Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2012 May 24

Science desk
< May 23	<< Apr | May | Jun >>	May 25 >

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.

May 24

Calories in coffee

Does a cup of coffee have any calories in it? Or is it really simply water (i.e., no calories)? Assume that the cup of coffee that I drink in the morning has no sugar or milk (or anything else) added to it. Am I drinking a calorie-free drink (like water) ... or am I actually consuming some calories? If the latter, how many calories are there in a cup of coffee? Thank you! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Type "calories in black coffee" into google and you'll get your answer about 100 different ways. They all roughly agree. I won't insult you by linking any of the dozens of of answers you get. --Jayron32 01:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the first five pages I got of that included nothing close to a Wikipedia-grade reliable source (a reasonably low bar already). But searching coffee calories did get me to [1] from the Mayo Clinic, which says "A plain cup of brewed coffee has only two calories (and no fat)" while listing off the calories of various additives. Wnt (talk) 02:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

From a reliable secondary source, instant coffee powder has 424 kJ per 100 grams, 101 kcal/100g 13.6% protein, 10% carbohydrate, 0.6% fat. ISBN 9780644138710. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:54, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but the question is about coffee (not that other abomination to which you refer). -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mcdonalds says 0. Shadowjams (talk) 21:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess they round down because they can. There are calories in brewed/espresso coffee but compared to total daily energy intake it should be negligible and dwarfed by accounting errors in the rest of the energy intake total. Diet coke territory. SkyMachine ⁽⁺⁺⁾ 22:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to all! I appreciate the input! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Super Heros and capes

I know that super heros are just entertainment and thus not really "bound" to our laws of physics. But, would a super hero with a cape (Superman, Thor, Batman, etc.) not have a lot more difficulty flying with that thing strapped to their neck (not to mention being strangled!). Any idea as to just how much drag such an item would create? 99.250.103.117 (talk) 07:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)99.250.103.117 (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

This is the kind of question that flagpole manufacturers would know how to answer, as the strength of the pole will determine the maximum size of flag it can support at a particular wind speed. Roger (talk) 07:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyone capable of flying on their own would, I expect, have a sufficiently strong neck to handle the strain. Last time I looked, Batman doesn't fly under his own power, just swoop around a bit, though I would venture to guess his costume would be sufficiently rigid to prevent neck injury from the darned cape getting snagged on something. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this topic was properly covered in the movie "The Incredibles"! Zzubnik (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thinking about it, when humans are doing the closest thing to flying (i.e. falling out of a plane) we use sheets of fabric to create drag (i.e. a parachute or a wingsuit). Some incarnations of Batman use the cape a bit like a glider - he's not really flying, but "falling with style". Other supers have no excuse however. LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:40, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

...which was, in turn, inspired by a similar discussion in Watchmen. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Batman doesn't fly, he just glides, like a "flying squirrel". Superman originally only leaped great distances. Flight came a little later. The cape seldom serves any practical purpose. It's for show, for drama. In general, superheroes with their capes and tights were intended to remind the reader of the circus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:36, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that in comic books (which are composed of still images) one can only show motion through distortions in cloth, trail lines, and other artificial means; thus, artists—at least in the golden age of comics—used the shape of the heroes' capes to depict flying/falling/running/drag in a non-moving image. Pine (talk) 04:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Geology of DRC

What is the origin of the giant striations, running in an East-West direction, across Nord-Kivu province? Located at approximately -0.85 decimal degrees latitude. Plasmic Physics (talk) 10:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

They're a set of ridges, presumably related to different dipping rock layers, like cuestas, with variable resistance to erosion. I'll try to find out some more. Mikenorton (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The ridges are located at the northern edge of the mesoproterozoic metamorphic belt known as the Kilbaran Belt, but I still don't know what the specific rock types are. Mikenorton (talk) 20:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Which way do they dip? Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:13, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

They appear to be south-dipping, but that's pure OR. Mikenorton (talk) 06:07, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomical names

This might be better at the Languages desk, but I figured the biologists here would know... how do you pronounce the Latin name for a species if it's based on a name in a non-latin language? For example: Hernandez-Camacho's night monkey is named after Jorge Hernandez-Camacho as Aotus jorgehernandezi. Would I say "Aotus Jaw-Gay-Her-Nan-Dez-Ee" or "Aotus Yor-Gay-Her-Nan-Day-Ee"?

This is the sort of thing that keeps me awake at night. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that neither of those pronunciations equates to the Spanish pronunciation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:30, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I could also use some advice on the pronounciation of names in Spanish... Yunshui 雲‍水 11:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

"Jorge" is pronounced "Hor-Hay" in Spanish. --Mr.98 (talk) 12:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. So: "Jaw-Gay-Her-Nan-Dez-Ee" or "Hor-Hay-Her-Nan-Day-Ee"? Yunshui 雲‍水 13:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm told that in Mexico at least, Hernandez, (or more correctly Hernández), is pronounced 'air-NAN-dez'. (As a Spanish name, it would not have "I" on the end.) Wanderer57 (talk) 16:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the "H" is silent, or effectively so. The trailing "i" is of course a Latinization, not a Spanish construction. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

IPA /ˈxorxe erˈnandes/; I guess the similar vowels would elide, so /ˌxorxerˈnandes/. — The rules of Spanish spelling are pretty easy, or at least seem that way to me because I learned them at age ~7. It always amazed me to meet educated people who had lived in California for twenty years without learning to pronounce Spanish names. —Tamfang (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I'm genuinely grateful for the Spanish lessons, does anyone know how these rules of pronunciation work with respect to taxonomy (per the original question)? Yunshui 雲‍水 06:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

(Please bear in mind I speak from a position of ignorance, having little knowledge of either languages or taxonomy - sorry!) It seems like quite a lot of thought has gone into the pronunciation of scientific names eg. A guide to the pronounciation and meaning of cetacean taxonomic names (nothing given a Spanish name that I could see, but Danish, Turkish and Persian all represented.) This has some rules, but this (non WP:RS?) suggests they might be more like guidelines. This discussion suggests that there may not a be a universally recognised set of rules. Notes on Topical Dendrology says

Being in Latin, the scientific names are pronounced like Latin

words. The Latin language is pronounced almost like Spanish, and the vowels are similar in both languages. Then, it is simple and easy in Spanish-speaking countries to treat the scientific names as if they were written in Spanish. However, there are some names derived from foreign words, such as modern languages. These names are pronounced as in the original language, often with accent different from Spanish. The British and other Europeans pronounce scientific names correctly according to Latin, but in the United States these words generally

are spoken as if English.

I don't know if any of this is useful; from what I've read, the answer often seems to be, "meh, however you want really". --Kateshortforbob _talk 16:01, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Jolly helpful, thank you. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:47, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

What class is a fox?

Apparently this was on an exam paper today in the UK: "A fox is a vertebrate. What class is it?" It stumped everyone, teachers included. Anyone? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Mammalia of course! That such a simple, easy question can stump even teachers is a pretty serious indictment of the standard of education in the UK. Roger (talk) 15:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the consensus was Mammals, but a quick Google got the answer "Chordata". What's the difference? --TammyMoet (talk) 15:36, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

From the fox article:

• Kingdom = Animalia
• Phylum = Chordata
• Class = Mammalia
• Order = Carnivora
• Family = Canidae
• Tribe = Vulpini

--LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Chordata is the Phylum. It is a far bigger and more diverse grouping than Mammalia, which is the Class. For example, Chordata includes fish. Wanderer57 (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

BTW In what grade (age) was this question asked? Roger (talk) 16:03, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to LukeSur for the comprehensive answer. I believe it was a GCSE question but will check. --TammyMoet (talk) 17:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If it really is a GCSE question and even the teachers!!! were stumped it's rather conclusive proof that British education standards have "gone to the canidae"! Sad if one considers that this is the nation that just a few generations ago ruled almost half the world! Roger (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe part of what is going on here is that Linnaeus's levels are increasingly seen as not very meaningful. Every level between phylum and genus is basically arbitrary, and modern biologists tend not to find them useful. Looie496 (talk) 19:11, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, modern taxonomists seem to prefer the clade system, which highlights actual decent from actual ancestors, rather than sometimes arbitrary and superficial physical characteristics present in the old Linnaean system. --Jayron32 19:17, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Clearly their problem was that they spent their time memorizing answers to Trivial Pursuit questions, and thereby lost their empire to smug upstarts who are unable to restrain their gratuitous use of exclamation points.

Speaking as someone who makes a living in the field of biochemistry and who works with people who spend their days making phylogenetic trees, my response to this anecdote would have to be...'so what?' Faced with the same question, I'm not sure that I would have been able to snap off the correct answer either. What I could do is demonstrate a grasp of the more important underlying concepts— foxes are carnivorous canine mammals; foxes are vertebrates; and foxes are animals; all mammals are vertebrates (with all that implies), but not all vertebrates are mammals. Knowing which sets are proper subsets and supersets of one another is, practically speaking, more useful and meaningful than memorizing the somewhat-arbitrarily-defined Linnaean taxonomic levels and labels. (Any modern evolutionary biologist or geneticist is going to ask, why is Aves (birds) its own class, even though birds are descended evolutionarily from Reptilia—also its own class? Is it constructive to enshrine and glorify historical accidents like these as part of a strictly-taught hierarchical model?) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, Saurischia and Ornithischia were orders. Now we list Saurischia as a "clade". ;) Still, such historical terms are not entirely useless, as they give some sense of the overall degree of 'difference' people perceived among various taxonomic units. Such imprecise and arbitrary notions are nonetheless difficult to replace. Wnt (talk) 20:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The very fact that an exam question asked about the class of some creature suggests that knowledge of the Linnaean system is still required and is still taught. But is it really true that not a single teacher in the entire country knew the answer, Tammy? Who's the "everyone" you refer to? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 20:29, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If we're having a rant about the UK education system, then my 1.3 pence is that this sort of rote learning is largely pointless in the current period. If you need to know a specific fact such as this there's ample places one can look it up. Hell, I even hear that there's this free encyclopaedia on the internet these days. What we should be teaching children is how to find such information, and the methods of thinking required to understand the information once it's found. LukeSurl ^{t c} 21:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd be very surprised to find such a question on a GCSE paper, unless it had already provided context that would allow to you remember that 'mammal' was the sort of answer it wanted (or, horrors, it was multiple choice). Do we know what exam board this was, and whether it was from a Dual Science Biology paper, or from a separates sciences Biology paper? I'm curious to know who includes this knowledge on the current curriculum. 109.155.32.126 (talk) 22:15, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The question sounds like an attempt to test whether the candidate knows what a "class" is. If you know any classes, Mammalia is the one you're going to know, so they're testing if you know where mammals appears in the hierarchy. I remember being taught the hierarchy at either GCSE or AS level (with the mnemonic "Kill PC Oswald, for God's Sake!"), about 9 or 10 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if it is still on the syllabus. --Tango (talk) 11:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Back again. Apparently it was GCSE Biology, and the teachers present in the exam hall were discussing after the exam with other teachers (in the staff room). It had not formed part of the syllabus and therefore was not taught, so shouldn't have been in the exam - that's bad practice. Don't know the exam board yet, will ask. --TammyMoet (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC) More clarification: Biology section of a Combined Science GCSE. Still trying to find the board. --TammyMoet (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

For non-UK readers, the GCSE exam is generally intended for age 16 plus, and is of course, much easier than it used to be (that's my excuse and it I'm sticking to it). Alansplodge (talk) 21:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Orange segments

I am curious about the segments (slices) in an orange fruit. What do they correspond to, relative to the structures in the flower? --İnfoCan (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The segmentation already exists in the flower's ovary. Roger (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

You may be interested in the mutation navel orange that contains an additional set of smaller segments of a conjoined twin. See the article Orange (fruit). 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Household uses for reactions

I would like to know where the following reactions:

• Is found in the household/everyday life
  
• And what is positive an negative about each of the reactions.
  

1. Acid ± metal→ salt ± hydrogen
   
2. Acid ± metal oxide → salt ± water
   
3. Acid ± metal carbonate → salt ± water ± carbon dioxide
   
4. Acid ± alkali → salt ± water
   

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.123.76.163 (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I have two questions for you, which may help others (or even me) to answer your questions. First, why would you like to know that? Second, what other research or investigation have you done other than asking here? (Even if the research, e.g. web searches, didn't produce any useful answers - what did it produce?) Third, what ideas of your own do you have on this so far? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The signs "±" in the question should all be straightforward "+". 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:18, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Not trying to do your homework for you. But, I take to acid to mean a Bronsted acid, which loses a proton in solution to leave the conjugate base behind, e.g. the metal salt of carbonic acid is a metal carbonate after the protons are reduced by the metal. (And of course the proton is not naked, but rather in the form of hydronium and higher-order species.) Two protons can be reduced by a pair of electrons to form dihydrogen (H2).

In your first case, the metal reduces (gives up a pair of electrons) the acid and thus becomes positive. The conjugate base is the acid that has lost a proton, so since a neutral species that has loses positive charge must be negative (conservation of charge), the conjugate base is negative. The salt is the combination of the positive metal cation plus the negative conjugate base, which must balance to give neutral species, if the metal and the acid both started out positive (this is not always the case, i.e. sodium dihydrogen phosphate is a negative ion that is still acidic and can lose a proton to become more negative).

In your other cases, (metal oxides, metal carbonates, alkalis), are combinations of metal cations plus some sort of negative ion (oxide, carbonate or hydroxide). The negative ions are in general, basic, and will receive a proton to become their neutral form. Oxides receive protons to become water or hydroxide, carbonates receive protons to become carbonic acid, which are unstable and decompose rapidly to carbon dioxide and water, hydroxides receive protons to become water. Hydroxides are quite basic. Water-soluble oxides (a charge of 2-) are very basic. If you dissolve sodium oxide in water, an explosion will happen.

In some cases, the metal and oxides form stronger bonds with each other than the solution. Acid sometimse brings the insoluble oxide into solution in the form of water, which forces the remaining metal cation into solution as well, which will be balanced by what remains of the acid after it loses a proton: the conjugate base. Remember that the combination metal cation + conjugate base is a salt. This is why mild acid can clean rust -- the insoluble iron oxide is dissolved leaving the clean metal behind (the acid is too weak to oxidise the metal). Nothing gold can stay (talk) 18:28, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

An "everyday household" example of #3 occurs in baking when baking powder reacts to release CO₂. Roger (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

#1 is used in etching. #2 is used in dissolving rust. And you can etch silicon dioxide (glass) with acid too -- silicon is a semimetal. #3 can be found in ocean acidification -- acid breaking down the calcium carbonate shells of lifeforms (close to insoluble in neutral water, but gets increasingly soluble in acid). #4 happens when you want to clean up either acid or base by dissolving it with the other. Nothing gold can stay (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does LASIK work?

The article LASIK fails to cover any basic optical theory, i.e. why ablating the cornea or creating a flap would result in higher refractive power. If you don't change the curvature of the entire lens as opposed to a small section, wouldn't it just increase optical aberrations? Can someone enlighten? 76.104.28.221 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The cornea usually is thinner after LASIK, because of the removal of part of the stroma. This should reduce the optical power of the cornea, which accounts for about 2/3 of the eye's total optical power, and is the change needed to correct myopia. 84.209.89.214 (talk) 18:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

But wouldn't you need to thin the cornea everywhere? Otherwise you would get optical aberrations (some of the rays are focused but some aren't). Nothing gold can stay (talk) 18:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My wife had Photorefractive keratectomy, which is a closely related procedure. IIRC, the idea is that there is enough focusing power in the cornea to make corrections such that the lens itself doesn't need to be reshaped. In other words, the effect is like turning the cornea into a permanent contact lens; the cornea is reshaped so that it refocuses the light in such a way as to correct for the abberations in the lens, much as a contact lens would. At least, that's what I remember from what my wife was told. --Jayron32 19:14, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the cornea is reshaped so that focal properties of the entire area of over the pupil are changed. It's not the whole cornea, but the whole part that transmits light to the retina. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Also, what are the physics behind LASIK? How do doctors know how much to correct for? How does the Lensmaker's equation apply to LASIK surgery? Nothing gold can stay (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The lensmaker's equation is for lenses in air. It does not apply to either the cornea or the eye's lens. The same fundamental principles apply, but a more detailed analysis is required to look at how the cornea and lens interact to form an image.--Srleffler (talk) 06:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Solar flares and radioactive decay

According to this 2010 report, http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html, there is a connection between solar flares and a change in the rate of radioactive decay measured on Earth. Has this connection been confirmed or debunked since then? At Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates there is discussion of the phenomena, which concludes that there is "no evidence for such correlations", but all the references in that article pre-date the 2010 news report. Happy editing! (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Neutrinos are definitively not the culprit, and the Purdue team is attempting to use the effect to predict solar flares. So it looks like there is still more science to come on this topic; indeed, I believe a lot more experiments are needed to find out what is happening, even if it's just experimental error (still the only culprit that makes physical sense according to current theories). -RunningOnBrains^(talk) 20:20, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Where cometh the meme about heorin being less adictive than tobacco?

It's total rubbish that nicotine even TOUCHES the addictiveness of opioids, once one has a decent habit going. Where did this rubbish come from? Is there the slightest peace of "scientific justification" for it? Egg Centric 22:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends how you measure addition, and whether you are talking about nicotine in isolation or in the presence of tobacco (which complicates the chemistry). Our article on it (Nicotine#In_the_central_nervous_system, Nicotine#Psychoactive_effects) covers this with citations. It is not "rubbish"; the source seems to come from FDA studies done in the 1980s and 1990s. It is true, of course, that you don't see people robbing stores (too often) to feed their nicotine habits — but that is as much a social constraint as any pharmacological one (the legality of nicotine makes it pretty easy to obtain, and the effects are not as profound as heroin). --Mr.98 (talk) 22:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Well that lack of profundity tis the key - while heroin can be hard to get ahold of (and is more expensive) there is no comparison between acute withdrawl from the two. And even LESS comparison between the PAWS from the two. So by what means can they be called more addictive? Egg Centric 22:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I found this 1987 NYT article: NICOTINE: HARDER TO KICK...THAN HEROIN. The sensationalist headline seems to be based on not much more than anecdotal evidence really. The general public's, and public policy's, thoughts on drugs are often massively bereft of evidence, instead being based on fear-mongering and tabloid headlines (c.f. the tale of David Nutt, who basically got fired for presenting the evidence in the diagram right) --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

There is an irony in that were opioids legalised I am convinced they would do sod all damage. Basically you're talking about constiptation as the worst side effect (not the case for some like dextroproxyphene and pethidine but addicts can easily be moved off them to better 'uns) , and that can be combated by orally taken naloxone, biovaliable in ones gut. Nevertheless, while these wonderful chemicals stay illegal addiction to them is hellish at least some of the time (speaking from experience - I have done the occasional opioid treatment thingy and am about to start again, I currently take the equivilant of 280mg of morphine a day, I can afford this being a trader but even with a job as stupidly well paid as mine wasting 75k a year isn't ideal) and to compare it to nicoteine is honestly laughable; I have no idea where these reports are coming from but can only assume they're self serving... Egg Centric 22:49, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Because heroin is illegal, very little serious research can be conducted into its effects, meaning that bigots can claim whatever they like. HiLo48 (talk) 23:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

My uncle was euthaniased with heroin [-]last week[/-] (checked it was a fortnight ago) (using doctrine of double effect as a legal excuse - I'm not exaggerating here btw, it was agreed with family and doctor - he had a funeral this tuesday) there's no reason in principle heroin couldnt' be experimented with in the UK that I'm aware with, I would think the political pressures ain't that strong... Egg Centric 23:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia using heroin is completely new to me. I hope you're doing well.

The obvious study would be looking at heroin and smoking addicts in jail and offering them the choice between an unlimited supply of cigarettes and an unlimited supply of heroin (or possibly methadone) for the next 4 weeks. I cannot find such a study (and I don't think ethical reasons would forbid such an experiment in for example The Netherlands). My gut feeling is that this meme is invented by anti-smoking lobbyists. Joepnl (talk) 23:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Erm, an unlimited supply of heroin for jail inmates of anything other than the shortest sentences is only going to lead to one thing. BTW letting folk do as much methadone as they like would be even worse in that it would be far more likely to lead to lulzy deaths, for reasons not terribly interesting Egg Centric 00:51, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11660210 Count Iblis (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

What's got alcohol to do with this? Joepnl (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I've no idea why he mentioned that, but I would agree with the user. Alcohol is not as addictive as heroin (or even nicotine) but it is a MASSIVELY hard drug. It always amuses me to see anti-drug types who've taken it to huge amounts. How silly they look... But they'll never understand...

Memes can make jumps. So, when you have a news report about research showing that alcohol is more of a problem than heroin, and people also read about nicotine in relation to drugs, then these things can get mixed up, producing the meme about nicotine being less addictive than heroin. Count Iblis (talk) 01:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Some years ago I assisted (as a volunteer) in a not-for-profit organisation providing rehabilitation to drug adicts. We were taught that there are three levels of adiction: 1) physical dependence, 2) pyschological dependence, and 3) habituation. Heroin is an example of physical dependence - it mimics a natural brain chemical, and the brain adapts by cutting back natural production (hence withdrawal symptoms). Psychological dependence is somewhat complex, but alchohol is the classic example, where alcholics get drunk to avoid their problems. Habituation is where environmental cues remind you of your craving. An example of habituation is craving tobaco when you see a friend light up, of getting a craving after dinner, if that's when you usually smoke.

Generally, physical adiction is the strongest, though if the drug does not closely match the natural analog, it may not be. Psychological addiction is the next strongest. Habituation is the weakest. But paradoxicaly, some people can break the strongest physical addiction by making their mind up, and others cannot break habituation.

From the above, some general principles emerge:

A drug that operates at all three adiction levels is the hardest to break and is thereby the most damaging. Heroin is the classic example. Tobacco is an example that works mainly be habituation, and very weakly in psychological adiction.

To get someone off drugs, you, and the addict, need to understand how the drug works in this context. If it works by physcial addition, you need to break that - cold turkey and replacement (as in methodone) are the (very imperfect) usual methods. If the addiction is psychological, you need to adress what in their life is bad - solve the problem or show that it is not so important. If the addiction is habituation, change their environment to get rid of the cues.

It should never be forgoten that with drugs such as heroin, that while the addict has a good supply, he/she thinks life is really good and their perception of themself and their life is distorted. Thinks like Western Govt "Just say no" programms sound about as sensible as saying the moon is made of cheese.

Opiates are disease masking. When heroin addicts came to us expressing a wish to get off it (usually when their supply has become a little unreliable), the fisrt thing we did was take then to a doctor for a really go checkout. Occaisonally they had broken bones and/or serious kidney or liver disease - and they didn't know.

I hope that, if you read through all this, you have some understanding that the graph the OP posted is roughly about right. I've simplified the story somewhat. I would move some drugs about on the graph to a certain extent. Barbituate addiction is pretty nasty. I smoked as a teenager but found the habit easy to break. :Wickwack124.182.14.180 (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You smoked barbituates? wtf? EggCentric

Nah - I meant I smoked tobacco. Wickwack124.182.14.180 (talk)

re the rest of your thoughts... I'll be back to you some time in the next 292 hours... Egg Centric 01:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

As for why people think nicotine is more addictive, it might be because more people are addicted to nicotine than heroin. Of course, the reason for this is that more people try nicotine, not that it's more addictive. StuRat (talk) 04:02, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a good example of a logical fallacy. --Aspro (talk) 17:15, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

There are other reasons to reinforce the nicotine habit in a real-life scenario. Serious studies could have real people as the object of study and, due to the social acceptability of tobacco and the behavioural triggers, come to the conclusion that a nicotine addicition is harder to get rid off. It's not all about the substance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsmanRF34 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)