Glider

If you are still in the incubation period, it might help you produce antibodies faster which would help to moderate the severity of the infection. If it is not too severe (i.e. not lethal), the infection itself immunises you. Doctors try not to treat viruses. They're the enemy. However, when they treat patients infected by viruses (viral infections), they use antiviral drugs.

You were right, I am very surprised! I don't know about the US, but in the UK, only physicians can prescribe anything (and diagnose for that matter). For their 'assistants' to do it would be against the law. Even nurses (unless they are specialist nurse-practitioners) cannot prescribe medication. Could the 'assistant' have been a locum doctor? That too is exremely surprising. Given the publicity the topic has recieved recently, even the public are becoming more aware. However, whilst the public are becoming more aware of the problems associated with the unecessary prescription of antibiotics, they are not yet fully aware of what constitutes 'unecessary'. For example, one of the biggest problems associated with severe viral infection is 'secondary infection'. These come about through opportunistic baceria (often varieties of streptococcus) taking advantage of a weakened immune system. In severe cases it is often the secondary that will kill you. So it is not unusual to be prescribed a prophylactic dose of antibiotics during a viral infection, simply to guard against secondary infections. Whether or not this is an unecessary use of antibiotics is a topic for debate. No worries. I think it's a good idea. People pick up information from all kinds of places. This being so, I think it's good that you're trying to make sure it's accurate

I would be surprised if any trained medical professionals are ignorant of this fact these days. Only at very high doses I think this is a poor analogy. 'Respectfully understand'? What does that mean? Spelling = Possible Spelling = 'correctly' Ok in principle, but I think it's a little long. See re-draft. To whom it may concern, I enjoyed playing your game "Infect, evolve, repeat". However, the game contains one significant flaw that I feel compelled to point out in the interest of accuracy. Antibiotics are designed to kill bacteria, but have no effect on viruses. It is this commonly overlooked fact that results in the over-prescription of antibiotics. When people use antibiotics incorrectly (e.g. to fight a viral infection such as a cold) the number of bacteria that are able to resist biological infection increases thus making them harder to treat. I understand that this is only a simple flash animation game but with respect, I suggest that it is important that the scientific flaw in this game be corrected if possible, if only to insure that the people playing your game do not get the wrong idea about viral infections and their treatment. If we educate ourselves in science today we help create a healthier and wiser tommorow. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Steam. Eventually, you'll get caught traffic or something and yes, then you will seize the motor. Bummer. Is the climate particularly warm where you are? In moderate temps, a car should be able to keep going without one radiator fan, as long as the car is moving (i.e. there is some airflow over the radiator). I'd like to know how the coolant tank emptied as well. Did the thing actually boil over? It sounds like your temp gauge is knackered to begin with. I would get the fan fixed, but also take a look at the thermostat and water pump to make sure water is actually circulating through the motor and the radiator.

You're welcome. Glad it helped. A reflex is to protect you from something potentially harmful. There's a subtle difference because whilst harm is generally associated with pain it ain't always so. Reflexes (and startle responses) are fast, whilst pain is quite slow. Think about the times you've stubbed your toe (everybody has done this). First you get the shock, then you get that brief split second of calm where you realise that it's really going to hurt, then it does.

This planet has two poles. The Arctic and the Antarctic. In your original post, you state that global warming can cause the polar ice caps to melt, i.e. both of them.

I can't explain the terms for you, but I can tell you a bit about regression. Regression tests are based on correlation. They are a way of testing certain models for predictive power, and as such are more exploratory than some other statistical tests. You take measures of a number of 'predictor' variables (i.e. variables you propose are predictive of another variable; the 'criterion' variable. In linear regression, the criterion variable will be scale data (i.e. at least of ordinal level) where the values fall on a meaninful scale from low to high. In logistic regression, the criterion variable is binary (i.e. dichotomous), for example, male, female, or drink, don't drink. In either case, the regression tests each predictor variable against the criterion variable and will tell you whether the whole model itself is statistically significant, and whether (and to what degree) each individual variable is predictive of the criterion variable. I hope that helps.

Hehehe very cool!

I think he was a normal bloke. I think he could be dumb on occasions and very irritating. I think he could have shown animals a bit more respect. You don't need to swing a mamba by the tail to study it. I think it was dumb that he took his baby son into the crocodile enclosure. Michael Jackson was blasted for dangling his over a balcony and I see no real difference. To anyone who says "Ah, he knew what he was doing, the baby was safe" I would say, stuff happens. People trip and make mistakes (you see it on 'You've Been Framed' all the time). Accidents happen and if that wasn't true Steve Irwin would still be alive. So, I think that was an unecessary risk. David Attenborough has been involved with animals for a lot longer and is still alive. But then, he don't poke them with sticks. However, Steve Irwin was not a bad guy. He was strongly into conservation and he made it very popular with people who would otherwise have remained ignorant of the issues. He made it real for 'non-scientists'. He did a lot of excellent work and that will continue. As is the way of things, it might even bloom with the publicity of his death (the same principal that artists always sell more once they're dead). As I say, I think he was a normal bloke who did some very good things. He could do dumb things (as normal blokes can), but in balance, if most normal blokes could balance the dumb things we all do with things as good as Steve Irwin has done, I think the world would be better for it.

Good point. People do become familiar with the habits and routines of friends and I think that would have a big influence.

In this instance, reaction time has to do with the reflex arc rather than any deliberate, volitional action. The reflex arc is formed by interneurons in the spine, that basically connects the incoming afferent pathway to the outgoing efferent (motor) pathway. Any stimulus of sufficient intensity will trigger the reflex arc resulting in a very basic and non-volitional withdrawal action. Because this happens at the spinal level, it is very fast (which is adaptive, helping to minimise damage) and completely automatic, so it doesn't really have anything to do with reaction times. The reflex action will have been performed before the sensory signals reach the brain. I.e. you feel the burn of the iron after you have moved your hand. Compare the relative conduction velocities: The primary afferents associated with pain (C and A delta fibres) conduct at 0.5-2.0 and 2.0 - 12.0 metres per second respectively, whereas larger afferents conduct at anything between 80 and 120 metres per second. As the emotional-motivational component of pain is a major one, the shock of a reflex (i.e. startle) often compounds the experience. This is why for example, young kids will usually cry when they fall over, even if they are not hurt. It's the shock. No, you're right, they couldn't (unless they were congenitally insensititive). I think you're thinking about two separate things here. Pain threshold and reflex. Pain threshold depends upon many factors including stimulus intensity. As such, it is not fixed and there is no absolute. You have to bear in mind that the relationship between noxious stimuli (e.g. stimuli intense enough to cause tissue damage) and the experience of pain is correlational, not causal. If it were causal, the same stimulus would always result in the same experience (it doesn't), tissue damage would always result in pain (it doesn't), pain would never happen in the absence of stimuli of that intensity (it does). Reflex is non-volitional and automatic. It is also independent of experience because it will often have taken place before the experience. Normal human reaction time (which is different to reflex as it involves processing) has a mean of around 500ms. The most basic (monosynaptic) reflex responses occur at around 50ms. Most reflexes based on the startle response are more complex (as they're not based simply on an interneuron) and so take longer, but still much faster than 500ms. The key element in many reflexes (those based on the startle response) is that the stimulus in unexpected (i.e. the incoming signals do not match your current model of reality). For example, you're out camping. It's night and you're all sitting around the fire having a blast. You reach behind you for another cold tinny. In model 1, your hand contacts something cold, and wet with condensation. This matches your model of reality, no problem. Have a tinny. However, in model 2, your hand contacts something cold, wet and moving. In this case, the incoming information does not match your model of reality and you're on your feet and running before you've identified the object. This is an adaptive (startle) reflex response. It is automatic and it doesn't require the stimulus to be intense, just unexpected. Imagine the hot iron thing you mentioned. The unexpected element here is that you weren't expecting to touch it. Imagine of some joker had put the iron in the freezer for an hour. You believe the iron is not plugged in and therefore cold. However, when you touch it, yes it is cold, but extremely (and unexpectedly) cold, and you will reflexively withdraw. The brain holds your model of reality and sets the level for expected incoming information. The comparison between expected and actual intensities of incoming infomation is made at the spinothalamic level. Thus the level of processing is very basic but information doesn't need to go higher than that to elicit the response. However, this reflex response can be overridden. If someone picks up an unexpectedly hot cup of coffee in someone else's house, they will often do the silly dance and try to juggle it to the nearest surface, where there immediate urge would be to drop it (although, if it's hot enough, they will just drop it). Basically, if you wanted to use reflex as a measure of pain threshold, then your measure would be invalid, you would not be measuring pain threshold. It doesn't take painful stimuli to elicit a reflex (see the cold tinny example). Moreover, if the stimulus was expected, it wouldn't elicit a reflex anyway, and depending on circumstances, certain reflexes can be overridden.

In the UK, growing tobacco plants is legal. They're actually quite popular as border/bedding plants over here and many different cultivars are grown according to colour/size, e.g. nicotiana sandrea, nicotiana sylvestris, etc. I don't know that many people harvest/smoke the leaves though.

There are way too many to list (I seem to be easily moved by music). Here are a few that do it to me though. More an indication of type than a definitive list. Recuerdos Del Alhambra (Francisco Tarrega). Baker St. Muse (the latter part, after 7 minutes 45 seconds) Jethro Tull. Ladies (Jethro Tull) Tuesday's Gone (Lynyrd Skynyrd) Goodnight (Buffy Sainte-Marie) Wasn't born to Follow (The Byrds) Tonight (The Move) Strange Little Girl (Stranglers) La Folie (Stranglers) Chung Kuo (Vangellis) Etc. Etc.. ad nauseam.

I see what you mean. Bear in mind though that the pain threshold is as subjective as pain itself, and is not fixed. A couple of years ago, I did some research in which I showed that simply altering the wording of a pre-test briefing resulted in people experiencing the second of two identical pain stimuli as either more painful or much less painful than the first (see attachment). This basically shows that threshold is more to do with people's evaluations and beliefs concerning the situation and their short-term expectations concerning probable outcomes (as well as certain personality factors). If you think about it, in those who reported the second stimulus as much less painful, it would have taken significantly greater stimulus intensity to reach pain threshold than it did only 20 minutes before. So, just by using words, I moved their threshold upwards significantly (and downwards in the others). You can imagine then, that if the situation was intense enough, or if the stimulus was associated with something other than harm or a negative event or outcome that pain threshold might be moved beyond the usually expected 'norms', or removed entirely for a particular stimulus. Yeah, and a lot of what appears in Psychology has no place there. I don't know where people get the idea that Psychology consists solely of the dribblings of a bunch of crystal waving, tree-hugging hippies *sigh* . Still, The study of pain and nociception comes under the cognitive neurosciences, so It's ok here. Yes, as you say in your next post, congenital or universal insensitivity (to pain). It sounds ideal, huh? Unfortunately, people with this condition rarely live beyond their 20s. I guess this is a good indication of the importance of the ability to fell pain. Pain is not really the enemy. The nociceptive system is one of our oldest neurological systems. Even the fibres involved reflect this, being non-myelinated and only thinly myelinated (C and A-delta fibres respectively). Most of the processing to do with pain happens in the limbic areas of the brain. The neocortex is only to do with the discriminatory component of pain (i.e. it only allows us to determine the precise location, duration and intensity of the stimulus). Pain, or the ability to experience it, is adaptive and absolutely necessary. We're in a lot of trouble without it (as evidenced by people with congenital insensitivity). The real enemy is suffering. Me neither, but it's a good example. Most of the damage associated with leprosy (loss of fingers, toes and other tissue damage) is not down to the disease, it's down to damage caused by the individual (and subsequent infection) due to the insensitivity leprosy causes.Williams et al 2004.pdf

This is a very tricky question. There is no one part of the brain responsible either for pain, or for overcoming it. Pain is a psychological state and it takes many different regions to produce the experience (collectively known as the pain matrix). It's more a function of circuitry than the activity of any one part. Not really. Nobody finds pleasure in pain. One of the key elements in the definition of pain is that it is aversive (i.e. having been subjected to it, you will work to avoid it in future). However, the stimulus itself is not pain, and people's responses to such stimuli are entirely subjective, so what might be painful to one is not necessarily painful to another. There are people who can get pleasure from intense physical stimulation that objective observers believe should be painful, or would be if they were subjected to it. You see the difference? As I said, there is no specific part. People are born with the basic 'wiring' for nociception (the detection and transmission of information pertaining to noxious stimuli), but this has little to do with the ultimate experience or the way people respond to it or cope with it. As your thread title suggests, all that is down to conditioning. People are conditioned to associate different stimuli (and intensities of stimuli) with different outcomes and this determines basically what each stimulus means to an individual.

Stimulation of the cranial nerves would be fastest. These have shorter and simpler pathways to the cortex. The peripheral sensory nerves have a longer way to go (even at conduction rates of 300 metres per second, it makes a difference) plus, there are usually three separate nerves involved (peripheral nerve to spine - spine to thalamus and thalamus to cortex). Event related Potentials (ERPs) from visual or auditory stimuli can be measured at around 25ms. (0.025 of a second).

There's only one kind of chafer beetle that's green. The Rose chafer (Cetonia aurata). It's usually 14-20 mm long. The Cock chafer is usually between 25 and 35mm (big bugger). The beetles are ok, it's their grubs that are the problem. They live underground and eat plant roots roots. Happily, they seem to prefer grasses. Vine weevil grubs, on the other hand, are little bastards. They love bonsai and potted plants (warmer soil, higher localised concentration of white feeder roots) and you don't know they're there until the plant starts to collapse, by which time it's too late. They're almost impossible to kill with insecticides too. My 'garden' is only tiny (26 feet long) so I'm not really a contender in this thread There do seem to be a lot of common snails and a variety of slugs though, as well as woodlice and a range of spiders. There are also two grey squirrels that have set up a drey ijn the cherry tree at the bottom of the garden. These are both on final warning! A pair of woodpigeons are resident too as well as at least two robins (always squabbling). There are blue tits and great tits and several others that I don't recognise. The number of birds is down to the fact that Cherry Tree woods are at the bottom of the road here (and Highgate woods are next to them too). This would account for the owls I hear sometimes at night, the hedgehogs and the local fox (although I can't claim these in my garden).

There really aren't such things as specific pleasure receptors. The experience of pleasure results from the subjective evaluation of a stimulus, not from stimulation of specific receptors. This is why stimuli that are considered pleasurable differs from person to person. Actually, there aren't such things as specific nociceptors either. This is a term often used to describe the free nerve endings associated with primary afferent fibres (C and A-Delta), but generally only in the study of nociception. Whilst these fibres do respond to noxious stimuli, they are not specific to them. For example, C fibres are polymodal and primarily signal changes in temperature, although they also respond to 'noxious' heat and cold (e.g. >52*C & <7*C).

...and the measure of an acre as 'the ground that can be ploughed by one ox in one day' is dodgy since the introduction of steroids and growth hormone in cattle feed.

It depends on the seed. What kind of plant is it from? Some seeds need stratifying before they germinate. In this case, you'd need to sow the seeds in layers in sharp sand and stick them in a fridge at about 4*C for a few weeks. Other types need to be exposed to fire before they'll germinate. If it's just seed from a 'normal' temperate zone plant, e.g. an anual flowering plant or something, then these will germinate as soon as the mean soil temperature reaches 10*C (~50*f). However, if the temperature is too high, some seeds will remain dormant as it would be too hot for the seedling to survive. I would take the temperature of the incubator down a bit, say to the low to mid 70sf. Most people germinate seeds between 65 - 75*f. 100 is too high for many seeds.

Synergy refers to the whole being greater than the sum of its parts. For example, the old 'teamwork' example of the ability of two men to lift a piano where one man can't lift half a piano.

Edtharian is right. In plants that have serrated leaves (but no spines) the serrations help with water runoff. You will find that in wetter areas, plant have evolved a number of methods for keeping the leaf surface free of pooling water. For example , some have evolved a waxy or shiny leaf surface that repels water. Other have developed pinate leaves where each leaf is divided into many smaller 'leaflets' extending from the petiole (in wet areas these are usually longer, e.g. Arecaceae Chamaedorea: the parlour palm). These leaflets are usually channelled to encorage water to run off. On larger single leaves, serrations encourage the water to form drops at the edge and to fall off the leaf.

They would prescribe this for ADD (or ADHD) because amphetamine based drugs are effective in controlling the worst symptoms.

Cool! Does it remind anybody else of this? "Enhance thirty four to forty six... Pull back...wait a minute, go right...stop. Enhance fifty-seven nineteen...track forty five left...stop. Enhance fifteen to twenty three... Gimme a hard copy right there".