Science desk
< January 27	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 29 >

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 28

Trash dumping into the ocean

Are there still governments that dump trash into the sea as a way of getting rid of it? You know, like with barges and such? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some dumping still occurs - see Toxic waste dumping by the 'Ndrangheta. But whether the 'Ndrangheta or Kenyan rebels or the Somalian subunits, etc. count as governments is a philosophical question I'll leave to you. Wnt (talk) 14:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of other waste is finding its way to the sea. For example see Brussels goes to war against plastic garbage, The Commission also focused on seas, where each year between 150,000 and 500,000 tons of plastic waste enters the oceans. The strategy calls marine litter — debris from items such as plastic products and abandoned fishing gear — a “visible and alarming” sign of the problem of waste.. Presumably it depends upon individual government regulation and enforcement, as it is probably one of the cheaper ways of dealing with waste. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See also Marine debris: 8.8 million metric tons of plastic waste are dumped in the world's oceans each year. Asia was the leading source of mismanaged plastic waste, with China alone accounting for 2.4 million metric tons.. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:47, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mrjulesd, the thing is, that's an awful lot of plastic for just nets and gear and bottles from storm drains, don't you think? It just doesn't seem like that much could accidentally end up there without large-scale dumping. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I share your skepticism. Some "marine debris" is clearly accidental - lost fishing nets, and debris from spilled "nurdles", but the marine debris article gives an amazing claim that 80% is "blown off of landfills", a phrase that sounds like a direct quote from the Mafia types who usually run them. I mean, you'd think that if that much material was blowing off landfills all the way to the ocean you'd hear more frustrated beachfront property owners volubly complaining, wouldn't you? Wnt (talk) 11:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Anna Frodesiak absolutely, there is industrial scale dumping taking place. Most of it decomposes, but the exception is plastics, so they pose the greatest problem. Actual waste disposal in seas is probably in the tens of millions of tonnes per year. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:52, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wnt and Mrjulesd. Yes, my guess is that there are communities that routinely drive the garbage truck to the sea and dump their trash into it. Humans! Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Wnt. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most plastics are estimated to decompose after 50-1000 years. Till 1993 14 states dumped their nuclear waste into the ocean. Japan actually does again today since the coastal Fukishima nuclear plant's cooling water is also led out (leaked/ deposed on purpose) to the sea [1]. Its likely that nature or science will develop new microorganisms in the near future to use the accumulated masses of plastics in the "foodchain". Most likely some new Marine fungi, as they are natures best decomposition specialists already. That will not happen to nuclear waste however. Everything nuclear leaking out somewhere will slowly spread around the whole world. --Kharon (talk) 07:17, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A group of humans?

According to the List of English terms of venery, by animal, depending on species, a group of animals is called a(n)...

colony of ants
troop of apes
family of beavers

... et cetera ...
swarm of bees flock of birds herd of elephants army of frogs gaggle of geese cackle of hyenas swarm of insects fluther of jellyfish mob of kangaroos leap of leopards barrel of monkeys watch of nightingales parliament of owls colony of penguins bevy of quail mischief of rats pod of seals hover of trout committee of vultures pack of wolves

dazzle of zebras
______ of humans?

What about humans?

Is there a generic term for a group of humans?

Or is "group" the generic term?

Is there a definitive article or list on collective nouns for humans? So far, I've found:

Are there others?

I look forward to your replies. The Transhumanist 12:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: please {{ping}} me if you respond. -TT

@The Transhumanist: Term of venery doesn't apply to humans (relates to hunting & eating). The collective noun for humans is people, and the collective noun for groups of humans depends on what "group"; e.g.: a troupe of artists, a panel of experts, etc... See an interesting list here: "≡ List of Collective Nouns for People + Groups of Humans + Professions". Adducation. —2606:A000:4C0C:E200:5816:CC2:4ADE:73A0 (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's a list of ersatz collective nouns related to computers: a bleat or jury of users; an absence of engineers; a trough of salespersons, etc. from a book called The Computer Contradictionary.[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I thought of was mob which led me Crowd. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 13:12, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't only organize physically. A social group is a term that I think is particularly applicable. We can be scattered over great distances and still be tied together. Even time doesn't separate us, as it might other species. We see that in the history of any socially-tied group of people, as long as their history remains reasonably intact. Bus stop (talk) 13:21, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Isn't barrel of monkeys incorrect? (I realize it is sourced at List of English terms of venery, by animal.) Bus stop (talk) 13:47, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Humans that lived together in the wild as a group, like the above animals do, when a (pre-)historian refers to them, are usually called a "tribe". --Lgriot (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tribe describes a group of humans too. I think there is no shortage of words for humans related in some way. Clan is used. Family is also used, especially when loosely defined. Bus stop (talk) 15:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it's because we humans organise ourselves in numerous different ways, depending on the enterprise at hand, unlike say, rooks or elephants which habitually use a single group structure. Compare a drinking party in a pub with an infantry battalion on parade for instance. Alansplodge (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Three legged folding chair with a back

See this.

Could one be made with two legs longer than the other one? The two legs stick up to make a back support. The triangular fabric is then an isosceles triangle rather than equilateral. Would the sitter get thrust forward into the third leg? Could such a chair be made. Someone would be eternally grateful if this could be made. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hacksaw.

I don't think you can turn this from a stool into a chair (with a back). You'd need a bit more rigidity for that, also a curve to the two rear legs. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your link [3] actually includes several images of three-legged folding chairs with backs - just scroll down the page a few rows. Wymspen (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Andy. Darn.

Thank you, Wymspen. I forgot to mention that I am specifically interested in one with a triangle, fabric seat. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least two fitting that description among the images in the link - fourth row. [4] and [5] link to them individually. Wymspen (talk) 11:03, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Thank you, Wymspen. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:13, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Electric Universe concept removed from Wikipedia.

Hello,

http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html

The above article claims that the entery for the Electric Universe concept was removed due to illegimate citations and a lack of publications.

Is that true? Is there a reference I could look at?

However, if you search for Electric Universe on the wiki, you are shuntted over to Plasma Cosmology which is unrelated, i.e., Plasma Cosmology is a legitimate hypothesis back by peer review and computer models while the Electric Universe concept has no peer reviewed papers nor any formalized logic to support it. Confusingly, this could give someone the impression that the Electric Universe concept is synonymous with Plasma Cosmology.

Thanks in advance for any clarification you could offer.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.174.10 (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

Plasma Cosmology is a legitimate hypothesis it is also fringe, but notable enough to have its article. —Paleo Neonate – 20:07, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric Universe model. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 20:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It eventually crossed an event horizon at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Electric universe (concept). Thincat (talk) 21:31, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]