1

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: Who is monitoring global space junk?

« on: 16/11/2021 21:35:15 »

Hello & Welcome to the TNS Forum!

There is an OP currently in discussion with a somewhat similar topic/subject to the one you wish to enquire about.

Here is the Link :
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=83501.0
Hope it will help.

Ps - It's also the Question Of The Week, hence would be answered by Subject Matter Experts.
Which is mostly like a treat of sorts.
Okay Enjoy & have Fun!

2

COVID-19 / Re: Covid19 & Mental Health?

« on: 12/11/2021 22:50:08 »

SARS-COV2 infects any cell exposing the ACE2 receptor. This includes the endothelial cells lining the fine blood vessels (capillaries), which feed all body tissues (including the brain).
- Brain function may be indirectly affected by inflammation of the blood vessels
- Or lack of oxygen due to lung scarring

One of the more unique symptoms of COVID infection is the loss of taste/smell - this virus infects and kills odor-receptor nerves in the nose.
- These nerves are like an extension of the brain that is in contact with the outside world
- That led to concerns that perhaps COVID-19 could infect and kill brain cells
- MRI brain studies suggest that COVID infection does correlate with a faster reduction in brain tissue (compared to normal aging in people who did not catch COVID).
- In many people, the sense of smell does return after a month or so. Like most peripheral nerves, the nerves in the nose can regrow after damage*.
- However, the bulk of the brain (and the central nervous system generally) is less able to regenerate after damage. This means that rehabilitation may be needed to help COVID victims relearn skills, using remaining, undamaged parts of the brain.   
* Unfortunately, the nerves carrying the sense of smell sometimes miswire when they regrow, leaving people unable to stomach their favorite foods.

One of the less-unique symptoms of Long COVID is described as "brain fog", an inability to think clearly, sometimes lasting months.
- This symptom is also seen in post-viral syndrome of other infections like Epstein-Barr virus (which causes Glandular Fever/Mononucleosis)
- Some studies using IQ-style tests show a cognitive decline following COVID infection.

See: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00324-2/fulltext

3

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 18.10.28 - When did we become modern day humans?

« on: 31/10/2018 19:27:55 »

There are as many answers as there are definitions of "modern day humans".
How about this one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_by_country

4

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Can a group B, rhesus-positive man marry a group A rhesus-negative woman?

« on: 06/03/2018 21:32:49 »

A woman who is known Rhesus negative (RhD-) is at risk of developing anti-D antibody following a pregnancy. This is not a risk for the first pregnancy but could cause problems in a subsequent pregnancy because the anti-D antibodies will be transferred across the placenta into the developing baby where they will attack the RhD+ foetal blood cells, causing foetal anaemia; this can lead to a condition called hydrops foetalis.

To combat this, Rhesus-negative women are normally managed prospectively during pregnancy with a procedure called Routine antenatal anti-D prophylaxis, or RAADP. One or two injections of anti-D antibodies are administered at between 28 and 34 weeks of pregnancy.

Then, after you have given birth, a sample of foetal blood (from the umbilical cord) is tested to confirm Rh+ status. If the baby really is Rh+, then anti-D antibody should be administered to the mother at this point.

The rationale for this is that, if any foetal blood cells enter the maternal circulation at any point they will be bound by these antibodies and will not stimulate the production of the mother's own antibody.

Evidence suggests that administration of anti-D antibody at up to 72 hours post-partum is a safe and effective prophylaxis against RhD sensitisation. Therefore the healthcare provider has not been at all negligent in your case and you have nothing to worry about.

5

That CAN'T be true! / Re: Why are so many cancer drugs Snake Oil?

« on: 29/10/2017 19:57:46 »

Globalization may even promote cancer. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1299207/

The problem with this way of thinking is that you can lay many of the worlds ills against many factors without identifying the root cause and hence tackling the problem. Eg, in the paper you quote, the root cause is substance abuse - tobacco and alcohol. You could by the same logic blame globalisation for the Irish potato famine rather than reliance on monoculture.
Similarly you might single out exploration, eg discovery of the americas, rather than globalisation as promoting cancer.

Federal authorities arrested the billionaire founder and owner of Insys Therapeutics Thursday on charges of bribing doctors and pain clinics into prescribing the company’s fentanyl product to their patients,” reports the Daily Caller News Foundation, one of the best sources of real journalism in America today.

Addictive drugs that include opioids, we now know, are claiming over 64,000 lives a year in the United States alone.

From the DCNF:

The Department of Justice (DOJ) charged John Kapoor, 74, and seven other current and former executives at the pharmaceutical company with racketeering for a leading a national conspiracy through bribery and fraud to coerce the illegal distribution of the company’s fentanyl spray, which is intended for use as a pain killer by cancer patients. The company’s stock prices fell more than 20 percent following the arrests, according to the New York Post.

More than 20,000 Americans died of synthetic opioid overdoses last year, and millions are addicted to opioids. And yet some medical professionals would rather take advantage of the addicts than try to help them...

NEVER TRUST A DOCTOR.THEY ARE ON THE TAKE.

6

General Science / Re: Why are builders using small bricks?

« on: 13/08/2017 16:19:40 »

For those with genuine curiosity, http://www.jaharrison.me.uk/Brickwork/Sizes.html is informative:

Several things influenced the size of bricks. They mustn't be too big, or they will be too heavy and awkward to pick up with one hand, while applying mortar with a trowel held in the other. They mustn't be too small, or a wall will need more of them, and more mortar, and more time to lay it.

Wilkes GobsIn modern times most bricks in UK are made to a standard size of 65x102.5x215mm, and laid with nominal 10mm mortar joints, but in former times the size varied quite a lot.
Some early medieval bricks were as big as 13"x6"x2". Late 15th century bricks were mostly about 9½"x4½"x2". A charter in 1571 specified 9"x4½"x2¼", and in the 18th century, Parliament specified 8½"x4"x2½", which is equivalent to the modern metric brick of 215mm x 102.5mm x 65mm.

What upset the apple cart was a brick tax imposed by the government in 1784. The tax was paid per brick, so brick makers responded by making much larger bricks, which meant fewer were needed for a given size wall. An extreme case was Joseph Wilkes  of Measham, who produced bricks double the normal size (110x110x235mm) known locally as 'Jumbies' or Wilkes's Gobbs'', see right. The government later set an upper limit of 150 cubic inches (10"x5"x3") for a 'brick, which was still much larger than bricks had been before the tax.

The tax was repealed in 1850, but by this time, many brick makers, especially in the Midlands and North, had moved from hand-made to machine-made bricks. Having invested heavily in machinery it wasn't easy for them to revert to the smaller sizes, which meant that big bricks persisted for a long time afterwards. As a result you are likely to find bigger bricks as you move farther north, in buildings built before the introduction of standard modern bricks.

Domestic and high-street buldings are subject to local planning requirements which can specify the size, color and even the texture of facing bricks to preserve some kind of aesthetic appearance, but we use much larger blocks of lightweight concrete for the inner leaf nowadays, and the block size used for some industrial buildings is limited by the "two man lift" requirement. I use large, high density ilemnite two-man bricks for linear accelerator bunkers and suchlike, to save space and minimise the number of joints (which compromise radiation attenuation if you're not very careful). Bricklaying machines do exist and are OK for boundary walls or factory facings, but they aren't much use in a confined space.       

7

General Science / Re: Why are builders using small bricks?

« on: 10/08/2017 21:42:38 »

i can lift a brick with a single hand 6 inch by 4 inch by 5 inch easily.bricks are not very heavy.
also it is absurd to state that you need to lift a brick.

you simply slide the brick from a suitable tray into the appropriate position.

keyword SLIDE.

small bricks suffer from spalling which makes them weaker.

This you might not understand.i will spell it out for you.
suppose you cut 1 inch of an elephant will be unharmed.
you cut 1 inch of a hamster it will be fatal.

Sliding sounds like it would come with its own complications. You now need more equipment than before in order to lift the bricks to a suitable height. A heavy brick wouldn't exactly be low friction either, so using such a system sounds like it would be slower than the conventional method. Accidentally dropping bricks on the ground would be a problem too, since now they are so heavy that only a machine (or several people working together) can lift even one of them. If you are suggesting making bricks as many times larger as elephants are than hamsters, these problems become greatly magnified.

I am afraid you are rather limited in your thinking and suffer from failure to integrate knowledge.

how did the ancients manage to build castles and vast palaces and monuments and big buildings out of large marble/granite blocks? all without the benefit of this expensive machinery of which you talk of.

You need to think and not join the herd in trying to beat me up.