The Student Room Group

Please someone help me with this Question!!!!

image-d653515e-e172-47f6-9838-03864aa5b6a174732008-compressed.jpg.jpeg

this is part of a fish gill
i said it's gill filaments but in the mark scheme it says lamella????
they are lamella,

lamella are generally folds or plates in tissue
Reply 2
Original post by Capril1495
they are lamella,

lamella are generally folds or plates in tissue


so lamella are gill plates / filaments?
Reply 3
Gill filaments are also called primary lamella (the diagram).
Gill plates are also called secondary lamella
Yea :smile: they help to increase the surface area of fish gills to allow them to take up more oxygen from the water.
Reply 5
image-9540e433-ea46-411c-ba1e-5a07d09307e820159885-compressed.jpg.jpeg
image-2b8cbe09-4c7d-451c-a472-43520d7b40d4-900309693-compressed.jpg.jpeg

thanks a lot both!!
can you guys please help me with two more questions? not sure......
(edited 5 years ago)
Hi Chemistry Nerd (??) :smile:,

Q1 1997-99 average: (177 + 56 + 92)/3 = 325/3 = 108.3 cases of measles
%age change to 2005 = (78 - 108.3)/108.3 X 100 = whatever. (approx.minus 27%) (I don't beiieve in calculators!)

Q2 a) the 2005 value is almost an outlier
b) Taking the next 3 yrs of lowest rates of vaccination (in 2002 - 2004) [rates 80-84%], the measles cases nos were: 319, 437 and 188 (average about 945ish/3 = approx. 315. This is a rate of measles cases much greater [nearly 3 times] than the ave of around 108 for 1997-99. This strongly refutes the view of the newspaper.
c) take other figures in a similar way and reach your own conclusions.

(I am cheating in a way because I was convinced in late 1990s that MMR did not cause "brain damage" as uniformed parents called it. Even if it had done, the risk of a worse encephalitis as a complication of measles was known to be greater; I recommended parents to proceed with MMR vaccination for their children DESPITE ADVICE TO THE CONTRARY BY Dr Ian Wakefield, the main proponent of the autism theory.

It was categorically proven much later that the autism supposed to be caused by MMR vaccine was actually a pure coincidence and was erroneously temporally associated with the vaccine SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT TYPE OF autism happens to affect children around the age of 12-18 months, which also happens to be the age at which MMR vaccine is administered.

It is sad that some of the uneducated parents who blindly believed anything in the mass media had to see their children suffer the consequences of the terrible infection measles).

M
Reply 7
Original post by macpatelgh
Hi Chemistry Nerd (??) :smile:,

Q1 1997-99 average: (177 + 56 + 92)/3 = 325/3 = 108.3 cases of measles
%age change to 2005 = (78 - 108.3)/108.3 X 100 = whatever. (approx.minus 27%) (I don't beiieve in calculators!)

Q2 a) the 2005 value is almost an outlier
b) Taking the next 3 yrs of lowest rates of vaccination (in 2002 - 2004) [rates 80-84%], the measles cases nos were: 319, 437 and 188 (average about 945ish/3 = approx. 315. This is a rate of measles cases much greater [nearly 3 times] than the ave of around 108 for 1997-99. This strongly refutes the view of the newspaper.
c) take other figures in a similar way and reach your own conclusions.

(I am cheating in a way because I was convinced in late 1990s that MMR did not cause "brain damage" as uniformed parents called it. Even if it had done, the risk of a worse encephalitis as a complication of measles was known to be greater; I recommended parents to proceed with MMR vaccination for their children DESPITE ADVICE TO THE CONTRARY BY Dr Ian Wakefield, the main proponent of the autism theory.

It was categorically proven much later that the autism supposed to be caused by MMR vaccine was actually a pure coincidence and was erroneously temporally associated with the vaccine SIMPLY BECAUSE THAT TYPE OF autism happens to affect children around the age of 12-18 months, which also happens to be the age at which MMR vaccine is administered.

It is sad that some of the uneducated parents who blindly believed anything in the mass media had to see their children suffer the consequences of the terrible infection measles).

M


thanks a lot for your answer
how did you do the newspaper question....... don't understand it!
Original post by chem222
thanks a lot for your answer
how did you do the newspaper question....... don't understand it!


In my answer:
part b) when the vaccination rates went down, i.e. when less children were having MMR vaccine, the average of approx. 308 cases of measles [compared to 108 odd when more children were vaccinated with MMR in 1997-99] tells us that the newspapers claim is incorrect [read again what the newspaper said in the Q]. (and the Q clearly says to use processed data; that is why I did the calculations).

Quick Reply

Latest