Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 July 20

= July 20 =

Population and Life Expectancy
I've heard that the population explosion is not caused by people having more children, but by the fact that people lived longer. Is that true?

125.255.167.126 (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Which population explosion? When?  And there would be more than just one reason.  People living longer would help, yes.  But there's also the exponential growth of the population via good old childbirth.  If two people have two kids, and those kids have two kids each, and those kids each have two kids, that's 8 kids from the original 2 parents.  And that's not taking into consideration that many families have more than just two children.  Dismas |(talk) 04:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That'd be the explosion in human population worldwide that we have all been seeing for our entire lifetimes. The poster is asking for facts, not hypothetical cases.  See for example the opening pages of this document from the World Bank.  "Around the world, death rates gradually decreased in the late 19th and the 20th centuries, with death rates in the developing world plummeting after World War II thanks to the spread of modern medicine. In much of the developing world the decline in death rates preceded the decline in birth rates by 20 years or more, resulting in record-high rates of population growth of 3 percent or even 4 percent a year."  In summary, I'd call that a yes.  --174.88.133.35 (talk) 05:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually Dismas, having only two kids would maintain the population, not increase it. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 08:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see your point. I was trying to make the math/example simple. Dismas |(talk) 08:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Two kids per family won't even maintain the population, because some of those kids will die childless. Assuming no children with other partners, immigration or emigration, you might need something like 2.3 kids per couple to maintain the population. StuRat (talk) 03:28, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Sort of, but rather than simply being due to "people living longer" its the more specific "more people living long enough to reproduce". If every couple has two children (that survive and reproduce), then population will remain constant.  If people on average have more than that, population will grow.  In the past, people tended to have large families (unless limited by death in childbirth), but infant mortality was very high, resulting in an much lower life expectancy.   For most of history (and pre-history), these were closely balanced, meaning population growth was relatively low.  In modern times, improvements in medicine, sanitation, and agriculture have drastically reduced infant mortality and death in childbirth, meaning lots more people can survive to reproduce themselves.  ("The last 100 years have seen a rapid increase in population due to medical advances and massive increase in agricultural productivity[6] made possible by the Green Revolution", with sources).  Generally, as health and wealth improve, societies eventually stop having so many children, but this tends to lag behind the improvements in survivability, resulting in a period of rapid population growth. Iapetus (talk) 11:23, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good articles to read related to the OP's question are Demographic transition and Demographic-economic paradox. -- Jayron 32 03:01, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Söke, Turkey's Stealth Airfield

 * http://national.bgnnews.com/greek-f-16-pilot-allegedly-landed-jet-in-turkey-to-withdraw-money-haberi/7784
 * ... pilot Sipostopoulos was flying a patrol over the Greek island of Samos when he suddenly changed course and head towards an abandoned airfield in the town of Söke just 3 kilometers away in Turkey’s western province of Aydın.

I checked Google Maps, there does not seem to be an anandoned airfield anywhere near Söke. At least within walking distance. The only firport I can find on the sattlelite image is Milas–Bodrum Airport which is about 100 km from Söke.

On the other hand, how does a pilot start his F-16 at the base normally? Do they use an auxiliary power unit truck? Or does he use the F-16's own jet fuel starter?

If the F-16 did not use the jet fuel starter to start the engine and he use it in the abandoned airfield, wouldn't it be a big problem for him?

A trip to the town to withdraw and exchange money and back may take a couple of hours. How did he explain his fuel level? Did he dump the unused jet fuel somewhere above water?

Does a typical Turkish ATM have Greek language instructions? I guess it's not a big issue. They probably have English instructions. If not, there are smartphone apps to help him decipher Turkish instructions. -- Toytoy (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OpenStreetMap shows a large "Military area" on the southern end of Söke, and Google Earth shown that the southern part of that has some dilapidated structures near a strip of crumbling concrete that could be the (truncated) remains of a runway. Also, many ATMs in Europe (and possibly non-European parts of Turkey) will automatically translate when a foreign card is inserted. However, the story seems pretty unlikely for other reasons. Turkey and Greece have been teetering on the edge of war for decades, and the idea that a Greek fighter plane would enter Turkish airspace, land for long enough for the pilot to do quite a bit of banking in a foreign country, and then leave again, with nothing more than a "formal complaint" to Athens (and that the source for this would be an anonymous forum post rather than the Turkish defense ministry or embassy to Greece) presses the edges of belief. It would be hard to get approach plates for a long-closed airbase, and the F16 is not really suitable for landing on an unprepared runway. Finally, the capital controls in Greece affect overseas withdrawals from most banks as well. It's worth noting that The Telegraph briefly reported on this before apparently deleting the story. Smurrayinchester 15:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Its also hard to believe that an out of the way place in Turkey the ATM will issue foreign currency. MilborneOne (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

dog retirement
While shopping yesterday, I met an acquaintance who is blind. She mentioned that she has a new guide dog, her previous dog being "retired". What happens to retired service dogs? Are they offered to the general public as pets? —Tamfang (talk) 20:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The website for Guide Dogs of America states that "when a guide dog is retired, the guide dog user has the option to keep the dog or give it back to Guide Dogs of America for adoption." Anyone can apply to adopt, though the waiting list is "over six years" long for those not retired for "medical issues". Clarityfiend (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to be similar in the UK - see here, which also talks about re-homing dogs that don't make it through the training. The waiting list is shorter, though, at "several months to a year". AndrewWTaylor (talk) 13:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

In the United States over the past couple of decades, the use of service dogs to combat a variety of issues has become much more common. In fact many colleges across the country have programs where Students can help train service dog over the course of a year or so- which is an extremely rewarding process. But with over 387,000 service dogs across the US and 10,000 of those being specifically to assist the blind they make up a pretty big percentage of the household pets in the US. This is why it is reasonable to wonder what happens to the dogs when they phase out of the program or something happens to their owner. Service dogs, particularly seeing eye dogs, "phase out" of the program at around the age of 8-10, but this of course can vary. . The official Guide Dogs of the Blind site has this to say about the pups as they head into retirement: " After spending a life of devoted partnership, Guide Dogs deserve to spend their senior years in comfortable (and pampered!) retirement. They may remain with their partner as a pet, return to the home where they were raised, or be placed in a loving adoptive home. In all cases, they are honored and loved." In short, just because the dog can no longer assist the owner they are cast out but if they are yes service dogs can be adopted by a normal family as a pet after retirement.Tlkwiki (talk) 02:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Empty quarter
What are the two most cost-effective agricultural crops/plants/trees that can be grown in the Rub' al Khali ? 78.144.241.217 (talk) 21:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Not much of anything, unless you add lots of water and soil. From the article, the area is mostly sand dunes and gypsum flats, and natural flora is at a very low density as well as low diversity. Basically, 3 cm of rainfall per year and daily high temperatures around 120F are not conducive to agriculture. Arabian_Desert lists a few plants that grow there, but they are all red links. Search the genus names to see what coverage WP has - e.g. Cornulaca_monacantha is an example species of one of the genera that grows there. SemanticMantis (talk) 21:22, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, but assuming you used water from a desalination plant. 78.144.241.217 (talk) 21:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Plants need more than water to flourish. Nitrogen plays a very important part. See Nitrogen_fixation. The sand would not support diazotrophs very well. So you would need to fertilize with chemicals. This will work out too expensive to be viable.196.213.35.146 (talk) 07:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * We have an articles on Desert farming and Arid-zone agriculture which might help. See also Center for Desert Agriculture (Saudi Arabia) and Desert Farming Experiment Yields First Results. Alansplodge (talk) 12:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Date palms might be a good choice, although I agree that they will need water and nutrients beyond what is already present. But at least the heat and extreme sunlight won't kill them.  For the other, maybe prickly pear ?  Or, if you want to include non-food crops, there's aloe vera.  StuRat (talk) 20:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There were ideas floated in the 70's, maybe earlier, to mix heavy crude with sand to make a substrate that roots could bind to retain water. The problem seemed to be lack of will due to economic factors.  Such subsidized farming would be far more expensive than just importing food when you have the oil money to do so.  One might compare this with agriculture in Israel. μηδείς (talk) 01:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

What are the college equivalents of Grades 13-16+?
I'm filling out a job application, and it says "Please circle highest grade completed: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16+" I have a Bachelor's Degree from a four-year college. Do I circle 16? --Aabicus (talk) 21:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. At least in the United States, high school consists of grades 9 to 12, so that the four years of college are considered 13 through 16.  That notation is not uncommon in the United States.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not uncommon?? I don't think I've ever seen college referred to as grades 13-16.  That said, I'd probably know what they meant and circle 16.  Dismas |(talk) 23:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't want to speak for Robert McClenon. But, I think he meant (or, at least, I interpreted his comment to mean) not that it is common to refer to college as grades 13 through 16, but, rather, that notation ("Please circle highest grade completed: 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16+") is pretty common on job applications and other forms.    Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Exactly. On job application forms, it is always used that way in the United States.  In the United States, no college sophomore would ever say that they are in grade 14, but it is grade 14 based on the numbering.  (Being a sophomore, they may say something that is both wise and foolish.  Oh well.)  If you are somewhere else, your mileage will vary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Death Rate
What was the death rate of the world in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000?

Nineguy (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * To quote Myron Cohen: "One per person." ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:57, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually, only 90 some percent of the people who ever have lived are dead now. Now you can assume that everyone will eventually die, but maybe not, with enough technology it might be possible to keep the essence of a person alive forever. StuRat (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'death rate', but maybe Mortality rate is a place to start. According to that article (and UNData), between 1950-1955 19.5/1000 people died every year (called the crude death rate or CDR), and between 2000-2005 8.4/1000 people per year. It may not be easy to find worldwide data that goes back more than a century, but assuming that the death rate wasn't changing fast, you can use Life expectancy data to calculate the crude death rate. For example, if the average lifespan of a person is 40 years, it follows that 1 in 40 people (or 25/1000) dies each year. - Lindert (talk) 12:17, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't think that method is very good, because people die far more as babies or near their life expectancy than in their prime. For example, a baby boom will bring with it an increased death rate when they start to reach their life expectancy.  Plagues, famines, and wars can have an effect, too. StuRat (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That is true. It would only be useful for a stable period with little variation in population and life expectancy. - Lindert (talk) 17:14, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Infant Mortality Rate of Australia
What was the infant mortality rate and under-5 mortality rate of Australia in 1850, 1900, 1950 and 2000?

Nineguy (talk) 23:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's unclear whether you are just asking multiple random questions, or if this is homework. Your first question is ambiguous; the second one needs to define infant, assuming someone can get you the statistics. μηδείς (talk) 00:20, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * "Under 5" seems to define it clearly. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Our article defines infant mortality as under 1, so we can use that. StuRat (talk) 16:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Read it again, Stu. The OP asked for the infant and under five rate.  They are not the same thing, and different countries define infant mortality differently. μηδείς (talk) 15:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Our article puts infant mortality at under 1, so we can use that. StuRat (talk) 18:08, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Technically the problem is that some countries count stillbirth as infant mortality, others only live births, and others only children that survive 24 hours from delivery. But the OP seems to be a puppet of the indeffed Bowei Huang 2, report in progress. μηδείς (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See this for infant mortality (1912-2012) and this for child mortality (1960-2013). Note that further statistics may be available from the Australian Bureau of Statistics if they were recorded. Nanonic (talk) 06:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Before a certain date I doubt if the Aboriginal rate would have been recorded. StuRat (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)