Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2011 November 3

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.

November 3

Is masturbation a high-risk sexual activity?

I was reading Wikipedia's article on masturbation, though I had to raise some questions while I was reading the text. Given that masturbation involves finger-genital contact, and that the fingers can be contaminated, would masturbation count as a high-risk but "normal" sexual activity? Do the benefits outweigh the harms, or does the person who masturbates is doing more harm than good for himself or herself? Can washing hands with soap and water prior to masturbation enhance safety of this activity?

Intuitively, I would think that it carries some sort of health risk. However, more often than not, my intuition can also be wrong. 75.185.79.52 (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Washing the hands with soap and water after masturbation is probably also a good idea. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.66.254 (talk) 02:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't imagine that masturbation caries any more health risk than other activities you do with your hands. After all, your hands touch your food, repeatedly; you ingest this. Your hands touch your genitals when you use the rest room. Honestly, if your concern is the contact your own hands make with your own genitals, there is nothing inherently more risky about the act of masturbation in that regard than any other random thing you do with your hands to your body. Contrawise, (for men at least) there is some health benefit from masturbation with regard to prostate health, see Masturbation#Benefits (NSFW). Depending on the technique, frequency, and "aggressiveness" of the act, there can be risks as well, and those are covered in the Wikipedia article. But those sorts of risks are inherent in any strenuous activity, and not unique to masturbation. --Jayron32 02:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why should one wash hands with soap and water after masturbation? To reduce the spread of venereal disease upon contact when one places his or her hand(s) on a public object or on another person? 75.185.79.52 (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't have it at hand right now but in an issue of Playboy about a year or two ago, someone wrote in to their Advisor column asking about men washing their hands after urinating. The magazine's response was basically that it's a fairly clean process. They argued that a relatively clean person will take a shower in the morning, put on a clean pair of underwear, and the penis would remain in this fairly clean state. There may be some sweat and such but otherwise, you have clean skin wrapped in clean clothing. They maintained, and our urine article pretty much agrees with the idea, that urine is a fairly "clean" fluid if you're dealing with a person of good health. In answering the question, they maintained that the process of urinating was a fairly clean act and that hand washing, while not a bad practice to keep up, isn't absolutely necessary for a clean and disease free person. The most dirty part of the process was the possibility of splash back from the urinal. That's all from memory though... Dismas|^(talk) 03:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Relatedly... --Mr.98 (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, my sister assured me, in a completely unrelated discussion, that the hands are the cleanest part of the body when it comes to bacteria and such like, simply because they are used so much for so many things, making them a rather hostile environment for anything living on them. 148.197.81.179 (talk) 08:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Hands are also washed, wiped, rinsed, incidentally immersed in water, far more often than any other body part. In a healthy person urine is sterile and can actually be used as a "disinfectant rinse" in "stranded in the wilderness" survival situations - according to a urologist friend (yes it's 2nd hand OR). Roger (talk) 09:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, how about plainly washing hands after masturbation for the sole and express reason of removing the (subtle but noticeable) specific smell left behind on them after prolonged contact with the penis? --Ouro (blah blah) 09:42, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never received any complaints, but someone with a stinky penis needs to concentrate on washing more than just their hands, don't you think? Textorus (talk) 11:24, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Ahem, I'd strike the word washing as well, and all offence aside, I was just saying. --Ouro (blah blah) 14:11, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Back to masturbation (which is a trollish question to start with): If it makes you sick, don't do it. If thinking about doing it makes you sick, see a psychiatrist. Textorus (talk) 09:48, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

From a feminine point of view, it is possible for masturbation to introduce unwanted bacteria in to the vagina, which could result in nasty infections. But then the same thing is possible during intercourse anyway. I'd go with the washing hands afterwards too. --TammyMoet (talk) 10:26, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

You need to wash your hands after touching your genitals because your genitals are covered in fecal bacteria. These bacteria are not removed from the groin by normal washing. You should therefore wash your hands after touching your genitals for any purpose.[1] --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:31, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I've seen Cecil's column cited here before, but I'm not sure I buy it. I don't see why the penis, which is some distance uphill from the anus, should be infested with fecal bacteria. (Of course, anal sex could lead to such infestation, in which case hand washing after urination would be called for. But the questioner didn't mention anal sex, so we shouldn't assume that he practices it.) Is there a scientific reference that could be cited for widespread coliform infestation of penises? I would think that hands, which get exposed to fecal bacteria after defecation, would be a more likely refuge for fecal bacteria, even despite washing after defecation, than the penis, which is not remotely affected by defecation. I'm not sure what another round of washing after every urination would do for the bacteria hiding out underneath fingernails and such, but it certainly dries out the skin in a way that can be harmful in a dry climate. Marco polo (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Whether this allegation is true or not - and I've read a report that even your toothbrush kept hanging on the bathroom wall is likewise infested with fecal germs - it can't possibly be significant, or else we would all have died long ago from some loathsome disease. Get on with enjoying your life and don't waste time worrying over theoretical irrelevancies, is what I say. The real truth is that some folks just love to terrify other people with gross "truths" and thereby manipulate them. Now that's nasty. Textorus (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Textorus hits it right on the head here: The proof is in the pudding: If something were risky, we'd see the results of that risk. The fact that one can find bacteria on your hands/junk/toothbrush/whatever is irrelevent if we don't find widespread disease as a result of it. If it wasn't making you sick before you knew it was there, why does it suddenly matter if you now know it was? All that's changed is your knowing it, and that should have no effect on the inherent risks involved. --Jayron32 16:02, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

People carrying Mycobacterium tuberculosis or MRSA are usually healthy, and it's normal to have meningococci up your nose.  Card Zero  (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you to some extent but I'd look at this from a different way, what's the pudding? The claim that these are simply 'theoretical irrelevancies' or we aren't seeing the result of the risk has no real evidence. To be fair, the SD article may be a bit extreme. And I'm not saying there is definitely a risk. I'm saying we don't know. Obviously it's unlikely millions of lives in the developed world could be saved by better hand washing after urination by males. This doesn't mean there is no risk that may make it worth males washing their hands after urination. I suspect many of us have had a stomach upset or mild diarrhea who's cause they are uncertain, usually most people make the assumption it's something they ate even if they don't really know what, and I suspect in many cases it is, but I doubt there is sufficient evidence to establish none of these could be prevented by better hand washing after urination and definitely no one has presented any here. If some of these are, is the time it takes (and whatever other negative effects) for hand washing worth reducing your risk of getting these (or spreading problems to others)? Well that's up to the individual to some extent (although if you are preparing food for others or whatever, it does seem you should consider them) but obviously knowing helps them make a decision. (It's also worth considering how easy it will be to change your habits and whether you might be at higher risk when you are older.)

Let's consider another thing, even for things like H1N1 flu, not everyone agrees regular hand washing has much of a benefit [2] although it's usually still suggested [3]. Regular hand washing in general is usually suggested as beneficial in reducing the spread of various diseases including flus and colds so if it does help, it may be hand washing after urination also helps even if it's just because it means you wash your hands more often (hopefully with proper drying). (Reducing how often you touch your mouth, nose and eyes is another thing suggested to help.) Of course this shouldn't be surprising, epidemiology is not simple. In any case, most organisations recommend handwashing after visiting the toilet whether or not defecation is involved, e.g. [4] [5] [6] even if their evidence may not be great. Some which specifically discuss the urination aspect [7]. [8] (look for answer by researcher) is also of interest.

TL;DR, the idea that health risks are always easy to measure or detect and therefore there must be no risk because we haven't clearly detected one (presuming we haven't) is flawed. Even more so since there is substanial evidence regular hand washing after going to the toilet is beneficial, particularly in the developing world where gastrointestinial diseases are more common and so far no one has presented evidence that the same benefit is obtained when you wash your hand after defecating only.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

And so, Nil, your argument differs from hypochondria how, exactly? And I beg to differ: it would be very easy to determine the risk you are so afraid of by a very simple experiment, a version of which we performed in my 10th grade biology class: collect skin scrapings from a large, random set of penises, transfer them to a nutrient medium in a petri dish, and see what develops in a few days or weeks. (In fact, we found that clean skin scrapings taken from one another's arms or hands, in contrast to scrapings from other surfaces around campus, produced practically no observable results: I remember that very clearly.) It ain't rocket science. Surely if there were a major health risk going on, we would have heard about it long before now. Scientists are not clueless on this topic: a whole 150 years ago, Louis Pasteur did some work along these lines that you may want to read up on; it's not much of a problem for healthy people (absent a specific contagious disease) unless the uglies from your skin are coming in contact with someone else's bloodstream, gut, or other innards. And indeed, for that reason, many generations of children have been taught to wash their hands before meals, and we expect professional food workers to do the same at work, etc. But Nil, you have to remember there is another side to this story: humans come with built-in defenses against bacteria, which are all around us, all day, everywhere you go. You cannot get away from harmful germs no matter how you try. Do you run wash your hands each and every single time after you have touched a public doorknob or stair railing, or used a common pen or pencil, or handled a dollar bill or a quarter, at work, at school, in stores and shops, buses, trams, public parks, etc.? Of course you don't, and nobody else does either. Even though, I'd wager, every such public surface is practically encrusted with other people's germs. A million-zillion times more than my penis after a morning shower, and protected under three or four layers of clean clothing. And yet - surprise, the human race still carries on somehow, and even thrives, with a steadily increasing lifespan overall. So, my friend, as with asteroid collisions or alien invasion, you can either worry yourself into a tizzy over every hypothetical threat to your bodily purity - just like the cooties we used to torment one another with in 3rd grade - or you can relax and enjoy your life, without casting a guilt trip on everybody else over something that is merely a very remote, implausible possibility. The choice is yours. Textorus (talk) 07:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Frankly, you seem to be going rather off topic with stuff that is not related to what anyone else has said. I don't know why you brought trying to get away from all pathogens as no one here suggested it. Nor was anyone trying to guilty trip anyone in to anything. And what's this bodily purity nonsense?

There's quite a good chance you can get culturable coliform bacteria from many penises if you try hard enough. (Even more likely you can detect them with PCR.) But who cares? I don't think anyone here does and it was never relevant to the discussion nor a consideration until you brought it up. What's much more important is whether failing to wash your hands after urination leads to an increased risk of catching some diseases from these coliform bacteria and other contaminants, and how great that risk is, and what the risks are, all of which are far harder to measure. This is a complicated issue since as most of us know, there are a variety of complicating factors like the human immune system (which I didn't forget about), number of pathogens transferred, type of pathogens (an important point you don't seem to understand based on your surface comment) etc.

However, as I've already said, the general advice is washing your hands after going to the toilet, including urination is likely beneficial, even though you claim it is not, without evidence. However as MP has said, it's not clear how strong the evidence for this is, it seems more based on theoretical considerations, as with a fair amount of health advice, but that doesn't mean it's wrong, and despite your confused statements, you've provided no evidence it's wrong. Some sources have suggested, again based on theoretical reasoning (but often without seeming to consider all issues) that there's no real need. Personally I stick with the health authorities, but clearly at least in this thread, insufficient evidence has been provided to be that certain either way. (Personal revelation which I might as well make, note that I'm a male and I don't always wash my hands after urination, it doesn't mean I'm going to make the claim there's no appreciable risk when I have no evidence for the claim and reasons to believe it may not be true.)

As for actual evidence, you obviously can't do a double blind. You could do a non blind test where you assign one group to wash their hands, and one group not to but that's still an expensive and difficult exercise and will depend on how well your participants follow your request. And trying to do a survey would have quite a few confounding factors (like possible correlations). In any case, it's not clear that any of these have been attempted. One of the reasons is probably because it doesn't seem that important to most including those making the recommendation (as I've said, for a variety of reasons they feel it is the right recommendation to make, including I suspect simplyfing the advice and increasing hand washing in general, remembering you're usually near a sink if you urinate). Indeed from what you've said so far, it seems likely you're not going to change your mind even if there is excellent peer reviewed science of the benefit of washing your hands after urination, and frankly I don't care much either except unlike you, I don't go around making the claim there's definitely no significant benefit just because there's no conclusive evidence for a benefit (although in reality, I've searched a bit but not that hard and I'm not sure anyone else here did).

Also, you still seem to be missing the point that healthy people can and do get sick all the time, many of these are minor conditions but from a personal POV, it may still be worth avoiding them by simple precautions like washing your hands after urination. As for 'like the cooties we used to torment one another with in 3rd grade', well that's a dumb thing, which no one did or I'm pretty sure does, in Malaysia (most probably barely recognise the word).

Ultimately all of us are going to suffer and die, it's not unresonable for us to want to know what resonable precautions we can take to reduce the former and increase the time before the later while still enjoying our life (it's not like washing your hands after urination is some extremely arduous task for most of us), which was what this discussion was about.

P.S. An improvement in hand washing after going to the toilet is very likely one of the many reasons why there has been a steadily increasing lifespan in many countries, although as I said before how important the 'after urination only' component to that is, is unclear.

Nil Einne (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually it occured to me I was doing a general search rather then a journal search which in retrospect was a bit silly. Anyway I found [9]/[10] (largely same ref but published in different journals) which if I understand it correctly (I didn't read it aall) found among hikers, washing hands after urination was correlated with a reduced risk of diarrhea although the authors acknowledge it may simply be because this is an indicator for good hygeine, and in particular more frequent hand washing (the later point is only mentioned in the first ref). BTW they also found no clear reduction in diarrhea for washing without soap after defecation (although I don't think this is that surprising a result). Anyway it wouldn't surprise me if there are more refs, I'm not really that interested to search more and a fair amount of stuff doesn't seem to seperate defecation and urination.

Oh and as for my earlier statement about culturable bacteria on the hand after urination [11] mentions a study which found during an outbreak, among children (who may of course be less careful about what they touch), some had Shigella sonnei on their hands after urination (I presume these were cultured since the study was in 1956). This is probably both sexes, but didn't find the full text for the original study [12]). As I said, I don't think this is a startling revelation. Not males but if I understand [13] correctly, it found an increase in E.coli count on mothers hands even after handwashing with soap, the highest increase of those activities measured so in fact higher then for defecation or cleaning a child's feces (sweeping was second highest). For enterococci, urination was the second lowest increase however.

Oh and [14] which mentions a case where a cook urinated into salad while asymptomatic for Hepatitis A and also mentions Salmonella Typhi and Salmonella Paratyphi in the urine of people with infections (the presence of pathogens in the urine was also mentioned in the refs I provided the first time I believe) reminds me of another thing I neglected to directly mention. Other then the possibility of habits going with you to old age when the risk may be higher, there's also the risk of habits remaining the same when you are sick and the not washing therefore leading to you potentially spread the disease via contact (let alone food preperation even non professional). Particularly since as the Hepatitis A case demonstrates, you may not know you are sick.

P.S. Just to be clear when I mention the possibility of infecting other people, I'm not trying to 'guilt trip' anyone. I'm simply mentioning that there may be appreciable risks to others that some people will consider relevant (particularly since in many cases the person you're most likely to spread it to is someone you have frequent contact with), when deciding whether or not they should wash their hands after urination (which was the issue that started this sub-thread) which aren't 'hypochondria' (or whatever you suggest).

P.P.S. I decided just to say this since I don't think I'll be coming back to this thread, perhaps the key point which I suspect you're still missing is no one is suggesting this is something of extreme concern. Rather what people are saying is there is likely some benefit to washing hands after urination sufficient to outweight the costs, therefore it's probably good practice. It's also recommended by health authorities. Either way, many are ready to accept this without needing a lot of evidence or thinking or worrying about it much at all. You seem to disagree it's beneficial but have not provided evidence and in fact it's not clear to me you're interested in evidence. Of course you can believe what you want, but if you're going to come to the RD and make the suggestion it's not beneficial, then you should provide some references (or at least better arguments). The related question of whether there really is any benefit and if there is how much and why is an interesting consideration to some, but it doesn't mean these people are hypochondriacs or worrying about needless risks, simply that they find certain things interesting even if they aren't important.

Nil Einne (talk) 01:14, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

"I've read a report that even your toothbrush kept hanging on the bathroom wall is likewise infested with fecal germs"

I've seen a Mythbusters episode on this that found that the bacteria was found everywhere in the bathroom, but it was in too low levels to do any harm, and that it is completely impossible to avoid. As to whether masturbation is dangerous, well no. Sure a girl can get a urinary tract infection if she is using sugary foods, but it is actually healthy for you, and not a risky activity.AerobicFox (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My father once said that the enlargement at the top of the member was a safety feature. It reduces the likelihood of the hand flying off and hitting one in the face, while oscillating at high speed. 98.220.239.210 (talk) 04:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the question of 'When are you really that clean?' -- I don't know about the rest of you folks, but generally I can feel when my hands (or other body parts) are getting a bit unhygienic, from, you know, how they feel. We do have built-in mechanisms for detecting and remedying such unsanitary conditions, I would offer, so worrying about fecal coliform count is a bit daft perhaps. Vranak (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

I would be curious to see how well that "feel" matches up to actual bacteria counts on hands. Clearly we're not capable of literally feeling bacteria, so does that sensation of cleanliness still provide useful information in this modern age? Or does it only really work for hand-grime related to hunting the mighty mammoth? APL (talk) 06:15, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

UK Data protection act: Do passwords have to be reveled in reponse to a subject access request.

If someone makes a subject access request do you have to send passwords, online user IDs etc. to them? -- Q Chris (talk) 09:39, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Doing so would be a contravention of principle 7: "Appropriate technical and organisational measures shall be taken against unauthorised or unlawful processing of personal data and against accidental loss or destruction of, or damage to, personal data." Dbfirs 10:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Surely a subject access request (i.e., somebody requesting data held about them) would be authorised, though? You should definitely not be storing (unhashed) passwords anyway, so they should be impossible to provide if requested. I imagine whether a user ID counts as 'personal data' would be debatable - and there are presumably rules on what evidence somebody has to provide that they are the subject in question to make a request. Of course, if this relates to a real situation, you should get professional legal advice. 130.88.73.65 (talk) 11:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The requester has to provide validation that they are in fact the data subject. If some of the information held is the data subject's user ID, then that could be provided to them. It's personal data after all. As 130.88 says, organisations that handle user passwords should not really have them available to hand over. If they did, these and other similar data (the answer to your 'secret question', the 'secret phrase' that you have to give three letters of etc) should be handed over if requested, and if the organisation is satisfied that the requester is the data subject. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Don't listen to random people on the internet, ask a lawyer. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:24, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Or contact the Office of the Information Commissioner. --TammyMoet (talk) 11:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Rockefeller's shoe shiner

"In 1928 in New York City, or so the story goes, John D. Rockefeller was having his shoes shined. The shoe shine boy, presumably not knowing who Rockefeller was, started giving him stock tips. J.D. took his shoe shine boy’s advice – but not in the way you’d expect. He decided that if a shoe shine boy – making a penny a shine – was giving stock tips – it was time to get out of the market. He did – and it’s the reason his family was able to stave off the Depression, and continued to be one of the richest in our history."

Does this story refer to John D. Rockefeller Senior or Junior and is it true? --Pp.paul.4 (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Apocryphal in any case - also attributed to Joe Kennedy [15]. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If the Rockefellers owned a lot of stock (and I'm sure they did), I'm sure any short-selling on their behalf would have a major impact on the economy. The severe drop in the NYSE would probably be more than enough to provoke panic selling from other investors. In a sense, it might be argued that the shoe-shine boy caused the Great Depression, if the story was true, of course.--WaltCip (talk) 23:22, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

In the recent Ken Burns film Prhobition, there's a related comment allegedly made by Al Capone, to the effect that he didn't do the stock market because "it's a racket" (and rest assured that he knew a racket when he saw one). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

bonds (YTM)

Can someone please explain to me how bonds work? I understand coupon rate is basically the interest gained, and in the end the value is computed by adding this rate of return with the face value (the money I put in the first place). But what does this have to do with "Year to Maturity", which is also called interest? Thanks, signed noob — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.132.72.96 (talk) 18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The coupon of a bond is the interest rate paid on the bond at face value. That is to say, a bond with a face value of $100 and a coupon of 5% will pay the holder $5 per year. "Years to maturity" is just the number of years before the bond ceases to pay interest and can be redeemed for the face value. Now, if you buy a bond when it is issued by the government, you will pay face value for that bond, and your interest rate (uncompounded usually) will be the same as the coupon on the bond. However, bonds may gain or lose value before they reach maturity. So if you were to purchase a bond that has already been issued, and if you bought it at a different price than its face value, then your effective interest rate would be different from the coupon rate. If the bond had gained value, your effective interest rate would be lower than the coupon, and if it had lost value, your effective interest rate would be greater. For example, Greek government bonds now sell at a steep discount to their face value and offer a much higher effective interest rate than their coupon. This is so because buyers are assuming a degree of risk that they will not receive the principal at maturity due to a possible default by Greece. Marco polo (talk) 19:08, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's what I wrote when someone asked a similar question (about government bonds) a few months ago: The government wants to borrow $100 for five years, so it issues a (say) 5% coupon bond with a 5-year maturity and par value of $100. You pay the government $100 and get a piece of paper back saying that it will pay you $2.50 every six months for 5 years and then give you your $100 back. A couple years pass and your company is having hard times, so you decide to sell your bond. Unfortunately, it's also just come out that the government of this country was faking its books or something, so I won't buy the bond for $100. You agree to sell it to me for $60. Now the government will pay me $2.50 every six months instead of you until the bond matures (or the government defaults). Since I'm only paying $60, but I'm still getting $5 a year, I'm in effect getting more than 5% interest a year. I'm getting 5/60 or 8.33%. That's the "current yield." But you've also got to consider that I'm also going to get $100 back at the end of the 5 years, even though I only paid $60. Plus I can take the $5 a year you're getting and reinvest it in something else. So the "yield-to-maturity" -- which takes those things into account and is the yield I really care about -- is going to be higher than 8.33%. Does that make sense? -- Mwalcoff (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have seen the abbreviation YTM and assumed it means "years to maturity", then this could be where your confusion lies. YTM actually stands for "yield to maturity" which Mwalcoff mentioned above. The YTM is the internal rate of return of the bond's cash flows if you buy it now, collect coupon payments at regular intervals, and hold the bond until it matures. So you can take a bond's current market price and calculate its current YTM or you can take a minimum YTM that you want earn (based on, say, market interest rates plus an adjustment for credit risk) and use this to calculate the maximum price that are prepared to pay for the bond. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for all your help, and as far as I can understand it, yield to maturity means the actual interest you gain when you get your principal/face value back at the end of the bond, which can change if the bond is re-sold.

BUT...how does the yield to maturity differ from the coupon rate if it hasn't been re-sold in the first place. Thanks, signed noob

Chamberlin 200 Keyboard ,Tilton Belt Size Used.

Can anyone help me find the Titon Belt's size information, used in my Chamberlin 200, Dated 1951-1959, this information is found on the old belt's in the machines. mine is missing. thank you. mark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.31.140.163 (talk) 21:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

ghost

is there any notable ghost sightings that cant be explained by science? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.2 (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm guessing this isn't the answer you are looking for, but yes, there are plenty. Like UFOs, they have proven not to be. That's not to say there aren't any, just that none have evr been priven to exist (and aren't likely to.) If 'science' did prove it, don't you think we would have heard about it by now? 184.71.167.166 (talk) 23:36, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops. Totally misread the question. Nevermind what i just wrote. 184.71.167.166 (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

There are thousands that haven't been explained by science due to many reasons: Lack of interest by scientists, lack of data, etc. Dismas|^(talk) 23:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

i mean maybe a case where it is almost authentic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.112.82.128 (talk) 00:06, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

See our Paranormal article. Alansplodge (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

OP, that's a confusing question. Has science by not being able to figure out why something happened therefore proven that a ghost is real? No. Absence of evidence is not proof of anything. Just because they can't figure it out doesn't mean it can't be figured out. As said above, if scientist had proven ghosts exist, that would be a mighty big news story. Mingmingla (talk) 01:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

To do a scientific study, one would first have to define what a ghost is alleged to be (and it may not be as obvious as you think); and most importantly, how you would test for its presence or existence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

A white sheet on strings, isn't it? That's pretty easy to test for. Mingmingla (talk) 02:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if we could just slightly rephrase the question so that it's more addressable: if you said "is there any proven notable 'ghost' sightings that cant be explained by science?" then the answer would be "No". That is, anything where there's enough data or evidence to actually investigate a 'ghost' sighting in any meaningful way turns out not to be a ghost in any sort of traditional definition of the term. --jjron (talk) 05:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The alleged presence of "ghosts" or "spirits" usually involves "sensing" them in some way. This often includes experiencing a chill as the alleged ghost walks near or through the person, who might either be an alleged "psychic" or just a tourist who might or might not know ahead of time that the place is alleged to be haunted (y'all can't count up the occurrences of "alleged" here on your own time). So one test might be to somehow detect physiological changes in a person at the moment they have allegedly experienced the presence of something supernatural. That wouldn't prove the existence of ghosts, but it could demonstrate whether the person is really experiencing something, as opposed to making it up. My guess is that the average scientist is more interested in practical matters, such as finding a cheap way to extract shale oil, than in spooky stuff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:18, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The University of Edinburgh has a dedicated Parapsychology Unit which seems to focus on why people believe that they've seen a ghost. Alansplodge (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Do they express their purpose in that way because they have very scientifically decided that there's no such actual thing as a ghost? -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 19:44, 4 November 2011 (UTC)