Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2017 January 7

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.

January 7

Talc containing asbestos

I know from Talc#Asbestos link that talc shares source locations with deposits of asbestos. Big name talc products like, say, Johnson & Johnson, are sold in China. Could talc sold in China from such a company contain asbestos? Is talc sold in China from China talc sources? Is talc and asbestos having co-locations a global geo-thing? Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Asbestos can be white, so if ground into a powder it might look like ground talc. Also, if the same company makes both, they could confuse bags of each, as happened with PBB. See Polybrominated_biphenyl#Michigan_PBB_contamination_incident. StuRat (talk) 04:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Apparently there have been accusations of asbestos contamination in Chinese talc products [1]. Some point to more lax oversight of talc mining and testing in China, as compared to the US or the European Union. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Holy moly, Someguy1221. I'm switching to corn starch. Thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. I do doubt that J&J would mix those up and sell pure asbestos in bags for baby bottoms. And I seriously doubt US J&J talc would have any asbestos, but do worry a bit about possible lax regulations elsewhere. Hopefully it all comes from the same sources and factory and some is just sold here. Thanks for the feedback. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a good article on this topic. StuRat (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, Stu. Getting ovarian cancer from talc looks unlikely. It is asbestos that worries me. So, it can be made in China, maybe packaged here, sent to US, all very safe. Here, what are consumers buying when the package says J&J? The same bags stuff shipped to US? Same source sans extra expense for step to remove bits of asbestos? Different, cheaper, higher-asbestos concentration product? Maybe even fake J&J? I know what companies do. They sit around tables and weigh out costs of cheaper processes/product, likelihood of harm, chance of getting caught, cost of lawsuits, potential for loss of sales due to harmed reputation, etc. It's the bottom line that matters to them, not baby lives. So, considering the amount of other products they sell in China, would they dare let asbestos into their talc? Not in US. But elsewhere? Big pharma commonly has drugs banned in the West, then markets them heavily in other nations instead. So, in this case, asbestos, would they dare (gamble)? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

According to Bloomberg, the sole source of all Talc for J&J Baby powder products is Imerys Talc America, a mining company with mines in nine countries, including the United States, and not including China [2]. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Someguy1221. US source, eh? Thank you kindly for that info. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

There is a bit of a "no true Scotsman" factor here in that if talc contains microscopically sharp fibers, it's not talc. There is certainly a chemical and mineral similarity between the two. But not all forms of "asbestos" are thought to be hazardous, and asbestos isn't that hazardous (the hazard really is exaggerated a bit for profit, I mean, people used it routinely without thought for decades and the number of people with cancer still wasn't astronomical). On the other hand, talc itself is not really all that safe - it's still ground rock that the body cannot deal with except by physical clearance which may or may not be feasible. (I'm thinking mostly of the lungs - the ovarian cancer seems like almost a red herring, since short of the idiot addicts and dealers who together manage to make it intravenous, it shouldn't usually get that far inland) See [3] for some incidental review of various horror stories like a kid inhaling a large amount of talcum powder at two and having interstitial lung disease at ten. There are a lot of gradations between "safe" and "unsafe", really. Wnt (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Wnt. That really puts my mind at ease. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If you're considering corn starch as an alternative, we should probably do a comparison of the two. One possible disadvantage to corn starch would be if bacteria find it edible, perhaps generating odor. If you try it out and this isn't a problem, then the only other disadvantage I can think of is if it's more expensive. StuRat (talk) 16:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I really don't want to know how long you're going w/o showering and also you could look online for a price comparison before posting nonsense.--TMCk (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi --TMCk. I'm not sure what you mean. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think TMCk means 1) A simple look online at prices will reveal if corn flour is more expensive than talc and the answer for ordinary consumers is no in probably pretty much every country. 2) Even if odour generating bacteria do breed on corn flour, this shouldn't happen if you shower regularly (although there's also the issue of how frequently you wash clothes etc). And this is assuming it's going on your body (which as the answers below illustrate doesn't seem to be the case. Nil Einne (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

StuRat, good point. I thought of that, that maybe cornstarch on bodies, but especially in beds and cribs could attract odd bugs and things. It is, after all, sprinkling food all over the place. :) As for price, talc is expensive in China. Corn starch is peanuts at around .75 c US a pound. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why sprinkle either on beds or cribs ? StuRat (talk) 05:05, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi StuRat. Hot weather! It makes everything nice and soft and comfy! :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Since those are used to absorb moisture, I am guessing that sweaty sheets are the problem. That could indicate high humidity, which can be a problem in other areas, like causing mold to grow. I suggest using a dehumidifier and/or an air conditioner to keep humidity down. StuRat (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

High humidity, yes. It's the dreaded Hainan#Annual fog. Those devices are not a bad idea, Stu, but we are all quite anti-machine here and do prefer more natural answers. Now, the question is: do cooties like cornstarch? :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Humidity + starch + cotton = Silverfish. Extra humidity and cornstarch will give you dough. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Graeme. Gross! None of that sounds good. Well, I think you need a pretty high temperature to get dough from starch, and I've never seen silverfish in China, which is good, because silverfish are very, very disgusting! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

You might consider a desiccant which will absorb moisture, and which you can then heat to drive the moisture back out, being sure to vent the moisture outside. StuRat (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Interesting you say that, Stu. We were thinking of getting a huge 100 lb sack of it for the home. Do you think that would work if it just sat there and sucked up moisture? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You might need to increase the surface area, say by pouring it out onto trays under each bed. But it will absorb it's full capacity quickly, hence the need for a type that can be heated to drive the moisture back out. StuRat (talk) 06:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I like this idea, Stu. I may try to get bulk from taobao. This year, we may be spared the dreaded fog because it is freakishly warm, but next year... :) Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

BTW, you also need to limit airflow from the outside to inside of your home, or you will be attempting to dehumidify the entire atmosphere. Of course, you can only limit it so much, or the air inside will get "stale". The more people, animals, and gas-powered devices inside, the more air flow you need. I know you don't like electric devices, but a device that sucks in outside air, dehumidifies it, then adjusts the temperature before blowing it inside, would be ideal. This would create a positive pressure to keep moist outside air from entering through the house walls. StuRat (talk) 16:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Stu. It may be a losing battle. We are talking about (at the worst times) walls streaming, floors a cm deep. Sometimes we wake up and Haikou is gone, missing, pure white, we're talking Lilith Sternin levels. Windows closed? Hamsters stink the place up. Windows open, wet. It's hopeless. :) But who knows, maybe climate change will bring a future of sandstorms instead. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Afterburner

Is it true that fighter jets (and in particular the F-16) actually use less fuel in low afterburner (20% or less afterburner) than they do at maximum dry thrust -- in other words, that when you go past maximum dry thrust and into afterburner, the total fuel flow actually goes down before it goes back up? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Probably not. Afterburner involves dumping more fuel into the exhaust of the main engine. As such it can't affect the burn rate in the main engine. However, it is conceivable that for a given overall thrust at some speed a lower main engine burn+some a/b might use less fuel than the main engine alone. It is certainly true for some aircraft. What source do you have for this claim? Greglocock (talk) 10:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not an actual source -- I was flying an F-16 mission in FSX, and when I turned on the first stage of afterburner (out of I don't know how many) from full dry thrust, the fuel flow went down from 7000 to 4000, so I decided to ask because it didn't seem right. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 13:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

It makes some thermodynamic sense. It is more efficient to add heat to a gas that is already hot. Thus, the exhaust can be made hotter than that which can be allowed pass through the exhaust turbine blades making the whole power unit operate more efficiently. But the more fuel pumped into the after burner, the less mile to the gallon one gets for every incremental increase in thrust. These simulators, model the actually performance fairly accurately so it could be true. What we really need is a ex F-16 pilot that has flown the physical aircraft.--Aspro (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahem. It is more likely that the Air Force will release a detailed official report on the mysterious UFO events at Roswell than that they will release classified aircraft performance data for airframes that remain in service. You could ask anyway! Nimur (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Following up on this: AviaLogs purports to host a valid, but old, 2003-vintage F16A/B Block 10 & 15 flight manual... but they, too, do not have the performance charts. Now, I don't consider AviaLogs a reliable source - they host all sorts of wonky and weird obsolete manuals even for easy-to-get airframes like the commonplace Cessna 172. In any case, they purport to host this flight manual for the F-16, but I strongly doubt that it is authentic; and even if it were authentic, the important information (including fuel flow rate, along with the entire performance chart appendix) is not included.

Here's a much better and reliable source: a 100+ page book hosted on NASA's technical report server - Effect of Operating Conditions and Design on Afterburner Performance, (1956), (which is clearly punched "declassified.") I tend to believe that this report, hosted by NASA, is actually authentic, although it is some sixty years old and predates the F-16 (...and NASA, for that matter!)

Nimur (talk) 19:15, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Try running full afterburnerand timing how long it takes to run out. If you haven't got drop tanks should be less than ten minutes. Otherwise you are being gamed. Greglocock (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. This is game physics. The apparently-realistic nature of the game is for entertainment value and it is not an actual model of real aircraft physics. If the designer of the game, or the aftermarket aircraft mod, decided that it would be more fun or just simpler to inaccurately model fuel-flow (or anything else), they'd model that item inaccurately.

Real aviation-grade simulators are way more boring than Microsoft Flight Simulator. For one thing, you don't need any graphics, because the primary purpose of a flight simulator is to be safer and cheaper than flying while wearing a view-limiting device.

Here is a real, actual, non-certificated aviation training device: the Garmin 400W/500W Series Trainer. (It's free, it's quite old, and it only runs on Windows... but a real G530 costs more than your computer and a real G1000 costs more than your car, so... give the free simulator a try first!) Notice that its flight dynamics model assumes a zero-mass, zero-inertia airplane with infinite fuel. Can you fly that model-airplane solely by reference to the simulated instrument? That's the purpose of the simulator! The take-away message is that you, simu-pilot-in-command, must be familiar with the limitations of your simulator. What does it do accurately? What does it do inaccurately? What stuff does it just not simulate at all?

It's great that you're thinking about the fuel-flow, even in FSX - but if your aim is extreme realism, what you really really should do is placard the simulator's fuel-flow gauge INOP and ignore it. Or even more realistically, for the F-16, why didn't your maintenance wing ground this aircraft?

Nimur (talk) 20:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the Standard Aircraft Characteristics the F16 mission profile for combat is 1 minute on (full) afterburner, all the rest is a/b off! That'd make for a very looooong game. Greglocock (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I had already tried full afterburner during the takeoff, and the fuel flow was something like 50,000 (which sounds right) -- but in lowest afterburner the fuel flow was only 4000 and on maximum dry thrust it was 7000, which certainly doesn't seem right. 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware that our question stems from a flight-simulator scenario, but... this kind of attention to detail during the simulator suggests that we have no ordinary gamer. We're looking for a "realistic" answer to this question. We have a true learning-opportunity.

"That doesn't seem right..." "What's it doing now..." These phrases are literally the textbook examples of things you do not want to be saying in the cockpit. If your equipment is INOP, placard it, ignore it. Immediately. Continue to fly the aircraft safely. Fix it later when you're on the ground. If the INOP equipment was required for safe flight, you are now in an emergency, so declare one and proceed.

The hardest part of an inoperative gauge is admitting that you can not trust its data. Once you decide to ignore that possibly-wrong information, the rest is easy!

You didn't get all the way to flying the simu-F-16 without completing some precursors, have you? Review your basic knowledge about partial panel operations. Is the fuel gauge required for safe continuation of the flight? What does your checklist or standard operating procedure say you should do when you have low (unknown) fuel remaining? Aviate, navigate, communicate, so fly the aircraft, select a suitable safe destination, and simu-radio back in with the "minimum fuel" advisory. ... Or, simu-radio in with a declared emergency. You get to decide.

If you think, for some reason, that combat aircraft are flown in a more cavalier fashion, or that the privileged few who get to fly F-16 "ignore" a minor problem, you are mistaken. A malfunctioning combat aircraft would be grounded until fixed. Even something so minor as a "weird reading" on the fuel flow gauge would ground most military aircraft. The last thing you need, in an air-combat situation, is an unreliable piece of kit up front.

Now, is a fuel-flow gauge always a groundable problem? Heck no. Not for all aircrafts, not for all operations. In the Cessna 172, the pilot manual specifically calls out that fuel readings are inaccurate in some cases: depending on your kit, the fuel flow gauge may have a digital X mark to indicate a measurement failure; the fuel quantity "indicators should not be relied upon for accurate readings..." during certain normal flight operations. Even the "low fuel" annunciator, which is a great way to scare your passengers, can be flakey in some aircraft with particularly sloshy fuel tanks. On other aircraft, like the Citabria, you just have to know that you've got as much fuel as you put in when you took off, minus the precise amount of fuel that is no longer in the tanks, because the fuel gauge is, well, "in an airworthy condition" and that's all you need to know! But those kinds of caveats get called out in the approved flight manual. Does an equivalently-specific advisory exist for the military jet you're simulating, explicitly allowing you to continue safe operation while one of your cockpit instruments is misbehaving? I hope not!

Nimur (talk) 17:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

With respect, you miss reason. With Roswell there was nothing mathematically concrete to expose. Many contractor defence workers may be asked to sign a non-disclosure upon leaving their employ (or suffer a lose of severance pay) preventing them for reviling competitive know-how. In some cases like Corona (satellite) the technology was classified but algorithms are math and in the free world ( US?) algorithms can't be classified, patented nor copyrighted. Algorithms are what these simulators run on and they are free as in beer (Well perhaps not if you buy this book as it costs but look it up on Amazon and the algorithms are there). So the by-pass air has more than enough oxygen to support combustion but it does not lose velocity (momentum) by having to drive the exhaust turbines! So dry stage plus a wet stage combo could produce more thrust than the dry stage alone under certain flight conditions. Which is what I was saying!
You say “A malfunctioning combat aircraft would be grounded until fixed. Even something so minor as a "weird reading" on the fuel flow gauge would ground most military aircraft” really? In war-time do you think you can phone through to the enemy and say “ hold up a moment -we have a few problems to fix”. No they fly anyway (within reason). A fighter may only be delivering a few air to ground missiles but it happens in civilian aviation were they are delivering passengers (men women and children) even if the the aircraft is not 100% Gimli Glider (fuel management problems).
“If your equipment is INOP, placard it, ignore it.” would that have helped the crew of Air France Flight 447? We are talking about complicated aircraft here and you're making it sound as simple as flying a little single engine piston aircraft like my brother did in the Air Cadets (he had not passed his road driving test at the time). So far from convinced. Hope you don't turn out to be a professional airline pilot. If you are, tell me with which airline so that I can fly on a different carrier. Mean that seriously. About the only thing I agree with is don't try to fix a problem in the air. --Aspro (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Citation needed, you say? Yes, a "weird reading" on a gauge will absolutely provide enough reason to ground a military (or a civil) aircraft. Refer to MIL-HDBK-516B, Airworthiness Criteria, §8.3.1.2, Fuel System: "Verify that adequate crew station information is available to notify the flight crew of the system operating conditions." In other words, if the fuel system indicator is broken, the aircraft is unairworthy. This is a general guideline and it comes from a handbook published by the United States Air Force, hosted on their website, and it provides numerous additional references, including civil regulations, "Part 23" of the FARs. For example, 23.1337 specifies requirements relating to fuel flow indicator malfunctions. An aircraft for which "fuel system information and status" is incorrectly reported to the required flight crew is malfunctioning and probably is not airworthy - for civil or for military use - until appropriate maintenance action is performed and the aircraft is determined to be airworthy. Real airplanes in real combat get a lot of preventative maintenance to make sure they stay airworthy - but if something breaks, combat pilots don't intentionally operate them while the aircraft are broken.

To your point about Air France 447: a contributing factor was a failure to ignore a malfunctioning piece of equipment. The flight director (a thing on the cockpit panel) presented incorrect indications that may have "led the crew to believe that their actions were appropriate, even though they were not." That's not my opinion: it's the official statement by the government investigators who published the final accident report. Specifically, read about the "unreliable speed indication" procedure, and why the flight crew failed to use it. Yes, a wrong indication on a gauge up front was a contributing factor to that tragic accident. The flight crew's continued use of the unreliable reading also contributed to the tragic outcome.

To your point about road-driving, I am not aware of any requirement for an airman to pass a road-driving exam. Why would that be relevant? In fact, with appropriate preparation, one may solo an aircraft at a quite young age: "You are eligible if: You are at least 16 years old. If you plan to pilot a glider or balloon, you must be at least 14 years old." Very young people can fly aircraft, provided that they meet the stringent requirements to the complete satisfaction of their instructor. In fact, this is specifically outlined in chapter one of the official textbook: "The FAA has adopted an operational training concept that places the full responsibility for student training on the authorized flight instructor. In this role, the instructor assumes the total responsibility for training the student pilot in all the knowledge areas and skills necessary to operate safely and competently as a certificated pilot..."

As far as flying with me... don't worry, I won't be flying you around any time soon... at least for today, the weather is quite bad - low level wind shear and gusts up to 60 knots... so I'm content to stay down today and read all about airplane safety stuff! Consider it a hobby of mine!

Nimur (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a reference which backs up what I said. You say “a contributing factor was a failure to ignore a malfunctioning piece of equipment.” no it wasn't a malfunctioning piece of equipment. All an' every one of their six pitot tubes froze up. A multiply failure for which your idea of “placard it, ignore it” doesn’t apply. With the benefit of hindsight, one might say – Well, rely in the GPS ground speed! But as the investigation showed they where trained by Air France to go with the flow – the majority indications. “The hardest part of an inoperative gauge is admitting that you can not trust its data. Once you decide to ignore that possibly-wrong information, the rest is easy!” They where operating five flight computer systems all at the same time. So if all six air speed indicators show zero? And all the three pilots were all qualified... and it is so easy -so you say- and yet the plane still crashed? Your reference also points out that in the September (page 218 a Flight Operations Telex (FOT) of 9 September 2009 recommending, at the next recurrent training course, a session on the simulator at high altitude in normal and alternate law including: 'Manual aeroplane handling, Carrying out the UNRELIABLE SPEED INDICATION / ADR CHECK PROC procedure.' (their emphasis not mine). So the flight manual doesn't tell everything – just like the Bible. Just like that passenger flight that had a complete all engine flame-out due to volcanic dust at the very time it was far too low over the sea to go through the lengthy restate procedure, so the pilots really earned their salary on that flight by performing a short -cut that wasn't in the flight manual. These are complex craft and requires a couple of hundred hours of intensive training before one can become even second pilot. Pointless debate.--Aspro (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

As a former Navy Aviation tech ... this whole conversation has been pretty funny and inaccurate.

Unknown plant

• 

How is this greenhouse plant called?--Sascha GPD (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks a lot like tobacco to me. Looie496 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Not tobacco. If you blow up the image and look carefully you can actually see the green peppers - so it is capsicum. Wymspen (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Agree it looks like a capsicum, probably impossible to confirm specific variety with any certainty, but maybe bell pepper based on size and shape of the unripe fruit. SemanticMantis (talk) 17:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Two nations divided by the same tongue. What the Americans call a bell pepper is just called a pepper on this side of the pond. Wymspen (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think the American designation is better. We haven't had these things very long; I think I was about 12 (1970?) the first time I saw one in London. Now there's a bewildering variety of the things and we can still only call it "a pepper". Alansplodge (talk) 22:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

If we need to distinguish, we can always call them sweet peppers (or I have also heard salad peppers) - and we do tend to call most of the hotter varieties chillies, or chilli peppers. Most of them also have their own distinct names (eg. Jalapeño). Wymspen (talk) 12:35, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Building a snowman when conditions are not optimal

I was taught to build a snowman by creating 3 large snowballs: The snowballs were started by packing together a small amount of snow with my hands, and then rolling that pack through snow that was lying on the ground. Doing so would cause the small snowball to grow. Do this long enough, and eventually a large enough snowball to make snowman was yielded.

This approach is fine, except for when the snow doesn't stick to itself. When faced with such, I often just gave up because the initial pack would not hold or because growing the inital pack took too long. However, we (me and my snowball throwing friends) did discover that the snow that had collected on vehicles often packed together better than the snow that collected on the ground.

Reflecting on that observation makes me wonder what or if there are steps I could take to make unsticky snow more sticky. I'm wondering what factors aid snow in sticking to itself. If I am dealing with snow that is not sticking to itself, are there any practical steps I could do to make the snow more sticky?

68.96.10.72 (talk) 17:17, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Packing quality of snow is mostly due to temperature. See here [4] from some discussion, we also have snow ball and snow man. I suspect the snow on cars was better for packing because it was warmed slightly due to the vehicle (car gets solar heating, may have had residual heat when snow fell, etc). If you want to pack snow that is difficult to pack, three things will help: 1) you can apply more pressure, 2) use bare hands to give it some heat (both described at ref above) or WP:OR 3) bring out a spray bottle filled with warm water and spray a small patch before you pack it. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I was also going to suggest wetting it, but I would use a hose. Wear rubber gloves so your hands don't freeze. Note that the snowman will freeze into ice. StuRat (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! The spray bottle had occurred to me, but [5] was a great reference on the matter. Others are welcome to continue, but I have my answer 68.96.10.72 (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, there is snow and there is snow. Living where to do, I would have imagined you get the fluffy stuff that should makes great snow balls and the more you roll them the bigger they get. Maybe however, your getting the fine floury ice crystals (if you live at an Hillbilly altitude in the Blue Ridge Mountains) that don’t lend well to rolling snow balls. Just go out side and look at is it. Is it fluffy or fine and floury. If floury, move to a better US location. Unless you live in a hilly area where it is great for skiing down hill on. Or am I taking the piste?]].

Wikipedia has an article on the wrong type of snow. Nimur (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.139.74 (talk)

What is this "snow" you people speak of? I have been living in Los Angeles all of my life and have never seen it "snow" during either of our seasons (wildfire season and mudslide season). :) --Guy Macon (talk) 07:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This article covers the history of snow in LA in some detail. The last major snowfall was in 1949, and the last snow of any sort was in 1962. Tevildo (talk) 10:46, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, those exact years are remembered here in northern England for heavy snowfall that lasted for months. Dbfirs 12:10, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

You're sure you're not talking about 1947? 1949 had record high temperatures. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 12:23, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry, it was 1947, so there isn't the coincidence/link that I thought I saw. The summer of 1949 was indeed hot. Dbfirs 13:06, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Being LA, you don't even have to roll your own.[6] DMacks (talk) 10:56, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I know you are being factitious, @Guy Macon, but there are snow sports 2½ hours from Santa Monica beach. LongHairedFop (talk) 11:29, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Or facetious, even. 5.150.92.20 (talk) 12:08, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm. After years of dealing with conspiracy theorists and pseudo-scientists on Wikipedia, I think I can do a fair imitation:

Ha! As clearly shown in these references[7][8] that "snow" is FAKE! In Los Angeles, you can even order up a bunch of "snow" with real penguins!![9] --Guy Macon (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

As DMacks alludes to: If one hasn't seen snow in LA, you obviously aren’t getting invited to the right parties. Nor had a snowball. Ho Ho.--Aspro (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2017 (UTC)