Miscellaneous desk
< June 28	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 30 >

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.

June 29

Has anyone ever seriously considered...

Has anyone ever seriously raised the possibility of transporting seawater to low-lying natural depressions in the Sahara (e.g., in northeast Mauritania and northern Mali, and also close to the Algeria/Tunisia border) as a way of both reducing possible rises in coastlines due to global warming and also encouraging an improvement of the biopotential of North Africa? I realise that it would take considerable energy to get the water there, but there are moderately efficient ways of moving the water - and very cost effective ones when weighed against the potential gains. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that beneficial to the Sahara? You're basically salting the sand at that evaporation rate. --antilived^{T | C | G} 05:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the Sahara was once a sea. That's why salt is still mined in parts of northern Mali. And having an inland sea in that area would affect the climate of the entirety of North Africa, increasing rainfall over much of what would become the area's new internal coastline. Grutness...wha? 10:57, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, seawater could never be transported on the sort of scale that would make any noticeable difference. See Sea level rise.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filling the depression in northeast Mauritania and northern Mali to its maximum possible would reduce the oceanic depth by almost half a metre worldwide - about 60% of higher estimates for change during the course of the 21st century. As to the transportation of the water, though it seems unlikely it seems no less po9ssible than several of the other ideas that have been mooted for countering climate change. Grutness...wha? 10:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it's truly a depression than a simple (massive) syphon would work87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For use with a syphon here's a List_of_places_on_land_with_elevations_below_sea_level 87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

also Category:Dry areas below sea level - I think it's a splendid idea ...87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to be careful with areas that already contain fresh water, since adding millions of tons of salt water would create a dead-zone (as happened in prehistory with the Black Sea). and most below-sea-level depressions are so small that no practical difference would be made. Mind you, it might solve the border disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea! Grutness...wha? 11:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A German guy dedicated his life to a scheme to dam the Mediterranean and turn Lake Chad into a giant sea. See [1]. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 11:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Um, filling all the places below sea level that are dry with water is not a good idea. Consider the Caspian Basin, which is home to about 25 million people (not sure of the exact number). It is below sea level, and may be filled anyway if sea level rises past 25m (see Lake Manych-Gudilo). Also, much of The Netherlands are below sea level, where 10 million live, as well as much of New Orleans, where 1 million live? Filling in the Sahara, which is still dry, might not wet it enough to sustain itself. Also, as sea level rises, natural depressions might naturally be filled, such as some of the depressions in Egypt, The Caspian Basin, The Netherlands, and even underneath West Antarctica and Greenland (such as the 2.5-km deep Bentley Subglacial Trench in West Antarctica). However, this might not help because the land underneath Antarctica could rise, causing more sea level rise, and a high sea level is needed for something like this anyway. Those places you've mentioned are far from the sea, except maybe for the area near the Algeria/Tunisia border. You have to make sure no one lives there first, though. The depression in Mauritania is 600km form the ocean, and only about 1100 km x 500 km x 50m, and the one near Tunisia only 300km x 120 km x 50m, and the one in Lybia/Egypt 300km x 150 km x 100m. The Caspian Sea, on the other hand, has a potential capacity of 1600km x 500km x 50m. Why not fill Lake Chad-Bodele, 300km x 600km x 100m, or Lake Erye basin, 300km x 500km x 200m, or Etosha-Kalahari basin, 700km x 700 km x 300m? Or are those places too dry? It's a plausible scenario, but could unexpectedly have good or bad implications, or could simply evaporate and drain back to the ocean, and cost trillions of dollars? This might protect trillions of dollars in damages that would otherwise have happened, but so would a sea wall around all of the coastlines of the Earth, which would kill millions of species of plants and animals. One problem is, though, either those depressions are very dry or very inhabited, and that could be a problem. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone was suggesting filing up inhabited places, and they don't necessarily have to be filed to the top.87.102.86.73 (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A massive engineering project I know, but how about a network of canals similar to the Suez Canal or Panama Canals, or the (natural) Bosporus? The canals would need to be excavated to a depth below sea level, so anything with a large mountain range in the way would require either a circuitous route or tunnels under the mountains.

Wouldn't it just drain away? 4.158.219.170 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In that case, it should be possible to dam the canal, which could both produce electricity and stop or slow the flow of water. Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 23:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's BELOW SEA LEVEL... I suppose you meant drain into the rocks below - geological surveying would need to be done first to check for obvious problems like this.87.102.86.73 (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska Homesteading

Can someone please explain Alaska's Homestead Program? I looked on the Alaska website, but it confused me. It said you could get "free land", but then said you had to bid on it. Can someone help me sort this out? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.119.61.7 (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thantanology

Thantanology What is it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.76.178.105 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Googling thantanology comes up with a Did You Mean for thanatology, which, according to the article, is the study of death. Also, please sign questions on the HelpDesk and RefDesk with ~~~~. Paragon12321 (talk) 04:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shampoo

Anywhere anyone can point me to to get sodium laureth sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfate, and ammonium lauryl sulfate free shampoo? Anywhere anyone can point me to to get sodium laureth sulfate, sodium lauryl sulfate, and ammonium lauryl sulfate free conditioner? Thanks.75.152.131.91 (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried somewhere like the Body Shop? Look in health food stores too.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 08:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Johnson's Baby shampoo contains none of the chemicals above, according to the manufacturer page here. However, it does contain a lauric acid compound, so beware. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, lauric acid is present in milk, so if you are OK with dairy products you should probably (but not certainly) be OK with it. --Dr Dima (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It should be possible to examine the list of ingredients on the shampoo/conditioner, to make sure that those ingredients are not present, or is this too difficult because most have those ingredients (a quick look at my shampoo reveals sodium laureth sulphate)? Thanks. ~A H 1^(TCU) 14:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try a search for "chemical free shampoo" at Google. Corvus cornix_talk 21:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a few brands around which might suit your purpose, including Duchy Originals. Gwinva (talk) 22:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get mine from a health food shop nearby. In my experience, the folk at health food shops are good at redirecting you if they don't have the organic/chemical free/GMO free product you're after. Sometimes they'll order it in specially for you. If you're in an urban area there should be a health food shop somewhere nearby. Otherwise, google might help you find one (ask politely :)) Steewi (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boycott shampoo. Demand real poo. 125.21.243.66 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)(bored at work)[reply]

Hey I use Johnson's baby shampoo (on myself geez). It's amazingh. 125.21.243.66 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ecover washing up liquid works fine on hair. It is based on vegetable surfactants. Itsmejudith (talk)

dialysis

If a woman with messed up kidneys needs to be on a dialysis machine, then if she gets pregnant will the baby's kidneys filter her blood so while she is pregnant she won't need dialysis? Is this harmful to the child? 79.75.236.52 (talk) 12:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because the placenta while allowing transfer of nutrients and oxygen keeps the blood supplies of the fetus and mother separate. Exxolon (talk) 14:39, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that pregnancy is rare for patients on dialysis, as the higher-than-normal levels of waste products in the blood interfere with fertility. For a woman able to successfully conceive while on dialysis, the risks to the child are much greater than for a healthy woman. Miscarriages and stillbirths are common. The child will likely be born prematurely. Survival rates for children who are born are often cited as less than sixty percent. (Source). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that there is no way that the baby's kidneys could remove the waste products from the mother's blood. Although unborn babies do indeed have kidney function and urinate, the waste products would have nowhere to go, except accumulate in the amniotic fluid. As the unborn baby drinks the amniotic fluid, this would doubtlessly be harmful to the child. --NorwegianBlue^talk

1901 "merry olds" American air products fort lauderdale fla.

recently got a 1901 olds replica.made about 1958 in florida.need an intuction manual or any info I can get on this car. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.30.99 (talk) 14:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oldsmobile? If I remember correctly Chevy owns them. I'd call your local Chevy Dealer (ask for the Parts Department or Service. Not Sales.) Otherwise check Amazon or regularly check eBay. 4.158.219.170 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Motors owned Oldsmobile, but the brand was phased out in 2004. — Michael J 01:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the question concerns a replica of a 1901 Oldsmobile, not a geniune one.I don't know where to find an owners manual, but I did find a picture/ad for one.

http://www.rodsandwheels.com/rw_classifieds.php?sort=date_added&ad_id=71 cheers, 10draftsdeep (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gold In Rocks

Is gold found inside of rocks or is it just by itself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.237.109.119 (talk) 14:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "inside rocks"? Gold is found in ore, sure, if that's what you mean. Elemental gold is not usually just hanging out "just by itself"—but sometimes it is, as nuggets, or flakes. --98.217.8.46 (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on gold prospecting, gold mining and gold extraction — Matt Eason ^{(Talk  Contribs)} 16:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both. Sometimes it is found in nugget or dust form like what you get when your panning. When they mine it it is in the form of veins in the rock. I think all forms of gold were originally in the vein form untill they got broken down. - Mofila —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eve Myles

How would you describe the physical features of Eve Myles, AKA Gwen Cooper? What google search would return results of similar looking women? 79.75.236.52 (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Striking brunette" (from this page which is referenced in the Eve Myles article) or "sultry" (from this page, also referenced in the same article). Astronaut (talk) 18:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are rather generic terms. I was hoping for something which would describe her body and facial shape specifically. 79.75.236.52 (talk) 18:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that any exact terminology that would even remotely reliably bring up pictures of similar-looking women from Google exists -- in part because many of the descriptive words are likely to be extremely subjective, and in part because the vast majority of the picture sites out there are not going to use these words consistently when describing the pictures (if the pictures are described at all), which makes it hard, if not entirely impossible for Google to find what you're looking for. Have you considered trying something like Flickr? People use all sorts of categories and tags to describe their pictures, which are often very specific and may therefore be at least a little bit more useful to you. I don't know what those words would be, but if you find them, you're likely to get a lot of pictures of a similar type. It's still not going to be terribly exact, but I think it'll be a little better than Google. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 19:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Eve Myles lookalike"? JessicaN10248 19:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can search by bust, waist, and hip size at Chickipedia. I don't know how reliable it is though considering their entry for Alek Wek lists her as having a 40 inch bust. Judging by the picture that they have of her, you would think that she must be ten feet tall to have a 40" bust. But they say she's only 5'1". Dismas|^(talk) 20:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could perhaps describe here racial characteristics as 'dark celtic', but I can't think of a good thing to google to return. Be careful googling for pictures of women with particular racial types, you're likely to get naked pictures. Steewi (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Turning safe search on in your Google preferences may help cut down on the number of images of women in the nude that you get... If you're bothered by it... Although, if you're looking for images that best portray their physical features, as you specified, then this may work against you. Dismas|^(talk) 01:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aqua

Most cosmetic products, shampoos, mouthwash, etc. include the ingredient "Aqua". Now, (I hope) we all know that aqua = water, so why do the manufacturers of these products continue using this fake name for a common substance? Astronaut (talk) 18:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are using Latin names for some other common chemicals too, AFAICR. I think it's scientific tradition of some sort. JIP | Talk 18:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an International Nomenclature of Cosmetic Ingredients naming convention [2] It may also be used to distinguish between normal water and deionized water. JessicaN10248 18:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki knows everything!125.21.243.66 (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geography question

Is there an equivalent to Lapland or Alaska in the southern hemisphere, excluding Antarctica where no one lives? Are there places there where people wish "they were down in the north, where it's warm"? JIP | Talk 18:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tierra del Fuego and southern Patagonia are sparsely populated and have a similar climate. I can't say if the people wish "they were down in the north, where it's warm". Astronaut (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

People do live in Antarctica, about 4,000 in summer to about 1,000 in winter, mostly scientific researchers. I would imagine on the coldest of days people at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station wish they were somewhere warmer. JessicaN10248 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about settlements that aren't "artificial", like the scientists that live in Antarctica, but instead of normal settlements where normal people live, then no, there isn't really a comparison. Svalbard, the northenmost settlement in the world (I believe) is at 78 degrees north, while Cape Horn, the southernmost settlement (not counting Antarctica), is at 54 degrees south. That's more than 20 degrees difference. For comparison, Stockholm (where I live), is at 59 degrees north, and let me tell ya: it can get hot during the summers. And the winters aren't so bad, at least not if you've grown up with them :) One might note that Stockholm is warmer than "it should be", because of the gulf-stream, but the point still stands: it's not like Tierra del Fuego has an arctic climate. --Oskar 22:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why there is no Southern Hemisphere equivalent to Lapland or Alaska is that the corresponding latitudes in the Southern Hemisphere are oceanic or coastal or they are in Antarctica, which is not home to any permanent communities because it produces continental airmasses much colder than occur in the Arctic, where the Arctic Ocean actually moderates temperatures. Marco polo (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Williams, Chile and Ushuaia, Argentina are considered to be the most southerly permanent settlements (not including scientific or military stations). I have heard folklore that women in Puerto Williams go to Puntas Arenas when they are pregnant because it's too cold to give birth there. Steewi (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Southernmost settlements gives you a short list of the most southern settlements. Steewi (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now I wouldn't mind being up in the north where it's warm, but where I live would hardly qualify as an equivalent of Sápmi (i.e., "Lapland"). Still, it's around 5 degrees Celsius (low 40s F) at the moment and a holiday in Rarotonga sounds very nice. To answer the question, though, Tierra del Fuego, Patagonia, and the Falkland Islands would be the nearest equivalents. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Salt/Pepper pot

Hi, Why does a pepper pot have more holes than a salt container? --88.104.154.82 (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have always seen it the other way around. JIP | Talk 18:53, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is set in stone that a pepper pot has more holes. This site for example says that traditionally pepper was more expensive than salt so it was placed in the shaker with fewer holes to reduce usage. However, most salt and pepper pots I've seen have had pepper in the pot with the most holes. As for why this is, I would imagine that many small holes evenly distributed the pepper flavor across the food, whereas salt is usually applied sparingly due to health concerns and the fact that most food is already salted. It might also have to do with grain size, the larger gains going in the pot with bigger holes. JessicaN10248 18:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt that the reason is that logical, it's probably just tradition (and the tradition is probably different in different parts of the world). When the shaker isn't transparent, you need a way to separate them, and the number of holes is a neat way to do it. --Oskar 22:27, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One could just as easily have put a P and S on the shakers. It seems probably that the different hole configurations came first, and we later used as identification. Plasticup ^T/C 11:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Wiki! 125.21.243.66 (talk) 06:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught that it had something to do with humidity congealing the salt, necessitating a larger hole through which to flow - but that may be a lore specific to my latitude. Plasticup ^T/C 12:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and to add to that, if the salt gets wet it will all clump together, so cleaning one large hole is easier than cleaning lots of tiny holes. JessicaN10248 15:29, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just last week some nutty Council has begun issuing salt shakers with 5 holes instead of 17. They argue that people will thus use less salt. I think they will just shake for longer...?86.209.153.77 (talk) 12:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)DT[reply]

Straw Bedding

If I use straw for livestock bedding do I have to seperate the straw from the manure to make compost or does it not matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tyler123459 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Straw's an advantage. Manure can be added to compost, or dug straight into garden. Allow manure/straw to become well rotted before putting around plants, however. Check out [3], [4], [5] for starters. Gwinva (talk) 22:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, in brief, the answer to your question is no, it's better to leave it in. Marco polo (talk) 00:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving the manure in the straw is a huge advantage to making good compost. The presence of fungus in the manure will greatly assist the breakdown of the straw to nice crumbly, brown, sweet-smelling compost. Richard Avery (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that one of the reasons leaving the straw in is such a huge advantage is that it creates a much better carbon to nitrogen ratio, promoting more complete decay. The straw contains (more) carbon while the manure contains (more) nitrogen.

Atlant (talk) 14:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Methods for IDing gold?

How can I tell what jewelry is gold and what is imitation? Thanks! 4.158.219.170 (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Via the "Acid test". Nitric acid will dissolve silver and other metals but not gold.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me rephrase that. How can I figure out if jewelry is gold or not without destroying it if it's not? 4.159.180.233 (talk) 00:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Test by water might do the trick.--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is by no means foolproof, commercial gold jewellery will have a mark on it showing the purity of the gold, either as a number of karats (9k 14k 22k) or as a parts per thousand measure (375 635 925). Of course, any jeweller could put the mark on, and not all gold will have the mark, if it was made by an amateur jeweller or in an area where these marks are not used. Steewi (talk) 01:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not if it's shaped like miniature Eiffel Towers, it doesn't! :) Grutness...wha? 05:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]