Miscellaneous desk
< May 1	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 2

De Surville anchors

Who raised and did the conservation work on the DeSurville anchors found in Doubtless Bay in the Far North NZ.Jakeflake 00:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC) ( I ask because the wrong person often gets credited with this work and I wonder if Wikipedia has reference to this info.)[reply]

From [1], Kelly Tarlton found the first one, Mike Bearsley found number 2 and 3. Kelly Tarlton apparently wrote an article about it in International Journal of Nautical Archaeology (Volume 6 Issue 1 Page 64 - February 1977), but I can't get access to it. About the conservation work, I don't know, although they seem to be suggesting that they did electrolysis themselves at Te Papa - wild speculation, though. Aaadddaaammm 00:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The correct info on this is:- Yes Kelly Tarlton found the first one, Mike Bearsley found the second one. Later Kelly located the third one using a magnetometer. Mike Bearsley raised and did all the conservation work on the first and second anchors. The third anchor was left on the seabed as a memorial to the sailors from DeSurville's ship who died of scurvy and were buried at sea nearby. Mikes anchor was displayed in the Kaitaia museum complete with a correctly scaled hand adzed stock and a rope made up by the navy exactly as the original. Mike Bearsley delivered 'Kelly's anchor' to the Auckland museum for temporary display and later it was taken to Te Papa. At TePapa that anchor was given a coat of varnish as its final coat in spite of instructions as to the type of metal laquer to use. This explains its milky appearance. The anchor was then strapped to a wall. 124.197.35.189

I am Darryl Bearsley, son of Mike Bearsley and I can verify the (immediately) above information to be 100% accurate. I would however add that although Kelly Tarlton began the search for the anchors first, he soon gave up and asked Mike Bearsley if he would like to continue. Mike took up the search in conjunction with the local news man Derek Vincent. Mike was performing a grid search of the bay, when engine troubles forced him to put the search on hold for a short time while repairs were made to his boat. During this time out of the water, Derek gave the search details to Kelly Tarlton, who continued from the point at which Mike Bearsley had been searching and shortly thereafter came upon the first anchor. Once back in the water, Mike found the second anchor exactly where his research had led him to believe it would be. (To be thorough, he had been searching the entire bay). It's a testament to Mike Bearsley's skill and dedication to the preservation of this historical find, that Mike, under direction of Dr Colin Pearson (of the Western Australian Museum), not only supervised, but did the majority of the preservation work himself. It certainly would have been an interesting exercise to transport these massive and unstable artifacts 971 kilometers from Doubtless Bay to Wellington where the (at the time) nearest experts at conservation work were, had Mike not dedicated so much time and effort to perfecting the preservation process himself, in Kaitaia.

1990 birth 2003 death

I remember there was an article on Wikipedia about a girl who was born in 1990 and died in 2003 because she commited suicide. it happened in Texas. What was the name of that girl? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.64.137.205 (talk) 01:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Any details? I can't really think top of my head. Splintercellguy 02:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You could try looking in the relevant categories (shameless plug): Category:1990 births and Category:2003 deaths. →Ed Gl 02:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried using CatScan but it didn't come up with any articles that matched both categories. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even if there was an article once, it might not be there any more. Articles about people are often deleted if it is determined that the person does not meet the notability guidelines. - Eron ^Talk 12:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pungency Addiction Syndrome

My question is, do you guys know anything about this, its and addiction to spicy foods, called Pungency Addiction Syndrome, cuz i really like spicy food, not to that extent, but im still curious as to how spicy food affects the brain in a way that makes it addictive.

As I understand this, chillies and hot currys etc cause a release of adrenalin and endorphines which regular eaters of these foods tend to get slightly addicted to. this is why they tend to like hotter and hotter spices as time goes by. 124.197.35.189

As a pun gent, myself, I thought it was because regular food seems rather bland after having developed a taste for spicy foods. StuRat 06:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capsaicin

What would be the effects on persons body if they were to consume 100% pure capsaicin? Is there a lethal dose known for capsaicin? 68.231.151.161 03:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A piece of capsicum one quarter of an inch square in a pot of stew repeats on me all day so I hate to think of the effect of a whole capsicum let alone pure capsaicin.124.197.35.189

The article states that capsaicin is an irritant, its mechanism of action causes a neural reaction, it doesn't actually cause any kind of burn or tissue damage, it's purely the sensation. So I don't think there is a relevant 'lethal dose'. Vespine 04:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article says "In large quantities, capsaicin can cause death." So I was wondering how large a quantity that is. 68.231.151.161 04:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the section about "non lethal force" haha, missed it the 1st time I went through the article. Vespine 04:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Capsaicin activates thermoreceptors on the skin and mucus membrane, specifically Transient receptor potential V1 through V4. These create an action potential which we interpret as noxious heat nociception. In animal studies, crystalline capsaicin (15,000,000–16,000,000 on the Scoville scale) was administered intravenously and by ingestion. The animals died alright, the probable cause of death was was respiratory paralysis. If you project the required dose to kill a mouse to the mass of a human, the fatal toxicity dose for a 150 pound person would be about thirteen grams of pure capsaicin ingested (Note also that while pure capsaicin rates at 15,000,000–16,000,000 Scoville Units, the hottest known pepper, the Naga Jolokia pepper, rates a relatively measly ~ 1,000,000.) Rockpocket 06:47, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, these data are from PMID 7394809. Rockpocket 00:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you imagine just opening a vial of that stuff? I suppose that it is almost impossible to handle: full protection and fume hoods. --Zeizmic 11:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it aerosolised, it would be like being pepper sprayed with a compound 3 to 5 times more potent than the stuff the police use. So I guess some sort of fume hood would be a good idea. Rockpocket 17:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase to know for this kind of question is material safety data sheet (MSDS). You can find many of them by just googling for capsaicin msds. They quote varying values for the oral LD50 (the dose that kills half the animals that eat it) in rat or mouse, which is about as close to humans as you will find experimental numbers for. This source quotes 47 mg/kg of body weight, while this one quotes various numbers around 100-150 mg/kg. For an 80 kg human, 50 mg/kg would add up to 4 grams of pure capsaicin. --mglg_(talk) 18:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page gives the LD₅₀s for different methods of administration; ingestion has an LD₅₀ of 190 milligrams per kilo body weight or 13.3 grams for a 70 kilo human. This rates on a category 3 on the CCOHS Hodge and Sterner Scale; about 30 ml (about the volume of a Shot glass (although the higher value mglg found, 47, would put it on a 2 - 1 tsp would be fatal). However, inhaled, the LC₅₀ (the gaseous equivalent), is 8000 ppm, inhaled for 4 hours. This rates on a category 4 on the CCOHS Hodge and Sterner Scale; "slightly toxic", meaning that it would take inhalation of about 1 pint or half a litre of capsaicin vapour to kill you; no pepper spray container would carry that much, and all the vapour would have to be concentrated in one place. Laïka 21:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

entity

What kind of entity would have the face which looks like the devil with no horns a scaly body and wings like a bat.Whatme 08:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The dreaded and elusive Chupacabra? -- Azi Like a Fox 10:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

a bat? Could you give a better description?

And the picture on the article looks nothing like a Chupacabra. They have huge tails and spines down their backs.

You may find this hard to believe, but there are disagreements over the precise physiology of the Chupacabra, and if you'll go to the Appearance heading of the article and read the first paragraph I think you'll agree that some accounts match the Original Poster's description tolerably well. -- Azi Like a Fox 13:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some depictions of Spring Heeled Jack give him bat wings. On a more real note, Draco lizard has gliding adaptations which look pretty close to bat wings, and one heck of a spooky face. This guy also looks pretty scary and glides (not quite bat wings, but close), but sadly, he's extinct, and modern flying squirels are positively cuddly. According to Flying and gliding animals there's such a thing as a flying squid, but shocking, there's no article! Laïka

Flying squid are of the family Ommastrephidae, specifically sub-family Todarodinae. flying squid should probably redirect there. Rockpocket 01:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done; I actually redirected it to Humboldt Squid, to be specific; unfortunately, I don't think that squid actually flies. V-Man - ^T/_C 01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect it to the family page Ommastrephidae instead, as RockPocket suggested? The family contains many species of flying squids. The Humboldt squid is just one example, and a misleading one if it doesn't actually fly. --mglg_(talk) 18:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the redirect of flying squid to Ommastrephidae. --mglg_(talk) 03:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woah - is that to say that there is a species of squid that actually flies? V-Man - ^T/_C 01:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prevalence of Freezing Temperatures on Earth

Hi, everyone.

I've asked this question before, so I'm sorry for asking it again. If you've already read it, please don't be angry. I just really want a good answer. So, the question: What proportion of land/earth's surface/plants/organisms have to survive temperatures below freezing (0 C)? If you know of any peripheral statistics around this question, they would be great too. Thanks very much for your help. Aaadddaaammm 08:30, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You really shouldn't spray your questions on multiple sections. It's not polite. --Zeizmic 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spray and pray. 213.48.15.234 14:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I answered your question after looking at a variety of sources. I think that last time your question was clearer because it was simpler. I think that last time you asked "What proportion of earth's surface" ever drops below 0 C. That is a very different question from "What proportion of land" drops below 0 C, and "What proportion of plants/ organisms" survive temperatures below 0 C make four completely different questions. As for Earth's surface, I could not find any sources that directly answered your question, but by looking at a variety of climate maps, I came up with a rough estimate that, on average, only in areas above 50° latitude (north or south) does the surface drop below freezing most years. I came up with this figure because, while land surfaces much closer to the Equator do drop below freezing, most ocean surfaces below about 54° do not, and most of Earth's surface is ocean. Areas above 50° make up just under 45% of Earth's surface.

If your question is what proportion of land surfaces exhibit such temperatures, the percentage would be much higher, almost certainly more than half, partly because land surfaces vary much more in temperature from day to night and by season than the sea surface, partly because Earth's land areas are more heavily concentrated in non-tropical latitudes than its oceans. An exact answer would require more work than I have time for.

If your question is what proportion of plants survive such temperatures, then your question needs more refining. Do you mean what proportion of plant individuals, biomass, or species? Individuals are more numerous in the oceans (below the surface), because of all of the one-celled algal organisms, and more numerous toward the Equator because of the greater throughflow of energy and the greater diversity of ecological niches. Plant biomass is greater toward the Equator, because of the intensity of sunlight. Species are also concentrated in the tropics and in the least frost-prone temperate regions. So the proportion would vary depending on how you want to measure "plants". In any case, the proportion would be lower than the proportion of Earth's land surface that undergoes subfreezing temperatures, and probably lower than the proportion of Earth's total surface, because of the concentration of biomass, individuals, and species in tropical and/or subsurface marine environments. The reasoning would be similar if you were interested in "organisms" rather than "plants". In either case, however you measure it, the proportion is almost certainly lower than the 45% figure for the proportion of Earth's total surface that falls below 0 C.

If you ask your question again, I will not attempt to answer it. Marco polo 15:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for your thoughts and sorry again for re-asking a question. Aaadddaaammm 23:53, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the formal definitions of "taiga" and "arctic", they mention how long the area is below freezing. e.g (www.blueplanetbiomes.org/taiga.htm). Polypipe Wrangler 23:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Gore Entry tampering

Hi! The Al Gore article has been tampered with. A line after the first paragraph reads: "There is really no way people can take this guy seriously."

This is a biased statement that should be deleted to keep in line with wikipiedias policies. Link is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Gore

Thanks so much, Wikipedia is great! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Octaempire (talk • contribs) 14:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Fixed. Good spot. That user had also attacked five other articles. - X201 14:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you see vandalism, you can revert it too. Splintercellguy 15:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One could say it is an unverifiable statement. A.Z. 22:28, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spiderman 3

why is spiderman the best movie ever?

WATCH CHAD VADER!!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.170.44.145 (talk) 22:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Because... oh wait, that's a loaded question, and besides - we don't answer opinion-based questions. You may wish to ask a relevant internet forum or a movie expert of some kind. By the way, critics don't consider Spiderman 1, 2, or 3 to be the "best movie ever." You may wish to check out Rottentomatoes.com or some other movie critic site (I believe S-man 3 has about 74% on R-tomatoes). See also Films considered the greatest ever. Don't lose heart though; I'm sure Spiderman will never be on the list of films considered the worst ever! →Ed Gl 23:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Vader? LAWLZ V-Man - ^T/_C 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter-of-fact question. The answer is simple: Because Spidey is the best! Sʟυмgυм • т • c 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because he does whatever a spider can. --Dweller 10:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I have the spiderman scene from family guy in my head :( 213.48.15.234 12:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like sumgum's response the best. thank u!

Re:Question - I WAS ASKING A QUESTION:

Question WAS before removal: Why was this removed -

- UN Delegate, two CIA men spot UFO abducting woman, - Millions see UFO abduct woman

I had asked this question, only someone said it was a STATEMENT, which it is NOT. 205.240.144.220 23:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have any punctuation or words that cue us to your "question"'s status. All I see are two external links. - AMP'd 23:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may also help to take a deep breath to calm yourself down, and to realize that Wikipedia is run by a cabal. V-Man - ^T/_C 23:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't really matter whether it's a question. The point is that you, original poster, want help with something. But the rest of us cannot figure out what that something is; all we see are a couple of links. So, what is it that you want us to help you with? Tugbug 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said! Those could be the guidelines for the reference desk, with a slightly different phrasing. A.Z. 05:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Above

While asking it, MY Linksys unit had failed - again

Question IS: Why were these links, pertainable info removed from all UFO articles ? 205.240.144.220 23:44, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The UFO incident is a HIGH PROFILE case, due to the people involved. 205.240.144.220 23:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the assisstance. 205.240.144.220 23:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why pick on two partisan pages on UFOlogy, rather than citing any of the thousands of other similar pages. I assume they were removed because they add nothing to the argument as to the veracity of aliens. I suggest you seek to argue your point on the relevant article talk pages, rather than on the reference desk. Be aware that your ideas about what links are relevant, and others' ideas, may not match. I recommend less indignation & more reasoned argument in an appropriate place. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Sources contained in the links are two of the BIGGEST media giants, which is the Wall Street journal AND the New York times. 205.240.144.220 23:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything in either article which indicates that the articles have anything to do with those two publications. Perhaps you could take the advice given, which is to take this argument to the talk pages of the articles from which the references were removed. (Ah, I do see them in the sources of the first article. But sorry, I'd want a better citation than those provided. Did the newpaper articles endorse the supposed facts or not?) --Tagishsimon (talk)

(EC) Perhaps if you were to find the actual sources to the large media giants' articles, rather than an obscure website that claims them as sources, the claim would be more believable as well as reliable. Posting a link to a place that makes a certain claim about a reliable source is not as potent as the source itself. V-Man - ^T/_C 00:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]