Science desk
< March 29	<< Feb \| March \| Apr >>	March 31 >

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.

March 30[edit]

How do garbage bags end up in the ocean?[edit]

Don't the sewage drains that they enter into ultimately lead to a sewage treatment plant,where the water gets treated before being emptied?Uncle dan is home (talk) 00:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In many places, the sanitary sewer system is separate from the storm sewer system. The exception is combined sewer systems, which in the US are older systems, mostly in the Northeast, Great Lakes region and Pacific Northwest. Our storm sewer article says "Other than catchbasins, typically there are no treatment facilities in the piping system." CodeTalker (talk) 00:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Does New York still fill barges with collected trash and dump it in the ocean? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illegal dumping is still a widespread problem, even if it occasionally produces a catchy song. --Jayron 32 01:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is unclear to me what you mean by garbage bags going to sewage treatment plants. They are not usually flushed down sinks or toilets. But oceans are big. Have you ever seen one? Have you seen trash bags on the land? The mechanism by which filthy people litter wherever they go is the same. μηδείς (talk) 01:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, according to here they go through sewer pipes to the ocean.http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5191294 Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I wasn't assuming people would usually flush garbage bags down toilets.Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And the reason why I asked this question was in relation to what I read in that link. My question has been pretty much answered.Uncle dan is home (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No idea who ever started that fairy tale. There is allot of decomposed Plastic in the Oceans that comes from everything that is made of plastic that finds its way into them, which is allot. Plastic bags are a very, very tiny part of that mass. A big part of that plastic mass comes for example from Commercial fishing, from Drift nets and Trawl nets which are lost or abandoned at sea due to storms, strong currents, accidental loss, or purposeful discard. --Kharon (talk) 02:26, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan, it's still unclear what you mean by a garbage bag. You may mean a 30-gallon bag full of trash, or a small plastic shopping bag with the remains of lunch. If you've ever been fishing with an environmentally non-conscientious person, you may have seen small plastic bags thrown overboard. But these don't go down toilets, let alone 30-gallon trashbags full of garbage. μηδείς (talk) 02:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Dan was referring to plastic bags (or any trash really) discarded outside that gets washed into a storm drain, and wondering where such things wind up. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in which case the answer is either littering on the land plus wind, or littering at sea. My uncle was quite a nasty bastard, and would throw his beer cans and empty plastic bags overboard with abandon. It's up to the OP to clarify herself. μηδείς (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the clarification above seems clear enough to me. They read the Huffington Post link which said plastic bags blows into storm drains through sewer pipes and into waterways. They did not think that people were flushing bags down toilets, but rather had assumed storm drains also go to sewage treatment plants, maybe not helped by the Huffington Post refering to sewer pipes. I don't know if they had a size in mind, but the picture in the Huffington Post which lead to this question does show ordinary shopping bags and it would be the sort of thing I would imagine people are most likely to think would end up in storm drains. Nil Einne (talk) 05:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that there was video of a cruise ship tossing garbage bags overboard instead of disposing of their garbage properly: [1]. If they will risk this, when their business very much depends on the good will of their customers, I can imagine that non-passenger ships, which don't need to care about public perception, do so far more often. In time, the bags, even if sealed, will disgorge their contents. StuRat (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stu, for providing an at least possibly relevant source. The problem here is, we don't know that the bags went into the ocean. They may simply have landed on a lower deck. μηδείς (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sick whale had 30 plastic bags in its stomach. The whale washed ashore and had to be euthanized at Vindenes, Norway. Blooteuth (talk) 15:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen another vid shown from the outside (at night I believe, so few passengers saw). StuRat (talk) 16:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See:

--Guy Macon (talk) 19:07, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trash interceptor is worth a look too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even wind carries plastic into the rivers and oceans. The Ocean Cleanup is an idea of an young Dutchman. Another Idea is to bill emptying the trashcans by number and wait until the trash is being spread around. Then wait to get an award for die idea to empty the trashcans for free. And now teach the people how to put the garbage into the trashcan due they already knew before.[2] --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hans, can I just say that this post makes very little sense in English (bill emptying the trashcans by number? - die idea? - due they already knew before?) and the link to the German Wikipedia is of no help unless you happen to speak German. Richerman (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming 'die idea' is 'the idea'. It sounds like Hans Haase is suggesting to charge people for emptying rubbish bins then wait until rubbish is spread around (I guess because people don't want to pay) and then propose emptying rubbish bins for free and get an award for it. You then also need to re-teach people how to throw rubbish into rubbish bins I guess because they forgot when they began to throw rubbish randomly due to the charge to empty rubbish bins.

Like you, I can't be bothered checking out a machine translation of the German wikipedia, but I can say this isn't likely to happen in NZ. In some places including in parts of Auckland, you are already and have been for many years charged for rubbish, generally in the form or prepaid bags or stickers. Actually everyone is charged for rubbish collection in Auckland nowadays where it occurs, it's just that for some it's a fixed part of the rates and you pay the same no matter how much or how little you use it. In some cases it's possible to opt-out of that, although I'm not sure if you need to demonstrate you're using some other service.

Anyway, the plan is to move everyone to wheelie bins with RFID and people will be charged per collection, but in the short term despite having talked about it for 7 years or something, the plan seems to be to provide the bins but not use the RFID and move everyone to the fixed charge albeit with the option for larger bins for an increased charge. (Plans for smaller bins seem to have fallen by the wayside. I presume opt-out will be perserved during this changeover, otherwise private companies will be up in arms. Once the RFID thing is implemented, I assume opt-out is irrelevant well unless you are able to opt-out of something more than ordinary rubbish collection.)

While there are some minor mutterings about dumping, I don't think anyone is likely to win an award for proposing free rubbish collection. There may very well be some minor increase in those areas with prepaid bags or stickers (where it's obviously trivial to opt-out) but I haven't seen any evidence it's a significant problem. It may annoy people, but it just isn't worth it. Especially since there tends to be enough community concern and enforcement that if someone did regularly dump, they're likely to be caught or fined unless they spend a significant effort. (I can imagine in a place like Malaysia there may be a bigger problem in some areas if people are charged in this way.) There tends to be greater concern over inorganic collection of large items.

This isn't to suggest litter isn't a problem, it is but this tends to be e.g. people in cars or walking too lazy to carry it, rubbish accidentally released etc, not because someone didn't want to pay for rubbish collection. On the accidentally released part, one of the advantages and reasons to move to wheelie bins other than easing collection is to reduce animals like dog, but also cats, possums etc breaking open rubbish bags and spreading litter all over.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:58, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mine rescue[edit]

What equipment do they use in mine rescue when they need to dig a tunnel for ventilation, rescue personnel access and/or survivor escape (like they did in that Pennsylvania mine rescue some years ago)? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 11:31, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably many different types of equipment have been used successfully. Have a look at Dahlbusch Bomb. Dolphin (t) 11:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost entirely, they don't. Digging such a tunnel is just too slow. Mine rescue teams are primarily equipped to cross surviving tunnels, despite new hazards of gas, water and failing shoring. They're about speed.

It's very rare that any new tunnel can be dug quickly enough to rescue survivors. Where it has been, this has usually been by drilling from the surface - either vertical or inclined. As it's done from the surface, this allows large amounts of machinery and power to be applied, without having to take it down the shaft. The crew also stay safe during the drilling. As the shaft is vertical (or near vertical) it also avoids the slow process of shoring up that would be needed to access one shaft from another, by going horizontally. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at 2010 Copiapó mining accident, the rescue took 69 days, all the trapped miners were successfully rescued. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:14, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to check out the article Wunder von Lengede ("miracle of Lengede") where a very sophisticated rescue operation succeeded 1963 in West German. I doubt any mine has a "rescue kit" ready. Such equipment is constructed and build fast "on the fly", fitting the circumstances, when needed. --Kharon (talk) 07:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! So, when escape shafts have to be made, the equipment of choice is a mobile drilling rig and an escape capsule, right? 2601:646:8E01:7E0B:F88D:DE34:7772:8E5B (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which animal is the biggest in the world?[edit]

Which animal is the biggest in the world? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.210.24.129 (talk) 19:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Largest organisms#Animals. The answer will depend on whether you are only considering land animals or including sea creatures as well. -gadfium 19:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is not helpful to the OP. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:33, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Obviously it is IP 197. μηδείς (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What has this got to do with anything, other than insulting the OP? 72.46.247.116 (talk) 16:26, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was more like making fun of the OP, whose question was initially written IN ALL CAPITAL LETTERS! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is just my opinion, but I believe that making fun of someone who is likely not too computer literate is rude and uncalled for... 72.46.247.116 (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may well have a point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you including extinct species? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters, because the Blue whale is "the largest animal known to have ever existed." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some unwritten consensus that comments on behavioural issues from users here is not useful here. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:34, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment @The Rambling Man: Whilst I agree the edit you removed was not helpful, I suggest that your removal of another editor's comments on here are rather bad form - perhaps even against PaGs. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:12, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Better? It would help if it made any difference to these users, but the unreferenced jokes, claims, anecdotes, incorrect medical advice etc keeps on coming. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree with you more. Standards of referencing certainly need to be raised. However, removing posts is a rather combative way of dealing with this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DrChrissy Well as you can see it's been restored in a pointy fashion with threats of ANI, IBANs etc. Little wonder these pages are so ridiculed by the rest of the community. A real shame because most contributors here do a good job, just spoilt by a handful of users. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:56, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the title of the boxed comments above, how can we have "unwritten consensus" on Wikipedia? DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:31, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Military drones and what they do[edit]

I'm looking at List of unmanned aerial vehicles#United States and Unmanned combat aerial vehicle and am lost. I'm wish to know what ones fly around and watch etc., and which ones have a bomb inside and fly into targets. Can anyone help? Many thanks. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:11, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost any unmanned system is capable of being converted to carry some kind of weapons. Most UAVs don't "fly into targets", they are just like regular aircraft which launch weapons they carry. One place to start is here. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi The Rambling Man. Google books is blocked were I am. So, when they say in the news that there was a drone strike, doesn't that mean a drone flew around and then flew into a target? By the way, Drone strike redirects to Unmanned combat aerial vehicle. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:28, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unmanned aircraft like the famous Predator can carry air-to-ground missiles, including the famous AGM-114 Hellfire weapon. The drone can continue to fly back to base after firing the air-to-ground missile at its target. Details about this capability are published by the United States Air Force on their MQ-1 fact sheet. That airframe and that weapon payload are both very old technology, and will be retired very soon as newer unmanned aircraft fulfill its mission and role. The most famous newer-generation drone is the MQ-9 Reaper, which can carry an unspecified number of air-to-ground missiles and guided bombs.

Many types of unarmed drones are very commonly used by all branches of the United States military. However, only the Air Force operates the MQ-9 armed unmanned aircraft system. It is very probably that many other existing, but less-famous, armed unmanned airframes are in active use to carry other weapon payloads for the United States Air Force and for other agencies. Central Intelligence Agency, for example, has disclosed that it independently operated Predator outside of ordinary DoD channels, via an inter-agency cooperative agreement. It is very probable that CIA - which is a civilian government agency that is not a part of the United States military - continues to operate unarmed and possibly armed unmanned airframes.

When the Department of Defense talks about a "strike," they specifically mean "one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single or cumulative effect. For example... a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined." This is the boilerplate text that shows up at the bottom of every single official statement, e.g. today's strike press release. The DoD does not usually reveal the type or number of aircrafts or weapons. Occasionally they will distinguish between a strike conducted by a manned- versus an unmanned- airframe.

When other agencies or press groups report "drone strikes," it is not clear whether they conform to those definitions.

Nimur (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nimur. Wow. What you just wrote about could practically become text for a new article Drone strike. Just wrap <ref></ref> around the urls. What do you think about that?

So, what you are saying, and this is what I am after, is that the drones shoot missles but do not actually fly themselves into a target, right?

Oh, and another reason to start Drone strike is that ISIS, or whatever they are called these days, are starting to use them by dropping a bomb straight down from above.

Thoughts?

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:30, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sometimes I wish I were an engineer in a different century. Nimur (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you were an engineer with your knowledge but 500 years ago, you'd be quite admired, dine with the king, and make a pretty good buck too. So, a basic article called drone strike? We don't have one. The unmanned vehicle article doesn't say what one is. List of drone strikes here and there don't define what a drone strike is. People everywhere need a basic article saying how it all happens because they are like me and think the drones crash into the target. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect most people know a drone can land and isn't used by militaries to crash into targets. Why spend weight and money on landing gear instead of explosives if you are just going to crash it? Maybe you are thinking of a cruise missile. Criminals and terrorists may use drones for crashing with explosives (at least in fiction) because civilian drones capable of carrying a payload may be easier to get than missiles. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:04, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise missle, eh? Ahhhh, ok. So, the drone watches and fires a cruise missle. Is that it? Why do they call it a drone strike then? Because the drone fired the missle? And, I'd say 99% of women believe that the drones actually fly into the target like a disposable thing. I think there must be many men who think that too. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And did you know that Cruise missile doesn't mention "unmanned" or "drone"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cruise missiles are large, long range and fired from land, ships, or large manned aircraft like B-52. Drones fly close to the target and fire small short range missiles. People often assume others think they same as them. I think your 99% is wildly exaggerated but I don't know what is the majority belief. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:35, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That is not generally accurate: drones do not commonly fire cruise missiles. A cruise missile is a specific and different type of airframe and weapon system - it is much larger than the type of air-to-ground missile that is normally carried by an unmanned aircraft, and flies in a very different way. For example, the Tomahawk cruise missile is about twenty feet long and can carry a thousand pound weapon; the missile is about four times longer than, and carries about twenty times as much explosive as, the AGM-114 Hellfire that is commonly associated with a "drone strike." In a few cases, there do exist air-launched cruise missiles, but they are generally too large to be launched by existing unmanned aircraft systems - at least, those that are widely known to the general public.

For perspective: a drone strike can destroy a vehicle; a cruise missile strike can destroy a building. Existing cruise missiles could, in practice, be equipped with a nuclear warhead, and could destroy a medium-sized city.

Put another way: the officer who may decide to fire a cruise missile would outrank the officer who can decide to exercise a drone strike. One is a theater weapon, and one is a tactical weapon. The weapons are used for different purposes. Consider some further light reading: FM3-0 Operations?

Nimur (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nimur. Okay, so cruise missiles are used for big stuff, and the drones shoot small stuff. Fair enough. Thank you, by the way, for educating me. I am totally new to the whole boys-with-planet-ending-toys thing. I guess it is like a bit of a chess game or something. I hope they work it out and find peace. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I started Drone strike and will expand it. It will not just be a definition article for long. Plus, a bzillion articles will link to it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From a technical view ist almost silly to distinct modern guided missiles and bombs, cruise missiles, drones, torpedos and even some modern mines and amunition. They are all military Robots in essence. The only distinction of drones is that they are reuse- and/or restorable. Thats their only technical advantage really. --Kharon (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The technical advantage of the military drone is its ability for remote real-time control and surveillance. This enables close identification of targets at no operator risk. Blooteuth (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]