Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2013 October 10

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science 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.

October 10

Compulsive disorder

Is there such a thing as a compulsive disorder where an indivisual needs to isolate themselves from others? Pass a Method talk 09:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Topics like agoraphobia and social anxiety and Hikikomori may be of interest to you. -Jayron32 11:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't like the term "agoraphobia", since it seems to include both the fear of open places and crowds. To me those are two different things. There's also the term "enochlophobia", but I'm not sure if that just means the fear of crowds alone. Of course, some dislike of crowded areas is quite common, so I wouldn't call that a phobia unless it rises to the level where it becomes disabling, for example when someone can't go to work because it's too crowded there. StuRat (talk) 12:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Misanthropy and Asociality may also interest you. 196.214.78.114 (talk) 12:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome can involve social isolation. And of course, merely being introverted causes people to avoid the company of others. StuRat (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Also note that people who often go off by themselves may have a completely different reason than you expect, like gas. StuRat (talk) 12:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Types of Iodine?

Does non-radioactive Iodine affects differently on the Thyroid gland? (heard such a thing somewhere, don't know how much it's accurate). Thanks for a clearing. Ben-Natan (talk) 10:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, it doesn't give you cancer. The reason that people are supposed to take megadoses of (non-radioactive) iodine during nuclear fallout is that it saturates the thyroid gland so your thyroid won' t take up and incorporate radioactive isotopes of iodine which may be present in the nuclear fallout. this explains it fairly we'll. --Jayron32 11:05, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Note that radioactive iodine is also used to treat thyroid cancer. Fortunately, the radioactive iodine is then concentrated in the thyroid tissue, where it kills the cancer. It also destroys the thyroid, but the patient can live without one, as long as they take synthroid, or some other med, for the rest of their life. This makes thyroid cancer one of the most survivable types. My brother had this treatment some 30 years ago, and is still quite healthy. StuRat (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Fluorine planet

Would it be possible to have a life-supporting planet where fluorine would take on all the roles oxygen takes on on Earth? E.g. HF being the water analogue, atmosphere of mostly N₂, F₂ and small traces of noble gases. Double sharp (talk) 12:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The would alternative biochemistry X be possible question is very difficult to answer with much confidence, as our total experience with life-bearing worlds is just one, and our total experience with the chemistry of even potentially life-bearing worlds is only a small handful. Our article on Hypothetical types of biochemistry lists a number of systems that have at least been considered; using hydrogen fluoride as the solvent in place of water is one of those hypothetical systems.

Cosmically speaking, such a system seems very unlikely ever to arise naturally; fluorine is vastly less abundant in the universe than oxygen. Seriously vastly—because of the way heavy elements in the universe are produced by stellar nucleosynthesis, oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe, right after hydrogen and helium. Fluorine, with its odd (rather than even) atomic number, is way down the list. It doesn't come near the top ten. It's outnumbered about a hundred thousand to one by oxygen, in fact. To be fair, there are processes at work in planetary formation that can concentrate it – there's only about a thousand-fold excess of oxygen over fluorine in the Earth's crust – but that's still a long way from being able to have a fluorine-dominated planetary chemistry. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

From abundance of the chemical elements you can see fluorine is down by a factor of 10,000 from oxygen in overall abundance, so it is hard to come up with such a planet other than in the astronomical laboratory of some advanced species. Even then, there are challenges. Consider a carboxylic acid -C(=O)OH, which can be ionized to lose H+, or react with an amine to form a peptide bond -C(=O)NH- linking two amino acids. Now with fluorine you can have... -CH2F, -CHF2, -CF3 ... no double bond. You can still have a nucleophilic substitution, but it's no longer actually an acid, and it no longer can form an extra bond to the carbon during a transition state. Whether you say this is "the same role" becomes questionable. Of course, that's not to say you can't have life in this system, but it would be a different kind of life with very different biochemical possibilities. Wnt (talk) 16:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There's also the fact that, being as highly reactive as it is (it even sets snow on fire!), fluorine cannot naturally exist in the free state in any significant quantity -- it would react with everything! 24.23.196.85 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you've got enough fluorine that the planetary surface is passivated, much like how just about everything on the Earth's surface is oxidized, having free fluorine in the atmosphere isn't a problem. You won't have much else in the atmosphere, though (noble gases, and maybe some fluorine compounds if the temperature is right). --Carnildo (talk) 01:52, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

• Once again I'll recommend The Elements: Their Origin, Abundance, and Distribution by P. A. Cox, which addresses the relevant subjects in detail, and is hands-down one of the best books I have ever read. μηδείς (talk) 00:13, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Years late, but I found this paper (written the year after I asked this question). Double sharp (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to submerge my hands in boiling water...

...without burning them. Something that just looks like boiling water would be good, too. One thought I had was water at a low pressure, but would that damage my hands ? Also, I'd then need some type of seal between my hands and the rest of the room, or the low pressure in the room would presumably interfere with breathing, etc. Ideally I'd like the heat from my hands to make the "water" boil. Any thoughts ? StuRat (talk) 12:58, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

You're going to need an aircraft, or a pressure chamber. This page shows the boiling point at altitude, meaning even at the summit of Everest the boiling point is ~70°C. This page says scalding risk begins above 44°C. Naively exterpolating the graph in that first ref would suggest you'd need to be at about 20km to be below 44°C. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 13:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

To use the heat from your hands to make the water boil would require even lower pressure since you body temp is about 37°C. You need to get the water to very close to that so that the heat from your hands would take it past the "boiling" point. Be prepared to stand there for a while.196.214.78.114 (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you want to put your hands in what looks like boiling water. Why not something that can generate the bubbles that we normally associate with boiling, like a hot tub might? Chris M. (talk) 13:23, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ordinary water with some dry ice in it looks a bit as if it's giving off "steam", and putting your hands in it (carefully) might increase the effect. AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Diethyl ether is a clear liquid with a boiling point of 34.6 °C at standard pressure. The snag is that it is a narcotic, and "harmful to the skin". Definitely not a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Diethyl ether is THE best way to cause an explosion in a lab, even when not boiling. No, definitely not. Wnt (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Provided you take safety precautions (because it's flammable), you might use pentane, a clear liquid that boils at 36 °C, just below body temperature. It is also non-toxic and not a skin or eye irritant (source). - Lindert (talk) 13:43, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, isopentane looks like it has an even better boiling temp of 27.7°C, so it should boil more when I submerge my hands. Does either have an odor ? StuRat (talk) 13:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia, both are odorless, but this page says isopentane has a "mild gasoline odor". I considered isopentane, but didn't include it in my post because I couldn't find whether it is safe to the skin. It looks like it is: [1] "Skin Contact  little to no effect". - Lindert (talk) 14:00, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

To expand on Chris M's answer, a visual effect similar to boiling water might be achieved with a fountain bubbler (from hobby shop components used in table-top fountains) or perhaps from fish tank or koi pond components. ZMBrak (talk) 14:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP asks: Quote: Something that just looks like boiling water would be good, too.

Liquid nitrogen is very cheap and it looks more impressive. Dip some flowers in first and crush them in you hand into fragments. Once audience is impressed, dip lights, cue drum-roll, and dip your hand in. This is Wikipedia, so don't blame me if it goes wrong. However, I can give you a link to an expert (who warns you to not do this at home - suppose he means, you ought to go out into the woods to try it?). Hand vs. Liquid Nitrogen --Aspro (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

If you can't get your hands on liquid nitrogen, so to speak, then a good substitute, is acetone with dry ice in it. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Now I know acetone stinks to high heaven, so it would be hard to convince an audience that was water. As for dipping my hands in liquid nitrogen, no thanks, I would rather that none of my fingers break off. So far, isopentane is looking like the best option. StuRat (talk) 05:27, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Isopentane is also highly explosive and the gas shouldn't be inhaled. It's heavier than air, so the gas will flow along the ground, possibly reaching distant ignition sources. [[2]] Katie R (talk) 12:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Acetone that is chilled to that level, should have a relatively low vapour pressure. Personally, I don't think that acetone stinks, it smells delightfully floral at low concentrations. Acetone is used because of its heat capacity, I suppose any substitute will do. The visual effect of boiling is a result of the increased rate of dry ice sublimation due to its interaction with the liquid. Plasmic Physics (talk) 12:14, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the suggestions others have posted about using air bubbles - then you can use real water and avoid worrying about safety and handling or buying chemicals. If you rig something up with an air compressor (pre-charged), then you can get a large volume of regulated air into the bottom of your container. You could tweak things to get a convincing size and rate of bubbling. One of those cheap blower nozzles (like in the $10 "air accessories" kits) would give you a push lever valve you could submerge to push with your hands, and give you basic control over the flow rate if you want the "boiling" to slowly get more vigorous. It wouldn't be too difficult to conceal an air hose, but you would have to prevent people from being able to see the bottom of the container. You also wouldn't have a steam effect. I've been picturing this as some sort of halloween demonstration mainly targeted at children, in which case it would work prety well. Decorations and lighting in general could make it difficult to notice something was up with the pot. Katie R (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's the idea. I'd tell the kids that people in my family have a history of spontaneous human combustion, then act like it's starting to happen to me, yell "Quick, I need some water to cool myself off !", then plunge my hands into the bowl of water there and get the boiling effect. Perhaps some type of foot pedal could be set up to control the bubbles. If I use actual water, maybe I could swap the bowl of water for an aquarium, with some goldfish in it, so it will look like it belongs there. I assume this wouldn't hurt the fish ? StuRat (talk) 12:59, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Why not eat some of the gold-fish? This link shows you how. [3] You think people wont fall for it that easy. Try it.. the last thing they are thinking of is carrots – just think they saw a fish. On a more serious note. You are talking about parlour tricks that actually involve dihydrogen monoxide which has caused millions of deaths (through such things as drowning, cholera, etc.) The only safe way to use it in your home is to properly sanitize it. Personally I find that diluting it with equal parts of a really good malt whisky removes most of the hazards with this dangerous chemical. This precaution also helps, for if one's parlour trick goes pear-shaped half way through and your audience shuffles away (with comments along the the lines “Sorry Grandpah - just remembered, Torvalds wants me to check the latest kernal, otherwise the internet will grind to a stop” ). Well, you can always drown your sorrows with what ever is left of your demonstration (good idea to have some ice and a glass tumbler ready just in case, together with a plate of ready prepared canapés – well, why not?! One should drink on an empty stomach).--Aspro (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if it would harm the fish, but it would certainly be stressful for it. And of course to pull of the effect properly it would need to be trained to go belly-up aftwerwards. Then you offer to give the kids fish instead of candy. :-) I think if you wanted a fish in the tank, then it would probably be best to put in a clear divider just to keep it from getting to the side of the tank you're agitating and to prevent too much water movement around it. It would probably freak out from the sound every time, but it would be a lot easier on it. You could conceal your bubbler assembly under a piece of screen with aquarium rocks glued to it so they don't get thrown all over by the air. Well-placed plastic plants could distract from the edges of the divider so it isn't obvious. Katie R (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Great suggestions, thanks. StuRat (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

In a TV show the bad guys were interrogating a man and woman and ultimately pushed the woman's face down into a deep fat fryer filled with boiling oil. In commentary on the episode, the actress said the was room temperature tea with air bubbling up through it from the bottom, coming from a compressor. So a container of water with an air outlet at the bottom and a footswitch operating the airpump would make an effective illusion. Selling it would require some acting ability. Edison (talk) 14:55, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that one. I'd have thought they would have used a dummy. StuRat (talk) 01:02, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just coming to a parallel idea; use boiling water, but a fake hand, somehow. Gzuckier (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Worth remembing there's likely a reason they used a room temperature fluid, if you actually have boiling water let alone boiling oil, you have a far more dangerous situation than if you have a room temperature fluid. Knock it over or cause it to splash and you could cause major injuries. With oil in particular you also have to be careful not to cause a fire (also a potential concern depeding on how you heat your water). And you also need to be careful with the dummy after it's removed and while holding it or the effect. Of course holding someone under water (presuming this really happened which is unclear) carries risks as well but these could be migated by appropriate signals, timing and care compared to really working with a fluid at dangerous temperatures. Of course for a simple trick working alone, the risks are much reduced. Nil Einne (talk) 11:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The two are not mutually exclusive. For maximum safety, hold a dummy's head underwater in a pot of room-temperature tea with air bubbling through it. StuRat (talk) 13:11, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Ancient years

Were the revolutions of the earth faster during ancient times? Like would a 50 year old dinosaur be actually only 30 years old if compared to the years of today? Could decreasing speed of revolution be the solution to why people in the bible lived so long? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.214.166.7 (talk) 15:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

For the rate of the Earth's rotation slowing, see our article on tidal acceleration. It tells us that 620 million years ago the day was 21.9±0.4 hours - and explains why. Dinosaur 'days' would have been shorter, but not by as much as you suggest. Dinosaurs first evolved around 230 million years ago, and (excepting the birds, which evolved from dinosaurs) died out about 66 million years ago.

And in answer to the second part of your question, I'd point out that this is the science desk - and there cannot be a scientific answer to a question predicated on the premise that the bible is correct in reporting the age that people lived to. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

See File:Geologic Clock with events and periods.svg for a diagram showing the age of the earth according to science. The whole circle is since the earth formed. Th little red line on the top left is the age of the dinosaurs. The thin black line up at the top encompasses the whole evolution of man from a coupe of million years ago till now. The time since the Bible was written would be a thousandth of the width of that. Dmcq (talk) 15:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Earth would still be going around the Sun in the same amount of time (1 year) - there would just be more days in each year. Or am I interpreting this incorrectly? Rmhermen (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Right you are. The days were shorter, but the years weren't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Long ago someone told me that the alleged extreme ages of guys like Noah, Methusaleh, etc., were somehow connected to the "numeric value" of their names. Has anyone here ever heard of that theory? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

See gematria. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:21, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The theory I heard was that those people measured their ages in months (cycles of the Moon), not years, but that it got mistranslated at some point. Many of the lifespans seem to be about 13 times longer than they should be, so that would explain it. StuRat (talk) 05:31, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the rotational speed of the Earth was different in times past. Rotational speed is slowing (see Fluctuations in the length of day).--Auric talk 20:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Non-flammable explosive

Is there any known chemical or mixture of chemicals that can detonate but not burn? Roger (Dodger67) (talk)

It would seem that burning chemicals that can detonate causes them to detonate under standard conditions. So I am not sure how you would tell. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

No. C-4 (explosive) burns "slowly, like a piece of wood". -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 21:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

That's interesting. But doesn't the ability to detonate imply the existence of free energy? Or is there an explosive that will explode but not burn in oxygen? μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The motive for my question is: I was watching a documentary on TV in which a there was a fire in a large munitions storage area. The fire resulted in various bombs and other explosive weapons detonating causing a lot of death and destruction. Then I thought to myself - what if the explosives couldn't burn? Then there wouldn't be an intense fire resulting in explosions. I know a lot of work has been done to develop insensitive munitions in recent years but that seems to be aimed at making ammunition of various types safer to drop out of helicopters, expose to heat, and other "abuse". The inability to sustain fire would add to the safety of such explosives. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Since the ability to detonate implies the existence of free energy with very finely mixed components, and sufficiently high temperature will inevitably result in chemical energy barriers to be exceeded, the problem would at first sight appear to be intractable. The only mechanism that I could imagine is that at some intermediate temperature, at least one component of the chemicals should disperse (through sublimation, say) at a temperature below that at which they will ignite, e.g. if they mix with surrounding air and dilute, all below their flash point. If this works at all, it would require a well-ventilated storage area. Perhaps one of the reagents in a caged molecular structure (buckyballs?), mixed with another that is moderately volatile or that will dissociate at moderately high temperatures? — Quondum 22:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Ammonium nitrate is an nonflammable explosive. Plasmic Physics (talk) 23:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nonflammable? The article says Heating or any ignition source may cause violent combustion or explosion. — Quondum 23:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, that would be a matter of definition, I suppose. Ammonium nitrate is a powerful oxidizer, so it can make other things combust, at least if you take the position that what "combusts" in a redox reaction energetic enough to be called by that name is the reducer. But it's unlikely to be oxidized itself. --Trovatore (talk) 23:49, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. One should not use Wikipedia as an authority. It is edited by all sorts or experts and non expert alike. There are many explosives that deflagrate to give the technical term. For instance, during the second world war, many marine mine were washed up upon the beaches of Gt. Britain. The Royal Navy personnel simply opened them up, removed the explosive, then burn them on the sands. It was mostly ammonium nitrate. Unconfined, it just burns. To fill a bomb casing with TNT, girls (and I mean very young women) poured bucketfuls of hot molten TNT in to them. Ignite it and it burns like paraffin wax. However, hit a lump with a sledge hammer and it might be the last thing you ever do. Mind you, Torpex was supposed to be stable too but the plane Joseph Kennedy Junior was flying on his last mission with this stuff just blew up.--Aspro (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

You used a key word: "mostly". I'm talking about the pure substance. Plasmic Physics (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

The OP's question is:

"Is there any known chemical or mixture of chemicals that can detonate but not burn?" You're taking things off on a tangent. The military ask for bespoked ordinance – pure doesn't come into it. Also, in order to get the munitions to the troops an awful lot of civilians were required to manufacture them, load them on to trains, transfer them onto boats, etc. They liked to claim extra 'danger money'. They had a hard job of demanding this if they where shown that these shell just contain fertilizer (Ammonium nitrate) and one could throw one out of an upstairs window on to the hard standing below and nothing happens. Munitions are carefully design not to exploded when you don't want them to – otherwise you end up killing your own people. But then, just as now, when you buy a jar of something at the mall you find that the bulk ingredient ingredient is not always what it say on the label. So, by mostly I mean that explosive such a Ammonal is mostly Ammonium nitrate with a few other thing added to enhance the explosive force. Sea mine contained 'mostly' Ammonium nitrate with a few other thing added to enhance the explosive force. However, separated from their detonator and booster charges they just got burn on the beach on which they washed up on. --Aspro (talk) 21:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any fundamental reason why you can't have an explosive that detonates but doesn't burn. Combustion generally refers to a runaway oxidation reaction; if you've got an explosive that's already fully oxidized, and releases its energy through a decomposition reaction, it wouldn't burn by any reasonable definition of the word -- but that doesn't mean it's safe to stick in a fire.

One of the design criteria for modern explosives is that they should only detonate in the presence of both pressure and heat: set it on fire, and you simply get an energetic blaze; hit it with a sledgehammer and you just get squashed explosives. --Carnildo (talk) 02:02, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to answer the intent of the OP's question, rather than getting lost in the specific definition of words used. Are there any explosives that will remain safe from a self-sustaining exothermic reaction, when exposed to extremely high temperatures, given a physical configuration that would support detonation? — Quondum 02:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

While many explosives usually won't explode by burning, there's apparently some room for surprises - there is a new generation of munitions like IMX-101 being developed that are even more resistant to exploding by this means. Wnt (talk) 03:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

How about an explosive where 2 parts are combined together to get the explosion ? For example, sodium and water. Or how about a fuel-air bomb ? If you just ignite the fuel, it should burn normally, but needs to be disbursed as an aerosol to become explosive. Then of course there are nuclear weapons, which should't explode if subjected to fire, but could leak radiation all over. StuRat (talk) 05:17, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

I wonder if the OP is referring to explosives that work in hard vacuum?--Auric talk 20:34, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Lots of things explode without heat/combustion, some quite powerfully. Dry ice bomb, for example. Gzuckier (talk) 04:01, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Efficiency of a thermodynamic cycle

I'm given a cycle that consists of an adiabatic process, an isobaric process, and an isochoric process. To get the effiency, I know that I need to calculate the work done in each process, but I don't know where to go from there nor do I know what the value of $\gamma$ is for a diatomic ideal gas. — Melab±1 ☎ 22:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

gamma = 7/5 for a diatomic ideal gas near room temperature. Count Iblis (talk) 00:40, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

To solve the problem, you can use that the internal energy of an ideal diatomic gas is given by E = 5/2 N k T. You know how to compute the work done by the gas, that's simply the integral of P dV, the abosrbed heat minus the work done is by the First law of Thermodynamics (conservation of energy) equal to the change in internal energy, and using E = 5/2 N k T, you know what this change is. So, you also know the absorbed heat for each of the processes. Count Iblis (talk) 00:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Rain in Midwest United States

What is the traditional amount of rainfall in Midwestern United States? If you cite a figure, please add the hyperlink for it. --98.88.155.114 (talk) 23:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Pick any random city in the Midwest and look at the Wikipedia article about it. Indianapolis is as good as any. --Jayron32 23:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I just noticed "Climate data for Indianapolis (Indianapolis International Airport), 1981–2010 normal" table. It was helpful. I wish the Midwestern United States article had a similar table with references.--98.88.155.114 (talk) 23:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

The Midwest covers too broad an area to make a stat like that very meaningful. Although you could take the sum of each states' annual rainfall and divide it by the number of states, for an approximate regional average. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Multiply the rainfall in each state times its area and then divide by the average area to get the average rainfall. Dividing by the number of states means big states like Ozark will be undercounted compared to small states like Erie. μηδείς (talk) 00:29, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

That would be a more exact figure, yes. Meanwhile, I'm still searching my atlas for those two states. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:16, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

They are to the southwest and northeast of the states of Wabash and Cumberland.[4] μηδείς (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:22, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Georgia's water shortage

Can you tell me about Georgia’s water shortage in the last few years. What is the basis of Georgia’s argument with Florida, Alabama and Tennessee?--98.88.155.114 (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

See Tennessee-Georgia water dispute. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2013 (UTC)