Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 August 18

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.

August 18

Why are we still sending plastic garbage to landfills and not converting them back to oil?

Plastic is made from oil. But we can convert plastic garbage back into oil and other fuels. Why are western countries like the U.S. and Canada are still dumping plastic garbage into landfill sites, and not collecting and converting the rest of our plastic garbage back into new gasoline, new diesel and new kerosene? I know certain plastics can be recycled and some cannot be recycled. I think converting plastic garbage into fuel is a good money-making idea and it creates more jobs and protect the environment. Why the government haven't taken the steps to do this? Sonic99 (talk) 02:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

As our article, plastic recycling, points out: "Compared with lucrative recycling of materials, such as glass and metal, plastic polymers recycling is often more challenging because of low density and low value. There are also numerous technical hurdles to overcome when recycling plastic."

When you talk about a more exotic type of chemical reprocessing - like converting consumer plastic into carbon fuels (or even into gasoline!) - the yields are very poor and the energy input is very significant. It costs money, and fuel, to perform such a chemical reaction; the output fuel is usually worth less money and less energy than the inputs. There is not presently a significant worldwide shortage of petroleum-based fuel (despite much concern about our prospects for the long term future). In fact, wholesale petroleum prices are very low this year - NYMEX crude oil prices are the lowest in six years, attributed to oversupply! So, it is not cost-effective to consider exotic alternatives.

Here's a 2012 article from NPR: Startup Converts Plastic To Oil, And Finds A Niche. If you fact-check the economics a little bit, you'll see that the fuel they can produce is very poor quality - the lowest possible graded bunker oil; and its market price is not anywhere near $100 per barrel today in 2015. (CME lists $36/bl and dropping).

A bit of additional bad news for those who bought in to the happy little startup: not only has the company lost investor money at a 100:1 rate since the NPR story was published... the (former) CEO, who featured in that interview, was just ordered by a Federal court in Massachusetts to pay a hefty fine after he was found to be committing securities fraud. Sometimes, when a disruptive new eco-friendly free-energy technology sounds too good to be true, ... it is.

Nimur (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Note that the article incorrectly claim[ed] that glass is lucrative to recycle. It is not. I have corrected it. Recycled glass is typically crushed and used as landfill cover. Despite much effort, only metal is worth recycling. Everything else is a net negative, with perhaps some value as fuel. Ariel. (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

We have an article on glass recycling, with ten references, that appears not to support this claim. Would you care at least to put a citation on your own amendment to the other article, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, but after reading a few sources (some of which appear to be RS) like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7], it sounds like it can be complicated. The energy input and unsubsidised cost from a life cycle assessement POV of virgin glass vs recycle glass can come out in favour of recycle glass but it can be borderline enough that it doesn't. This appears to differ from most metal and paper recycling where in most cases it always comes down in favour of recycling. This is also ignoring the cost of the alternative namely disposing it in a landfill since that cost is complicated. I don't think it's as bad as plastic, since in that case I believe it's rare that recycled plastic wins. One problem glass has is the requirement of sorting, and in some places end up with a lot more glass of certain types than they need, such as the UK (as mentioned in our article) and the US. Our article mentions some options, but it sounds like these could be examples where it may not necessarily be effective (again assuming we ignore the cost of disposal of the glass). (Well except for the option for bottling closer to consumption, albeit that requires consumer acceptance.) And one possibility is even if it makes more sense to just throw away green glass, given the difficulties of educating consumers to throw away green but not other glass, it's still not cost effective to do something with it other than throw it away since you've already gone through a fair chunk of work by the time you have green glass at the recycling centre. Nil Einne (talk) 01:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Bear in mind that oil out of the ground, delivered to a refinery near you, is only worth about $300 per ton, cheaper than milk (which is >90% water) FFS. That is so cheap that any competitor that requires massive capital investment and energy input and effort is going to struggle mightily to compete. A cynic might suggest that storing all our plastic waste in easily identifiable sites is not a bad move in preparation for the inevitable Mad Max style Gasoline Wars when the oil runs out (which it won't). Greglocock (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And the evils of the large amount of time it takes many plastics to degrade wouldn't be so bad. If they could be confined to small areas, they'd sequester carbon pretty well. SteveBaker (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The company Nimur's article talks about, JBI inc, is not doing so well [8]. It sounds like they have pretty much abandoned the idea of sifting through garbage and are only operating on plastic that can be delivered "ready to process" (i.e. dumped directly from the truck into the processor). This is what I suspected: though they claim to have an extremely efficient process of converting plastic to oil, the cost of sorting through trash is what really limits them. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Converting our garbage to oil would solve our growing landfill problem. A company called Agilyx [9] is doing that, and it's still around. The oil may be expensive or low quality but it can still be reused and it would be good for our environment. Why won't the government help to fund plastic garbage conversion to oil? Sonic99 (talk) 00:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Apart from the bit where they haven't currently got a working plant, and have been fined for hazardous waste offences: [10] [11] AlexTiefling (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the other point is even if you do want to do something other than disposing of plastic, it's not clear that this option is better than the alternatives. Nil Einne (talk) 01:24, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

AlexTiefling, your news is not accurate. Agilyx is still operating otherwise they wouldn't have a company website. Don't believe that 2014 plastic news article. Believe in the company website that is updated in 2015. The government should fund garbage to oil conversion and help save our Earth. Sonic99 (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Which part isn't accurate? The fact that they were fined? Or the fact that they don't have a working plant? Because it's hardly surprising a company website wouldn't mention their fines. And I don't even see where the company website mentions they have a working plant. Note that no one said the company was defunct, although defunct companies definitely can have websites if they paid their hosting and domain name sufficiently in a advance and no one bothered to take it down. Also, you still haven't explained why you believe this is a better option than other ways of dealing with plastic besides disposal. (That is of course assuming proper disposal isn't the best option.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you contact the company and hear what they have to say? I think they still have a working plant. I don't agree disposing plastic waste into landfills. Converting the non-recyclable plastic to fuel is a good option. Sonic99 (talk) 03:09, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Sunrises and sunsets in space (seen from the International Space Station)

I was reading the article on the International Space Station. It states: "The windows are covered at night hours to give the impression of darkness because the station experiences 16 sunrises and sunsets a day." First, what exactly does this mean? (I know what a "sunrise" and a "sunset" means, here on earth. What exactly does it mean up there, in space?) And, second, why exactly is this – that they experience sixteen per day? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:09, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It would actually mean the same thing up there - the sun appearing or disappearing over the horizon. It's just that from 400km above the surface, the horizon is a lot farther away. Since the ISS completes an orbit of the Earth in about 90 minutes, that's 16 "ISS days" in a single "surface day". Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

So the ISS is constantly circling around the earth, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? It just keeps circling around at all times? And in an hour-and-a-half, it completes one full circle? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. I interpret the expression "night hours" to mean the time when the crew of the Space Station is officially at rest and at least some of the crew are expected to sleep. With a sunrise and a sunset about every 45 minutes the length of night and day is very short, so "night hours" would be determined by the Station commander to establish and maintain some sort of 24-hour cycle in the routines aboard the Station. See Light effects on circadian rhythm. Dolphin (t) 07:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Is the ISS constantly traveling the same circular route, over and over, each time? Or does the trip around the earth vary each time? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:56, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Not quite. As you can see in this diagram, the orbit of the ISS shifts to the west with each complete orbit of the Earth. Each yellow path in that image is an orbit. It doesn't look circular in that image, but that's because the map is a mercator projection. If you were to trace the orbit on a globe it would wrap around the Earth in an almost neat circle. The reason the orbit shifts to the west with each orbit is that the Earth itself is rotating, so by the time the ISS has finished an orbit, the spot it started over has moved to the east. If the Earth would just stop moving, the ISS would indeed be following the same circular path with each orbit, minus the effects of orbital decay and use of the station's own thrusters. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You can download apps to you mobile phone that show you the position of the ISS in relation to the Earth in real time. It's quite amazing to see that it's over Florida one minute and then a few minutes later it's above the south of England. It gives you a good idea of what 17,000 mph really means. Richerman (talk) 09:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

If the ISS, or anything else in orbit, wasn't circling around the Earth, it would crash into the Earth. Earth's gravity is constantly pulling on it, just like it's pulling on you. If you're in a stable orbit, you're constantly in freefall towards the Earth, but you keep missing it. As Douglas Adams wrote, the knack to flying is to throw yourself at the ground and miss. I suggest [12] and [13] for some more insight. --108.38.204.15 (talk) 10:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And for the FULL experience, you CAN see the IIS with your own naked eyes. Just go to heavens-above.com, work out how to input your location in the top right (it won't work if you skip this step), THEN look for where ISS appears under "10-day predictions for satellites of special interest". What you want to see is a pass where the highest point is over 45 degrees, over 70 is even better. It might not be straight away, but if you check back once a week or so there should eventually be ISS passes at just after dusk high in the sky which you can very easily see from your location and you can even impress your family and friends by pointing it out to them. I was very fortunate that on my wedding day several years ago, there happened to be an ISS pass in the evening, it was a hot day, most guests were outside, I got to call out moments before it happened for everyone to look at the sky, everyone loved it, it was really memorable. Vespine (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I recall stopping to look for it one time when the space shuttle was docked with it (which made it a bigger & brighter target). It's easiest to see in clear skies around dawn and dusk, where the sunlight glints off of the ISS, but the sky is still fairly dark - and the orientation of the craft's solar panels are such that you're seeing it at the most favorable angle. It's amazing that even with the naked eye, you can clearly make out the shape of the thing - it's more than just a dot...more like an 'X'. It crosses the sky much faster than an airplane - so the whole show is over in under a minute - so you need to know roughly where to look or you'll miss it. On the other hand, because nothing else moves that fast over the whole arc of the sky, you won't be wondering if some other pinpoint of light is the ISS...you'll definitely know it when you see it.

It's worth remembering that although the ISS orbits at an altitude of around 250 miles, it's a huge structure - about 350 feet across...which is around the size of the Great Pyramid. So standing on the ground and looking up at it is roughly like looking at a golf ball land on the green of a short, par 3 hole - if the ball is white and the green is dark, you can see it fairly easily...which is why you need the ISS to be lit up brightly against a relatively dark sky.

It also brings home the realization of how much effort it took to get something that big moving that fast!

SteveBaker (talk) 15:21, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I've seen it several dozen times and I must admit I've never personally seen the X structure to it, even on a few occasions with medium power binoculars. Maybe I've never had a favorable angle and maybe because I never really "looked" for it, this I will now certainly try! Vespine (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The ISS's size is close to the Great Pyramid's height but it's 792 feet wide and 1120 feet wide, about as long as the longest military or passenger ship ever. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Great Pyramid of Giza is 455ft tall and 756ft wide, that seems like a terrible comparison to the size of the ISS which is 356ft at its widest point. Even stood on end the IIS is still almost a quarter shorter than the pyramid. You could fit 4 ISSes in the base of the great pyramid and probably stack 4 or 5 on top of each other. Vespine (talk) 00:02, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right. 792 feet is instead the size of the world's tallest building from 1913-1929 and 3 standard New York City blocks (3/20ths of a mile). 1120 feet would be the diagonal of a 792 ft square. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, all. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

An evolutionary biologist that studies biological complexity

I vaguely remember that I have once read in Wikipedia an article about a prominent biologist that studies the development of biological complexity and argues that there are other major mechanisms in evolution that are responsible for the formation of complexity, in addition to natural selection, sexual selection and genetic drift. Maybe someone know his name?

Thanks!

212.179.21.194 (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

For clarity, you're refering to people talking about natural mechanisms, not people like Michael Behe who basically argue for a supernatural mechanism? And you're sure you're thinking of what can meaningfully be called complexity and not simply characteristics (e.g. Spandrel (biology)). You aren't thinking of something like [14] I suppose (although I don't think we have any real related articles). Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm referring to a main-stream biologist, and the mechanisms he talks about that are behind biological complexity are natural (maybe connected to complex systems or chaos theory? I am not sure). Anyway, I am sure that I have read about him in Wikipedia. I've encountered the article you linked to in my search, but it's not this. 212.179.21.194 (talk) 12:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

A very long shot, but you could try reading Collective intelligence. This mentions a lot of scientists possibly in this area and may just prick your memory.DrChrissy ^(talk) 12:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

The name that comes to mind is Stuart Kauffman. Looie496 (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

(WP:EC)Some people that are famous, research in biological complexity, and have an interest mechanisms of evolution that are not covered by strict historical Darwinism:

• Lynn Margulis - famous for the theory that chloroplasts and mitochondria were originally engulfed symbionts.
• Carl Woese - developed the idea of the archaea, stressed importance of horizontal gene transfer.
• Stuart Kauffman- strong contribution to emergent phenomena as cause of abiogenesis - this would be my best guess based on your text - involves dynamical systems, complexity theory, Self-organization.
• Per Bak is more of a physicist, but his Self-organized_criticality theory also fits in with Kauffman's work and biological complexity more generally. Another guy along these lines is Ilya_Prigogine and his dissipative structures, though again not squarely a biologist.

Some concepts that may have been involved, other than the ones linked above - Lamarckism#Epigenetic_Lamarckism, Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance, Epigenetics, Symbiogenesis. Perhaps Kin selection or group selection. Also Modern_evolutionary_synthesis describes what parts were due to Darwin, what parts came later, and what parts are still more active. History_of_evolutionary_thought also has similar info that might help you track down the researcher in question. Biological_organisation seems less likely to help, but included for good measure. SemanticMantis (talk) 13:12, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have previously linked the writings of Deborah Gordon, author of several books including Ant Encounters, on the topic of colony intelligence in ant species. Nimur (talk) 14:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

This was Stuart Kauffman! Thanks you all - and especially Looie496. 94.159.152.108 (talk) 17:00, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I started my answer first, but he posted before I could finish :) Also, you would probably enjoy his pop-sci book At Home in the Universe - very accessible and fun [15]. He also has a text book Origins of Order [16] which covers similar material, but with a lot more detail and math, so you might pick that instead if you want more rigor. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll check it out (: 94.159.152.108 (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Why do pigeons defecate more profusely compared to other birds like sparrows

I've read it could be a way to reduce weight for flight, but I saw a sitting pigeon resting for a couple of hours who left a big poo.--93.174.25.12 (talk) 16:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It's true that many birds - and other animals - shed weight by peeing and/or pooping when they need to move quickly. It's a part of the fight-or-flight response, which is even true of humans. I don't see why pigeons would poop more profusely than other birds though...you ask "Why" they do this - but I'm not sure you have any evidence that they actually do that. Fruit-eating birds, in general, have shorter digestive tracts than seed-eaters or carnivorous birds - which presumably results in wetter poop. Of the five major sub-families of pigeons/doves (which are actually the same thing) - four are fruit eaters...so that may provide some kind of an explanation. Feral pigeons (of the kind you find in many cities) are actually derived from escaped/abandoned domesticated pigeons - which come from the Columbidae sub-family, who are grain-eaters - with longer guts. Sparrows (well, "House Sparrows" - which are the kind that commonly live in cities) also evolved long guts to digest insects and grains. So it's unlikely that feral pigeons poop significantly worse than sparrows - except, of course, because of their size. But pound-for-pound, I doubt the premise of your question. SteveBaker (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I went looking for the natural diet of feral pigeons on Wikipedia, the wild species is the Rock dove. Despite a lengthy article, it makes no mention of the natural diet of rock doves. --Jayron32 19:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

"Rock doves feed in the early morning and in the mid-afternoon on the open ground. They eat mainly seeds including corn, oats, cherry, and barley. In cities, feral pigeons also eat popcorn, cake, peanuts, bread, and currants." I would guess (emphasis on "guess") that feral pigeons tend to eat more, and consequently defecate more, than their wild counterparts as a lot of their city diet consists of bread which has less nutritional value than raw grain, so they need to eat more of it. ‑ iridescent 19:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

It also may be that it isn't that feral pigeons poop more than other birds, but rather that there are more of them to poop, which is why it is more noticeable? --Jayron32 19:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

And also (which has just occurred to me) most birds one tends to find in cities (generally passerines of various kinds) generally do the deed while perched or landed, meaning you're only usually at risk while passing under a tree; pigeons, on the other hand, bomb from height. (I suspect there's also a degree of assumption that anything that lands on your head came from a pigeon, regardless of the actual source, just because of their reputation; when I feel a "splat" five minutes before I'm due in to work, I don't immediately think "damn ducks".) ‑ iridescent 20:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

On an aside about pigeon poop, it's mentioned at Monk_parakeet#United_States that pigeon feces can erode many types of structures - part of why they are considered a pest in many places (and the parakeets less so). More on the architectural impacts of pigeon poop here: [17]. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Could it be higher watts per pound needed to stay in the air? In other words, the reason why flying animals can't exceed 10kg? On the other hand: Sparrows seem to be more willing to fly, they act like they have ADHD due to their power-to-weight ratio (sparrows hop everywhere like a step takes painfully long in sparrow brain time). Pigeons seem to try to avoid flying a much as possible. They sit and stand a lot, stop takeoffs in mid-jump even though they get scared easily, let you get closer even though sparrows are probably harder to catch, and don't fly from you if you approach 1 iota slower than they can speedwalk. The pigeons in small cities are even less scared of you than New York City ones, presumably because they see fewer assholes that throw things at them or something. Due to being less like hummingbirds, pigeons might also have lower resting metabolism loads like maintaining body temperature. Who knows which bird makes less poop-per-pound. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 21:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

California condors can exceed 12 kg, and Pterosaurs absolutely weighed much more than 10 kg. --Jayron32 21:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Condors are lightweights; the Great bustard and Kori bustard both weigh almost twice that. ‑ iridescent 21:43, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Forgot about pterosaurs. Very well, how about "~20kg unless their wings are huge and carry tiny bodies and they push off with all 4 limbs and maybe from a height"? One of those nature shows must've only said condors were one of the biggest or it's the biggest in Americas or biggest wingspan or something. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Please note that pterosaurs are not birds - birds did not evolve from pterosaurs - they are a distinct evolutionary branch that seem to have evolved the ability to fly quite independently from birds (just as bats have done). In fact, the best evidence is that pterosaurs were largely driven to extinction by birds, who invaded their ecological niche and out-performed them. So the quantity and nature of pterosaur poo is at best tangential to this question! SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Mixing water

close trolling from confirmed proxy server
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Firstly this is NOT a homework question. I have autism, dyslexia and dyscalculia. What may seem like an easy primary school-level math question to you is impossible for me. Please don't attempt to guide me though it because I simply will not understand. Many doctors and psychiatrists have tried and failed already. So, to the question; if I have 20 liters of 16c cold water, how much 90c hot water would I need to add so that all the water is 36c? In liters. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.183.155.39 (talk) 17:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC) We really, truly, cannot answer homework questions. We are required to assume good faith on the part of the questioner. So, how about this...you tell us why you need to know the answer - and we'll figure it out for you and give you a straight, simple answer. If you don't have a good reason for needing to do this particular calculation, we'll just assume it's homework - and since we're not allowed to answer homework questions, even for people with various disabilities - we'll make no judgement about whether the cluster of conditions you claim to have are real or not. SteveBaker (talk) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Well gosh, I thought the stuff about my intellectual disabilities would be enough but apparently not. Why do I need to know the answer? Because I'm in absolute poverty, my central heating system is broken and I cannot afford to have it fixed. I'm dirty and smell bad and I think I'm developing a fungal infection on my penis because I haven't been able to wash for so long. So I thought that I would use the kettle to make some warm water to wash with. However, as mentioned I have very poor so I cannot afford to just boil the kettle with abandon because that will rack up the electricity bill. So I only want to boil as much as I absolutely need to have a basic wash. But oh, did I mention, I'm a moron with intellectual disabilities so I can't work out how much to boil myself because I suck at math and always have. I'm a 29 year old man this is not homework. That good enough for you? 93.183.155.39 (talk) 17:55, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I don't think this is a homework question. We solve the following equation: 20 * 16 + 90 * x = 36 * (20 + x) for x. The result, using a computer algebra system, is x = 200 / 27 or x ≈ 7.4074 liters. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2015 (UTC) ... and the answer would have been the same in gallons (as you originally asked), or spoonfuls, or pounds, or any other unit of weight or volume. Enjoy your hot bath. Dbfirs 17:47, 18 August 2015 (UTC) .... though I'm puzzled why you are using a proxy in Haskovo where the starting temperature will be much higher. ... still, it's none of my business really ... I hope the hot bath solves some of your problems. I recognised the reason for the question because I've used the same method. Dbfirs 18:16, 18 August 2015 (UTC) Do not forget there will be several cooling effects. As you pour the hot water in it will cool, but worse the bathtub itself is at room temperature, and heating it up will rob you of some heat. So I would make extra hot water, otherwise you will find the water too cold, and all the heat will be wasted while you wait to make more. Ariel. (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I know we're supposed to assume good faith here but are you being serious right now? If something looks like a homework question and smells like a homework question... Just like with legal questions, I don't think it matters if the OP has a seemingly great excuse. The OP needs a bath but can't afford to boil the kettle until his bath is hot enough in case he boils it one too many times by accident? And it has to be exactly 36c? Are you seriously buying that? Even if the OP was genuine, in this case I would suggest the OP go find a support forum (online or otherwise) for people with mental disabilities, not the science reference desk. What reference have we provided just by the way? Vespine (talk) 22:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I gave the figure of 36c so that the question is answerable. Saying I want the water "warm but not too warm" or "bath temperature" is meaningless and subjective and can't be answered. I suck at maths but I do know that sums have to have specific numbers entered to work; there's no goldilocks key on a calculator. I arrived at the figure of 36c by typing "ideal bath temperature" into google and it said 37c, and I figured I can cope with slightly less than that. The question has nothing to do with mental disabilities so how exactly would asking on a mental disorder support forum help? I only even mentioned mental disorders to try and explain why I was asking the question to avoid accusations of it being a homework question. I picked the science desk because while it is a math question it also has elements of science in it such as temperature and energy. It isn't a purely math question so I thought science desk would be more appropriate. Don't worry though, I won't come back. 93.183.155.39 (talk) 23:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC) You seem to have no problem picking up on high level social queues and your communication skills seem far from deficient. For someone claiming to be dyslexic and afflicted with autism you've done very well to overcome some of those condition's main challenges, I think it's your attitude is what now needs the most work. Best of luck with your warm bath. Vespine (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC) Trying to make a rather ludicrous political point, as far as I can tell. Fgf10 (talk) 22:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)}} Emigrate to the United Kingdom. The UK government will prove you with a modern apartment with a modern gas central heating system and and generous welfare payments with which to pay all your utility bills. If the plumbing goes wrong, they will come and fix it free of charge.--Aspro (talk) 21:44, 18 August 2015 (UTC) I have unhatted the above statement by Aspro to properly format closing down the whole thing. The user's account geolocates to a confirmed proxy IP in bulgaria, and when a question starts with both health complaints and assurances of not breaking the rules, we can assume the lady doth protest too much. μηδείς (talk) 04:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC) [[hab}}