Recent comments in /f/askscience

Rolldal t1_jdh8ele wrote

Just for the record (sic) accurate records were kept in Great Britain from 1837 (Civil registration bill being passed in 1837) and France from shortly after the French Revolution. This is aside from the parish records some of which (especially the Methodist ones) carry a great deal of detail. The best of these latter records record not just the names of parents but the mother's maiden name, father's occupation, location (ie farm name for instance), and date of birth if it differed from that of baptism. In England law was passed in 1538 by the then new Church of England making the keeping of such records a legal requirement, though most parishes did not enact it until 1598 and even then records were patchy (not to mention disruption by Civil war in the 17th century). As with any sytem there will be those who slip the net.

1

jatjqtjat t1_jdh58y5 wrote

Yea, its not true. It would mean if a round of antibiotics killed these bacteria off, getting them back would be... unpleasant.

Bacteria that eats cellulose is going to be found on the cellulose that the cow is eating.

The birth canal might give the calf head start. But it's not the only way.

0

MrGronx t1_jdh4fqn wrote

The amount of nausea and accompanied actually being sick is is officially known as space adaptation syndrome , but is unofficially measured on a scale known as the Garn Scale. The units range from 0 to 1 "Garn", where 1 Garn is as sick as an astronaut could possibly get.

The name comes from Republican Senator Jake Garn, the first sitting member of congress to go to space. He flew on STS-51-D as a payload specialist and as a subject on an experiment regarding space adaptation syndrome, and he didn't disappoint: he was so ill throughout the 167 hours of his mission that, ever since, astronauts coined the Garn Scale after him!

86

auraseer t1_jdh29c4 wrote

Only very slightly. I read a study on this, and they found that the effect is almost too small to measure, affecting only odors that were barely perceptible in the first place.

This might be because it's nearly impossible for a person to be truly flat and immobile for long enough. They'll turn their head, lift it sightly from the pillow, etc., and even small shifts like that would affect fluid movements.

28

ClemClem510 t1_jdgzswh wrote

That's a great question - our gut is a super interesting system, and microgravity does affect it in some ways, though obviously it still works up there.

One thing that's important to note is that your intestines are long, and honestly kind of all over the place. We're talking around 7 meters (20+ ft), going down, sideways, and sometimes up. Between that and the fact that we digest laying down a lot of the time, one realises that gravity pushing that food down isn't really the main driving force. What does most of that job is layers of smooth muscle, that contracts and pushes things along without you even being conscious of it. So the fact that things float up there is not a huge deal.

But lack of gravity does tend to do things to fluids, however. With gravity, they typically settle pretty well, with gases coming back up and separating from the liquids pretty cleanly. Since liquids also become floaty blobs in space, that stops being the case. This means that our usual ways of expelling gases - burping and farting - may stop just expelling gases. Notably, burps often come up with what feel like acid reflux, and, well, one shouldn't trust a fart in space (Google Apollo 10 floating turd for an interesting tidbit).

Another thing of note is that for many astronauts, arrival in space can be accompanied by space sickness, usually nausea, vomiting and a generally upset tummy. This is a digestive issue too, but one mainly caused by the sensory adjustment to space.

218

Kerwinkle t1_jdgyw1h wrote

Ever wondered why airline meals seem to taste bland? Ask an airline meal chef about loss of taste on passenger flights. I'm sure it's not the same issue as spaceflight but a long haul flight also affects your sense of taste and smell. A good thing when you consider all the farts unleashed during those flights too.

14

Crusty_Nostrils t1_jdgyh17 wrote

No, it has the guts, legs, and head on one end and then a sausage of muscle through which runs the alimentary tract. If you pull off the head and legs and carefully extract the guts you'll be left with the meaty part

3

zekromNLR t1_jdgxrpk wrote

We just don't know. There are no facilities that can produce extended hypogravity to study those longer-term effects. Honestly I think that would be as good a reason as any to construct a spin-gravity space station capable of up to 1 g: Conduct a study to see how much gravity is required for humans to stay healthy. Because if we are going to make permanent settlements on the Moon or on Mars, I think we should probably figure out beforehand if a third or a sixth of Earth's gravity is enough for humans.

3

askscience-ModTeam t1_jdgx09o wrote

Thank you for your submission! Unfortunately, your submission has been removed for the following reason(s):

  • This question is based on fundamentally flawed premises. Please conduct some background research and revise your question if you wish to resubmit.
1