Recent comments in /f/askscience

Tiny_Rat t1_j81m6ud wrote

Reply to comment by EmilyU1F984 in Can the Radiation from a Sample of Depleted Uranium Sterilize? by Natolx

If they autoclave it, a sealed vessel will still explode, as the pressure inside the vessel and the machine will still change at different rates. Plus, killing the bacteria won't make the solution less cloudy, it will just be cloudy with dead bacteria instead of living ones. And, worst of all, heat treatment will most likely kill the fluorescent proteins anyways.

3

EmilyU1F984 t1_j81ib1n wrote

Reply to comment by Natolx in Can the Radiation from a Sample of Depleted Uranium Sterilize? by Natolx

Why not just heat sterilize it? If you do that in a pressure vessel the pressure inside your jewelry and surrounding it will be the same, and it thus won’t explode.

Also is there anything in there but the protein? Even if you introduced something, stuff won‘t be able to grow on just a single protease resistant protein snywsy.

Not like it‘s meant to be used for injection. Just needs to not go opaque right?

1

Cheshire-Kate t1_j81i8j2 wrote

Reply to comment by thomasxin in Why is the Oort cloud spherical? by Outliver

If the only thing acting on stars is gravity, then they will stay in their elliptical orbits undisturbed and the overall shape of the galaxy won't change.

It's only once you start adding drag and friction into the mix from gas clouds and nebulas that the forces necessary to collapse the shape into a disc are present. With those gases, a galaxy will eventually collapse into a disc, but without them, there's no reason for them to do so.

Most elliptical galaxies are very old, and no longer have any new star formation. This means far less drag and friction, meaning no forces to flatten the orbits of stars within the galaxy, meaning it will remain an elliptical galaxy forever

17

Pedroarak t1_j81hq4e wrote

Reply to comment by DJOMaul in Can the Radiation from a Sample of Depleted Uranium Sterilize? by Natolx

Risks of low doses and low dose rates, such as from elevated natural background radiation exposures, appear not to exist or be lower than such risks that one assumes by applying the LNT model in the evaluation of epidemiological data. This and the unequivocal evidence of experimental findings of adaptive protection speak against the LNT hypothesis, which should be replaced by a model that takes into consideration that low doses can induce alterations in the physiologically individual balance between cancer causation and cancer prevention.

Source: Cancer Mortality Among People Living in Areas With Various Levels of Natural Background Radiation

66