December 29

Do the wicks of candles contain any poisonous substances, especially ones from say China and Asia, as their rules and regs. aren't as tight as ours?

Thank you.

J. Bridge......... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackie Bridge (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to our candle wick article: "candle wicks ... may contain a stiff core ... traditionally made of lead, however lead wick cores have been banned in the U.S. ... due to concerns about lead poisoning". Mitch Ames (talk) 12:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This [1] is relevant. Bear in mind that, regardless of how rigorous safety regulations may be in any country of origin (including Western ones), unscrupulous manufacturers may still flout them. Recall the recent problems with melamine in pet foods exported from China to the USA and other countries, and with diluted or adulterated baby milk formula made and distributed within China that resulted in multiple baby mortality, and subsequently the execution of some company executives responsible. Both of these examples flouted the laws/regulations of the manufacturers' country. (Not pointing the finger at China in particular, just examples that stuck in my doubtlessly prejudiced degenerate Western mind). 87.81.230.195 (talk) 23:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been horror stories of people who've inadvertently burned lead-impregnated wick candles in their homes. (It seems that the lead makes the candle burn more evenly without sputtering, etc.) The resulting lead poisoning is not a nice thing - especially for children - and in the case that was on the news a few months ago, some people's house had to be demolished because the lead had gotten into every crevice and hollow. Their home-owner's insurance didn't cover them and the evidence of whom they'd bought the candles from had literally gone up in smoke. Not only did they lose their home - but they also had to pay the EPA to cleanup the hazardous waste site they created in the process. This is a sufficiently scary thing that it should make everyone want to check VERY carefully where their candles came from. We know that goods imported from countries with less-than-stringent product safety codes frequently get into the US and European markets without adequate inspections...nobody is out there checking every batch of candles shipped to see what the lead levels are...all it takes is for some manufacturer to switch where they get their wicks from. So you are very much on your own in this regard. SteveBaker (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would take a hell of a lot of candles to contaminate a house to the point of being unsafe -- burning the occasional lead-wick candle isn't a problem. I suspect either somebody over-reacted, or the homeowners made extensive use of candles for lighting. --Carnildo (talk) 23:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having to demolishing a home because of lead contamination from a candlewick sounds pretty unlikely. Is there a reference to substantiate the statement? Should we demolish every home where someone soldered a Heathkit radio? I would hate to tell you how many candles with lead in the wick I have made and burned. There are references at Google News Archive that say the US government banned lead candlewicks in the early years of this millennium, and that the fumes from such candles burning would be bad for the health of children or those with lead contamination from other sources. Edison (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Far be it from the government to overreact to anything. Presumably the lead threads were to keep the wick relatively stiff. So if it's banned now, what are they using instead? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clue: Two part Latin species name (9). Have letters: B - N - D - N - L.Froggie34 (talk) 13:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Two part" + "Latin" makes me think it begins "Bi...", but that could be a red herring. --Dweller (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me as if you got the 'D' wrong and the word is "binominal". A red herring would be something like "clupea scarlatus". PhGustaf (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Santa seems to be rather late this year! --Dweller (talk) 13:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I thought "binominal" was an error for binomial nomenclature, but hey, look at the article. It's binominal, binomial, or binary, depending on who's talking about it! --Anonymous, 20:20 UTC, December 30, 2009.

Many thanks. looks like Dairy Maid ought to be Dairy FarmFroggie34 (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been challenged by my girlfriend to give her a single blue rose that is still alive. I can't dye it and still have it be alive, nor can a rose bush have a single rose. Blue roses symbolize unattainable love, but I know there has to be a way to do this. Any suggestions, however obscure are helpful. Lolita chan (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)Lolita_chan[reply]

Blue Rose gives two possible methods. You can dye a living white rose by injecting blue dye into it, or you can buy 'bluish' natural roses like Blue Moon. Alternatively, have you considered spray paint? DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blue roses symbolize unattainable love - therefore, this challenge might be your girlfriend's subtle way of telling you she's dumping you. I hope not, for your sake. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, and as I suspected, genetic modification is yielding something close to a "true" blue rose. Note that to produce this rose requires significant hands-on workmanship. Maybe that's the subtle hint the guy's girl is trying to give him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never tried it with a rose, but food colouring in the water can change the colour of other white flowers. --Tango (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This might come down to determining exactly when a cut flower dies (or maybe it's dead the moment it's cut from its parent). We can't use brain death to address this thorny issue. If using blue dye doesn't kill it outright - and the fact that it's able to "drink" the blue means something's still going on - then maybe dye is the way to go, as long as you give it to her fairly quickly, before rigor mortis sets in. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 20:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the OP want to give their girlfriend a dye that causes rigor mortis? Cuddlyable3 (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was a light-hearted allusion to what happens to animate beings after death. Of course, flowers are not animate and do not have brains, but they're definitely alive ... when they're alive, that is - hence my musing about the determination of the exact moment when death occurs to a flower. Is there a scientific way of telling whether a given cut flower is alive or dead? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"... nor can a rose bush have a single rose." Yes it can - just cut off all the roses from the bush except one. Mitch Ames (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find a rose of any colour, wait for it to bloom, after it does (but while it is still alive) present her with a "blew rose". Mitch Ames (talk) 01:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

more purple than blue and not allowed out of the lab, but read www.csiro.au/files/files/p29z.pdf Polypipe Wrangler (talk) 12:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could try giving her Pleurosis Hemoroid Agastordoff (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In some country, I think Japan or China, they genetically modified roses to make them blue, but they can't be imported to the UK due to genetic modification restrictions. 81.129.216.86 (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, great and noble people of the Reference Desk! This article describes a couple who found themselves stuck in the snow for three days in a remote area of Nevada, and unable to call for help because there was no cellular service. Then, according to the article, "one of their cell phones sprang to life and GPSed their co-ordinates to 911". It looks like some kind of technology was used that connected to their phones, even without a typical cell signal, and instructed their phones to forward GPS locations? Is the article accurate, and does anybody know any more details of how this works? – ClockworkSoul 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Various articles are in disagreement, but this one is more likely to have it right, I think: "[T]hey were unable to get a signal on either of their GPS-enabled cell phones for more than two days. Weather changes seem to have eventually allowed a weak signal to 911, where a sheriff's dispatcher was able to pinpoint their location". That makes sense, I think... – ClockworkSoul 21:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly seems a likely explanation. However, it's worth noting that cellphones use different amounts of power for different kinds of signal - when you are talking, it requires that a large amount of energy be transmitted - and a clear, long-duration signal path must exist. But when the cellphone is merely turned on, it sends a low power "I am here" signal out to alert the nearby cell towers that this phone is nearby. (That's how incoming calls "know" to call up the cell tower nearest to your phone). Since that signal would be re-trying every minute or two - it's possible that it managed to catch a brief break in the weather and when full-blown phone calls would be impossible - or perhaps long after the people were asleep or had given up trying to make calls. This doesn't even require that the phone is "GPS-enabled" because emergency services can pinpoint the location of the phone from triangulating the signal strength from several nearby towers. So long as your phone is turned on - and people are actively searching for you - you can usually be found. SteveBaker (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would they be able to triangulate it when the signal is so weak though? It seems possible the signal would be barely reaching one let alone 3 Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtually all phones have assisted GPS capabilities nowadays. So if they were able to place a call to 911, they'd probably be found without too much trouble. APL (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]