Miscellaneous desk
< June 4	<< May \| June \| Jul >>	June 6 >

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.

June 5

Rats and rat poison

Are rat poisons fatal if consumed by little kids?? Also, are there different types of poison of which some are safer than others?? Which kind is a must-avoid type if it's intended to be used in a household with three children whose ages range from 5 to 16?? Thanks. 117.194.225.63 (talk) 03:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rat poisons are not species-specific. At the right dosage, they will kill any critter, including you. If you are concerned because a child has already consumed rat poison, back away from the keyboard and dial emergency services, like, now. If you are looking for a way to exterminate rats in a way that is safe for your children, it would be best to consult an expert, such as a professional exterminator. They are generally better trained than say, you or I, in the use of such chemicals, and could likely recommend an extermination method which was as safe as possible for your family. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Get a Maine Coon. This type of cat kills rats, but seldom kills children, unless annoyed. Edison (talk) 05:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My aunt had a Maine Coon. I never slept over her house, because I always thought the cat was plotting to kill me in my sleep, I don't agree that the cat was plotting to kill her in her sleep I think he would have too. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They also vocalize in ways unlike the "Meow" of other cats. Edison (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to recommend a ball-bearing rat trap, but I'm told the females are better hunters. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are rat trap boxes, where the poison pellets are in an almost sealed box, so access to them is difficult for children, but the scent attracts the rats in to eat. They go away and die in their nests. This can cause problems with locating them (although after 4 days the smell is quite easy to pinpoint). Get the expert or the Maine Coon. Friends who have one tell me they are loyal and protective of children (which might not apply to the pest control expert). KoolerStill (talk) 07:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A rat trap of the kind that traps the rat in a cage is perfectly safe around children. (edit) Also as the children are over 5, the other kinds of trap that kill rats with a spring loaded bar would also be fairly safe - and the kids will very quickly learn not to touch the traps. If you want to use rat poison (Of course we've got an article on it!) it can safely be used in places the children can't easilly access, for example locked tool sheds or behind heavy furniture --Polysylabic Pseudonym (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rat poisons based on Red squill kill rats but not people. Red squill causes people to vomit, but rats cannot or do not vomit, and are therefore poisoned. (By all reports, kids who consume this stuff end up with a lasting learning experience and no lasting damage.) Rat poison based on Warfarin can kill humans. Warfarin is used in tiny amounts as a blood thinner. You can extrapolate from this to its effect as a poison. -Arch dude (talk) 12:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really possible your children will disobey you and eat rat poison? Show them what it looks like and tell them never to touch it. I expect even your 5-year old will understand the seriousness of what you are telling them. That said, the cat or exterminator solution is probably safer and easier. Astronaut (talk) 14:48, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Little kids are not rational enough to realize that poison does not, in general, work like that given to Tinker Bell, where beliefs can render poisons ineffective (clap your hands and all that). They might taste it out of curiosity or on a dare. Edison (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does the sun influence the targeting of air-to-surface missile?

Air-to-surface missiles have been well developed. However, I am not sure whether the missile's targeting precision is influenced by the sun radiation, for example, for a missile using infrared imaging device as the guiding system, when the missile is flying to a target while the sun is just above the target and thus both the sun and the target appears in the image of the infrared device. As another example, if the missile is target a warship, but both the warship and the reflection of the sun from the sea surface appear on the image of the guide system of the missile. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tedahb (talk • contribs) 09:46, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the Sun and, say, the exhaust of a plane or ship look quite different to an infrared sensor. --98.217.14.211 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this [1] the early AIM-9 Sidewinder the 9B model (developed in the 1950's) had a problem with locking onto the sun or clouds. This problem appears to have been solved in the later models of heat seaking missles (in the mid 1960's). The early Russian K-13/AA-2 would have had the same problem since it was an exact copy of the AIM-9B, but I'd assume the Russians also figured out a way to avoid this problem by the mid 1960's. Tobyc75 (talk) 19:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Infrared homing briefly mentions some designs can indeed be tricked into locking onto the Sun. Type 81 Surface-to-air Missile and Man-portable air-defense systems mentions it. Here is a patent for a missile that appears to work hard not to get fooled. Also here -- search for the word "sun" in each article. Just some google hits for 'infrared missile sun'. So yeah, looks like the Sun and reflections are an issue, and newer smarter missile electronics keep getting better at not being tricked. 62.78.198.48 (talk) 09:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plastazote Foam

I need to make some roleplay armor of Plastazote Foam, however I am unsure of how i should work with this kind of foam. Does anyone know a website or tutorial I can use? Joneleth (talk) 10:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[2] not an uncommon problem apparently. The stuff (closed cell, cross linked, polyethylene foam) is heat moldable at 275°F 135°C. For cutting a razorblade or Utility knife work. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A common way to cut foam is with a hot wire foam cutter. There are many tutorials on the web on building your own, such as this one. --Sean 20:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Buying up gold

People seem to be buying gold, I've seen lots of adverts on TV, and signs in shop windows.

Is there an economically good reason for this now? Because it's cheap and they can get lots, because it's expensive and they can sell it for more, because everyone thinks the price is about to go up..?

Should I join in?

148.197.114.207 (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gold as an investment might be helpful. Like most investments it has short term ups and downs and long term trends. In things affecting the gold price I'm missing industrial applications a bit. Gold is currently used in lots of electronics. That creates demand. Should industry be able to find a replacement in the future you'd get quite a dip in gold prices. [3] This file suggests it's only on the order of a sixth of the industrial+jewelry use our article gives at 2000 tonnes. Quite a few investors are likely going to jump ship if that should happen, too. Should you join as what? Buyer, selling your grandma's gold or as trader? My usual investment advice is: a) Don't put all your eggs in one basket. b) Don't invest money you don't have. c)Be prepared to have to hold on to your investment longer than intended and for losing it entirely. History is not devoid of examples where people were willing to trade former riches for a loaf of bread. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Long term trends" - the Efficient markets hypothesis implies that long term trends only exist in retrospect. You can find, in retrospect only, long term trennds in entirely random lines. 78.151.137.230 (talk) 08:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather think it's because dealers think that, with the current recession, desperate people will be forced to sell their family gold stuff so they can feed the kids this week. The dealers want the desperates to sell to them, not to the other dealers, so they advertise. They'll melt down and resell wholesale asap; they don't have any inside track on the market. The reason they're mostly asking for gold more than precious stones like diamonds is that there's an open market for gold (not least because of the genuine applications it has) whereas precious stones (in gem sizes) are useless and their retail price is vastly inflated compared with their market resale value. 87.115.17.103 (talk) 17:55, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is speculation, just like buying pork bellies or frozen concentrated orange juice, but with some confusion added because gold used to underlie the currencies of most or all nations, so people tend to think it will maintain value forever, or something. Tempshill (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, the price of gold goes up during troubled economic times because it is seen as a "safe haven" investment because historically it hasn't lost all its value as other investments have (due largely to it being backed/backing, somewhat unofficially since the end of Bretton Woods, majour world currencies including the US dollar). By that criteria, now would not be a good time to buy gold, last October would have been. However, as mentioned above gold is also a commodity used in industrial processes. Whatever the reason, demand for it increased dramatically over the past few years and, like most other commodities, the price increased substantially, as shown in this graph. But the bottom line is nobody knows what the price will do from here on - perhaps alternatives will be found industrially, perhaps the world will lose faith in the now unofficial gold standard as it did with the silver standard. TastyCakes (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't give medical advice. We don't give legal advice. Investment advice, however, is freely available and worth every penny you pay for it. DOR (HK) (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"nationality" of the movie

i am confused whether a movie should be associated with the director's country or the actors'? i mean, like, the director is german but the actor is american, so should the movie be called a german movie or an american one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.50.138.136 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK that usually is determined by the Production company. Actors' nationalities are usually disregarded in that respect. Directors often are listed as Executive producer. "A German-American co-production" might be a possibility. If you are asking with regard to a wikipedia article, search for a source that mentions the country. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That said, Stargate SG-1 is listed as Canadian and American, despite having an American production company (I believe) because the series was filmed in Canada and has many Canadian actors, writers, one of the creators etc. TastyCakes (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The production company gets to say what label they want to give it. They may have good reason for calling it Canadian. Sometimes they get public funding or reduced rent or other goodies in exchange for choosing a particular country as site or "official origin". See Film commission. 71.236.26.74 (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember a big edit war on that article over whether it should be American, Canadian, American-Canadian or Canadian-American. It's not a simple question at all! --Tango (talk) 18:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a big issue in Canada; last year (or the year before) there was the bizarre circumstance that Eastern Promises was Canadian enough for the Genie Awards, but Juno wasn't. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who can help me ?? Please!

Who can help me ?? I want to know what this girl's name is.Or,give me more links of her and her photos! Here's she: (http://kaifolog.ru/uploads/posts/2009-05/1242549992_mokrye-devushki-062.jpg) (http://kaifolog.ru/uploads/posts/2009-05/1242549981_mokrye-devushki-070.jpg) PLZ !! THKS A LOT !! By the way , I'm fresh ,if my QUS is not fit for WIKI, just DELETE it.Thank you,all of you! Thank you D. Monack,you are GREAT !!And for other bros thank you all the same!! Fissurea9 (talk) 17:24, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is ok, but I will just warn people here before they click that the girl is naked. (I guess they could tell there was a good chance, but I'll just confirm) Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what purpose are you looking for her "name". There are lots and lots of girls/women/people who earn a couple of currency units with erotic photos or porn. Their real names are only used if they are amateurs posing for a cheap company or after they've made it to stardom like Linda Lovelace. If you are trying to find more photos her pseudonym would probably be more useful than her real name. Don't get your hopes up. The vast majority are anonymous/unnamed one-time posers. The quality of the pictures is quite good, but Russia does have a huge (meat-)market, so that might not mean much.71.236.26.74 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She looks like Savanna Samson who owns her own winery. The grapes are what made me think of her. And if so, her real name is Natalie Oliveros, per our referenced article. And the Russian TLD on the image doesn't necessarily mean that the woman is Russian. It could just be the site who stole the photos and wants you to come to their site and see other copyright violated images. Dismas|^(talk) 23:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random fun fact: the phrase 'mokrye devushki' translates to something like 'wet girls'. Cheers, Ouro (blah blah) 06:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's actually Brande Roderick, 2001 Playmate of the Year and Celebrity Apprentice contestant. —D. Monack ^talk 06:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Identify Cadillac model/year

Anyone know what model and year this is?

I was out to take some pictures of other things and I came across this old 50s Cadillac. I'm not sure what model or year it is. Can anyone help? Se picture. For other angles, see File:Cadillac0906051.jpg and File:Cadillac0906052.jpg. It looks like early fifties, perhaps 53. Anyone know for sure? Entheta (talk) 18:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a '52 to me.Popcorn II (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a picture of a '52, and I would agree with Popcorn, they look the same. The top is a little different, but that could be an alteration by the owner. http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1950-1959/1952-Cadillac-Convertible-Beige-PO.jpg Livewireo (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a book with pictures of a 1953 Eldorado Convertible. They look very similar, all three (my picture, the one in the book and the one you linked to), although the bumpers are slightly different on all three of them. Entheta (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way I managed to access some vehicle data based on the licence plate number and the info there said it's a 1950 but with a note that the model year is based on info from the vehicle registration and manifacturer. And the car was registered in 2002 so I don't know how reliable that info is... The Wikipedia article for Cadillac Eldorado says it was introduced in 1953. I don't know what the previous model was, but this one looks very much like an Eldorado. Entheta (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're probably right about it being a '52. It looks very similar to this one: File:Cadillac Fleetwood 60Special 1952.JPG. Entheta (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MS Freedom of the Seas & Lifeboats

The article MS Freedom of the Seas asserts that it can carry "can accommodate over 4,300 passengers and 1,300 crew" and has 30 lifeboats. Checking the sister ships articles (MS Liberty of the Seas & MS_Independence_of_the_Seas) the exact figure is "4,370 passengers served by 1,360 crew" for a total of 5,730 passengers and crew. Simple mathematics indicates that each lifeboat would have to accomodate 191 people - can this possibly be correct? Are the lifeboats this large? Are there additional liferafts on board not mentioned in the article? Or do these ships have insufficient lifeboat capacity for a full complement? (Shades of RMS Titanic there.) Exxolon (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The official website confirms that they have enough lifeboats for 100% of the people on board, plus extra inflatable life rafts. Either the 30 figure is wrong or the lifeboats are very big - the latter is entirely possible. --Tango (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at File:Freedom.JPG I assume the lifeboats are those orange things. I count 15 on that side so 30 sounds right. I can't judge how big they are or what their capacity would be. 191 sounds like a lot. Entheta (talk) 21:09, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A typical lifeboat has a capacity of 150 per this manufacturer, who seems to be the big player in lifeboats [4] (check out the free-fall lifeboats!). I wonder if the crew have to make do with rafts, as my math yields 143 passengers/only 7 crew per boat Cruise ship lifeboats get used a lot as ferries to the shore - they can be carpeted and air conditioned. Acroterion _(talk) 21:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good link. If there are 150 capacity lifeboats it's certainly well within the range of possibilities to have 200 capacity lifeboats too. Exxolon (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of points. The passenger capacity in the article is uncited and appears to be 3,634 and the lifeboats can take 100% of all guests rather than guests and crew. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 03:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This makes sense. Using inflatable rafts requires that you know what you're doing. You can't expect that of the guests, but the crew is another story. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A lifeboat big enough for 150 people would require substantial crew to man it. I expect they would need everyone that knows basic seamanship to man the lifeboats, even if they could look after themselves on a raft. I think the rafts are just there for backup - you should always have a plan C. --Tango (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One point: if the ship is listing, half the lifeboats may be unusable. I suspect there's a basic requirement that all passengers have lifeboat seats assigned, with a redundant requirement for at least that many liferafts (which are quite durable these days, as opposed to 1912, when boats were the only option) that can be launched with far greater ease than a lifeboat and can be stored at many locations. The ration of boat/raft capacity to passenger/crew capacity is probably over 2:1, but I haven't found the relevant regulation yet.

For what it's worth, the sail training ship I occasionally sail on has 8 large rafts (plus one small one and two boats). If I remember rightly, the large rafts take 25 people each, so that's 200 raft spaces for a crew that is at most 62 and often significantly less. 93.97.184.230 (talk) 00:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]