Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2015 October 9

= October 9 =

Feldherrnhalle
in the german article about this there is a video https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldherrnhalle and this video is showing a "grafitti" in the year of 1945 which is saying "I am ashamed to be german", could you tell me if this grafittis were made by the allies? Or did some Germans really have become shaming for being a German and they have written this? I am really curious.. --Hijodetenerife (talk) 04:00, 9 October 2015 (UTC) --Hijodetenerife (talk) 04:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how anyone could know who wrote some graffiti on a wall in Germany 70 years ago, but unless you have good cause to suppose otherwise (e.g. a spelling error) it would seem reasonable to assume it was written by a German. Many people, on both sides, were ashamed to be involved in the war and its atrocities.--Shantavira|feed me 08:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The articles "German collective guilt" and "anti-Germans (political current)" explain a bit, although the latter is heavily focused on the more modern anarchist/pro-Israel interpretation (if you can read German, de:Antideutsche goes into the history of it a bit more). In a nutshell, yes, there were (and are) Germans who were so ashamed of the imperialist and anti-Semitic chapters of German history so much that they came hate Germany itself. Of course, without knowing the mind of the graffiti writer, it's also possible that the graffiti was written by a hardcore nationalist ashamed at Germany for surrendering... Smurrayinchester 09:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The grafitti text seen by the OP on the Feldherrnhalle ("Field Marshalls' Hall") in Munich reads: K.Z.Dachau - Velden - Buchenwald, Ich scharne mich das ich ein Deutsche bin. |(video). The sentiment expressed would be in line with the Denazification initiative launched by the allies in January 1946. Bestfaith (talk) 19:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's "K.Z. Dachau — Velten —Buchenwald/ Ich schäme mich, daß ich ein Deutscher bin". The first line refers to former concentration camps.  The most plausible explanation is that a German wrote the graffiti expressing his shame over the Nazi concentration camps (and ideology).  It was not a goal of denazification in the American zone (where Munich lay) to make the population ashamed of being German, and calling for shame would be an approach likely to alienate the population. Asking people to be ashamed of their nationality is subtly different from blaming them for their complicity, which the Allies did. Marco polo (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Marco polo, I believe you are right. There is | little documentation about KZ-Außenlager Velten (24 km northwest of Berlin), which was a subcamp of Ravensbrück concentration camp for women. Bestfaith (talk) 20:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Nuclear waste deposit
In Ilkka Remes's 2009 book Isku ytimeen ("A strike into the core"), the protagonists object to depositing hazardous nuclear waste deep below the ground. Well, where else could it be deposited? Out in the open? Or shot away into space? J I P &#124; Talk 06:59, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Shooting nuclear waste into space (specifically, into the Sun, which is hard to miss due to its size and gravity, and wouldn't be affected by a few measly tons of depleted uranium) has been considered before. The obvious problem is getting it up there: all spaceflights are currently done by rockets, and if a rocket full of nuclear waste explodes, you've just detonated a gigantic dirty bomb in the upper atmosphere. Smurrayinchester 09:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Our Radioactive waste article lists Above-ground disposal, Geologic disposal, Transmutation, Re-use of waste and Space disposal. Alansplodge (talk) 11:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm no, the sun is very hard to hit. You'll have to brake away most of Earth orbital speed (30 km/s) to get near the sun. This is also why Mercury is so hard to reach. Lots of delta-v needed. Fgf10 (talk) 19:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It is common to object to putting nuclear waste underground because most people believe that nuclear material is invented out of thin air and then the waste is pulled out of it - again, invented out of thin air. They do not comprehend that the nuclear material was underground to begin with. So, they assume that by putting it underground, you are increasing the amount of radioactive material in the Earth. If a person has such a misconception, they will want to get it as far away from the Earth as possible. Further, this is a topic that is difficult to discuss because there is far more ignorance and emotion involved than science. If you want to discuss it with someone, try to avoid talking about nuclear power plants or nuclear bombs. Talk about radon. I live in an area that is very high in radon. It comes from naturally-occurring radioactive material in the ground. Shouldn't the government try to dig all that radioactive material up, put it in barrels, and rebury it someplace where people don't live? 209.149.113.94 (talk) 19:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While it may be true that concern over buried nuclear waste is exaggerated&mdash;I'm not attempting to argue that point one way or the other&mdash;but "the nuclear material" in nuclear waste is certainly not the same material that "was underground to begin with". First, isolating the radioactive fuel from the natural ore means greatly increasing its concentration, and still more so if uranium enrichment is performed.  Second, any nuclear reaction by definition produces a different substance.  Third, the high levels of radiation within a nuclear reactor&mdash;particularly neutrons, but depending on the neutron temperature&mdash;will cause nuclear reactions in nearby objects (for example, pipes, structural elements, casings around the fuel).  These reactions may produce radioactive materials that would not be found in nature "underground to begin with" in any significant quantity. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 03:13, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Since concentration is the problem, diluting it in the ocean would actually be a solution, say by dumping barrels in the Mariana Trench. Of course, the political objections would be huge, with people imagining Godzilla being awakened. StuRat (talk) 04:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Already been done and prevented from doing it again; see Ocean disposal of radioactive waste. Alansplodge (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The idea that nuclear material came from underground and can go back there is actually a fallacy. The problem is, we pulled very inert nuclear material out of the ground, i.e. uranium that decays over billions of years, and we set it on fire (in a nuclear sense) to create shorter-lived daughter elements with half-lives ranging from seconds to hundreds of thousands of years.  That can't be undone.  So it's like saying "we got the oil out of the well, why can't we dump our chemical waste back down the hole?"


 * The idea of ocean burial is also questionable, because things don't just stay at the bottom of the sea; they leak, enter ecosystems, turn up at the local fish market. Even if the article says it affects fish in Somalia, and who cares about Somalia, well, the Somalia 'pirates' are always bitterly complaining about foreign fishing vessels working without licenses in their waters, so the waste you dumped may well be on your own dinner plate. Wnt (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Electronic cigarettes / vaporizers
I know someone who's got a really bad addiction to them and being a former smoke just simply can't quit puffing away. Worse still, does most of the smoking in a small bed room. Will all that smoking in there leave a nasty residue in the room, bit like cigerettes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.27.47 (talk) 13:26, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Smoke is smoke wherever it comes from, i.e. "an aerosol of solid particles and liquid droplets", so even if the room is well ventilated, it will always deposit itself somewhere, mostly on the floor, furnishings, and walls, but it probably won't smell as bad as cigarette smoke.--Shantavira|feed me 15:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You should learn to read a complete sentence; Then come back and try again.--TMCk (talk) 17:19, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That seems a bit harsh. If you're referring to the fact electronic cigarettes don't actually emit smoke since there's no combusion or pyrolysis, it was the OP who referred to it as "smoking" twice. While the OP also said something about vaporizers that could arguably include something which does emit smoke. Perhaps, Shantavira should have checked out the until now unlinked article on electronic cigarettes which does clarify there is no combustion before responding, but it seems unnecessary to leave such a strong response, when they simply replied based on what the OP actually said, even if the OP was either confused, or used a confusing word. And to be clear there is no way reading the smoke article in it's entirety is going to tell you that electronic cigarettes don't emit smoke without existing knowledge, since it doesn't say talk about that. Nil Einne (talk) 03:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think it is quite legit to call out uneducated guesses stated as fact, especially when made while having an encyclopedia (even if it is WP) in front of their nose.--TMCk (talk) 15:56, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Where's your evidence there was any uneducated guess? And why did you make no meaningful attempt to clarify the situation, if you wanted to call stuff out? (How are people supposed to know what you're calling out, if your statement would leave people as confused as they were before you called it out.) Frankly your replies, and your earlier reply deserve a far long reply then is fair to mention here, so I'm taking this to Wikipedia talk:Reference desk. Suffice it so say, I'm not sure if the RD is the best place for you if you're only going to offer confusing and harsh critism, without actually also providing meaningful clarification when it's sorely needed and the fundamental nature of the RD. Nil Einne (talk) 03:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, your "as fact" is criticism also seems unnecessarily strong, considering that the statement of concern isn't totally clear (it didn't actually say e-cigs emit smoke although it implied it) and could easily be reworded to be accurate without a significant change. Consider for example:
 * If you're correct that electronic cigarettes emit smoke, well then smoke is smoke wherever it comes from, i.e. "an aerosol of solid particles and liquid droplets emitted when a material undergoes combustion or pyrolysis", so even if the room is well ventilated, it will always deposit itself somewhere, mostly on the floor, furnishings, and walls, but it probably won't smell as bad as cigarette smoke.
 * Nil Einne (talk) 04:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "Will?" Who knows. "Can?" If any device you use (even a candle) produces smoke, you can get residue. However, tobacco cigarettes tend to have a lot of tar. That builds up as a thick yellow film around a room. It is difficult for simple smoke to get the same level of buildup, but you can see it in small quantities. Some people have wall-mounted candle holders. If you see one that is actually used, you will likely see a waxy film on the wall near the candle. That is the buildup. But, all of that requires smoke. If it is water vapor, that is different. If the water vapor has stuff in it (such as an oil of some kind), that oil will be carried out in the vapor and readily deposited wherever the water may land. That can cause a heavy film. Check out a kitchen where people cook with oil regularly (Italian or Chinese kitchens are good for this) and you will find that everything is coated in a hard oil residue. The issue here is time and quantity. Kitchens cook with a lot of oil, so it builds up faster. Of course, that is assuming there is oil in the vapor. What if it is just water vapor? That won't "build up", but it can cause problems. If the paint in the room is not oil-based, constant collection of vapor can loosen it, most likely from the ceiling. I've seen water vaporizers loosen paint a few different times - all but one was only on the ceiling. Again, it is quantity. A lot of vapor from a vaporizer will do damage faster. Finally, there is one more concern - mold/mildew. If there is enough water vapor to increase the humidity in part of the room, it will increase the likelihood of getting mold or mildew growth, which can be another form of buildup. 209.149.113.94 (talk) 19:47, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * So far as I know any source of nicotine can yield some N-Nitrosonornicotine, a carcinogen. Our article on electronic cigarettes mentions formaldehyde and other unspecified carcinogens.  Really, someone should elaborate on that, though the situation on that article is toxic enough to merit arbitration proceedings at the moment.  Beyond a doubt some significant carcinogens in tobacco leaf are absent from this source.  For aesthetics, the main carrier substance is propylene glycol, boiling at 188 C (I think it was) - I don't actually know how volatile that makes it, but I'm guessing it shouldn't accumulate indefinitely. Wnt (talk) 19:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A mysterious placename in Russian Poland
I'm researching an article about a chapel in England which was founded by a former resident of Russian Poland. Three different sources, published between 1857 and 2002, give his birthplace as "Vinooty" [sic], which doesn't look like a "typical" Polish language place name. Google searches draw a blank. One source says it was/is near the Prussian border. Does anybody have any suggestions, thoughts etc. about where this might be? The man in question was born in 1812. Ta,  Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  21:01, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Presumably you are talking about Edward Samuel, as a search for "Vinooty" in Google Books turns up several references of him&mdash;including a passage where he himself says that it's near the Prussian border, so I think you can consider that bit of information solid. But really for this sort of thing I think you might need to go to a good map library.


 * I figured the spelling might have been anglicized, in which case the original was probably something like Vinuti or Vinnuti. So I checked the Polish-language Wikipedia for article titles beginning with Vinn, Vino, or Vinu.  But, as you see, there's nothing that looks like a spelling variation on Vinooty.  I wondered if there were diacritical marks on one or more of the initial letters, but apparently the Polish language does not use diacriticals on V, I, or N.  I give up. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 05:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Polish uses «ń». —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops. --174.88.134.156 (talk) 20:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * But not before a vowel – oops myself. —Tamfang (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * "V" is very rare in Polish. If it still has a similar name, the place would be likely to be spelled with an "F" or "W" now.  Dragons flight (talk) 13:58, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * While you're up, try Wy–. —Tamfang (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything under "Wyn" either. Alansplodge (talk) 14:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Vainutas in modern Lithuania seems to fit the description well. (The JewishGen Community database is very handy in searches like this.) הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 17:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a Polish article one can find by going to the link Hasirpad gave for Vainutas. The Polish name given is Wojnuta, which would be like "Voynoota" in English.  The final vowel may not matter because it can change by case. μηδείς (talk) 18:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that Samuel was of Jewish birth, the Yiddish name should be the most relevant, which, in the case of Vainutas, is "Vaynute", the first syllable sounding somewhat like English vine.  הסרפד  (call me Hasirpad) 18:43, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt you are right. The difficulty for me is that the name in the OP's question is not in a phonetic transcription.  But if Vi- rhymes with vye, then Vainutas seems the obvious answer. μηδείς (talk) 19:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your research and answers. Vainutas sounds like a good call, geographically and linguistically. When I write the article (probably tomorrow) I am tempted to wikilink Vainutas and put a note on the talk page linking to this thread. The man in question is indeed Edward Samuel. Hassocks 5489 (Floreat Hova!)  19:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Be aware both that discussions here do not count as reliable sources, and that any link would have to be an "external link" to the diff for this conversation in the page history, or the link would soon disappear. Such external links are usually quickly removed from articles.  I would do a search on the subject and Vainutas on google/google scholar/google books/amazon and link to whatever book or article you find that supports this claim. μηδείς (talk) 21:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too strict about the reference in this case. I think wording like

{|
 * would be good enough in this case. &mdash; Sebastian 03:48, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, but this discussion is OR, and a link to a diff will quickly be spotted and removed, especially if the article is being reviewed for DYK or the like. The OP will be better served by searching for Vainutas or Vaynute and the subject and quoting whatever independent source he finds. μηδείς (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By all means, but this discussion is OR, and a link to a diff will quickly be spotted and removed, especially if the article is being reviewed for DYK or the like. The OP will be better served by searching for Vainutas or Vaynute and the subject and quoting whatever independent source he finds. μηδείς (talk) 15:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, to be on the safe side I have merely added a hidden note in the article to direct people to the Talk page, and have actually put the details (and a link back to here; hopefully I've done that correctly) on the talk page itself. Thanks again for all the help, Hassocks  5489 (Floreat Hova!)  17:42, 12 October 2015 (UTC)