Miscellaneous desk
< July 3	<< Jun \| July \| Aug >>	July 5 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous 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.

July 4

Noah's Ark

Is there a reference to how long it took Noah to build the Ark? Are there only modern day guesses?66.169.2.51 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ambiguity over the nature of Noah's Ark makes this nearly impossible to answer in any meaningful way. The Biblically literal Ark would have been nearly impossible for Noah, his sons, and retainers to build, and would have taken decades, if we grant that they could have done it at all. However, the concept of some Ark-like vessel is probably more reasonable, but any definitive answer as to the time it took to build it would be lost in the mists of time, along with what the Ark really was. Ark-like boats, of more modest stature, could be constructed from a variety of materials, often in less than a year. --Haemo 02:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noah was 600 years old when the Flood started and was over 900 when he died. They had plenty of time to create an ark the size the Bible stated. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 04:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A common mistranslation/misunderstanding is that in the original Greek (from which many modern English translations derive) there is a confusion between the terms used for months and for years. So the original author(s) of this story probably meant to say that he was 50 years old (600 months) when the flood started and 75 years (900 months) when he died. This would still have been an impressively long life at the time when the story is set - but at least it's plausible. The ark on the other hand...hogwash...nothing in the story stands up to even the smallest inspection! Still, it's a good story - and it's one that shows up in a lot of mediterranian cultures in various guises so it probably pre-dates the Bible. SteveBaker 15:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Original Greek"? Lol. In the original Hebrew, the text is explicit that Noah entered the ark in his 600th year (Gen 7:11 + Gen 7:13). He was 950 when he died (Gen 9:29). The Bible isn't specific about when Noah was commanded to begin construction; medieval commentator Rashi, (based on Sanhedrin 108b) comments on Gen 6:14 that Noah was given 120 years to build the Ark... as a favour to his neighbours who might have a chance to ask why he was doing this and have a chance to repent. --Dweller 15:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know (of course) that the bible was originally in Hebrew - but most modern English texts are derived from Greek translations of the Hebrew (which is even more confusing because of the lack of any vowels in the written form). I didn't just make this up - it's a very common theory. See for example: Methuselah for several possible explanations for this confusion in the early parts of the bible. SteveBaker 12:37, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any mention of year/month translation confusion in that article, although there is some treatment of a theory that assumes a confusion over dating systems. However, the Hebrew text is unambiguously speaking of years. --Dweller 13:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof positive that you didn't read it properly! "Another theory suggests lunar cycles were mistaken for the solar ones". Solar cycles are years, Lunar cycles are months...well, approximately. SteveBaker 02:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting shot in torso

Generally, how long would it take for an average human to die or fall unconscious if he/she was shot in a non-vital (not heart, lungs or diaphram) part of his/her torso, such as the stomach, intestines or liver? Acceptable 03:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a doctor ... but I don't know that death or falling unconscious is a foregone conclusion. In other words, I would think that a person can get shot in the torso and not die and not fall unconscious. I believe that it happens all the time. "Lots" of people get shot and still manage to escape from the crime scene, or drive themselves to the hospital, etc. I believe it's fairly common. In fact, probably more common than actual death or unconsciousness (given the scenario as you describe it). I also believe that an important factor is loss of blood ... how much is lost and whether or not the blood flow is stemmed. (JosephASpadaro 04:08, 4 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

It would also depend on the shot. A .22 bullet from a hand gun could cause nothing worse than a puncture wound. The same sized bullet from a rifle, however, would cause much more internal damage -- possibly from hydrostatic shock. --Mdwyer 04:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to expand a little, a shot to the intestines would probably eventually cause sepsis. But I think the immediate killer would be blood-loss. The rate of blood loss depends on the extent of the injury, and how well the bleeding is controlled. --Mdwyer 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it is apparently very common for people to faint when they're shot (or even shot at), so they could fall unconscious immediately. --TotoBaggins 13:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People have been drilled through the heart (with a small bullet) and kept going for several minutes. —Tamfang 19:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely getting shot in the stomach, and therefore allowing your stomach acid to seep out, would be rather painful? --saxsux 12:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moses

In the bible, when moses met god (the burning bush), the lord told that his skin would melt away, it was some sort of desease, what is it called?

Could it have been Leprosy? --Mdwyer 04:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to say the same thing, but now that I think about it, Leprosy doesn't make the skin actually melt away.

It was Tzaraath, Tzaraath is like Leprosy, but it's the only one (out of the two) that is mentioned in the Bible, Mose was probaaly being told that he'd git it if he disobeyed God (Since Tzaraath is believed to be caused by sin.) Thank guys, I would never have figured this out without you :)

Tzaraat is usually translated as leprosy, but they're not analogous. The Bible is explicit that as well as people's flesh, tzaraat could also infect the walls of their homes and their linen etc, not a feature of leprosy. Tzaraat was usually a punishment for speaking evil - at the Burning Bush, Moses had just opined that the Israelites wouldn't believe him. Regardless of whether Moses' prediction was accurate or not, God gently punished him for this disrepectful speech. --Dweller 15:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible

According to the bible, someone was tooken by angels and lifted to heaven in a (I believe it was 'firey') carrage, and in other words, some one and the bible didn't die, who was he?

That would most likely be Elijah, who departed in a chariot of fire. Antandrus (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's it! the chariot of fire, everything, Thank you! :) now I can complete my quiz, IQ test for Christians, and begin on IQ test for Dummies :]

If it's one of those online IQ test, screw those. They are worthless and don't mean much. Splintercellguy 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a special IQ test for Christians? Do they have a different IQ to other people (I'm sure Richard Dawkins thinks they do!). Sounds more like a general knowledge test on the bible. One question is, are you less clever for not knowing the answer, or more clever for knowing where to find it? Cyta 07:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a test I'm making on Bebo. It's to test your knownelge on Christianity.

Making? Or taking? Wouldn't this then be considered cheating and quite unchristian? As you pointed out it is meant to be your knowledge. Seems odd to ask the questions to get answers to actually pose the questions. Maybe you should consider basing the quiz on questions you already know the answers to? Lanfear's Bane

I don't see how an IQ (Intelligence Quotient) can be derived from measuring how much you can memorize from one particular book! You could describe it as a memory test - or a Bible knowledge test - but trust me, it has nothing whatever to do with intelligence! Real IQ tests work very hard to decouple the ideas of 'knowledge' from those of 'intelligence'. SteveBaker 15:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bible 2

The bible talks about an animal with four heads, two of which was a human and a lion's, and I think a monkey, what was the creature's name?

Is this a reference to Daniel 7:6? There are plenty of searchable version of the Bible on-line that will enable you to look for all these answers. See Bible.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel's Vision of Chapter 7 involves 4 separate animals, not multiple heads ( 1. a lion with wings, 2. a bear with ribs in its mouth, 3. a leopard with four wings and four heads, and 4. a nondescript, but terrifying and powerful beast.) these animals had no name and represented 4 kingdoms to appear on earth.

It is more likely that you are thinking of the Merkabah vision in Book of Ezekiel (1:4-26). The vision involves a throne-chariot of God, and a four-wheeled vehicle driven by four chayot "living creatures", each of which has four wings and four faces (of a man, lion, ox, and eagle). Jon513 13:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paul

How did Paul (Apositle) die?

Paul the Apostle was arrested in Rome, and either died there, on en-route to, or in Spain. --Haemo 07:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :]

About Mail order business

I want to know what mail order business really is.Is it tough or does it command any seriousbusinessskills.218.248.2.51 08:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)Ecclesiasticalparanoid[reply]

I think you might want to read up on Multi-level marketing. --Mdwyer 08:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not every mail order company is involved in MLM. It's rather misleading to direct the OP solely to that article. Depending on the market and the number of potential customers there are for your business, it can be very tough. And yes, you will need to have good business skills in order to run the business. Dismas|^(talk) 10:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

eBay has provided a way for people to edge gradually into the mail order business. They take case of interfacing with the customers, collecting the money and all the tricky parts - you are left to the mundane tasks of buying product and dealing with shipping, returns, etc. It's an easy way to get started. SteveBaker 15:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MONARCHY

WHEN THE HEIR OF THE CURRENT QUEEN IN BRITIAN IN OTHER WORDS PRINCE CHARLES GET TO THE THRONE, DOES HIS WIFE BECOME A QUEEN OR SHE RECEIVES ANOTHER TITLE

The article on Camilla covers this. Lanfear's Bane

IS IT TRUE OR FALSE THAT THE ROYAL BRITISH FAMILY CLAIMS THAT THEY ARE DESCANDANTS OF KING DAVID AND JESUS CHRIST.

Common sense suggests the answer is false (a comment like that from a Royal might provoke uproar in the media). Though, please don't write with caps lock on - it makes messages much harder to read.martianlostinspace 11:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks martin for your help, but i saw a clip which shows the family tree of the royal family and it showed king david, and jesus and sorry for using capitals, i taught it was easier to read, regards tancred

I have seen family trees of the Royal Family, claiming descent from King David and going right back to Adam and Eve. As I recall, these claims originated in the early Christian era as a way of enhancing the legitimacy and status of royalty. Prior to Christianity arriving in England, English royalty sometimes claimed descent from our native gods. DuncanHill 11:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely they must be descendants from adam and eve, just like the rest of us are, if the Bible is to be believed? 213.48.15.234 11:17, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but most of us commoners can't trace it all the way - and certainly not via King David! DuncanHill 11:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be descended from Jesus - that would imply that he successfully sired children surely? Lanfear's Bane

Laurence Gardner's book "Bloodline of the Holy Grail: The Hidden Lineage of Jesus Revealed" (ISBN 0-14-100615-3) posits just such a descent, with all sorts of genealogical charts. Quite an interesting read. Whether it's believable or not is another matter. -- JackofOz 23:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read your question because I don't like being shouted at. DirkvdM 12:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When i first arrived on the web waaay back, I used to type in CAPS too, just made more sense to me. Back in the days of mIRC, I got booted from quite a few channels before I learnt my lesson. So perhaps the poster is a newb :P Rfwoolf 13:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I am sure they can trace there ancestry, through the kings of Wessex to Woden. I believe there was a theory (possibly due to Gildas?) that traced Britain's origins back to people fleeing Troy. There's all sorts of crazy theories, but I think tracing anything back through the 'dark ages' would be impossible. Cyta 13:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three separate answers to three interesting questions:

It's perfectly possible that some people claim that the British Royal Family are descended that way - but then some people claim you can run cars on water or that NASA never went to the moon. What the questioner actually SHOUTED was a question of whether the royal family themselves claim this - I very much doubt that they do - but we aren't addressing that question by asking whether we've seen such family trees out there.
When a man takes the throne, his wife becomes "The Queen" - but when a woman comes to the throne, her husband is not "The King" - weird, sexist - but true. There is a long tradition of royalty choosing how to be named - some people change their names when they take the throne others pick and choose between the many titles that formally apply to them - choosing the one that they prefer - or the one that seems politically correct. Camilla may choose not to use the title "The Queen of England" - but it is hers whether she chooses to use it or not. Many people would say that Princess Diana "deserved" the title - but didn't get it - so Camilla's preference for a different title is likely to be a political correctness thing rather than a personal preference.

Not true about Camilla. As a Queen Consort, the most she could ever become is "Queen Camilla", not "Queen Camilla of <anywhere>". But even if she were the Queen Regnant, she still wouldn't be "Queen Camilla of England". She would be "Queen Camilla of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". This is not a pedantic distinction. There is no crown of England. -- JackofOz 23:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh! Good info! Thanks for the correction - my bad! SteveBaker 12:28, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typing in ALL CAPITALS has been shown in many careful experiments to be less readable than text written in all lowercase - which in turn is less readable than correctly capitalised/punctuated sentences. The reason for this is that when you are reading rapidly, your eyes can pick out words from their shape on the page alone. The overall shape of UPPERCASE words is pretty much just rectangles - forcing your eye/brain to pick out and recognise every single letter individually - which is slow and tiring. The varying nature of the ascenders (b,d,f,h,k,l & t) and descenders (g,j,p,q & y) of lowercase provide more varied word shapes that are a useful shortcut for recognising small, common words - so lowercase is easier and more relaxing on the eye/brain. Best of all - write using proper English - mixed case, punctuation, good grammar and spelling. But if all else fails and you truly can't bear to do it right - you should prefer lowercase to CAPITALS. Worse still, there is a common online convention of using all-uppercase words for emphasis and to indicate THAT YOU ARE SHOUTING in systems that don't support boldface and italics. So if you type in UPPERCASE ONLY, people who spend a lot of time online subconsciously think you're SHOUTING AT THEM. It's truly, genuinely, offensive to them - doing it repeatedly will make people unreasonably angry with you! I can tell you that MY REPEATED USE OF CAPITALS IN THIS REPLY is already raising the hackles on some of our readers! This surprises many people who are relatively new to the Internet - but it is undoubtedly the case.

There's a typeface called Orator, designed for reading aloud; its lowercase is small block capitals. The benefit is that it slows the reader down and makes tongue-tangling less likely. Or so I conjecture. —Tamfang 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker 15:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The original poster has already apologized for typing in caps, I think we can be forgiving and stop rubbing it in. DuncanHill 15:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SteveBaker's reply looks to me more like the detailed explanation of why is shouting frowned upon rather than rubbing it in. — Shinhan < talk > 06:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steve, for your witty+informative reply. There's the true spirit of the ref desk. DirkvdM 07:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen claims that the Queen is descended from Mohammed. Corvus cornix 23:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the way royals intermarry, that's not totally impossible. The Hashemite Kings of Jordan certainly are descendants of Mohammed. -- Arwel (talk) 09:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Prince William of Wales was gestating, Sir Iain Moncreiffe (I think) wrote a book titled something like HRH: Genealogy of the Royal Child, which went into considerable detail about possible Moslem and Asiatic ancestors among others. —Tamfang 19:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ten Commandments

As one of the 3 Ibrahimic Faiths alongside Judaism and Christianity, do Muslims have to abide by the Ten Commandments as handed down to Moses?

There is an article on Islamic ethics and a link to a site quoting the Quran in the section on moral commandments. Lanfear's Bane

see Ten Commandments#Muslim understanding. The view that the ten commandments are the foundation of morality is largely a Christian idea. In Judaism the 10 commandments are no more important that the other divine Commandments. In Islam they do abide by the 10 commandments for their own reasons but it could not be said that they do so "as handed down to Moses". Jon513 12:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to which, Christians can't actually agree on which 10 commandments they are obeying. Exodus 20:1-17 or Deuteronomy 5:6-21 ? - they are very different! Jews and Protestants have "thou shalt not covet" listing a bunch of very specific things you can't covet. Catholics and Lutherans have a blanket rule against coveting your neighbor's wife or his property. Exodus (21:7) allows parents to sell their daughters into slavery (21:17) requires kids who "curse their parents" be put to death! The Christian story of the commandments has Moses struggling down the mountain with the ten commandments carved into stone tablets - but he gets so upset with what everyone's been getting up to while he's away - he drops the tablets and smashes them to bits ("Ooops! My bad!"). A normal person would just copy what God said onto a handy scroll and maybe get someone to chisel out some more tablets - but no, Moses goes back to God to get a new set - which (surprisingly) have a whole different set of rules ("Er, sorry Moses - what did I say was rule six last time? 'Thous shalt not kill'?...Ohhh - sheesh - you know, now that I think about it that's going to make wars a bit tricky. This time, let's go with 'But the firstling of an ass thou shalt redeem with a lamb: and if thou redeem him not, then shalt thou break his neck.' - yeah that's much better."). http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/What10.htm has both sets. The whole thing is a complete mess. We have commandments that nobody in their right mind would obey (God wants me kill my son when he swears at me!) - we have a total mismatch between first and second sets of commandments and we have so many layers of interpretation and mistranslation that any source you can actually understand is a dubious guide at best. SteveBaker 22:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exodus 20:1-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21 are almost identical. Exodux 34 (Ritual Decalogue) is not referred to by anyone as the 10 commandments, but some believe that it was written on the second set of tablets. Exodux 21 has absolutely nothing to do with 10 commandments and the only reason to mention it is to disparage religion. Jon513 13:11, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeez. Add all of that to the Qu'ran rule that all Muslims should kill any non-muslim who refuses to convert to Islam, and you have a pretty devastating idea of how an all-seeing, all-knowing, and all-powerful God has carefully planned Man's mutual destruction.

Royal Mail

Slightly following up the mail adressing question a few days ago: A year or 2 ago I managed to get a wrongly addressed letter through my door. The only pieces of information that matched my address were the house number and street name. It had a postcode. Any idea how this mess up could have happened? They always say that as long as the postcode is correct it will get there. But the postcode on the letter was nothing like mine. 213.48.15.234 13:06, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two years ago? I get someone else's mail delivered to me practically every week, usually with a different postcode. There is a form on the Royal Mail website specifically for complaining about this, but it hasn't had much effect here. The bulk of the mail is sorted automatically, but a lot of it still has to be done by eye, for example on larger items or if the machinery cannot read the postcode. In the end, it all comes down to the efficiency and attitude of your own postman/postwoman.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 13:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buying an anteater

Not to invite spam, but does anyone know where this animal can be obtained? I Googled but didn't come up with anything. I am in the United States. Thanks in advance. 74.140.211.161 14:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'm curious. What do you want with one? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's for my wife. 74.140.211.161 15:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea for a present, then. What does she want with one? --Richardrj ^talk ^email 15:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totally ignoring the fact that you want a freaking anteater, have you tried asking around (calling, emailing) wildlife reserves and foundations? A lot of them have odd or rare animals like that that you can either adopt or rent from them --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 15:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please treat your wife with a suitable product from your local pharmacy. An anteater needs a lot of ants and may tickle her excessively. Besides, they are wild animals and unsuitable as pets. They inhabit South and Central America, so I doubt your local wildlife center will have one going spare.--Mrs Wibble-Wobble 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This lady's blog [1] indicates she has a few pet Tamanduas. Why not ask her where she got them? Rockpocket 18:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Thanks greatly! 74.140.211.161 20:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does it have to be alive? Corvus cornix 00:00, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fido as another term for dog

How did Fido become another name for dog? Oneworld25 18:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fido . Loyal as in man's best friend? Lanfear's Bane

Madison Column Garden

Why is Madison Square Garden named Madison SQUARE Garden? It is obviously built in the shape of a column.

Really been bugging me. --67.177.170.96 19:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, it's IN Madison Square --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 19:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. In that case, why is it called a garden? It's obviously a stadium! A bit of misleading advertising...--67.177.170.96 20:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Madison Square Garden#History Please. Your comments are answered right at the start of the article --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 20:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I apologize. My ignorance is astounding at times... --67.177.170.96 20:23, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to acknowledge one's ignorance from time to time. It gives one a certain je ne sais quoi. :) JackofOz 23:12, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Penn Station (New York)

How deep is Penn Station below ground level? Can't seem a find a number anywhere. My google kung-fu has failed. --67.177.170.96 20:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I googled on tracks, feet, underground, and "penn station". The third hit was this PDF document, which says the tracks are 40-60 feet below street level. (I assume you're referring to the deepest level, i.e. track level.) Now that passage in the document refers to the original Penn Station, but I can't imagine that they would have changed the track level when building the present one; in fact, the Wikipedia article says that only the above-ground structures were demolished, although presumably what it means is those above track level. --Anonymous, July 4, 2007, 21:12 (UTC).

What do I need to compost at home?

I live in an apartment building in San Francisco and would like to begin composting at home. Though there is a wiki article on what compost is made of as well as common practices, there isn't much information as to what a person needs to begin. Do I just need a pail with a lid? Or do I need to go with the worm-option?

I don't have a garden, just a balcony with some plants, so I don't need a major system in place or that much dirt.

Can you help?

67.161.57.96 20:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try WikiHow or Google --_ʇuǝɯɯoɔɐqǝɟ 20:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... the question does point out a hole in Wikipedia's coverage, though: composting in urban settings. Certainly a non-negligible number of people do it but there's no information about it, so if anyone has data on this topic it'd be worthwhile to share it so we can add it to the project. JDoorjam JDiscourse 20:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turns out it wasn't such a hole, after all -- see vermicompost. —Steve Summit (talk) 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A compost bin on your balcony would be one way to go - you can get compost starter kits from gardening stores - or add a handful of dirt (I mean soil us term?) to get the bacteria/bugs/whatever that composting requires.

Compostting shouldn't stink - so that shouldn't be a problem - but once working the thing becomes a home for all sorts of creepy crawlies - something to consider when you only have a limited space - they might start invading your apartment/house/

Pail with lid works - don't forget the airholes - and if posible a flap at bottom to easily remove composted stuff - don't worry about worms (of which I've no experience but it sounds a bit like growing maggots on dead meat)213.249.232.111 21:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where I live we have several community compost bins at ground level for our flats.This means I get everyone else's kitchen waste as well:)Could you find a bit of communal ground to put a bin up in?It's of benefit to the whole community as it removes a lot of stinky rubbish from everyone else's rubbish sacks. hotclaws 10:50, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recommended way to compost indoors or on a balcony (i.e. when you have no yard at all) is with a worm bin. ~~Let's see if this link comes up red, or if we have an article on them... (Well, we didn't. I've started it, but it's somewhat stubby.)~~ —Steve Summit (talk) 02:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch the above; see our article on vermicompost for much more information. (Oh, and don't worry about having to "go with the worm-option". Redworms are marvelous creatures. They would love nothing better than to turn your kitchen scraps into compost for you, and if you give them the chance they'll reproduce like mad until there are exactly enough of them for however big a compost bin you want to keep, and they're not slimy or noisy or smelly or anything. Truly one of Nature's underappreciated miracles.) —Steve Summit (talk) 02:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that composting is about the worst thing for global warming. Methane is the primary gas and it is significantly worse than CO2. Recent studies show the worms are the culprit. --Tbeatty 02:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't realize that, and I'm afraid I'm unconvinced. —Steve Summit (talk) 03:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Methane is only produced in anaerobic respiration. As long as you aerate your compost (stick a pitchfork into it) properly, there will be no such problems. Unsurprisingly, nobody wants to aerate landfill sites, so sending food waste to landfill will generate methane; composting will not. --saxsux 12:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]