• 0 Posts
  • 61 Comments
Joined 2 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 22nd, 2023

help-circle

  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzD E A L
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    3 months ago

    Dietary calcium is great for preventing stones, actually. Calcium is bound to a couple different things that cause stones, but the body actually makes those things specifically to bind with calcium. When it happens where it is supposed to, this is a good thing. If you are low on calcium, these things get flushed, and may get trapped in the kidney. Then any calcium that passes through may bind to it. Having higher calcium intake helps prevent them from building up in the kidneys to begin with. Though extremely high amounts of calcium from vitamin supplements etc can increase the risk of getting stones, but high calcium diet is one of the best defenses against them.


  • AEsheron@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzD E A L
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    3 months ago

    It is actually not an excess of calcium that’s usually the problem, calcium deficiency is actually a greater risk for most. While yes, the most common types are both chemicals that are in part calcium, the body is meant to produce them, just in different parts of the body. Usually, a deficiency in calcium allows those other compounds that should be used up in other places to be flushed through the kidneys, possibly building up. Then incidental calcium that does move through the kidney binds to them there. Higher dietary calcium intake is associated with a sharp decline in stone risk, though extremely high intakes from vitamin supplements etc do increase risk. But in general, it is an excess of the things that bind to calcium that are the things to avoid, apparently almonds are pretty much the worse thing ever, with a fairly distant second being chocolate.




  • Pretty sure the whole point of this article is we have confirmed tiny black holes do rapidly evaporate. We’ve theoretically known that any black hole just about our sun’s mass or smaller will spew more Hawking Radiation than it can consume mass and will shrink. And this process should accelerate as the mass shrinks. This seems to be the first expiremental evidence to support the well established theory.


  • Everything bends when you move it, usually to such a small degree that you can’t perceive it. It’s impossible to have a truly “rigid” material that would be required for the original post because of this. The atoms in a solid object don’t all move simultaneously, otherwise swinging a bat would be causing FTL propagation itself. The movement needs to propagate through the atoms, the more rigid the object the faster this happens, but it is never instantaneous. You can picture the atoms like a lattice of pool balls connected to each other with springs. The more rigid the material, the stiffer the springs, but there will always be at least a little flex, even if you need to zoom in and slow-mo to see it.


  • Even more specifically, if we are talking a temporal teleport, then this shouldn’t be a surprise. Most mainstream fiction uses teleports for time travel, pop out of one time and into another without experiencing the time between. As opposed to the device Farnsworth made in The Late Philip J. Fry, where they actually just change speed through time instead of skipping through it. In the latter case, you shouldn’t have to worry about this issue at all. But with a teleport, any teleportation device is simultaneously a temporal and spatial teleport, due to causality and the nature of spacetime. So any teleport would need spacetime coordinates, not just spatial or temporal coordinates.










  • There is evidence to show that violet does actually weakly activates red cones too. This is because the violet light starts creeping up to double the frequency of the lower end of the red sensitivity, and so it can actually successfully activate it very weakly. There are other factors that can lessen or even fully negate that effect though, it’s all kind of fuzzy.



  • I mean, if you’re going to attempt to kill with a bite, I’d assume they’re going for the neck or other particularly vulnerable place. I’d argue commoner bite attacks should have very low chance to hit, but could plausibly be lethal. Most places they get a good bite won’t be able to do any damage, except maybe cause a Con save for disease… I’d say an improvised attack with Disadvantage for 1d6 damage probably works pretty well.