Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2021 March 25

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

March 25

Non descension ot testicles and possible male impotence.

I would like to know if non descension of a testicle in a male child (typically one-sided) would lead to impotence in later life. I also need to know if the problem is surgically corrected in early childhood, the impotence would not be a problem. Some historical figures suffered from non descention and this fact affected their behavior. Thanks AboutFace 22 (talk) 01:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@AboutFace 22: Sounds like personal health question.

@AboutFace 22: Wikipedia has an article about undescended testicles and infertility.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Erectile dysfunction and male infertility are somewhat independent conditions. One study found that cryptorchidism is associated with lower testosterone levels in patients that underwent orchiopexy. (The control group in this study were "healthy men". I do not know if there have been studies comparing this with cryptorchid patients without surgical intervention.) However, only one patient of the 76 comprising the study group reported "some intermittent impotence".  --Lambiam 09:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lambian, don't make unwarranted assumptions. Adolph Hitler had cryptorchism and he was also impotent. I was wondering how widespread the problem was and how it influenced the history. AboutFace 22 (talk) 14:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Did you just baselessly blame the Holocaust on male impotence? That's a far bigger leap than anything Lambian did. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@OuroborosCobra, you must be one of those political trolls who make insulting assumption out of nothing to provoke confrontations. Where did I say something like this? I would call it a disgusting behavior. AboutFace 22 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

You literally brought up Hitler being impotent and asked about the influence of impotence on history. If you did not mean to connect the impotence of a historical figure (Hitler) to the impact on history of that historical figure (Holocaust, Hitler), what did you mean? Calling out such a baseless connection is not trolling. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 17:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't exactly blame the Holocaust on it. I would blame the entire European Theater of WWII on it! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Possible monorchism of Adolf Hitler suggests that it is likely to be a myth, perhaps inspired by a 1939 British popular song. Alansplodge (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Apologies Lambiam, I didn't fully read your post below. Health of Adolf Hitler#Monorchism is even more dismissive. Alansplodge (talk) 18:49, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@AboutFace 22. (1) My aunt had hemorrhoids and spoke fluent Ancient Greek. This is at best anecdotal evidence of a causal connection, not enough to base any conclusions on. (2) I did not make assumptions, unwarranted or not, but merely reported the results of a study. (3) "Adolph Hitler had cryptorchism": isn't it remarkable that the sources cannot agree on which side, if any? Please read Possible monorchism of Adolf Hitler and consider the possibility that the reported absence of a testicle was due to his being wounded during the 1916 Battle of the Somme. "Adolph Hitler ... was also impotent."  --Lambiam 18:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Is ionizing radiation emitted in the process of persistent luminescence?

I mean by the luminescent material in the (long) period of luminescence, not during the initial excitation of the luminescent material. 93.136.7.84 (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The emitted radiation is purely electromagnetic, consisting of photons emitted by electrons jumping to a lower-energy band. Within the visible spectrum, electromagnetic radiation is not ionizing. In general, radiation that is ionizing (such as extreme UV) is not itself luminescent.  --Lambiam 09:17, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I see, thanks, that's good news. 93.136.7.84 (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

See also luminous paint. Some luminescent things (typically in safety applications) take advantage of radioluminescence, which does involve ionizing radiation. Modern applications use tritium illumination, where tritium, a beta emitter, is contained in an enclosure and excites phosphorescent paint. The beta radiation is contained within the enclosure and doesn't pose any risk. --47.155.96.47 (talk) 02:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Younger looking people

If someone has a baby face at 30, what are the chances they'll keep it at 40?--82.82.232.125 (talk) 21:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

By whose definition? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Winston Churchill of course. Greglocock (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Asking chances is against the rules of Reference desk: We don't answer requests for opinions, predictions or debate. Rizosome (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

What is generally called a "babyface" is a combination of three factors: (1) a roundish face shape; (2) chubbiness, not only, but especially in the cheeks; (3) a somewhat stubby nose. All are typical of the faces of a newborn infant. As people mature and acquire their specific adult appearance during adolescence, these "baby characteristics" will generally disappear, but in varying degrees. If someone retains all three to a relatively high degree, they may be considered to have a baby face. Towards senescence, the skull shape does not change much, but the layer of subcutaneous fat tends to get thinner, reducing both chubbiness and nose stubbiness. This fat reduction is normal, but may be stronger with certain health conditions, an obvious one being undernourishment. The skin gets drier and wrinkly and may start to sag, further contributing to a less chubby appearance. Also, nose and ears typically get larger, making the nose less stubby. These processes are not synchronized and occur at varying ages and in varying degrees. The last one, affecting the size of nose and ears, typically becomes pronounced at ages from 70 on. While age-related subcutaneous fat reduction has been extensively studied, I did not find more specific data about the profile than such as vague expressions as "middle-aged", but I think it is safe to say that a pronounced reduction in healthy individuals below the age of 40 is relatively rare. The age-related loss of subcutaneous fat is one aspect of the typical fat redistribution in aging people, such as manifesting in an increase in abdominal fat in men and in fat stored in the buttocks, thighs, and hips in women. However, I cannot assign a probability of a significant change below the age of 40 as a number. It is furthermore likely that there are differences between men and women, as well as cultural, racial or ethnic differences. Finally, the skin getting drier, again a normal process, is more gradual and also depends on skin care and the amount of exposure to sun.  --Lambiam 10:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)