Recent comments in /f/askscience

ironkb57 t1_j40mwsq wrote

Reply to What are the long term effects, if any, of paracetamol toxicity? by InternationalPast178

In short, death. A very painful death.

Long-term effects, I would say, are for those who survive an overdose. It can be very brutal. It literally destroys the liver. It will cause toxic hepatitis. Can and probably will cause problems with coagulation (since coagulation factors are produced in the liver). Hepatic encephalopathy will be also a problem due to the liver not being able to fulfill its job as the filter of blood. All said up to now happens in the first 1 - 2 weeks, and I left out a lot of details not to make it too complicated.

If the patient survives, then the liver will become scarred. In other words, cirrhosis, which could further lead to cancer.

However, if properly diagnosed and treated the mortality rate is 2%.

7

Baxters_Keepy_Ups t1_j40l6vb wrote

Reply to comment by CorrectCoyote926 in Why are coastlines crinkly near the poles but smooth in the tropics? by emsot

There’s a lot written about this. There’s a book called “Prisoners of Geography” which was a bestseller and touches on some of this.

In order to have advanced ‘quickly’ as a country/culture/people - it’s helpful to have load bearing animals (horses, donkeys, camels, llamas etc), deep straight rivers, and fertile land. Access to the sea is also hugely useful.

Much of the African continent simply doesn’t have the tools that European or Asian powers had, so that has made harder what was easier elsewhere.

35

zaphod_pebblebrox t1_j40kjly wrote

Reply to comment by poorbill in Why do poultry producers kill their stock when they get bird flu, rather than keeping survivors to reproduce? by poorbill

See, that term “I would think” rubs contrary to statistical tests conducted at research farms.

The process that you are asking makes no sense to a farm that wants to “grow” a chicken by a few pounds to get the meat.

Identifying infected animals from no infected, segregating them, and then monitoring them needs manpower and equipment that they don’t have. And not interested in purchasing.

And then you have doubts for any asymptomatic infected chickens. This is an industry that feeds humans. No one takes that level of risk. No one.

An analogy is the old Windows xp era habit of wiping the hard drive instead of “finding” and isolating the virus. Companies that relied on data being their service, have back up chickens that get replaced instantly to keep the production line going.

2

Aldayne t1_j409rc3 wrote

Reply to Why do poultry producers kill their stock when they get bird flu, rather than keeping survivors to reproduce? by poorbill

The risk of it spreading is too high, resulting in massive deaths of birds across broad regions, possibly worldwide, instead of trying to keep it localized and damage to a minimum.

It's similar to how we treat cancer. We kill all the cells in the local region around the the tumors to keep it spreading. This is harmful to the healthy tissue, but if the cancer spreads then there's little point.

3