Miscellaneous desk
< April 15	<< Mar \| April \| May >>	April 17 >

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.

April 16

Where is Gunnam Island?

In the 1955 book The wild flowers of Kuwait and Bahrain [1] mention is made of the "plants of Gunnam Island" collected by Sir Rupert Hay in 1940-50. Where is this island?--Melburnian (talk) 01:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a town (or myeon) in Yeonggwang County named Gunnam. Not sure if it's an island, but Korea is a peninsula. Close enough for some people. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has a Flood Control Theme Park, which sounds fun. It may also suggest floods turned hills to islands, and needed to be controlled. With places like Duck Island, Water Spider Habitat and Typhoon Observatory (on Typhoon Road), sounds at least a bit wet. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks InedibleHulk, that's quite possibly the coolest Flood Control Theme Park I've ever seen :-) I'm assuming, however, that this particular Gunnam Island is likely to be the Middle East region.--Melburnian (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, wasn't a very confident guess, especially given the book title. But worth a swing. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Al Ghanam Island now in Oman of the Musandam Penisular, have a look at http://wikimapia.org/24333902/Jazirat-al-Ghanam-Goat-Island or http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/jazirat-umm-al-ghanam/view/?service=0 MilborneOne (talk) 08:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that seems likely to be it.--Melburnian (talk) 01:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

victory ship Twin Falls Victory

was air force radio tech assigned to this ship on Inchon Korea Invasion.. we had a cook knife another and stopped entire convoy in middle of ocean to have doctor come over to tend the injured crewman. Om Board from Japan and departed at Inchon, Korea Just wondering what happened to that ship/ Art Weart, USAF Sgt telcom guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.12.13 (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's this article about the USNS Twin Falls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USNS_Twin_Falls_(T-AGM-11) --Dreamahighway (talk) 02:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Figure for human lifespan

What is the traditional age given for the natural human lifespan? Personally, I would use 26+. I was thinking of 26+ because 26 is supposed to be the maximum age we are able to live to for our body size and heart rate. But I'm not sure if there's a specific age cut-off used for statistical purposes. Ac05number1 (talk) 10:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The traditional age, at least in Christian-influenced cultures, is 70; the Biblical "three-score and ten". Rojomoke (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's Psalm 90 by the way.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 15:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the CDC, life expectancy in the U.S. was 78.7 in 2011. I'll keep looking for something more global. (I notice someone inserted a map of median ages worldwide, but I don't think that represents life expectancy -- I think it is the average age of living people in each region, not the average age at death.)--Dreamahighway (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See List of countries by life expectancy: "Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 71.0 years (68.5 years for males and 73.5 years for females) over the period 2010–2013 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2012 Revision, and 70.7 years (68.2 years for males and 73.2 years for females) for 2009 according to The World Factbook." Not sure if this is what you want, I'm a little confused about what you mean by "traditional" and "statistical."--Dreamahighway (talk) 18:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Other related articles Biological clock (aging), Senescence, and telomere. --Jayron32 18:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a massive difference between life expectancy at birth and the average age at which adults die. Even in the most highly developed countries, infant mortality reduces life expectancy at birth by a measureable amount, and in places where many children die, the average adult will live many years beyond life expectancy at birth. Other factors are also relevant, such as the fact that males are more likely to be killed in warfare or in other types of physically risky situations. Old people in poor, war-torn countries may not live quite as long as old people in Japan, but once you're old enough that most people are living quiet lives (i.e. not doing much of anything that's intentionally risky), the gap between the two countries will be far less. Nyttend (talk) 02:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's quite true. Most major gains in life expectancy have NOT come from extending the age at which healthy adults die of "being old". There's actually been very little change at that end of the equation. Instead, most life expectancy changes have come from two things 1) preventing deaths from communicable childhood diseases by the use of vaccinations and 2) safe, clean, and medically supervised methods of childbirth. Prior to modern medicine, what killed most people before "being old" killed them was diseases they got in childhood (before they had a strong enough immune system to deal with them) or women dying in childbirth. In his book A Little Commonwealth, John Demos did a detailed demographic study of Plymouth Colony in the 17th century. If you were a man who lived into adulthood, OR if you were a woman who lived to menopause (and thus stopped having children) you basically could expect to live into your 70s pretty reliably. That hasn't changed much. So the "natural" human lifespan (whatever that means) seems to be basically that number; other studies, both formal and informal, basically confirm that. You can see at Life expectancy, there's a small section that looks at a study of members of the English aristocracy who were males who lived to at least 21. Excepting for the time period of the Black Death, the numbers for that specific subpopulation (varying from 64-71 years depending on the century) don't look that bad even compared to modern life. The aristocracy would have had every advantage possible (sanitation, relative isolation from others, good food, not-too-strenuous a lifestyle) and thus would have had the best advantage to live to whatever age "being old" kills you. And the numbers don't look too bad, even compared to modern life. --Jayron32 11:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although "The number of centenarians in England and Wales has increased five-fold over the last 30 years, according to the Office for National Statistics" and that's despite today's centenarians surviving the Spanish Flu Pandemic and World War II. Alansplodge (talk) 21:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Time to steam cook my Easter ham

This year I want to try steaming a ham (for the first time). I have a rather large steamer (a stock pot with a metal steamer basket insert). I'm also an advocate of slow cooking, which allows the heat and flavors to distribute more evenly. The ham is 10 pounds, refrigerated, precooked and partially spiral sliced. I intend to spread out the slices and insert pineapple slices between them when I steam it. I realize I won't get any browning by this method, so may pop it in the oven at the end to brown it.

So, my question is, how long do I need to steam the ham, presumably at 212F/100C, at normal atmospheric pressure ? I've only found figures for steaming much smaller portions, in my web searches. I realize that this temperature is much lower than you would use to bake a ham in the oven, but the steam in the air should also carry the heat to the ham more quickly, right ? This ham is precooked, so I could get by with just warming it up, but would prefer to heat it enough to kill any bacteria. StuRat (talk) 17:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This recipe suggests 6-8 hours on the "low" setting on your slow cooker, no added water needed. --Jayron32 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Unfortunately, that recipe doesn't specify the size of the ham or what temperature "low" is. StuRat (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Most slow cookers don't have temperature settings, just "low" and "high". This reference suggests the low settings tend to be around 200F. - Eron^Talk 23:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. I'm not sure what the point would be in setting the temperature higher than boiling, though. Wouldn't a non-pressurized cooking vessel stay at boiling temperature, as the water boils off ? So you'd just use more electricity, producing more heat and steam in the house, while not cooking it any faster. StuRat (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd trained as a Chemical Engineer, Stu? [2] Maybe it was some other type of engineering. Regardless, boiling with more heat, giving a more vigorous boil, empirically cooks it faster. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Engineering, actually, although I've only worked as a computer programmer. That chart seems to show the best heat transfer is around 140C, if T_s is the boiling temp, and if I can read that nonlinear scale correctly. StuRat (talk) 15:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a reasonable conclusion. I hope this has helped. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, thanks so far. I'm a bit worried that if I leave it to steam overnight the water will run out. I wish I had a device to automatically add water when the level drops too low. StuRat (talk) 17:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would be one of the many benefits of a slow-cooker. I doubt leaving a steamer running overnight like that is safe, as it will indeed probably boil dry. Or maybe you need to embrace the joys of a pressure cooker, which magically produces meltingly soft meat in very little time? (the main mistake people make with pressure cookers is overcooking things). 86.146.28.229 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think my setup essentially is a large slow-cooker, as I do put a lid on it, and water vapor that condenses on the lid does fall back down into the pot, although some steam also escapes, due to the pressure. I'd still expect evaporation from a formal slow-cooker, as it can't be sealed, or the pressure would build up from the steam. I just can't find a slow-cooker large enough to cook a full sized ham or turkey, so that's why I use a stock pot with steamer basket instead (also using my gas stove is cheaper than electricity). A pressure-cooker seems dangerous, as it could explode, and inconvenient, since you can't open it up to add ingredients that need a different cooking time. And after the Boston Marathon Bombings, anyone who buys a pressure cooker here is a terrorism suspect. StuRat (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, you aren't a terror suspect for buying a pressure cooker. You can go down to Target right now and buy one and no one will care. And you can then make really good stews in like an hour or two. --Jayron32 02:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An electric slow cooker can deliver lower heat than your hob, in a controlled way, and so can keep the food just hot enough to cook without boiling dry for many hours. It is assisted in this by the high heat capacity of the usually ceramic pot, and the well-fitting lid. I can leave mine on the low setting for 12 hours with no fears of boiling dry or burning. It is very cheap, much cheaper than running a gas hob, because it uses so little energy. My big one is big enough for any ham I've seen, although not for the turkey that would feed my family. But then, I've never wanted to boil or steam a turkey: I've also never felt that my turkey was dry or needed brining or whatever, so I accept American turkeys may just be different.

If you're an idiot, or use an old pressure cooker with a weight on top, then it is dangerous. If you're a normal person who uses a modern pressure cooker according to the instructions, it is perfectly safe. I have never needed to add ingredients part-way through, because it generally only needs to be heated for about 10-20 minutes to cook my stews perfectly. I can't say I've ever felt the need to keep adding ingredients throughout the main cooking stage of anything like that, and certainly haven't needed to when cooking a joint of meat. It "could explode" just like your car could. I assume you use sharp knives, even though those are dangerous and could cut your fingers off?

If your neighbourhood is so weird as to imagine any consumer who buys a pressure cooker is a terrorist, I had to wonder why they wouldn't have lynched the sellers of kitchen equipment? Honestly, these are odd objections. Your current set-up works, but is inefficient and cannot be safely left unattended. If you want to leave it alone while you sleep or leave the house, or you want to reduce your energy bills, you'll either need a slow cooker or a pressure cooker (the last not to be left unattended, but to drastically reduce cooking times so it never comes up). Better cooking through engineering. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are all pressure cookers designed in a way that they can't possibly explode ? Or can the pressure relief valve fail in an "always shut" position, allowing pressure to build up to a dangerous level ? I just had a power spike last week with voltage up around 140 volts for days (110-120V is normal range here), and I can easily imagine that resulting in more than the proper amount of heat.

As for adding ingredients at different times, my last stew included beans, which need to be cooked for hours, along with other ingredients that would turn to mush if cooked that long. StuRat (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I did a test and left my stock pot (with steamer basket) on low heat for 13 hours, no problem. Less than 10% of the water evaporated. At that rate I could keep it on for some 5 days before it would run dry ! StuRat (talk) 10:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: I steamed my ham for 7 hours so far. It's rather dry and mealy, unfortunately. Apparently the fat melted off of it. I'm thinking I need to baste it with some type of oil. Any ideas ? StuRat (talk) 14:06, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The ham didn't go over particularly well at Easter. Everyone ate theirs, but nobody wanted more. It turned dark brown, and very much reminds me of the "pork" in a can of pork and beans. In fact, I added some to a can of pork and beans, and it seemed right at home there. I think the mistake must have been that I cooked it as long as an uncooked ham would need. Since this ham was precooked, it needed far less steaming. StuRat (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is an "Easter ham"?

An obvious follow-up to the above question...

The question is written as if all readers are expected to know what an Easter ham is. I don't. I'm familiar with a custom of fish on Good Friday (and chocolate on the Sunday), but ham?

Is this a custom on which Wikipedia doesn't have an article? Who follows such a custom? HiLo48 (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I've been able to tell, this is an American custom. They have a ham instead of lamb (as in Britain, much of Europe, and many other places) or some other festive food. I can't really find any good references (there's a lot of the usual suspect sites, with a lack of references and attributing everything to Eostre as if we knew anything about her), but the general believable idea seems to generally be that sheep weren't really an important food-source in America, and pigs were; therefore, the Paschal Lamb became the Pascal Ham. 86.146.28.229 (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ham is the traditional Easter Dinner dish served in America. I have no idea why or how it came to be, but like turkey is served on Thanksgiving and hot dogs are traditionally eaten at baseball games, ham is traditionally served for Sunday dinner on Easter. this site suggests that ham, as a preserved food, kept over the long winter, so was the available large cut of meat which most people had access to in the early spring, when Easter tends to fall. This site claims that the pig was a symbol of luck, though I am disinclined to believe that over the other, more practical, explanation. --Jayron32 17:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayron. We do have an article on the Christmas ham, something with which I'm very familar. Should we have one on the Easter ham? ("Mmmmm, ham!") HiLo48 (talk) 18:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone in the States has ham for Easter. My family tradition (going back at least to the early 20th century) is lamb. Marco polo (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I remember going to an Easter service once, where the preacher was doing that lead-in thing that they do to get the crowd comfortable before they address the meaty topics (aside: I suppose it must have a technical name in homiletics? Anyone know?). He was talking about the meal that most of the parishioners would be having at their family homes, and said ham was fine, as long as you didn't know the reason for it, which he claimed was that Jews don't eat ham, so it was a symbol of not being like the Jews. (Aside: I expect the pig doesn't feel "ham is fine" even in that case.)

Anyone know whether there's anything to that claim? --Trovatore (talk) 19:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've been able to find online, ham is a US tradition mainly because it was the meat most widely available at this time of year in pre-refrigeration days. Sheep were historically not raised much in the early United States. (Pastures in much of the US don't hold up well to sheep grazing due to hot and sometimes dry summers.) The explanation that ham is a "Christian meat" looks like an attempt to give religious sanction to a practice that developed for other reasons. Marco polo (talk) 20:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it was clear he said "...as long as you didn't know the reason for it". --Trovatore (talk) 20:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've also found references to ham as a traditional food in some European countries as well, also based on the availability of ham in spring over any other meats. Some sources suggest that Easter tended to coincide with when the first hams from the fall slaughter were cured and ready to eat. - Eron^Talk 20:10, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I had assumed ham was traditional for a Byzantine Catholic Easter, as all my Rusyn and Polish relatives served it. But apparently Lamb was tradition if you could afford it. Ham was cheaper and preserved longer, since it usually lasts for most of a week. This website I can't link to, www.examiner dot com/article/how-to-put-together-a-traditional-carpatho-rusyn-easter-basket-for-the-blessing-of-the-easter-foods website] confirms my mother's explanation. Lamb shaped molds were created for the butter, and peppercorns wer used for its eyes. μηδείς (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This website shows a traditional Easter basket taken to the church for blessing, with a Ham, and the priest's assertion Ham was traditional among Slavs. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That would explain my slavish devotion to the Easter ham. :-) StuRat (talk) 13:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Traditional Russian Easter fare includes kulich and paskha. The article makes no mention of it, but the Russians of my acquaintance eat kulich with ham. It's a slightly sweet bread, so that combo doesn't sound quite right, but it's delicious. Imagine eating a denser and yeastier panettone (minus the raisins etc) with ham and you're more or less in the gustatory ballpark. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tradition of eating lamb at Easter is symbolic, the Paschal Lamb eaten at the Last Supper "prefigured symbolically Christ, "the Lamb of God", who redeemed the world by the shedding of His blood".[3] Alansplodge (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "the Ham of God" (Perna Dei?) doesn't quite have the ring of my old girlfriend Agnes Day. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:37, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about Easter is that it's a celebration of the coming of Spring, so you have lamb or chicken, both of which are at their prime in springtime. Ham is for Christmas, when you are confined to cured meats. DuncanHill (talk) 19:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In previous decades, the anthem at our church on Easter Sunday was always Worthy is the Lamb that was slain from Handel's Messiah. Returning home to a lovely roast leg of lamb, you didn't need to be a theologian to spot the connection. Alansplodge (talk) 21:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Handel also wrote "All we like sheep", so lamb seems ideal. HiLo48 (talk) 23:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This thread deserves a standing ovation. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On reflection, the lamb thing is probably just a remembrance of the Jewish connection to the lamb (e.g. their spreading of lamb's blood on the doorway to ward off the Egyptian plagues, remembered in the Passover), and the fact that Jews were forbidden from eating any pork products as being unclean. Jesus was, if nothing else, a Jew (their King, no less). -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 23:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If, on the contrary, anyone's interested in highly speculative but educated guessing on the significance of the pig, even to the Hebrews, which Robert Graves said they held sacred, and ate once a year, see his magnum opus, The White Goddess. μηδείς (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(link fixed)