Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 June 8

Science desk
< June 7	<< May | June | Jul >>	June 9 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

June 8

Is Gluten soluble"

One of the bits of advice on a website that promotes healthy living is not to drink alcohol. They write: "Alcohol isn't just terribly dehydrating, it's also either filled with gluten, sugar or both, which drastically speeds up our aging process."

Is gluten soluble enough that a filtered alcoholic beverage could contain gluten?

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

That advice is bullshit, but the answer to the question is sort of complicated. According to this page, glutens (which are actually several different things) can be divided into four types: albumins, which are soluble in water; globulins, which are soluble in dilute salt concentrations; prolamins, which are soluble in aqueous alcohol; and glutelins, which are soluble in dilute acids or bases. So if you take a sour, salty alcoholic beverage such as beer, it can dissolve all sorts of glutens to at least some degree. And in fact, there is gluten in most types of beer. Looie496 (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

If the rest of that "healthy living" website's information is of the same quality as the bit quoted, please ignore it. It's rubbish. (Don't know anything about the solubility of gluten, but I do know something about alcohol.) HiLo48 (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing comments by doctors stating that certain types of wine are beneficial. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This has to do with them containing antioxidants. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is evidence that alcohol itself is protective against heart disease, with moderate consumption. The idea that antioxidants are beneficial is actually based more on theory than evidence. When they have been directly tested, they have mostly come out as harmful rather than helpful -- see our antioxidant article for details. Looie496 (talk) 05:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In that case, wouldn't beer be just as beneficial as wine (if the number of "drinks", i.e. the total amount of alcohol consumed, is equal)? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a well-established association between moderate alcohol consumption and heart/cardiovascular health. In recent years, there has been some concern that the ~25% lower risk of a heart attack may be offset by a higher lifetime risk of cancer, especially among people who consume alcohol regularly for many years. For more information, see for example [1][2][3], and also alcohol and heart health / alcohol and cancer. For health purposes, I don't think it is clear what an optimum amount of alcohol consumption would be, and it may well depend on individual age, gender, and other factors. Dragons flight (talk) 15:03, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What bothered me about that apparently self proclaimed healthy living website is that it proclaimed that alcohol was "also either filled with gluten, sugar or both". This is the Science ref desk. That's NOT a scientific statement. What other rubbish is that site offering? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

(I posted this question.) I was not impressed by the website. If anyone wants to look at it, this is the link:

www(dot)mindbodygreen(dot)com/1-9764-4/12-habits-to-help-you-get-healthier-now.html

Thanks for the information. Wanderer57 (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Could there be slow moving neutrinos from somewhere else or from before the big bang?

Hi, I've heard there my have been a universe before the Big Bang or that we live in a multiverse. I wonder if cold dark matter could be neutrinos from a long time ago or far away that have had a very large amount of time to undergo many many collisions, slowing them down. P.S. to some of the wellmeaning but aggravating people here: Please try to be civil, nondismissive, patient, and nonsarcastic about my ignorance. Thanks76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nobody knows for sure at this time -- there are many different theories about the nature of dark matter, but no real evidence in any direction. Please check back in 50 years or so. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree that nobody knows, but, under current understanding of our universe, all neutrinos originated within the last 13,798 million years (in fact, the earliest were just 2 seconds after the Big Bang). You might be interested in Cosmic neutrino background for details. If particles are being imported from another reality, then we need to rethink what we mean by universe. Dbfirs 11:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

One of the problems that inflation theory solves is preciely to get rid of the relics from before the effective "Big Bang", see here. Count Iblis (talk) 12:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

And the Temperature of the neutrinos produced by the Big Bang is about 1.9 K equivalent to 0.16 meV. If the mass of any neutrino is larger than that(as it must be given the data from super-Kamiokande placing a lower bound on the heaviest neutrino of at least 0.04 eV), than there are plenty of slow neutrinos around. Dauto (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Check the following Facts

I have found some intresting facts. But I don't know whether these facts are right or wrong. Please check these facts.

1. Lemons have more sugar than oranges and strawberry.
2. Language with the most words: English, approx. 250,000 distinct words.
3. Language with the fewest words: Taki Taki (also called Sranan), 340 words.
4. Sirus star is much brighter than the sun. In fact, no star is as bright as sirus.
5. The bullfrog is the only mammal that never sleeps.
6. The African Lungfish can live out of water for up to four years.
7. The animal responsible for the most human deaths world-wide is the mosquito.
8. Only two English words in current use end in "-gry". They are "angry" and "hungry".
9. The verb "cleave" is the only English word with two synonyms which are antonyms of each other: adhere and separate.
10. Sweeps 10 is the planet with the shortest orbital period found. It orbits its star in only 10 hours.
11. While in space astronomers can get taller, but at the same time their hearts can get smaller.
12. Albert Einstein never knew how to drive a car and he slept 10 hours a night.
13. The most dangerous organism is housefly.
Publisher54321 (talk) 06:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

4, 7 and 11 are definitely true, while 13 is definitely false (expressly contradicts #7). Don't know about the others. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, 9 is true, but the former meaning ("cleave" = "adhere") is an archaic usage mainly found in the Bible: e.g. "For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife". 24.23.196.85 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Well, there is a common modern usage which indicates the meaning. Richard Avery (talk) 11:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Frogs are not mammals, they're amphibians. We can't possibly determine that "no star is brighter than Sirius", because they are countless galaxies that we can barely make out, never mind individual stars within them. The housefly statement sounds suspicious. More dangerous than the most dangerous microbe? I think not. Maybe the OP could show us where he found this quiz? Also, maybe the OP could search for articles on the various subjects. I expect a number of them have answers. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

4 is definitely not true. First off, there is no star named "sirus". Second, Sirius is not the brightest star of all. It doesn't even make the incomplete list of most luminous stars. The first part is ambiguous. Brighter than the Sun under what conditions? Clarityfiend (talk) 06:44, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Sirius article asserts it is "the brightest star in the night sky". That's a far cry from being brighter than the sun or being the brightest star in the universe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

For #8, we have a -gry page. For #9, we have the auto-antonym page with numerous other examples. For #11, I assume it should be "astronauts" (the people who go into space) not "astronomers" (the people who look into space)? DMacks (talk) 06:48, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Given that several of the questions have incorrect content, it would be good if the OP could tell us which website he got them from. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There are tons of these "amazing but true!" and "cool science facts!" lists floating around. Just like Chinese whispers, the "true"/"facts" aspects dim over time. DMacks (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I was waiting for the one about which character was omitted from Flintstone Vitamins, and how a duck's quack supposedly doesn't echo. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

"Current scientific theories cannot explain how bees are able to fly", "cows can walk up stairs but are physically unable to walk down", "humans only use 10% of their brain capacity". Some more for ya. :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 11:50, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and the one about the Great Wall of China being the only man-made object visible from space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

... and finally,

14. Trolls are becoming more irritating over the last 3 years. Caesar's Daddy (talk) 06:54, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This site[4] states that the Taki-Taki or Sranan Tongo language is a creole with several thousand words. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:00, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

1. False. See Lemon and Orange

2. See English_language#Number_of_words_in_English

3. Sranan Tongo makes no mention of number of words.

4. See Sirius#Visibility. It's the brightest visible star in our sky, but not the most luminous star anywhere.

5. See bullfrog and mammal.

6. Protopterus says "for many months".

7. According to Mosquito Reference 2, "some authorities" say this.

8. See [[5]]

9. See above

10. See SWEEPS-10

11. See Human_spaceflight#Medical_issues and Space_medicine#Loss_of_muscle_mass.

12. The sleep claim is often quoted, but rarely (if ever) sourced. See http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7705/did-albert-einstein-sleep-10-11-hours-daily. The driving license is probably true, but not that remarkable in that time.

13. How do you define "most dangerous"?

Rojomoke (talk) 07:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

For #11, also see Effect of spaceflight on the human body and Intervertebral disc damage and spaceflight. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Technically, Sirius is the brightest star in our night sky. The sun overwhelms most any star in the daytime sky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Except Sirius, which is visible during the daytime under certain conditions. --Jayron32 03:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Aha, thus making it the second-brightest star in the daytime sky. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

rings of planets

Why some planets as Jupiter , Saturn and Uranus and Neptune have rings (i.e the scientific reason of their origin )?--Akbarmohammadzade (talk) 08:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Planetary ring#Overview answers your question with a minimum of technicalities. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:12, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

How are those ricin letters suppose to work?

I honestly don't understand how a ricing tainted letter is supposed to kill anyone. I can't imagine that anyone licks the letters that he gets or that he snorts random powder from an anonymous sender. Put on the top of this that I doubt that any US president would process his own mail, which obviously gets through some security scanning. Is that an alternative to sending a bullet? A kind of threat in the sense 'look what I got?' OsmanRF34 (talk) 16:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There are vast numbers of people in this world who don't think very clearly, as anybody who has done much Wikipedia editing will surely realize. Looie496 (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

In fact, these "ricin letters" do not work at all. If you read press releases from the FBI, you see that every single press-release contains this exact phrase: "To date, the FBI is not aware of any illness as a result of exposure to these letters.[6]" In the mass-media's lust to sensationalize news, they often skip over the boring factual parts of the official press-statements.

The FBI's website gives examples of successfully-prosecuted "weapons of mass destruction" crimes. The example for ricin is a 2008 case in which a man reported himself for making ricin after he became ill in his hotel-room and required medical assistance. Nimur (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Nor indeed CAN they work at all -- ricin is not airborne (unlike anthrax), doesn't penetrate the skin, and it's practically impossible for the victim to get enough ricin into his/her system from indirect ingestion (eating after handling the letter, or something of that sort) to get poisoned. Obviously (and fortunately!) not all terrorists have functioning brains... 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that in both of the recent ricin incidents, the actual goal was apparently to get somebody else blamed for sending the letters. So the fact that the ricin wouldn't work was not really a deterrent to the people who sent them -- in fact they would probably have viewed that as a positive. Looie496 (talk) 22:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Looie is right; the real play here is on the anthrax letters that were a genuine threat and a remarkably effective way of shutting down offices and giving secret agents access to prominent Democrats' files, etc. Still, ricin can be effective on ingestion - there are some cases of poor sad saps poisoning themselves or their husbands with it - I imagine if someone took a "less is more" approach, a few grains in each envelope, after a few hundred they might manage to make some poor secretary sick for months because she kept her coffee too close at hand. But obviously the Eastern Bloc had experts on how to use it (see Georgi Markov), and didn't do it this way. Wnt (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn'tbe so quick to dismiss this as "emergency workers" who handled the latest letters were reported to have suffered minor effects from exposure.[7] Rmhermen (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Also, I find the above comments inconsistent with the LD₅₀ being 5-10 beans (1 mg/kg body weight) orally, and "Because of its destruction in the intestinal tract, ricin is approximately 1000-fold more toxic following parenteral administration or inhalation, than by the oral route." (source: EFSA). That would suggest an inhalation LD₅₀ of about 1 μg/kg body weight. Would not have to inhale much of a very fine powder. -- Scray (talk) 20:25, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

To be clear, ricin can be prepared in a way that is dangerous to inhale. [8] (With all the griping lately around here, I don't suppose I'll run down the recipe since it wasn't actually the question asked) The thing is, it takes some sophistication, and the people sending the letters aren't putting in that effort, because their letters are never really intended as assassination weapons in the first place. Wnt (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Baryon number and fine-tuning

I have recently read that the laws of energy conservation, impulse conservation, angular momentum conservation and electric charge conservation can't "forbid" the proton decay and proton annihilation in nuclei (the ref is from 1988 but I think it's still valid in that). Does it mean that the conservation of baryon number may have an extraneous, non-natural origin (or, speaking more cautiously, contributes to the assumption of that extraneous imposition)? According to what I've read further, "the baryon number, along with the electric charge, should be considered an additive value", although I'm not sure whether the fine tuning can be inferred from that. It may ultimately come down to the question of why the physical constants are constant, but anyway. Brandmeister^talk 17:11, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

It's not fine tuning. Baryon number conservation (mod 3) is called an accidental symmetry of the Standard Model, because, although there's no explicit symmetry preventing it, any interaction that violates it while satisfying all the symmetries turns out to be irrelevant at low energy. The Standard Model is normally viewed as a low-energy approximation to something more complicated, so there's every reason to expect baryon number violation with a very long half life, hence the proton decay experiments. But given the failure so far to find proton decay, and the lack of new physics so far at the LHC, some theorists are wondering if this view of the Standard Model might be wrong. -- BenRG 20:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Also, "the baryon number is additive" just means that if A has baryon number x and B has baryon number y then A combined with B has baryon number x+y, in contrast to a multiplicative quantum number where it would be xy. -- BenRG 06:10, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Why would anybody be so cavalier at proposing extraneous, non-natural origins??? Dauto (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Polydactyly

I was taught in school that polydactyly is carried by a dominant gene. But if that is so, why doesn't everyone on Earth have six fingers by now? 93.139.66.40 (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has an article titled Polydactyly, which does not really discuss genetics in terms of dominant/recessive genes, but does have some information on the genetics of various types of polydactyly (and there are many types, each with a different cause). There are several references used for the article that deal with genetics, probably in more detail, for example reference #18 is titled "The genetics of hand malformations" which would give you a start. --Jayron32 18:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if polydactyly is a dominant trait, that doesn't mean it would come to dominate the population. It all has to do with how much of an evolutionary advantage it brings. You're right in that if a dominant trait improves the fitness of an individual - helps them get food, find mates, and/or raise their children - then that gene will come to be more prevalent in the population. (This is also true for recessive traits, though the process can be slower because of the non-expressing carriers.) However, if the trait is an evolutionary *disadvantage*, it would be rapidly removed from the population. If the trait is neither a benefit nor a diadvantage, the rate of the trait stays the same in the population. (Think of the Punnett squares. A Dd parent with a dd partner will produce, on average, equal numbers of Dd and dd children, just like the makeup of the parents. - Remember that "dominant" genes don't destroy a recessive allele they're paired with, they just mask it. - If you work through the other combinations you'll also see that the proportion of alleles in the children match those of the parents. The only way to change the rate of prevelence of a gene in the population is to change the relative number of children each pairing produces.) If a trait like polydactyly gives neither strong benefit nor disadvantage to the ones carrying it, then it will keep about the same level of prevelence in the population over time - neither enveloping the entire population nor disappearing. -- 71.35.111.31 (talk) 19:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Plenty of things are caused by dominant genes, such as achondroplastic dwarfism. That doesn't mean that people will selectively mate with carriers, which would be necessary for the gene to spread. Some dominant genes, like the one just mentioned, are lethal when carried in two copies, so they are self-limiting. μηδείς (talk) 19:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I think the others have covered it pretty well, but just to nail this down, fitness (biology) has nothing to do with a dominant allele. The dominant allele is the copy of the chromosome that has the most visible effect out of two in a single organism, but the fitter allele is the one which gives those who carry it the best chance of survival. Now there is a very vague trend that recessive genes may be "defective" versions - the dominant counterpart producing enough protein to make up for what the recessive does not - and such defects may, if strong enough, be maladaptive and represent the pressure of mutations to simply wear away at a gene. But there are so many exceptions to this, and it is hard to qualify precisely - dominant and recessive are often a matter of how you look at things. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Earth

A multiway electrical extension lead I saw has a light that comes on to indicate "good earth". How is this detected? (I can see that this is an important property, so why is it rare to see appliances which indicate the quality of their earth?) ManyQuestionsFewAnswers (talk) 18:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

One design which would achieve this would have have the bulb (likely LED) and associated voltage dropping circuitry connected between the hot lead of the plug and the earth (ground) lead. It would verify full mains voltage between the hot lead and earth, whereas if there were no connection in the outlet to the earth terminal, or if it were somehow connected to the hot supply, the light would not light, nor would it light if the hot and neutral connections were reversed. This simple approach would not detect a miswired outlet where the neutral and earth terminals were were connected together improperly, or where the neutral and earth wires were switched. Some clever outlet analyzers also test for nonzero impedance between the neutral and ground. See Receptacle tester. Edison (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

I have seen small neon lamps being used for this purpose in three-pin plugs (in a 220V AC system) – the current drawn is small enough that several of these will generally not trigger the earth-leakage detection system (usually 18 mA sensitivity) at the main circuit breaker. — Quondum 20:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Cooking question

When boiling red meat, approximately how high is the total concentration of peptides/amino acids in the water ("bouillion") at readiness point given that the water is at boiling point? And if this data is not available, how can I reliably measure the concentration? No, this is NOT a homework question -- I'm trying to modify one of the family recipes, and I need this data in order to figure it out. Thanks in advance! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

There is no way for us to know this theoretically. It would depend on the type and quality of the meat, if it were a steak or cubed or chopped or ground. Tasting would give you a relative measure, and you can decant the fat if it hardens on top of the broth. Someone else may have a suggestion on the protein other relatively than by taste. μηδείς (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for trying! The thing is, the bouillion is not what I'm after -- the recipe is a kind of macaroni with meat, and it calls for the meat and the noodles to first be boiled separately, then for the meat to be finely ground, roasted and doused with the bouillion during roasting for extra flavor, but I prefer to discard the bouillion because I like the meat dry and gritty rather than mushy. And this means that I'll have to use more meat than given in the recipe in order to get the same nutritional value; what I'm trying to figure out is, how much more? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

You could determine an upper limit on the total contained solids (after removing the fat) by boiling the bouillion down and weighing the residue. I suspect that you will find that from the perspective of nutrition the amount of protein that is lost is negligible. — Quondum 20:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! This is very easily done, and I'll do precisely what you suggest. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 21:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if if follow this but if I tried this I would: Mince the meat. Place in pressure cooker with out any liquid and cook at medium temperature (with star anise to and a more meaty flavour),(and it only takes 15 minutes). There will be enough moister in the meat for this (unless the meat is has been dry matured for a few weeks). If you want to remove the fat, let it cool, then place it in the fridge and scape it off the top – but personally, if I was going to roast it afterwards I'd leave the fat in it. Drain mince, then roast and bast in the little liquid that one strains off. As it is an old family recipe, I wonder if it was for very cheap cuts of meat that required long simmering to make it tender (don't boil meat - it makes it tough and ruins the more subtle flavours). --Aspro (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Quondum's answer's execellent. Cooking takes practice, keep in mind ad gustum, and read Nassim Taleb's Antifragile. μηδείς (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Slow motion cameras and Hawk-Eye

Wouldn't it be more wise to use ordinary slow motion cameras instead of reportedly costly Hawk-Eye system for instant replays? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.174.25.12 (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

This wouldn't give the required accuracy -- ordinary slow-motion cameras are subject to many of the same errors that cause umpires to make wrong calls in the first place (projection errors, parallax, etc.) Also, the player might block the camera's view of the ball's impact, in which case the instant replay can't be used at all! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 21:33, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

What's always puzzled me about Hawk-Eye is why people are so trusting of some computer animation software. As a one-time software developer, I wouldn't be. HiLo48 (talk) 22:30, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Because it's been tested many times under real-world conditions and found to be consistently accurate. Why else would they trust it? 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

How can it be tested? Especially if alternative techniques to compare it with don't work. HiLo48 (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Predictive Hawkeye (and other similar systems) get regularly tested by running the computer prediction against what really happened, and the algorithm used in the prediction learns accordingly. To answer the OP's question, "ordinary slow-motion cameras" aren't cheap, you know! You'd need 6 of them to get all the angles for the replays. Hawkeye is only used in cricket for LBWs, and even then it's not the only tool at the umpire's disposal, they also use Snicko to see if the ball clipped the bat, a stump mic to hear if the ball hit anything on the way through, an infra-red "Hot spot" to see if the ball hit anything... it's all these technologies that make it expensive, not just Hawkeye, and you couldn't replace all of them with slo-mo cameras. --TammyMoet (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

How can we test it "against what really happened" if Hawk-eye is the best tool we have? Up above an IP editor explained that humans are no good at this. So, how do we test it? HiLo48 (talk) 22:55, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Simple. You re-run footage of the actual point (or ball) in a split-screen against the predictive Hawkeye. It happens a lot, especially at training events for the press,umpires and also (I am given to believe, having heard an interview about this on the BBC) as part of essential calibration work. The more a Hawkeye system sees, the more it learns using an algorithm. --TammyMoet (talk) 14:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Odours

Your article on odours call them chemical compounds but are theses gases or solids? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clover345 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Odors are gases (or vapors); theses are solids.  ;-) 24.23.196.85 (talk) 23:58, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Can some odours be detected by taste buds? Clover345 (talk) 23:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Not really -- odor plays a major part in the perception of taste/flavor (meaning that taste is in part perceived through the sense of smell), but not vice versa. 24.23.196.85 (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Odours are not necessarily gaseous. Anything that can get into your nose has an odiferous potential. For example, an aerosol created from a saline solution. Plasmic Physics (talk) 00:14, 9 June 2013 (UTC)