Recent comments in /f/askscience
[deleted] t1_j2f5wae wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2f5v2a wrote
XComhghall OP t1_j2f5t2v wrote
Reply to comment by jellyfixh in If fish accumulate mercury in the more toxic, methylmercury form, is it toxic to them? by XComhghall
So (predatory) fish are also affected by mercury, and die when they have too much accumulated? If there is less mercury in the air and in the ocean, fish (and those of us who like to eat fish) could live longer?
[deleted] t1_j2f5n4y wrote
Reply to comment by BelowDeck in How did Rutherford arrive at gold foil as the best choice for his particle experiments? by Poltibolsa
[removed]
BrokenImmersion t1_j2f57j4 wrote
Reply to comment by Dubanx in If fish accumulate mercury in the more toxic, methylmercury form, is it toxic to them? by XComhghall
But being larger creatures does that mean we can reasonably take in a larger dose of mercury and be relatively okay from it?
[deleted] t1_j2f50up wrote
Reply to comment by XComhghall in If fish accumulate mercury in the more toxic, methylmercury form, is it toxic to them? by XComhghall
[removed]
LittleLostDoll t1_j2f3ufs wrote
Reply to comment by enderjaca in How did Rutherford arrive at gold foil as the best choice for his particle experiments? by Poltibolsa
if yoiu up lead baloon on youtube adam savage talks about when they wanted to see if they could get a lead baloon to float they were having trouble getting the lead thin enough, and two companies broke their machines even try
this ws about 15-20 years ago but id think even today it isnt much thinner than they were able to get back then
XComhghall OP t1_j2f3tc8 wrote
Reply to comment by Prior-Evening-95 in If fish accumulate mercury in the more toxic, methylmercury form, is it toxic to them? by XComhghall
The idea of bioaccumulation is that you intake more than you excrete, so it builds up.
Mercury seems to affect the nervous system mainly. It is my understanding that most neurons are not regenerated, and recovery is usually slow and incomplete.
adaminc t1_j2f3n7e wrote
Reply to comment by boissondevin in Do cats and dogs see things under blacklight the same as we do? by Rowsdower32
There doesn't need to be a coating, you can get artificial lenses that don't allow UV light through.
[deleted] t1_j2f3byt wrote
Reply to comment by Dubanx in If fish accumulate mercury in the more toxic, methylmercury form, is it toxic to them? by XComhghall
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2f3a4s wrote
Reply to comment by sgarn in How did Rutherford arrive at gold foil as the best choice for his particle experiments? by Poltibolsa
[removed]
boissondevin t1_j2f319o wrote
Reply to comment by adaminc in Do cats and dogs see things under blacklight the same as we do? by Rowsdower32
Would it be possible to apply a UV absorbing coating to the artificial lenses, or would that mess with the optics and/or durability?
[deleted] t1_j2f2kbv wrote
[deleted] t1_j2f22o3 wrote
Reply to comment by enderjaca in How did Rutherford arrive at gold foil as the best choice for his particle experiments? by Poltibolsa
[removed]
Prior-Evening-95 t1_j2f1neh wrote
Reply to comment by Olivoka in If fish accumulate mercury in the more toxic, methylmercury form, is it toxic to them? by XComhghall
So it actually will filter out, it just takes a stupidly long time and does damage while in there?
OlyScott t1_j2f0tq9 wrote
Reply to comment by Routine-Prize-1782 in Why is Mitochondrial Eve dated to 150-170,000 years go? by jayhovian
I don't follow your reasoning to support the idea that her only daughter wouldn't be Mightochondrial Eve. Everyone in the world would be descendants of that one daughter.
[deleted] t1_j2f06oq wrote
Reply to comment by adaminc in Do cats and dogs see things under blacklight the same as we do? by Rowsdower32
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2f0585 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j2ezzwg wrote
[deleted] t1_j2eyuw9 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j2eykm1 wrote
Reply to comment by Olivoka in If fish accumulate mercury in the more toxic, methylmercury form, is it toxic to them? by XComhghall
[removed]
jayhovian OP t1_j2eyk05 wrote
Reply to comment by ajovialmolecule in Why is Mitochondrial Eve dated to 150-170,000 years go? by jayhovian
As i understand it she must have had atleast 2 daughters.
How many she really had cannot be known.
OlyScott t1_j2ey78p wrote
Reply to comment by ajovialmolecule in Why is Mitochondrial Eve dated to 150-170,000 years go? by jayhovian
You only get mitochondria from your mother, never your father. Your biological mother got her mitochondrial DNA from her biological mother, and so on and so on back to Mitochondrial Eve. Yes, everyone's matrilineal line goes back to one of her daughters.
Routine-Prize-1782 t1_j2exwhz wrote
Reply to comment by tossedmoose in Why is Mitochondrial Eve dated to 150-170,000 years go? by jayhovian
Here’s a thought experiment to help you understand:
Let’s say ten unrelated couples, with different last names, land on an island with no other people. They follow the custom of the family’s name being the father’s name.
Each couple has two children. To make it simpler, we’ll say each child survives, is fertile, etc., no uncles marry nieces, and for the purpose of this example are heterosexual, etc.
Half the new children are males, half are females. So the next generation has the same ratio of ten males and ten females.
Now let’s say the sex of their children are randomly assigned.
Some couples will have one son and one daughter.
Some couples will have two daughters.
Some couples will have two sons.
The men with only daughters have just as many children, but they don’t pass on their last names nor their Y-chromosomes. Likewise the women with only sons will not pass on their mitochondria.
In both cases, the number of offspring is the same, every member of the population has descendants, but this one trait could be lost for each person.
If one family had two daughters, and one had two sons, but all the rest had one of each, then that next generation would have lost one mitochondrial line, leaving 9, and one Y-chromosome, again leaving 9.
You could repeat this, and with random distribution of sons and daughters there would be additional losses in both of these over the generations, even though everyone has the same number of living descendants. Eventually there would just be one. That one is the one that is the mitochondrial Eve. And there is a similar Y-chromosomal Adam.
Of course, this example is flawed by starting with a tiny population which would eventually be forced to marry/mate with cousins or other relatives, which would then complicate the math. In fact, there is a branch of math that deals with the complex nature of populations.
But this gives you the tools to understand the concept of mitochondrial Eve.
(It isn’t true, by the way, that there is a 100% chance that the mitochondria always vary measurably from mothers to daughters, hence the oft-repeated statement that “she had to have had at least two daughters, because if there was one one, then she would be mitochondrial Eve” is not absolutely correct.)
This is called the founder effect.
haycl t1_j2f61a0 wrote
Reply to comment by thethongquach in Can you increase the isoelectric point of gelatin? by thethongquach
No but I will see if I can find. A lot would be personal knowledge/secrets of the industry of making gelatine.