Glider

Skye is right. Oxyhaemoglobin - deoxyhaemoglobin - carboxyhaemoglobin. In any event, if you want to know about the different colours of blood, ask a phlebotomist I have bled thousands of people, and I can vouch for the fact that venous blood is extremely dark purple. If you allow air to get to it (or spill it), you can watch it change colour to a bright poppy red in a few seconds. If it's bright red when it enters the syringe, it's arterial, and you have a problem (unless it was deliberate, as in an arterial stab for blood gasses).

I'm with ATM on this. For a start, not everybody wants to be a scientist (although I know a very good scientist who is a poet also). I do believe that some experience of literature allows students to develop a greater insight into the different ways language may be used to make a point. A basic etymological understanding of words provides a greater degree of flexibility in their use. Experience of the range of ways in which language is used helps people distiguish between different registers of speech and literature (e.g. poetry, prose, scientific prose etc.) and to produce them. Whilst I don't expect students to write reports in iambic verse, I get really fed up with marking endless tracts of dull, monotonous prose. It's more frustrating when we're (increasingly) confronted with alleged 'research reports' that consist of random blocks (not paragraphs) of rudimentary and ill constructed sentences, packed with grammatical errors, tautology, inappropriate elision and spelling errors. Students seem increasingly less able to distinguish between words such as their, they're and there. The ultimate has to be (believe or not) the increasing prevalence of SMS text 'shorthand' in these (formal) reports. The the use of numerals as words, 4 example. The principal role of science is to observe (phenomena) and explain (the processes underlying them). By extension, the principal role of a scientist is to observe and explain. Therefore, an inability to use the full power of language, limits their functionality as scientists. It is hard to know how valid, accurate or reliable observations are, or understand conclusions, when increasingly, explanations consist of tracts of badly written, ill expressed and ambiguous colloquial prose. *sigh*...I feel SO much better now

It's not that it sounds lame, many substances have been developed for transcutanious delivery (some of the nastier nerve agents for example). It's that in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, physiology gives no cause to suppose that the soles of the feet are any more effective at absortion than any other part of the body surface. If anything, the mechanisms involved in transcutanious absorbtion viewed in light of the nature of the skin on the soles of the feet, suggest that the soles of the feet are likely to be less effective.

Strangely enough, women do that too.

No, I have no idea. I have never heard of this effect, and as I said before, for the reasons I gave in my previous post (and in the absence of any evidence), I doubt such an effect exists, so suggestons concerning its possible functions would be a bit premature. I have only your word for the existence of this effect, but (though I'm not questioning the integrity of your word), it isn't evidence. Cite your source and I'll look into it. VendingMenace: I think such an experiment would need to involve blood tests. YT stated that "when certain strong smelling "agents" come into contact with the soles of the feet, that they are rapidly absorbed into the blood stream"." You would need to rub the substance on the soles of the feet and then take blood samples at intervals afterwards. This way you would be testing for the presence of an effect, which is easy to demonstrate, simply by finding the substance you are testing for. To tape up the nose, or in other ways isolate the nose and mouth from the feet would mean you would be testing for the absence of an effect, which is extremely difficult to demonstrate. The best you can hope for in this case is an absence of evidence for the effect, which doesn't mean it doesn't exist, only that you failed to find it (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). The whole experiment would be based upon a contradiction in the original premise though. If the substance is absorbed into the blood, how could we taste it? The orientation of the sensory receptors in the tongue and the nasal cavity denies this (i.e. by facing outwards from an outer membrane, they are facing the wrong way to detect substances in the bloodstream). To taste a substance, it needs to be in solution in the mouth and to smell it, in vapour (airborne) in the nasal cavity (when eating both 'taste buds' and olfactory receptors work conjointly to give the sensation of flavour).

Temporarily. It would saturate the muscle with oxygen in the same way that free divers do, by hyperventilating immediately before diving. However, as soon as you started to run, you would begin to use this store rapidly, and within a very short space of time, it would come back down to how efficiently you could replace it (pulmonary and cardiovascular fitness). It might give you a slight advantage over the first 100m or so, but after that, it's back to normal.

I thought you were kidding It's known by whom? Could it be simply that, as our skin temperature is around 34 degrees C (which is usually higher than the ambient air temperature), the aromatic molecules are being carried from our feet to our noses in the rising envelope of warm air with which we are each surrounded? The olfactory sense is principal in the sense of taste, not 'taste buds' which only signal bitter, salt and sweet (which is why you can't taste anything when you have a cold). Underneath our tongues is lined with a totally different type of tissue to the soles of our feet. Certain substances are readily absorbed through cells that make up the mucous membrane lining the mouth (buccal membrane). Cells of the buccal membrane are nonkeratinized and the intercellular lipids are less structured compared to skin cells, which allows the drug to penetrate easily. As such, it is an effective way of delivering certain drugs in a controlled fashion, whilst avoiding degredation of the drug through first-pass hepatogastrointestinal metabolism (digestion, and breakdown by the liver). The skin on the soles of the feet is very different. It is much thicker, and consists of more robust, keratinized cells and is covered by many more layers of dead, kerotinised epidermal cells than skin elsewhere (even the palms of the hands). Whilst certain drugs can be delivered transcutaneously (e.g. nicotine), even these substances cannot permeate a thick layer of dead kerotinised cells. If such an effect did exist (and personally, I doubt it), it would have no purpose, in fact it would probably be detrimental. A main function of the skin is to protect our internal environment against toxins and pathogens which exist in the external environment. If substances from the external environment could easily enter our system transcutaneously through the soles of our feet, then walking around in bare feet would be extremely hazardous, and we did that for quite a long time, prior to the invention of shoes.

Well, yes it is, but let's not shout about it, as I seem to have got away with it

In what sense is it 'safer'? If it were provable, given the number of people involved in searching for factors influencing intelligence (and how long they have spent doing it), I think it would probably have been proven (either way) by now. As it stands, there is no relationship between type of diet (as long as it's adequate) and IQ. Inadequate diets can impair development, but this is universal, not race-related, although geography is involved. For example, there are areas in India where the soil has severely depleted levels of iodine (e.g. the Kashmir valley where the effects of iodine deficiency are endemic). An iodine impoverished diet results in a number of Iodine Deficiency Disorders (IDD), beginning with goitre (there is a high prevalence of goitre in those regions affected), and severe mental retardation (cretinism), as a result of the severe teratogenic effects of iodine deficiency on the developing brain.

I suspect this has much to do with the fact that whilst everyone notices the correlation, substantially fewer understand that you cannot infer causation from a correlation. Whilst there may be a correlation between race and intelligence, it cannot be said that race causes (the differences in) intelligence. There is also a correlation between socioeconomic status (SES) and intelligence. We cannot conclude that money causes intelligence. If you overlay the socioeconomic and race demographics, you may also notice a correlation between race and socioeconomic status and though you could not conclude that money causes race, or indeed (perhaps to a less certain extent), the other way around, it does highlight a larger factor. In light of the overall correlation between SES and intelligence (where higher SES is related to better performance on tests of IQ), combined with the relationship between race and SES (where African American is associated with lower SES), it could be argued that SES is the determining factor, and race is simply a covariate. In any event, the problem is confounded by (among other things) the fact that the best measures of IQ are still comparitively blunt. For example, many items in IQ tests, still test learning and memory, rather than intelligence. Therefore, if you have never been exposed to the relevent information, you will score 0 on those items, regardless of how intelligent you are. If we could generate a true test of intellectual potential, I wonder what the results would be then?

Inhalation of high concentrations of oxygen can increase cognitive and physical performance by providing the muscles and brain with a surplus of oxygen, more glucose can be broken down for energy. In muscle, this means that aerobic activity can take place for longer before anaerobic processes kick in. In the brain it means that there is more immediate 'fuel' available. However, pure oxygen won't make somebody fitter, nor more intelligent, and the effects are temporary. In effect, you answered your own question. Oxygen is toxic, and at high levels, the body begins to react to it very quickly. One of the first things that happen is that the cells lining the lungs begin to thicken, in an attempt to limit the amount of oxygen passing into the blood. This, after a long period, makes coming off oxygen a problem as the lungs become 'scorched' and less efficient. Further, our breathing is controlled by chemoreceptors in the vascular system. These respond to changes in acidity. A lower pH (more acid) results from higher levels of CO2 and triggers the 'need to breathe', increasing respiration to redress the balance. Extremely high saturations of oxygen disrupts this system, and people can stop breathing. Both of these are considerations when treating patients with O2; the concentrations and length of time on O2 have to be strictly controlled.

Ok, it seems to do everything now, even accept a new font (the word 'three' in the above post is courier new), but not times new roman, in which both posts were written. Any ideas why?

Aha...they were in fact, three consecutive tests. The wysiwyg system seems to allow me to add font characteristics (bold, underline, italics), But not colour...ah...er...ok, It lets me add colour, but yesterday, it would not keep the font itself (I chose times new roman as I prefer serif fonts). We'll see what happens today.

Rats! What's the point o' that then? It all looks exactly the same.

What the hell? All the wysiwyg formatting I did in the previous post disappeared as soon as I posted the post. Dagnabbit!

This WYSIWYG is very cool. I like this a lot (even though I don't like or use MS Word *spits*). I have always used WordPerfect, and will continue to do so until they hire a Psych. Dept. IT tech big enough to make me remove it from my office computer (not likely in the forseeable future).

Yes, yes and true. Yes. A significant proportion of processing is done on a non-conscious level. An example is when you can't think of a word, but as soon as you forget about it, it pops into your head. If we're given information we can't assimilate easily, we continue to process it at a deep level, searching for a 'cognitive hook' to hang it on. Yes. Many times the ability to find a 'hook' will depend on subsequent learning. Whilst we are mulling over the previous problem (although not aware of doing so), we are more sensitive to information in the environment that might pertain to that problem. Should something pertinent be presented, we try to match it to the previous information, and if it does, we have a 'eureka' moment (perhaps not exactly an epiphanous, life changing revelation) and can then put the problem to rest. True. The James-Lange theory of emotion is a good example. Briefly, the theory proposes that emotion is the result of the autonomic changes associated with it (rather than the other way around). The interesting thing is that William James and Carl Lange lived in different countries when they came up with it, independently, but at the same time. If you have more or less equally qalified brains (similar level, similar area, and working within the same or similar parameters), working on the same problem (where does emotion come from?), there is a high statistical probability that they will come up with more or less the same answer (albeit, in this case, the wrong answer) at more or less the same time, irrespective of location.

No, I'm afraid. Your theory looks sound when viewed from the perspective of thermodynamics, but there are two flaws: 1) It ignores the role of warmth receptors 2) It assumes that a shower of water at any given tempterature could result in cutaneous cells in direct contact with each other being at distinctly different temperatures. Warmth and cold are mediated by separate populations of thermal receptors, and temperature sensitivity is punctuate, i.e. these receptors innervate areas of the skin (about 1mm dia.) where thermal stimulation elicits the sensation of either warmth or cold (depending on the stimulus > or < 34 degrees C). Thermal receptors respond to changes in skin temperature, and each (cold and warm) have a preferential range of sensitivity. Cold receceptors respond optimally within a range of 1 degree to 20 degrees below normal skin temp (~34 degrees C). Warmth receptors respond between 32 degrees C and around 45 degrees C. When you apply a warm or cold stimulus, the appropriate (warm or cold) receptors fire rapidly in response to the sudden change, but if the stimulus is constant, the volleys decrease in frequency (habituation), which is why we go 'OohAhOohAh' when we first get into a hot bath or shower, but without changing the water temp, just go 'Aaaahhh' after a minute or two. There is another type of thermal receptors (not specific to thermal stimuli) called polymodal receptors. These have a wide dynamic range and respond to heat stimuli (>45 degrees C), noxious cold and mechanical stimuli of sufficient intensity to cause pain. These receptors begin to take over where thermal receptors leave off (at stimulus temps outside their range, thermal receptor activity is reduced).

If you take the neurological phenomena associated with learning (Long term potentiation, Short-term potentiation, temporal and spacial summation, etc.) which mean any given neuron can be a part of many, many different 'circuits' (determined by dendritic connections to the neurons around it) and can perform many different functions, depending on which 'circuit' it's functioning as a part of at any time, and factors which, in effect, multiply the number of 'circuits' influenced by any given neuron (divergence, convergence and so-on), and given the number of neurones in the human cortex, there is no theoretical limit to the amount of information the brain can hold. Under the circumstances, given the numbers of dendritic connections there are in the cortex (which is only an estimate as it's impossible to count), even our ability to calculate the possible number of circuits is questionable. Even if there was a limit, neural plasticity (the ability to generate new dendritic connections and extinguish redundent ones, forming new 'circuits') would make it a flexible limit (which is oxymoronic).

This is true. There has been a lot of research on prenatal learning in foetuses. Newborns have been shown to respond preferentially to stimuli such as their mothers' smell and voice. This has been measured using both behavioural indexes and EEG mapping. Infants orient to cloth impregnated with their mothers' scent and to the sound of their mothers' voice. EEG revealed increased specific cortical activity in response to such stimuli. The upshot is that foetuses do learn pre-birth. There is even evidence to show that newborns respond preferentially to other environmental stimuli, not directly related to the mother, such as music the mother played played frequently during pregnancy. This stimuli signals a familiar environment, or 'home'. However, the debate in this area is the level of psychology involved. This is particularly true in the debate surrounding whether or not foetuses feel pain (which requires higher psychological processes). For example, take an organism with no centralised nervous sytem, like aplesia (marine flatworm). It will withdaw its gill if you poke it. Does this mean it feels pain? The basis of learning is neural plasticity (reinforcing certain 'pathways' in the brain). Repeated exposure to a certain stimulus will reinforce the pathway associated with processing that information. In other words, that particular stimulus will become familiar. It is clearly adaptive that a newborn has some way of recognising its mother, and orienting towards her, but this can be explained entirely in terms of neural plasticity and basic approach/avoidance responses to positive or negative stimuli (even cockroaches and flatworms show this function). The question is; to what degree are higher level processes involved involved at this stage? A newborn orienting to it's mothers' scent, will also orient to a piece of cloth impregnated with its mothers' scent. Whilst it shows recognition of a stimulus (learned pre-nataly), it doesn't demonstrate any more than that, i.e. a recognition of 'mother', nor can we infer any particular explicit emotional response (i.e. a newborn orienting towards the smell of its mother does not demonstrate a liking for that scent, merely an adaptive behavioural response to a learned stimuli). Whist neonates have been shown to be far more cognitively 'able' than previously thought, the main debate is; to what degree can these abilities be explained by basic (nonconscious) neural processes? and to what degree are higher (conscious) cognitive functions involved? I.e. do neonates do what they do because of simple 'programming' through associative learning on neural level, or is there also an element of awareness and choice? And if so, how much?

Given the temperature range in which most life exists, the use of Kelvin would be unwieldy (imagine the weather forcast in Kelvin, or cooking instructions). I suppose you could always cluster the scale into centaKelvin (cK) or something, to make it appicable to daily life. But then we'd have to work to 2 decimal places to make it useful. Bit of a pain really.

I agree with that. Moreover, as the article stated, the language of the legislation is too broad and all encompassing. It makes no provision for those occasions where the life of the mother is at significant risk. The first mother who dies unnecessarily will (by the same argument the anti abortion lobby uses) make murderers of the government.

I recycle every day. I cycle to work, then recycle home again.

Aw for the love of....you know how long it's gonna take to shift that image?..you *&££@!

I'm not even sure what it is they're doing...and it's scary