Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Science/2015 November 16

= November 16 =

Anticonvulsiveness as a side effect
I believe that I read some time ago about an anticonvulsant medicine that was developed for another purpose but was tested and marketed as an anticonvulsant after it was serendipitously discovered to retard epilepsy during trials. I was strongly under the impression that this was oxcarbazepine, but this page seems to say that it was originally intended to be an anticonvulsant. Our article has a nearly useless History section (because it's so short), and I wasn't sure how to search for this kind of thing on Google. Before looking at Category:Anticonvulsants, I was only aware of oxcarbazepine, levetiracetam, and phenytoin, so either it's one of those three, or I've imagined it. Levetiracetam doesn't mention history, and phenytoin apparently wasn't used for anything until it was found to be an anticonvulsant. Nyttend (talk) 01:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

PS, my question was "which one of these three was it, or am I misremembering/imagining something?" Nyttend (talk) 01:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I did a little reading, and both phenytoin and valproate had their anticonvulsant effects discovered after their initial discovery. But maybe you were thinking of levetiracetam. The first racetam to be discovered was piracetam, which wasn't specifically developed as an anticonvulsant drug. I think most of the other racetams were developed by just playing with piracetam's structure to see what you would get. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 07:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Cursorial marsupial herbivores?
The marsupial thylacine ran like a dog, but I am unaware of any herbivorous marsupials that ran like a deer. Are there any cursorial marsupial herbivores in the fossil record? I am aware of the Diprotodont, but is seems more like a ground sloth than a gazelle. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 04:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Kangaroo and wallaby may occupy equivalent roles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Per Graeme, I'm pretty sure this ecological niche is filled by kangaroos and wallabies. Large-ish, fast-ish plant eaters (i.e. what Antelopes do in Africa or Deer in N. America/Eurasia)... -- Jayron 32 16:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The OP didn't ask about that, she asked about animals with a similar gait. Since a deer runs on all 4 legs, we are looking for a marsupial that does the same. StuRat (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, I was reading the agile wallaby article and noted that the animal's head resembles that of a deer, then wondered if there were any marsupial herbivores, now or in the fossil record, with the gait of a deer. μηδείς (talk) 18:13, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are several common marsupials who walk on all fours, though I don't know how the patterns of the way their feet strike the ground compare to deer. Common four-legged walkers include wombats and opossum.  Most Kangaroos and Wallabies are two-legged walkers, or hybrid walkers, like chimpanzees and bears (IIRC).  -- Jayron 32 19:12, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Right, so to sum up: there's some confusion about the termiology. kangaroos are specifically mentioned at cursorial, and their hopping gait seems to technically qualify as running, and they definitely operate in a comparable niche to deer. Cursorial is more about how often and fast the thing moves, not the gait. But the question is also about deer gait, and roos run nothing like deer! Hard to find evidence of a lack, but I think thylacine is about as close to a deer gait as you'll get. By species number, most current living marsupials are scansorial, and the cursorial ones seem to hop... You might like to look at the hips and spines of the Thylacoleo. SemanticMantis (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think the inclusion of kangaroos in that list needs a big fat tag.  Hopping with two feet in unison in no way fits the definition of running. μηδείς (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well our definition of running is "Running is a type of gait characterized by an aerial phase in which all feet are above the ground " -- for which a kangaroo clearly qualifies. If you have a good RS that says kangaroos can't run I'm all ears. Also note that some spiders are considered cursorial, even though they don't have a long-distance locomotive gait that has all legs leave the ground at once. I means sure many spiders can hop but that's orthogonal to being considered cursorial as far as I can tell. SemanticMantis (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Are you serious, SM? That kangaroos run is 'true', unless I prove a negative?  That's not how WP or the ref desks work.  It took me a whole three seconds to find Animal_locomotion. Unless you have something to say about marsupials other than the thylacine (and one presumes its close fossil kin) you are simply being unhelpful. μηδείς (talk) 02:06, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey, I don't care if you act like a jerk to me over policy issues, but please be civil and AGF on matters of science. It think we do have a common interest here, and you seem to be taking my words in a very negative and non-intended manner. I was trying to help, and I was being serious. So let's look at a few refs: first, kangaroos (and kangaroo rats, and some other hoppers) are considered cursorial. As I said above, that designation is not really about specific gate, but about how fast, far, and often the critter moves. Here is a dissertation that discusses the cursorial frugivorous behavior of the smallest kangaroo. Here  is an example of a peer-reviewed scholarly article that specifically mentions kangaroos as cursorial, and here  is yet another. So feel free to add those to satisfy your big fat {CN} tag for the cursorial article (I would, but I'm spending my WP time on you ;)
 * Now, the gait question is indeed interesting. What I meant to communicate above is that our definition at running does not rule out hopping. But that could just be a matter of sloppy writing on WP The jumping section you linked does seem to consider the gait as distinct, but for all I know, some locomotion specialists do consider hopping to be a sub-class of running, since both involve all feet leaving the ground. But that's just a tangent. Going back to running per se, this (old) article mentions the Tasmanian wolf, but then goes on to say the diprotodont marsupials... exhibit extreme modifications for both running and jumping... the bandicoots exhibit decided cursorial modifications
 * See pages 3-4 in the article for that and further discussion of the modifications. N.B. the bandicoot article doesn't have a taxobox but it looks like they are not longer classed with the Diprotodontia, though I don't think that's relevant to the issue at hand.
 * I don't really care to argue about classification of gaits, but there's a few scholarly references that say that a) kangaroos are cursorial and b)bandicoots are a candidate for the marsupial that is most adapted for quadrupedal running. Hope that helps, SemanticMantis (talk) 15:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I have just read Cursorial and I find this article is actually more confusing than helpful. The lede begins by indicating it means animals adapted to running. It then goes on to say "Cursorial organisms are typically adapted to long-distance running at high speeds, rather than animals with high acceleration over short distances; thus, a cheetah is considered cursorial, while a leopard is not." This is all stated without in-line citations! The only in-line citations are about spiders. It also states that all cursorial vertebrates are endotherms - what about the race-horse goanna? - I believe these can out-pace a horse, albeit for short distances. DrChrissy (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's in bad shape. The lead is using a common notion of "run" to mean "fast", not a specific gait, which is unfortunate, because the first link is about a specific gait, and focused on humans. Unless the reader already knows about cursorial hoppers and walkers, or knows to think of "run" as a casual, informal usage, the article gives a very wrong first impression. Maybe I'll take a hack at it tomorrow. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * One more ref, a Nature paper titled "Why kangaroos hop" - it states in the abstract that are the only large marsupials with major cursorial adaptations. Very relevant to the bigger picture, and sort of hints at why we don't see any marsupials that move with a very similar gait to deer. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This might help I would use it myself but I don't have full access at the moment.  In the abstract it talks about running fast OR far. DrChrissy (talk) 16:16, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, to restate the question, does Australia have any animals besides the thylacine living or extinct which are evolved for cursorial behavior along the lines of a deer, an ostrich, a wolf or a human? In the strict sense, the answer "kangaroo" is obviously wrong, they are extremely adapted for saltation, not running.  You mentioned [Thylacoleo]] above, but its forearms are much larger than its hindquarters, and it is obviously not adapted for running in this sense.
 * As for my being a "jerk" to you? That's projection, and it needs diffs, preferably at ANI.  Any conflict we have is always based on trolling by third parties whom you sometimes defend but who almost always end up getting blocked.  There are plenty examples of such trolls on my talkpage if anyone's in for a round of masochistic rolling in muck.  I would, as you state, rather focus on the question.
 * I am curious if anyone can recommend a book on the fauna of Australia, living and extinct, along the lines of various mass-market illustrated books we have on extinct vertebrates, such as and . μηδείς (talk) 17:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There are camels in Australia. They would be classed as cursorial grazers. They run with their own peculiar gait. Akld guy (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There are quite a few other feral animals in Australia, including deer, and horses. Quite similar in idea to the ostrich is the emu. You can also find feral dogs and dingos. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * First, WP:INDENT, I think you were intending to reply to me, but you placed your comment in reply to DrChrissy. Secondly, I provided three academic journal articles and one Ph.D. dissertation that clearly and explicitly classify kangaroos as cursorial. If you don't like the kangaroo answer because they hop, that's fine. I know you also wrote "ran like a deer." But kangaroos are cursorial, according to the usage of experts in the field. So your current rephrasing makes the answer even more squarely "kangaroo".
 * If you want to look for marsupials that have adaptations for quadrupedal running, that's fine too, just know that that's not the same as cursorial. I thought about that too, and spent some time looking. For that case, I directed you to a peer-reviewed article that discusses the morphological adaptations for quadrupedal running in bandicoots, and I even gave you the page ref and typed up the block quote for your convenience. So I really don't know why you're getting all riled up. It's actually pretty simple: Kangaroos are cursorial marsupial herbivores. If you want a quadrupedal marsupial herbivore that runs and does not hop, look to the bandicoot. Here's a video of one bolting away rather quickly . If you want a large marsupial herbivore that runs just like a deer, I think you're out of luck, but I could be mistaken. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I don't know what in the world is going on, since when I posted I could have sworn my response was immediately below and one indent right of yours. Perhaps I made the edit but it returned as session data lost.  In any case, if we are going to call the gaits of mice and hopping kangaroos cursorial, then what do we call the gates of long-legged animals like ostriches, horses, and thylacines not adapted to hopping or scurrying?  Eucusroriality?  I have give an ostensive definition of what I mean, and it doesn't make any sense to call what the bandicoot did in that video (whose posting was helpful, by the way) cursorial in the specialized sense I am looking for.  Next I expect the IAU will declare Pluto to be cursorial.... 01:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine to say that ostriches and horses run and kangaroos hop, but I'm not that familiar with the study of gaits and skeletal morphology. All I can say is that in many (most?) cases, "cursorial" is used to describe a type of behavior and habit, not a specific gait. I suppose some people have used it to describe a specific gait, but I'm not aware of that usage; I learned the term in a more broad sense of behavioral ecology, not in terms of animal locomotion. Chrissy's links below have a lot of good gait info, but it still looks like there have never been any marsupials that run like deer. Btw, if you have refs that clearly use cursorial to mean a running quadrupedal gait, then maybe we can fix up the article to cover both usages, and then everybody wins :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * "The gaits of 19 species of Macropodinae were studied from 360 m of movie film taken in zoos. Four gaits were identified: (1) the slow progression involving all the limbs plus the tail which was similar in all the species and used mainly while grazing; (2) the walk, the only gait in which the pairs of limbs were not used synchronously and confined to the sole arboreal species of Dendrolagus; (3) the quadrupedal bound involving the use of the hindfeet and then the forefeet in sequence and believed to be a primitive gait because it is only found in the relatively primitive species of Setonix and Dendrolagus; and (4) the bipedal hop, the fastest gait, which is often correlated with the habitat of a species. The probable phylogeny of the Macropodinae is presented, based on gaits and other available taxonomic criteria." Not sure if this helps or hinders. DrChrissy (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Animal locomotion articles in general I was taught that terms such as "cursorial", "fossorial", "arboreal" mean much the same way I think as User talk:SemanticMantis uses/views them - the terms describe a behaviour or habit. This helps us describe complex situations when a jaguar runs after prey (cursorial) and then drags it up a tree (arboreal). The idea of these terms being related to adaptations is new to me, as of a couple of days ago. However, does the "adaptations" framework not beg the question that every species derived from those first creatures that dragged themselves out of the sea and went on to develop legs and showed "running", is adapted to being cursorial? This inconsistency in thinking (not pointing at individuals here at all) is very evident on WP. There is no article on Arboreal - it is a redirect to Arboreal locomotion. Interestingly, it then discusses the arboreal tree snail - does anyone know of any adaptations a tree snail might have compared to a land snail? Perhaps this discussion should be taken to a project page for wider discussion. - Does anyone have any suggestions? DrChrissy (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

magnet motor
Can make motor spins by magnetic repulsion? And I saw this on internet. Is it true? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.236.160.66 (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Every electric motor that has ever been built since the beginning of time works by magnetic repulsion. It's not magic or unexpected.  It's called "how they work".  See the Wikipedia article titled electric motor for all of the details.  -- Jayron 32 16:07, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Although if you mean the "free energy" and "perpetual motion" videos you find when you search "magnetic repulsion motor" on youtube, those are all fake. 91.155.193.199 (talk) 18:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If you mean "is it possible to make a motor spin using only magnetic repulsion/attraction and not using any electrical current" then the answer is "yes you can". However if you think this means you can get "Free Energy" then you will be most disappointed. Just because a magnet can repulse another magnet does not mean it can generate or give you free energy. The repulsion between two magnets can be considered as a form of potential energy. Once this "potential energy" is released (ie, one magnet is pushed away from another magnet), the energy is gone and the repulsion force is diminished. If you want to restore the repulsion force back to its original magnitude, work needs to be done. And work requires external energy. Unless you or some other external entity supplies the energy, the motor will slowly wind down due to friction. 175.45.116.66 (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

If you want "Free Energy" why waste time with hokey pokey magnets when you can let the moon work for you for free. Tidal barrage 175.45.116.66 (talk) 02:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * A conventional electric motor uses "magnetic repulsion". Most common electric motors use electromagnetic coils to either attract or repel permanent magnets.  So in that sense, the answer is "Yes".
 * However, there are a very large number of complete nut-jobs 'on the Internet' who totally fail to understand the difference between "force" and "energy". These people are quite utterly convinced that the "force" exerted by a magnet (which essentially lasts forever without running down) is obviously a source of "energy" that lasts forever without running down.  And from that key misunderstanding, leap to the conclusion that you really ought to be able to use magnets to make free energy.


 * Well, no, you can't! Force is not energy.  The laws of thermodynamics are among the most well-researched physical laws we have - and they say that getting energy for free is flat out impossible, no matter how clever you are.  Sadly, there are whole armies of nut-jobs making things like SMOT and magnetic motors - and most of them are putting up faked videos of these machines working on YouTube.  Oddly, none of them are making billions of dollars selling free energy to electricity companies...which is rather telling, I think!


 * So when we hear "motor spins by magnetic repulsion" - we're 99% sure that it's a nut-job spouting bullshit - and only 1% of our thoughts are that...well, actually, almost all motors work that way - although using copious amounts of electricity to make magnets that can be turned on and off...which is the key to making a magnetic motor that actually works.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Portable energy storage
If you have access to a source of  free energy, is it feasible to store enough of it in a portable battery to cover other costs?--Scicurious (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific as to the reason for your question? You've just linked to some articles about a coffee chain and one of their products, which confuses what you're asking about and why you are asking.  If you could be more direct and give us enough information to answer your question intelligently, that would be helpful.  -- Jayron 32 16:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that Starbucks would be happy about you recharging large batteries from their electricity supply, even if you were paying for coffee each time.   D b f i r s   16:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Dbfirs, you understood the question right, but this is not about their policies.
 * More directly: I want to plug a portable battery 2h. What portable battery can I use for this? How much energy would I be able to leech?--Scicurious (talk) 17:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've not ever been in a coffee shop where, while drinking their coffee, they ever complained if I plugged in any of my electronic devices (laptop, Ipad, smartphone, etc.) in an available outlet. Many such businesses do expect you to purchase a product to remain and use your device (while consuming said product), otherwise you may be accused of loitering.  Of course, YMMV, but if you buy a coffee and sit around in the shop while drinking it, they don't often care if you also plug in your electronics... -- Jayron 32 17:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * According to, a Nissan Leaf can store less than 24 kilowatt-hours in practice. Residential kWh's cost in the high teens of cents  - it's cheaper for Starbucks so you can work that out.  So my guess is that if you can park your car in the cafe and recharge it in two hours (both probably a no), you can recover the cost of your coffee.  Otherwise... probably not. :) Wnt (talk) 17:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * For common outlets there is a max. draw of about 1.5 kw/h at 120 V (and about double for 220 V). You can do the math considering between 10-30 (US)cents/kwh.--TMCk (talk) 18:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If they are smart, they have a circuit breaker on the circuit(s) that customers use with a relatively low amp limit. Thus, if you attempt to draw lots of electricity, the circuit breaker would flip and you would lose power, along with anyone else on that circuit.  The employees might not notice until somebody else trying to use the circuit brings it to their attention.  The employees may then look to see who is sucking down all that juice before resetting the circuit breaker. StuRat (talk) 19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * That doesn't sound all that smart to me. The cost of having a grunt employee throw the breaker and look and apologize is more than the cost of the electricity saved ... and there's a goodwill factor ... and then there's the risk that some uninformed supervisory employee eventually calls up an electrician about the trouble with the circuit, costing vastly more than all the power ever possibly saved.  Nay, the less creativity the better where wall outlets are concerned. Wnt (talk) 00:43, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Let's just pretend that you have a 100% efficient charger and some 100% efficient batteries with near-infinite capacity.


 * In the USA, the average price of electricity is 12 cents per kWh. probably Starbucks have 5 amp 'charger' outlets for customer use...maybe they use standard 15 amp outlets if they expect a cleaner to come in and plug a vacuum cleaner into it or something...so 550 watts is a "safe" assumption and 1650 is probably the most you could risk. So over an hour, you're going to be able to consume between 6.6 cents and 19.8 cents worth of electricity without tripping a circuit breaker.  According to  the cheapest Frappaccino you can get is a "Tall" iced coffee with or without milk and with no 'extras' - at $2.44.  So if you can find a large enough energy storage device to consume and retain that amount of electricity, you'll need to sip that drink for between 12 hours (@15 amps) and 36 hours (@5 amps) before getting a refill in order to break even.


 * A 'tall' frappaccino is 12 fl.oz - which is 0.355 liters. The Institute of Medicine recommends about 3 liters of liquid intake per day to retain health - so sadly, you're going to be REALLY thirsty after nursing that frappaccino for 12 to 36 hours.


 * The highest prices for electricity in the USA are in Hawaii (36 cents per kWh) - which means that if they have 15 amp outlets, the break-even time drops to a mere 4 hours...but still, you're going to be really thirsty by the end. The highest prices in the world are in Denmark (41 cents/kwh) - but still, you're going to need to suck up the amps for over three and a half hours.


 * All of that assumes 100% efficiency at charging those batteries and 100% efficiency in using the power stored within them...California is introducing standards for chargers of the kinds of scale needed here. Those standard demand ~80% efficiency - and claim that doing so will save about half of the energy wasted by such devices...meaning that current chargers are probably more like 60% efficient.  Pulling power out of batteries is also inefficient (they get warm when you do that) - so, probably, you're going to have to double the amount of power you need to take from Starbucks in order to use it for something else...so you're now looking at 7 hours - in Denmark.


 * Bottom line is that no matter what storage and charging system you use and no matter where you live - you can't come even remotely close to breaking even by consuming 'free' electricity in a coffee shop. SteveBaker (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Time reversal signal processing
Here is an interesting paper about Time reversal signal processing. Apparently they can recover a numeral "5" from the reflection through a piece of chicken. As Science News put it, "Mosk envisions doctors injecting a dye or other agent to make cancer cells glow inside the body. A mirror would gather up that light, even after it's been scattered by other tissues, and send back a high-energy beam that strikes and sears only the cancer cells." The paper describes recording the reflected light, which is part of it.

But how do you record and replay and amplify a chaotic collection of light in all phases and directions? I don't see how you do this. But I can certainly see applications for the technology, using "quantum dot" sensors, of truly unprecedented creepiness. Wnt (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, this was quite fascinating, although I understood it in the way someone learning multiplication might get the gist of calculus. Hopefully there will be a science documentary on the subject, or there is if someone can post one. μηδείς (talk) 03:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't see how "recording" is necessary for that particular application -- it appears that optical amplification, combined with any of the many kinds of retroreflector, might theoretically be enough for that anti-cancer treatment.


 * How do you record a chaotic collection of light in all phases and directions? In other words, how do you record a light field? My understanding is that the most common way of doing this is holography.


 * How do you amplify a chaotic collection of light in all phases and directions? My understanding is that Raman amplification is the most common technique, but amplification can be produced using several other stimulated emission techniques.


 * This technique seems like it could have a lot of useful applications. --DavidCary (talk) 09:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Unreasonable Warning?
At one of our local Dollar Stores, I bought a metal cookie baking sheet, described as "Heavyweight steel bakeware".

While taking off the label, my wife noticed the Prop. 65 Warning, and was concerned enough to ask me about it. The text reads "This product contains DEHP, a Phthalate Chemical, Lead and other Chemicals ...)".

Reading the DEHP article, my understanding is that that product is used mostly as a plasticizer, so that doesn't make sense. Now, I suppose that, being made in China, they used a low grade steel containing a high percentage of lead and other bad stuff, but it's also possible that they just use this paragraph as boilerplate on all their products, to avoid problems.

So, two main questions:

1) Is it reasonable that there exists any DEHP in a steel baking sheet?

2) Is it reasonably possible for an unreasonable amount of lead, etc. to be in the sheet?

And a follow-up question (ignoring, for the moment, Wikipedia's dislike of requests for opinions); would you use this as a baking sheet? Bunthorne (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there a label on the product, or is it wrapped in plastic? Would it be possible the label, the plastic wrapping, or the gum used to attach or close any of such contained the chemical?  -- Jayron 32 18:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There was a label stuck on the product with an adhesive, but it wasn't wrapped in plastic. So it's quite possible that the adhesive contained the DEHP. Bunthorne (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Steel turns out to be coated in plastic more than you'd think, e.g. tin can. Depending on how "low grade" this is, is it stainless steel?  Does it rust?  Or does it rely on a coating that may emit chemicals when warmed up in an organic solvent, i.e. when making cookies? Wnt (talk) 18:58, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * There was no mention of a non-stick coating, so based on that and previous experience with pans of this type, I'm sure it will rust, given a chance. Bunthorne (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would line the "bakeware" with aluminum foil or parchment paper before using it, to offer some protection from contamination. You might also want to run it through the oven without any food a few times, to burn off or outgas as many chemicals as possible.  I'd do this in summer, with the windows open. StuRat (talk) 19:44, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It's also worth noting that the Prop 65 warning labels have no penalty for being there without need. My guess is that it's put there to cover unforeseen legal accusations toward the company that made/distributed/imported them. FrameDrag (talk) 20:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * My guess is that the steel does indeed have a thin coating of plastic, designed to keep it from rusting until after you buy it, use it once (burning off the plastic coating), and then find a rusted piece of junk after you soak it in the sink. If this is the case, then you might be able to save it by coating it in oil after each use and immediate cleaning, like a cast iron pan.  StuRat (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Is contamination of food with rust really a health issue? 129.215.47.59 (talk) 11:37, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In some cases, the opposite is true, see lucky iron fish. shoy (reactions) 15:34, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Not a health issue, unless the chunks of rust are big enough to cut you, but rusty food is quite unpalatable. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I doubt this. Burning plastic can start fires, gives off noxious fumes, and would react with whatever you were baking to make it unpalatable. Unless this is a product that was just introduced, I'm pretty sure people would have noticed this and made a big deal. Also, purely from a cost standpoint, plastic costs money, and applying plastic coatings costs even more (you need machines, special plastics, etc.). I think it's unlikely doing such a thing would be cost-effective, especially when the product is being sold at such a low price (as it was from a dollar store). --71.119.131.184 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Many items end up in dollar stores because they were slated for regular retail stores but deemed to be defective in some way, such as the way I described. StuRat (talk) 02:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I think FrameDrag is right. I live in California, so I'm familiar with the effects of Prop 65. It was well-intentioned, but it's a case study in unintended consequences. Any potentially harmful chemical has to be reported, regardless of whether the levels present are actually meaningful, so most places just slap warnings on everything that might remotely fall under the law to avoid legal consequences. In return, people don't pay any attention to the notices, because they're usually irrelevant. Notably, in the past few years I've noticed numerous online stores slapping Prop 65 warnings on all kinds of things. For example, here's what Amazon.com puts Prop 65 warnings on, which includes fruit, nuts, and vegetables. So I would probably just ignore the warning. --71.119.131.184 (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The notice might be referring to listed substances contained in the label. Thincat (talk) 12:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Species ID request, File:Tree in Chile.jpg
Before this is transfered to Commons, it would be appreciated if someone could determine it's species. (This is so it can be put in the right taxonomic categories on Commons). Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It would be good to see the leaves, but perhaps a vachellia caven. Mikenorton (talk) 23:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)