Recent comments in /f/askscience
sometimesgoodadvice t1_j4u81tt wrote
Reply to It seems like the effective dosage of most medications tend to be in the 5mg to 200mg range (although there are some medications with smaller or larger dosages). Is this an accurate observation? If so, why? by Fbg2525
Your hypotheses are pretty spot on. There is some observational bias, I think you are mostly looking at small molecules, as biologics typically have dosages on the order of grams. Small molecules are actually not too different in size, the molecular weight may range 10x between some of the smaller and some of the larger compounds (excluding outliers) which in biology is not that much of a difference considering that typical biological molecules range from the size of water or CO2 (18 and 44 Da) all the way to protein complexes that are >1MDa.
Next, the biology. Most drugs are given systemically which means they pretty much dilute themselves in blood which is pretty close to the same volume for most people. And of course, those drugs are designed to interact/interfere with typical biological processes which through evolution and for kinetic/thermodynamic reasons utilize a relatively narrow range of concentrations in the enzymes/receptors of the body. So a relatively close range of concentrations combined with almost constant volume and relatively close range of molecular weights yields close total dosage.
Lastly, there is pharmacokinetics. Every drug you take has three competing "things" it does. The effect you are looking for, the effect you are not looking for, and removal. The first two parts determine what's called a "therapeutic window". This is the range of concentrations where the intended effect is useful and the side effects are minimized. If you are above this range, the number and severity of side-effects will increase (again more or less back to basic thermodynamics) and if you are below, then your therapy will not be potent enough to have a considerable positive effect. This window can vary quite a bit, but at first approximation will center around the concentration of other similar molecules in the blood, which we already discussed above.
Then there is the clearance. If you are lucky enough to have a large therapeutic window, it may still not be advantageous to give lots of the drug. Most drugs at higher dosages are at first cleared by first-order kinetics whether through liver or kidney. This means that the more drug there is, the faster it is cleared. As concentration decreases, so does the clearance. So imagine you have a wonderful drug that is in the therapeutic window over a range of ~1000x concentration. That means if you give the max amount, you will be active for about 10 half-lives before the concentration decreases enough to no longer provide benefit (2^10~1000). Now you take that same drug and double its concentration. You have increased it's longevity by one half-life, meaning a 10% increase (11 half-lives compared to 10) from previous dosage in how long it stays effective. But to get that 10% you used 2x the drug. Not a great trade-off.
At the end of the day, each drug will have a dosage based on how effective it is at certain concentrations, which dosages minimize side-effects, what concentrations the formulation allows, and also what will lead to the highest rate of patients actually taking the drug (tons of people are working on ways to minimize insulin injections for example). There is some economics goin on as well, but not as much since the production cost for most drugs is small compared to the price.
[deleted] t1_j4u810z wrote
Reply to comment by ellipsis31 in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
[removed]
icbmike_for_realz t1_j4u7pzk wrote
Reply to comment by IAmTheFloydman in Extinction of the Dinosaurs: What did I miss? by cakedayCountdown
What does volcanism mean in this context?
Obviously it doesnt mean that a massive bunch of dinosaurs were too close to active volcano and melted.
John-the-cool-guy t1_j4u7n5g wrote
Reply to comment by BurnOutBrighter6 in Why, and how, does a combination of isopropyl alcohol and salt, plus a lot of shaking, remove the resin tar from the inside of a water pipe? by dankantspelle
This is the correct answer.
Just for fun, you can shine up dull coins and metal with vinegar and salt. For the same reasons.
[deleted] t1_j4u6u8i wrote
Reply to comment by TerminationClause in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
[removed]
Flappyhandski t1_j4u66x0 wrote
Reply to comment by MoonKnighy in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
Yeah, it would get hotter as the vibrations turn into heat, then the heat would radiate out into spcae
10113r114m4 t1_j4u5wd4 wrote
Reply to comment by ellipsis31 in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
I read that second sentence as "if you fap a tuning fork" and I was like "yes, yes, then what?" Just to realize I misread
quaste t1_j4u5j45 wrote
Reply to comment by full_hammer in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
Just think about it as: the dampening effect of the surrounding air doesn’t exist, so energy stays within its source longer.
Or think about water instead of air and moving in water (sound is just movement or created by movement) vs outside.
[deleted] t1_j4u56ql wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4u56ms wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4u4x5a wrote
Reply to comment by TerminationClause in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
[removed]
mfb- t1_j4u4r33 wrote
Reply to Is a black hole a virtual object? by peacefultoker420
What do you mean by "virtual object"?
Black holes are real objects in space.
[deleted] t1_j4u4mvf wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4u4gdx wrote
Reply to comment by --Ty-- in What makes a fiber or fabric absorbent, wicking, breathable, or cooling? by DisenchantedAuD
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4u4fko wrote
Reply to comment by TerminationClause in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
[removed]
Thundahcaxzd t1_j4u4794 wrote
Reply to comment by Competitive_Way_5485 in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
Sound is molecules bumping into each other, so it needs a medium. Electromagnetic radiation such as light or radio or microwaves etc are something else entirely and dont need a medium.
gab_r95 t1_j4u45u9 wrote
Reply to comment by Competitive_Way_5485 in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
The signals are electromagnetic waves (light, microwave, radio...). They don't need a medium, and actually in a vacuum they go as fast as possible (speed of light). We freeze in space by radiating the energy away (thermal infrared).
Competitive_Way_5485 t1_j4u3hrp wrote
Reply to comment by TheJasonKientz in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
Ok, i understand. But how do we Communicate in the Vacuum of Space from Earth to Moon. How do the Signals move without any chance to form a Wave? And why do we freeze in Space?
[deleted] t1_j4u2wp8 wrote
Reply to comment by origami_alligator in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j4u2vyb wrote
Reply to comment by MoonKnighy in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
[removed]
Mord42 t1_j4u2u2x wrote
Reply to comment by Saidear in What happens to the energy of sound in space? by full_hammer
Even if you increase the energy the vibration frequency would not change. The frequency is not related to amplitude
[deleted] t1_j4u82gn wrote
Reply to How do waterfalls freeze? by THE_WARDEN3036
[removed]