Recent comments in /f/askscience

mailbot100 t1_j9ghk0b wrote

Reply to when a limb gets amputated, how do they stop the flow of blood? by EnchantedCatto

So I know there have been a lot of answers basically stating 'it gets circulated back into the system.' But I guess I don't understand what happens to the blood that exists in the end of the closed artery, after the last exit to a smaller artery. At some point, the system dead-ends with nowhere to go. What happens to the blood at the end of the cul-de-sac?

2

RuhrowSpaghettio t1_j9gg01s wrote

Reply to comment by BeneficialWarrant in when a limb gets amputated, how do they stop the flow of blood? by EnchantedCatto

It’s really not debatable. If someone is hemorrhaging, they will die of blood loss. Anyone who can do anything to help stem that blood loss is saving their life, no debate.

Plus, tbh, the risks of tourniquets are greatly over-stated in both popular culture and even in the medical world. All of the time limits people discuss for tourniquets are essentially made up theoretical limits without much data to back them up.

26

Training_Ad_2086 t1_j9gfmf5 wrote

Reply to comment by Bax_Cadarn in Why can’t you “un-blur” a blurred image? by so-gold

Likely not if every pixel is blurred.

In that case all original pixel values are lost and replaced by blur pixel values.

Since every original pixel is blurred there is no information to extrapolate from for a undo and so knowing the method is useless.

Its like listening to music on a old telephone, you can make out the sound but all the details of the sound can't be recovered from the audio you are listening to

3

77evens t1_j9genyv wrote

Reply to comment by Ausoge in How and why does asphyxiation induce euphoria? by Ausoge

I would think it may have been an evolutionary response that developed to try and balance or overcome the CO2 “panic” that occurs when CO2 thresholds in the blood are too high thereby allowing just a bit more time for the brain to figure a way out of the situation and get rid of the CO2 and restore O2.

2

PoiseandPotions t1_j9geib8 wrote

Reply to comment by SystemFantastic1090 in Why is Turner's syndrome a problem if only one X chromosome is active? by NimishApte

Piggybacking off of this, it’s 100% right that just because one X is turned into a Barr Body doesn’t mean it doesn’t have any activity. There are still parts of the ‘inactivated’ X that are expressed. For context, just look at how much smaller the Y chromosome is than the X one. Not to stir up a battle of the sexes, but a typical X chromosome is ~5x as big as a Y chromosome. So even a mostly inactivated X still has some activity equivalent to a Y chromosome.

Also, which X gets turned into a Barr Body is a random process (at least in humans), so in some cells it’s the maternal X that’s turned into a Barr Body, and in other cells it’s the paternal one. This is why we still see traits from both parents, and still use both X’s.

As for the infertility issue, from what we can tell, the parts of the Barr Bodies that we do use are mostly linked to creating the growth hormones and sex hormones that are responsible for attaining adult height and development of secondary sex characteristics. They also help reproductive organs develop naturally. It’s not uncommon for a person with turners syndrome to have ‘smear gonads’ or ‘smear ovaries’ that are essentially just a cluster of cells that are trying to be an ovary but just aren’t quite fully formed. This understandably leads to infertility because the ovaries don’t develop, and can be at a much higher risk of cancer as a result.

3

BridgeSalesman t1_j9ga53u wrote

Reply to comment by theubster in How and why does asphyxiation induce euphoria? by Ausoge

I think you're comparing apples to oranges there. "Deaths per year" is a pretty bad comparative statistic, because the participating populations are significantly different. Citation needed, obviously, but I'd be willing to bet the average US resident goes on a car ride more often than they choke themselves out.

14

alsokalli t1_j9g9x3i wrote

Reply to What is the biological significance of the fact that the genetic code is degenerate? by camilia_stone24

You always get mutations because nature isn't perfect, and organisms are complicated. The genetic code accounts for that so that if you get a single point mutation, the probability that it still codes for the same or a similar amino acid is quite high. That means the protein it codes for can probably still function, which is all nature cares about.

(This is very, very simplified)

13