can they sweat dogs by tongue?

During summer's dog days, her wet tongue freshens them both as we our sweaty armpits. But, luckily for the dogs, their tongues not perspire really.
Animals with little hair in the body - such as humans, horses and some species of monkeys - cool when sweat evaporates from your skin. For species with long hair, like dogs, sweat would be like putting a coat soaked. For this reason, dogs take the tongue and Pant to cool.
Energy, in the form of body heat, is needed to evaporate the liquid from the surface of the skin or the tongue, explains Jack Boulant, a physiologist heat of the Ohio State University, when the heat evaporates moisture from the surface, the body temperature drops.
After a few years, scientists have discovered that dogs, the system to more regulate internal thermostat, reacts to the heat by pumping warm blood to the tongue, opening the salivary glands and causing a rapid breathing and shallow. As the hot air flows through the trachea and the tongue, help to evaporate moisture, which removes heat from the blood of the dog.
In addition to lower body temperature, this process helps to cool the brain. Blood circulates through the nose and tongue and coldest reaches the brain, which keeps the body which regulates the heat at a temperature lower than the rest of the body. The cooling system works also for races with the short beak, as the Pekingese, which has smaller snout and narrower air passages.
BELEN ANGULO

18. IT IS SAFE TO EAT A GENETICALLY MODIFIED FISH?

You may soon be eating genetically modified fish without even knowing it.

The first genetically modified animal intended for the table has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, and the agency is not requiring the company who makes it to label the fish as genetically engineered. 

The AquAdvantage salmon has been genetically modified to grow faster than conventional salmon.

The animal is made by introducing a piece of recombinant DNA — a type of DNA that's formed by merging the genetic material of different organisms — into the salmon that makes it grow to market size much more quickly than no genetically modified salmon will.

The FDA said in a statement issued Thursday that Aqua Bounty’s fish had to meet several requirements to gain approval. Among them, the fish has to be safe to eat, the changing of its DNA can't be harmful to the fish, and that it has to actually grow faster, as the company is claiming.

The FDA has determined that the fish is as 
safe and nutritious as no genetically modified fish.

In that photo we can see the diference between a no genetically modified fish and a fish that had been modified.

Can you shoot a gun in space?

The vacuum of outer space will not be a problem for firing a bullet.  Guns do not need oxygen to work. The "gunpowder" or whatever explosive is in the cartridge that holds the bullet is completely self contained and does not depend on the atmosphere.  It has an oxidizer mixed with the fuel and is perfectly capable of firing in a vacuum.  Even the primer which is struck by the pin of the firearm is completely self contained and will work in a vacuum.

The gun will work (very slightly) better in space.  The bullet will not have to push and compress the air in the barrel as it exits the gun.  Air will not slow down the bullet as it travels, so the range of the gun would essentially be infinite.  It will curve eventually since it will probably still be in orbit, but it will have a different orbit than the gun/person that fired it.  For example the International Space Station (ISS) has an orbital speed of roughly 17,000 miles per hour which is 7600 m/s.  Muzzle velocities range from about 120 m/s to about 1,200 m/s depending on the gun and therefore the orbit of the bullet will differ from the orbit of the astronaut that fired it.  In general firing anywhere in the forward direction of the orbit will result in a more eccentric orbit that will always stay at or above the ISS's orbit.  If it is fired against the direction of the orbit, the bullet may end up dipping into the atmosphere and therefore deorbiting.

There is no need to "push" against anything for a gun to work.  The difference between the mass of the bullet and the mass of the gun plus the person holding the gun will insure that the bullet gets almost all the kinetic energy of the explosive (Even though they both get the same momentum due to conservation of momentum.) However, assuming the astronaut is floating freely in space, if the line of the barrel does not point through the center of mass of the gun+astronaut, the firing of the gun will impart some small angular momentum to the astronaut.

TITAN ARUM

Amorphophallus titanum , known as the titan arum, is a flowering plant with the largest unbranched inflorescence in the world. The titan arum's inflorescence is not as large as that of the talipot palm. 

Due to its odor, which is like the smell of a rotting animal, the titan arum is characterized as a carrion flower, and is also known as the corpse flower, or corpse plant . For the same reason, the title corpse flower is also attributed to the genus Rafflesia which, like the titan arum, grows in the rainforests of Sumatra, Indonesia.

WHY IT SMELLS SO BAD?

As the spathe gradually opens, the spadix releases powerful odors to attract pollinators, insects which feed on dead animals or lay their eggs in rotting meat. The potency of the odor (aroma) gradually increases from late evening until the middle of the night, when carrion beetles and flesh flies are active as pollinators, then tapers off towards morning. It smells to  limburger cheese, rotting fish, sweaty socks, sweet floral scent,  Chloraseptic, and  human feces.

 

DISTRIBUTION

Amorphophallus titanum is native solely to western Sumatra,  where it grows in openings in rainforests on limestone hills. The plant is cultivated by botanic gardens and private collectors around the world.

BY MARCOS DELGADO

  

WHY NOT JUST DISPOSE OF  NUCLEAR WASTE IN THE SUN?

After FYI answered why dumping the world's nuclear waste into a volcano would be a bad idea, our inbox was flooded with readers wondering, "Well, how about shooting it into the sun?"

On paper, this is a fantastic way to wipe our hands clean of all that pesky waste. The sun is a constant nuclear reaction that's about 330,000 times as massive as Earth; it could swallow the tens of thousands of tons of spent nuclear rods as easily as a forest fire consumes a drop of gasoline. And NASA currently has two probes orbiting the sun, so the technology exists to get the job done. Alas, the benefits fall far short of the risk involved.

There isn't a space agency or private firm on the planet with a spotless launch record. And we're not talking about cheapo rockets—last year, the craft carrying NASA's $280-million Orbiting Carbon Observatory fizzled out and crashed into the ocean near Antarctica. It's a bummer when a satellite ends up underwater, but it's an entirely different story if that rocket is packing a few hundred pounds of uranium. And if the uranium caught fire, it could stay airborne and circulate for months, dusting the globe with radioactive ash. Still seem like a good idea?

12:WHY ARE HENRIETTA LACKS' CELLS SO IMPORTANT?

-The Henrietta Lacks' cells, also known as HeLa, are the oldest and most commonly used human cell type used in scientific research. These cells come from an inmortal cell  line derived from some cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks, a patient that died because of this type of illness. 

-HeLa is used for the searching of information about cancer, HIV, toxic substances and other scientific activities. these are some examples of why this type of cell is so important.

SCANNING ELECTRON MICROGRAPH OF A HELA CELL

-The first time they were reproduced in a lab was in 1951 by George Otto Gey. This experiment was an important achievement in the scientific story.

ELENA CILLEROS

2- IS THE INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION NOISY? CAN THIS CAUSE PROBLEMS TO THE ASTRONAUTS?

Six years after launch, the International Space Station’s living quarters are still noisier than they should be. Now Russian news reports say that astronaut Bill McArthur and cosmonaut Valery Tokarev returned from their six-month stay aboard the ISS in April 2006 with some hearing loss.

NASA will not discuss the health of individual astronauts, but spokesperson Kylie Clem told New Scientist “It’s not an impedance to operations or crew health or safety. It’s more of a comfort level issue.”

Former astronaut Jay Buckey, now at Dartmouth Medical School in Hanover, New Hampshire, US, says that both temporary and permanent hearing loss were recorded after flights on the Soviet and Russian Salyut and Mir stations, even for stays as short as seven days. The lost hearing was usually at higher frequencies.

The living quarters of the ISS are the Russian Zvezda module, which is the noisiest module on the station. NASA says the goal is for the working area to have noise levels at or below 60 decibels (dB) and sleep bunks to be 50dB. At their peak several years ago, noise levels reached 72 to 78dB in the working area and 65 dB in the sleep stations. Decibels are measured on a logarithmic scale, meaning, for example, that 60dB is 10 times louder than 50dB.

NASA has worked to reduce the noise and its effect on the crew. By November 2005, noise levels had been lowered to between 62 to 69dB in the work area and 55 to 60dB in the sleep compartments. Astronauts on the ISS used to have to wear ear plugs all day but are now only wear them for 2 to 3 hours per work day.

But while the primary cause of hearing loss in general is high noise levels, Buckey suggested in a 2001 paper in Aviation Space and Enviromental Medicine that several other factors might contribute to the problem in space.

Elevated intracranial pressure, higher carbon dioxide levels and atmospheric contaminants may make the inner ear more sensitive to noise, he says. But there have been no studies yet to test these ideas.

NASA has already done much of what it can to reduce noise on the ISS. Crews have installed fan vibration isolators and mufflers on fan outlets, and acoustic padding to wall panels.

HOW MUCH JUNK IS IN SPACE? WHY SHOULD I WORRY ABOUT JUNK SPACE?

Every particle  that measures more than one centimetre of diameter is junk space. But only 21.000 particles measures more than four centimetres. We insist a lot in junk space because, even if the particle is very small, it’s speed per hour is incredibly high.

Today the Earth is all surrounded by junk from satellites, rocketships and spacecrafts that collide forming a giant cloud of waste that covers our planet.

After 56 years of the exploration of space the human being had launched around 6,600 satellites, and only 1,000 are still working.

In space there is arround 6,300 tonnes of waste. The 95% of the junk space comes from satellites that humans don´t use, and the other 5% comes from the remains of spacecrafts, space explosions and fuels.

People calculate that, with the 60 or 70 new satellites we send each year, junk space will increase four times, so the possibility of waste colliding with the Earth will increase untill we have catastrofic accidents.

And if you say, “It is just a one centimetre piece of metal, it won´t hurt anyone.” Then you are wrong, we should worry about all this waste because, if we don´t stop now, in a few years time, all this junk space will collide with our planet. It is only a one centimetre piece of metal, but it travels between 1,235 and 28,968 km/h, enough to go trough a satellite or a space station.

Junk space is a serious problem in our society, scientists are already looking for a way to solve it, but we don´t have to worry about this waste yet, since it will pass a long time untill all this junk space reaches our planet. 

if evolution had taken a different turn, could dragons have existed?

Dragons are a grand classic of fantasy. For this question, let's assume we're talking about the following stereotype:

what about the dragons depicted in myths and legends? Huge, winged, terrifying, fire-breathing beasts: could they ever have existed?

While no direct evidence has ever been discovered to support the prior existence of dragons, these mythical creatures are present in the legends and folklore of many countries across the world. 

So, is this a coincidence? Two distinct categories of dragon have been identified: the Chinese dragon and European dragon, with the former thought to have contributed to all dragon myths in Japan, Korea and other areas of East Asia.

 Most dragons, regardless of their origin, appear to have begun as serpentine ideas before becoming more elaborate in features, with wings and legs becoming common components. Not all of them breathe fire.

 In fact, some of them were believed to dwell in wells, lakes and other watery habitats.While there appear to be a fair number of fierce dragon fans dotted around the web  it's generally agreed that dragon myths must've arisen from a variety of creatures already in existence. 

One anthropologist, David E. Jones, even argues that the widespread belief in dragons is down to an evolutionarily embedded fear of three core predators in the human mind 

WHAT´S THE BIGGEST THING A 

CARNIVOROUS PLANT WILL EAT?

Some meat-eating plants are big enough to digest a small mammal. Carnivorous plants generally stick to a diet of bugs that they ensnare. On rare occasions, though, tropical pitcher plants—which drown and break down prey in vase-shaped traps that can be smaller than a little finger or larger than a football—have been found with the skeletal remains of frogs , geckos and INCLUDED small rodents.

That said, eating a vertebrate is extremely dangerous for a plant. The plant will digest meat takes a long time , how the hapless creature could fester , what would the same trap

But what about human flesh?Chowing down on a vertebrate is

 incredibly dangerous for the plant, says Barry Rice, conservation director for the International Carnivorous Plant Society and author of Growing Carnivorous Plants. It takes a long time to digest meat, so the meal could rot prematurely, killing the trap.

That's not to say that a giant meat-eating plant wouldn't have a taste for humans.

¿does smoking contribute to the global warming?

¿Does Smoking contribute to the global warming?

When fabrics produce cigars, (you may now that the fabrics pollute more than when they produce cigars) they use toxic substances and  when people smoke them they absorb the toxic substances and the gases ; then they are expelled to the atmospher but you may find this hard to believe if you're standing near a group of chain smokers, but most scientists think that the amounts of carbon dioxide and other pollutants in cigarette smoke have, at most, a negligible effect on the climate. 

But the smoky end-product is not the entire story. Tobacco must be grown, and that process puts a serious hit on the environment. The plant itself is very demanding, absorbing six times as much potassium from the soil as most crops do. Farmers in some undeveloped nations grow tobacco until the soil is useless and then clear-cut forests for fresh land. In those areas, 600 million trees are cut down and burnt annually to dry and cure tobacco leaves. Additionally, four miles of paper an hour is used to wrap and package cigarettes. Setting aside the pollution generated from manufacturing cigarettes, just losing this many carbon-dioxide-absorbing trees leaves at least 22 million net tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, it is equivalent to burning 2.8 billion gallons of gasoline.

The damage isn't confined to the air, either. According to common estimates, tobacco companies produce 5.5 trillion cigarettes every year—approximately 900 for each person in the world. Of those, 4.5 trillion have non-biodegradable filters that are tossed away. Cigarette butts require months or even years to break down, releasing almost 600 chemicals into the soil.