the random thought thread

Well my mom is a doctor too, so nyaa! :P

And about the trenches quote: it looked like you were saying that you YOURSELF have been in trenches (I get that you mean I as in 1, but it still looks funny; you should have said WWI and II, or the World Wars). Anyway, disease was a pretty huge problem in the trenches, although when you have so many other factors such as lice and rats, contaminated food and water, extreme crowding, and so on, it's probably pointless to talk about cold at all in that context.

Crowding is the main cause for disease spreading. We go inside when it is cold, thus being in closer proximity to others, and causing more sickness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by A Very Super Market

Crowding is the main cause for disease spreading. We go inside when it is cold, thus being in closer proximity to others, and causing more sickness

---

Sorry to say, but that is absurd. I suppose you meant it to be that way however.

@desert: Your mother is wrong. What kind of doctor is she. I am not fabricating anything here. It has long been accented cold weather has nothing to do with sickness in higher academic and medical research circles. Might as well talk of foul vapours or alignment of planets... As for the trenches and foxholes example, first of all, I was referring more to WWII. Secondly, the disease that spread in trenches was anything but cold. Dysentery, diphtheria, pneumonia, Spanish flu, etc were definitely not rhinovirus.

We had frosty flakes falling from the sky. Its march 31. Ridiculous.

Heck, I lived in Southern Russia and yet May snow was perfectly common. Now, June snow was the rare event. But it too happened.

Southern Russia = STILL quite a bit north of Iowa

Canada is supposed to be snowy, but Vancouver is too close to the coast to have any snow except in Winter. Except once where it snowed in May.

My comment does seem ridiculous now that I look back, but it still makes sense. Obviously, if someone is already sick, and you are in a close enviroment with them, you'll likely get sick.

Edit: Iowa is probably along a similar latitude with Southern Russia.

Quote:

---

Sorry to say, but that is absurd. I suppose you meant it to be that way however.

@desert: Your mother is wrong. What kind of doctor is she. I am not fabricating anything here. It has long been accented cold weather has nothing to do with sickness in higher academic and medical research circles. Might as well talk of foul vapours or alignment of planets... As for the trenches and foxholes example, first of all, I was referring more to WWII. Secondly, the disease that spread in trenches was anything but cold. Dysentery, diphtheria, pneumonia, Spanish flu, etc were definitely not rhinovirus.

---

Ehh, an oncologist, BUT THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT! :clown: The point is that being in the cold weakens immune systems.

And more time was spent in trenches in WWI anyway.

whats the opposite of a procrastinator? uncrastinator?

How is it that you can live in space for nearly two minutes without a pressure suit?

if it can be proven that apple developed the term "lol" would it be called "ilol"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Southern Russia = STILL quite a bit north of Iowa

---

Latitude is irrelevant in this case, even though you are right. Not counting the Caucasus (which is made up of Autonomous Republics such as Ichkeria, Dagestan and Chechnya), the southernmost part of Russia is on the same level as Southern Canada. Southern Russia is quite warm actually. But I did not actually permanently reside there. I lived in Northern Russia. My grandparents were in Southern Russia. Close to Black Sea coast. That and the Caspian sea give Southern Russia a climate about equal to that of Iowa, if not milder. remember, wind patterns and proximity to sea have much larger influence on climate.

Atlanta, GA is searing hot in the summer and sometimes snowy in the winter. Pensacola is much less extreme, as is is right on the Gulf Coast and the water, having higher specific heat, regulates the environment more efficiently, stabilising it.

I'm pretty sure you die within 1 minute (at most) from lack of air. And wouldn't you either freeze solid instantly or be flash-fried by heat from the sun?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aemilius Paulus

Atlanta, GA is searing hot in the summer and sometimes snowy in the winter.

---

are you crazy? its humid/hot as :daisy: during the summer, mild/chilly in the winter, and it only snowed more than .25 of an inch twice in like almost a decade.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desert

I'm pretty sure you die within 1 minute (at most) from lack of air. And wouldn't you either freeze solid instantly or be flash-fried by heat from the sun?

---

That's what I thought but interestingly because space is a vacuum there is no medium to radiate away your body heat. Also your body is robust enough to prevent your lungs from being sucked out, so to speak.

So that scene in 2001 where Dave Bowman blows his pods explosive bolts to re-enter the air lock is
plausible.

That's strange. Why would you need a medium? The sun's heat travels fine without one.

Hypothetically, let's say you don't freeze or burn. It all comes down to how long you can hold your breath, which is probably around a minute. Maybe two if you are good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

How is it that you can live in space for nearly two minutes without a pressure suit?

---

Not more than one minute. And remember to make sure you get all the air out of your lungs. Or else you will pop like and overfilled water balloon. Space is vacuum; the almost-complete absence of matter. So there it has no temperature. There should be nothing surprising about you being able to survive in it.

And NO, desert, do NOT hold air in your lungs. Absolute worst you can do.



Edit: crap, I started writing the post, then had dinner and now other people beat me to it.

Quote:

---

How long can a human live unprotected in space?

If you don't try to hold your breath, exposure to space for half a minute or so is unlikely to produce permanent injury. Holding your breath is likely to damage your lungs, something scuba divers have to watch out for when ascending, and you'll have eardrum trouble if your Eustachian tubes are badly plugged up, but theory predicts -- and animal experiments confirm -- that otherwise, exposure to vacuum causes no immediate injury. You do not explode. Your blood does not boil. You do not freeze. You do not instantly lose consciousness.

Various minor problems (sunburn, possibly "the bends", certainly some [mild, reversible, painless] swelling of skin and underlying tissue) start after ten seconds or so. At some point you lose consciousness from lack of oxygen. Injuries accumulate. After perhaps one or two minutes, you're dying. The limits are not really known.

You do not explode and your blood does not boil because of the containing effect of your skin and circulatory system. You do not instantly freeze because, although the space environment is typically very cold, heat does not transfer away from a body quickly. Loss of consciousness occurs only after the body has depleted the supply of oxygen in the blood. If your skin is exposed to direct sunlight without any protection from its intense ultraviolet radiation, you can get a very bad sunburn.

At NASA's Manned Spacecraft Center (now renamed Johnson Space Center) we had a test subject accidentally exposed to a near vacuum (less than 1 psi) in an incident involving a leaking space suit in a vacuum chamber back in '65. He remained conscious for about 14 seconds, which is about the time it takes for O2 deprived blood to go from the lungs to the brain. The suit probably did not reach a hard vacuum, and we began repressurizing the chamber within 15 seconds. The subject regained consciousness at around 15,000 feet equivalent altitude. The subject later reported that he could feel and hear the air leaking out, and his last conscious memory was of the water on his tongue beginning to boil.

Aviation Week and Space Technology (02/13/95) printed a letter by Leonard Gordon which reported another vacuum-packed anecdote:

"The experiment of exposing an unpressurized hand to near vacuum for a significant time while the pilot went about his business occurred in real life on Aug. 16, 1960. Joe Kittinger, during his ascent to 102,800 ft (19.5 miles) in an open gondola, lost pressurization of his right hand. He decided to continue the mission, and the hand became painful and useless as you would expect. However, once back to lower altitudes following his record-breaking parachute jump, the hand returned to normal."

---

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970603.html

Dunno if it's true but it sounds it.

can you guys take it to a diferent thread please?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/as...rs/970603.html

Dunno if it's true but it sounds it.

---

Well, you should have trouble with your lungs if you keep them filled with air. Your inner pressure will be too high. Of course, YOU will not pop, but there is a good chance your lungs will. That is what I have read. Zubrin.

@Hooah: isn't this random thought thread :inquisitive:? This is random. That is why threads have topic to prevent them from going off track. I will stop now, but this thread is bound to find something else specific to discuss. Ahh, I miss not posting this in the EB Tavern... You can talk about anything that comes onto your mind there. Oh, and the group just went public!!

Why is a Bombay duck not a duck?

I forgot the rest of the joke, but your mother's a harlot! [/SeanConnery]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shinseikhaan

Perhaps we could take this discussion to the science forum, since that's apparently where philosophy is supposed to be discussed? I'm afraid we're going to be drifting off topic here.

---

For what it's worth, Hosa and I are chewing over the possibility of closing the Science sub-subforum. It doesn't get a whole lot of action.

Heaven forbid anyone should take the "random thought" thread offtopic ....

+1 post count.

why is April 1st the day for playing pranks? why not May 1st, or August 1st or something?

What am I doing here?

Thought of the moment: Can an April Fool's joke go too far?

Related thought: When should I tell him that she doesn't like him?

Why did I get a degree in Law when I never had any intention of using it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hooahguy

why is April 1st the day for playing pranks? why not May 1st, or August 1st or something?

---

Apparently some king in France decided April 1st to be the new start of a year. But no one liked that idea so they called April 1st bull :daisy: day or at least thats what I heard.

If a fly is called a fly because it flies, when it's landed is it then appropriate to call it a walk?