocery stores, don't work if you tap while wearing gloves on. Even the kind of gloves that are like a cloth, even with tapping the screens really long and hard. So as soon as I take the gloves off and tap with my fingertips, it works. How does it know human skin from gloves? My only guess is human emits weak IR radiation but I doubt that's the case. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 12:28, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

see Touchscreen#Capacitive and Capacitive sensing to see how this works (or not). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So gloves block an electrostatic field, making an unmeasurable change in capacitance? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It's measurable. They also make special gloves for use with touchscreens. SinisterLefty (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why point out a contradiction? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 17:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

What contradiction? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What I copy/pasted. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 17:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

You didn't copy/paste anything in this section, that I can see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From the see Touchscreen#Capacitive, I copy/pasted the 2nd sentence then put it in a form of a question. 67.175.224.138 (talk) 00:54, 4 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

OK, I meant that the difference in capacitance between touching the screen (with) or (without gloves) is measurable, while you meant that it makes the difference in capacitance when touching the screen too small to detect, when wearing gloves. Both are true. Or perhaps the difference in capacitance could still be detected when wearing gloves, but setting the sensitivity that high would also mean it would have false positives, thinking it detected a touch, when a fly lands on the screen, for example. SinisterLefty (talk) 03:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest to the existence of the fly problem on Amazon Kindle. You'd never expect such quick page flipping from those tiny legs... 93.136.71.107 (talk) 22:35, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you were reading Charlotte's Web, your fly would get trapped on the screen. :-) SinisterLefty (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) [reply]

The touch screens are designed to detect the capacitance when actually touched, so if the finger is just near the screen it does not trigger. It would be hard to use if it was so sensitive. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay going back to gloves block an electrostatic field, what electrostatic field, from the touchscreen, or from the human body? 67.175.224.138 (talk) 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC).[reply]

It is not detecting an electrostatic field from a human. Instead there will be multiple conductors in the screen, with alternating voltage on some of them. When a finger is placed on the screen (or near) it will increase the capacitance between the wires and the touch screen will sense the change, which could be by seeing the alternating voltage in the second set of wires go up, or the circuit changes so that the oscillation changes. So electric fields are going from one conductor to the finger, and then from the finger to another conductor. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lethal bronzing?[edit]

Here is a definition. I'm surprised it's not on Wikipedia. Also palm oxids.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Mark Trail comic led me to search Haplaxius crudus, which has an extremely brief article but points to lethal yellowing, which appears to be the article you're looking for. A redirect from "lethal bronzing" might make sense, assuming the comics people didn't just make a mistake. --Trovatore (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He usually seems to know what he's talking about but occasionally the commenters will catch a mistake.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: Actually a quick search suggests that the correct article is Texas phoenix palm decline, a related disease to lethal yellowing but apparently not exactly the same. See here. I'll go ahead and make the redirct to that article. --Trovatore (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 22:44, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]