|
Post by timothylane on Jun 21, 2019 12:36:39 GMT -8
Many years back, I was sent (by Elizabeth's sister, I think, who used to come up with a lot of stuff like that) a nice joke about a sad situation, a dead pet. The couple took the pet to their vet and found out the bad news, but wanted more than a brief examination. So the vet brought in a cat who looked it over and then shook its head sadly. Then came a Labrador retriever, who did the same. Then he gave them a rather hefty bill. They were stunned by it, but he pointed out that it would have been much cheaper if they had taken his word for it. "But with the cat scan and the lab work . . ."
Soon this may not be such a joke, if an article I just encountered tells us true.
An article on Hot Air reports on the latest scientific test (still being checked out) for the early detection of cancer: the sensitive noses of beagles. It seems that when provided with a blood sample to smell, they can detect lung cancer with a 97% probability. Similar tests with breath are being developed for lung, breast, and colorectal cancer. I have no idea how soon such tests would actually be available for hospital use, but just imagine how much we can save using animals in real life. They're probably cheaper to acquire and train than using complex technical equipment operated by highly trained technicians, and doggie treats don't cost too much.
Too bad Charles Schultz is gone. Snoopy was mentioned as a beagle at least once, and for that matter I recall him being a doctor in a MAD Magazine parody (Charlie Brown TV shows). It would be nice to think what he could do with this. The link is:
|
|
|
Post by artraveler on Jun 21, 2019 16:24:30 GMT -8
It's very possible. I believe dogs have 5000-1 smell detectors in their noses over humans, or perhaps it is with hearing. Maybe they can actually hear cancer growing, maybe both. Until dogs can talk we will not have any solid information.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jun 21, 2019 18:18:56 GMT -8
I don't know about the ratios, but dogs do have much better hearing and sense of smell than humans. We make up for it somewhat with superior vision. Note that hearing and smell are passive senses, whereas we see what we choose to look at and focus on. I suspect this is related to human intelligence in some way. (A different view can be found in Whitley Strieber's The Wolfen, which deals with feral intelligent dogs.)
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jun 22, 2019 8:57:39 GMT -8
Monty Don’s book, Nigel: My Family and Other Dogs, paints a reasonable picture of the world through the eyes of a dog…which is really through the nose of a dog, of course. Temple Grandon’s Thinking In Pictures also gives you an animal’s-eye view of the world. We indeed won’t have solid information until dogs can talk, but a sensitive and eloquent dog-owner and an autistic woman who can think like an animal are a pretty good approximation. One or both books are worth a read. I find this intersects on Darwinian theory as well — if only to expose how it is less a theory and more a collection of ad hoc stories. If those noses on dogs are so powerful and useful (and they clearly are), why is our sense of smell so dull? Wouldn’t it be useful to evolve a better nose? Wouldn’t it give us a huge advantage in terms of detecting prey or enemies? Why then is the sense of smell so mediocre in humans? Darwinian theory can has little to give but stories. And I can invent one just like anyone else. It may even sound plausible. It could even be true. We know one thing about wolves, for instance. They do get out in the weather without clothes. That is, often enough they must surely get doused by the rain and receive inadvertent baths. [Yes…dogs will intentionally roll in stinky stuff just to hide their smell, but perhaps that is another issue.] But humans have probably worn clothes since the dawn of time. And clothes are wonderful avenues for retaining and multiplying stink, especially if bathing is rare. And even from recent history, we understand that bathing was not usually the thing to do. We can’t speak for prehistoric times, but certainly outside of the Romans and maybe a few others, we can suppose that bathing was not the norm. In early man it might have been less so. And clothes exacerbate the problem of stink. So let us assume for sake of argument that close social bond were extremely important for the survival of any tribe. But if you physically could not stand the stink of your campfire neighbor, how close could those bonds ever be? Was our sense of smell (perhaps once acute) dumbed-down by natural selection because a mediocre sense of smell made close communities more possible? One of the aspects you get from a good historical novel is just how dirty and smelly most people were back then. And I assume the “back then” could cover most of history. If we walked into a medieval tavern I think we might be repulsed to the point of gaging. But I do think you can become acclimated to malodors. But perhaps only to a point….and much more easily so with a somewhat desensitized schnoz. We modern humans sometimes have the opposite problem. I’ve had women come into my office and the stench from their perfume could take hours to dissipate, even with the door open, and even while the perfumer having spent just one minute in my office. I’m not sure how this fits into my ad hoc evolutionary story regarding why humans don’t have noses as sensitive as dogs, but in some regards perhaps this isn’t such a bad thing. And, indeed, maybe the need for close-quarters living made it someone mandatory.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jun 22, 2019 9:17:07 GMT -8
Hearing and smell are passive senses, whereas sight is more active. I just can't help but suspect that there's a significance there. Of course, bats have even better hearing than dogs, but it's even more important for them. In effect, hearing is an active sense for them.
As for me, I have no sense of smell at all due to chronic sinusitis. I can detect very strong chemicals. It was interesting driving to Chicago with my boss once and actually smelling the pollution in Gary (and we had the windows closed and the air conditioning on). That must have been some overpowering air pollution.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,470
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jun 22, 2019 10:02:49 GMT -8
In Durant's "Caesar and Christ" he mentions that the thing that stimulated Roman bathing was the first aqueduct which was built to bring water to Rome. He said that the weekly bath taken by the aristocrats became daily or more.
To my knowledge, the Japanese were about the cleanest people in previous centuries. They took a lot of trouble to heat the fires to warm the water for their tubs so they almost made an art of bathing.
The stench in ancient and Spanish galleys was so powerful that sometimes one would faint when entering the rowing areas. Of course it was not only human sweat that one was smelling. Those chained to their oars were not giving bathroom breaks to relieve themselves.
It was common for officers and others to carry small perfume bottles or soaked handkerchiefs which they held to their noses to block out the stench.
|
|
kungfuzu
Member
Posts: 10,470
Member is Online
|
Post by kungfuzu on Jun 22, 2019 10:10:46 GMT -8
I suspect you smelled the sulfur dioxide which was being released by blast furnace/BOF smelting. The smell was very pronounced in Birmingham, Alabama where I was born.
The smell was produced by the U.S. Steel plant, before they were required to erect scrubbers to clean the gases. It was particularly strong when we drove over a major bridge in downtown Birmingham. As a 2 and 3 year old I told my mother that "it smelled like they were cooking grunt."
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jun 22, 2019 10:58:26 GMT -8
Kudos to the Japanese and ancient Romans for their bathing habits. There are legions of people (no pun intended) today in quite rich countries (such as America) who are basically pigs in the way they live...and that might be an unkind comparison to the pigs.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Jun 22, 2019 11:00:55 GMT -8
For years there was what was called " the aroma of Tacoma." This was primarily due to the Simpson paper mill.
|
|
|
Post by timothylane on Jun 22, 2019 11:08:15 GMT -8
I once interviewed for a job in the Rubbertown area. (There's also the Butchertown area, which also would be noted for its distinguishing smell for those who can detect such things.) I figured I was well suited to it, since the smell wouldn't be a problem. They didn't hire me.
|
|
Brad Nelson
Administrator
עַבְדְּךָ֔ אֶת־ הַתְּשׁוּעָ֥ה הַגְּדֹלָ֖ה הַזֹּ֑את
Posts: 12,239
|
Post by Brad Nelson on Feb 7, 2022 11:34:46 GMT -8
I don't know if this is actually a Snoopy-related thing. But given that Mrs. Flu has uncommon good taste and rare common sense, I'd like to ask her a question:
I've been seeing these commercials for air freshener. The shtick is "If you smell last night's dinner in your carpet or chair, then use our fresh scent air freshener."
Am I wrong to say, "How about opening the window for a while if you need to air things out?" It simply can't be good to layer one smell on top of another and hoping for some overall reduction of indoor smells. Wouldn't you soon need an air freshener to spray on top of the air freshener that you sprayed on top of last night's dinner?
So, the question is: Am I missing something or is spraying air freshener all over your house actually a good thing?
|
|