Science desk
< January 1	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	January 3 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Science 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.

January 2

Building condemnation

Do we have an article that discusses the process of structural condemnation? Eminent domain discusses condemnation for government purposes (e.g. when a government deems your property needed, it "condemns" it), but I'm looking for something else: when a government orders that your structure be demolished because it's a danger to public safety, but no transfer of ownership takes place. Condemnation doesn't have anything relevant. Nyttend (talk) 01:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two comments... This will obviously vary a lot depending on where you are in the world. And, even if we know where you are, is this getting a bit close to legal advice? HiLo48 (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? I'm asking if there's a Wikipedia article discussing the concept of structural condemnation. Ideally, such an article would mention condemnation in WA, the UK, the USA, Burkina Faso (if they have such a concept), and anywhere else. Nyttend (talk) 03:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The process is the same. If the government wants a structure demolished, they acquire ownership of the structure under their right to eminent domain and then they can do with it as they please, including demolishing it. Widener (talk) 03:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. I'm looking for something very different: when the government orders the destruction or modification of a building because it's a danger to public health, without taking possession of the property. This kind of order is often made by boards of health or building inspectors, and it's something that probably wouldn't go to a court unless the property owner objected. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's going to depend on the local building codes and the enforcement of the code. As such, it's not particularly encyclopedic. Just look at the destruction of buildings in am earthquake. Regardless of the official code, enforcement is what describes the destruction. Various jurisdictions have different histories so it is not likely to have an encyclopedic article outside of the the general affects that earthquakes have. resonant frequency and building height is probably the closest correlation to danger. See 1906 San Francisco earthquake for example. --DHeyward (talk) 08:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant legislation in England and Wales is the Building Act 1984. This empowers the local government Building control officers to require the owner of the building to remedy any defects. There is a body of building regulations which are Statutory Instruments designed to ensure "...the health, safety, welfare and convenience of persons in or about buildings...".[1] Alansplodge (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for helping me, Alansplodge. Anything else is likely to vary by jurisdiction as well; are you going to question the existence of articles on Murder or Theft, calling them unencyclopedic because they get enforced differently in different locations? For that matter, you may as well nominate Building code for deletion as unencyclopedic. Nyttend (talk) 13:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the government didn't take possession of it, it wasn't condemned. A building inspector may have varying degrees of power including citation or condemnation. If it's condemned, it usually means the government entity puts a fence around their new property and it's the governments until either the condition is remedied or the condemnation is successfully challenged in court and returned to the original title holder. The scope of what's condemned and the transfer of title is really the only difference between condemned for health code violation or condemned to acquire title to build a bridge. Condemnation is the act of acquiring control and/or title of real property. It's treated differently than a seizure which is how other property is taken (and subject to different constitutional restrictions such as the 4th amendment - i.e. your TV can't be condemned). --DHeyward (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a surprising gap in Wikipedia. I'm not much of an article creator myself, but this article should exist. Do we have a template to flag this question as needing a proper article? Mingmingla (talk) 23:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's because the act of condemnation is actually taking possession of a property, not its destruction. When it's condemned for, say, fire code or structural damage the governmental entity that condemned it, takes possession of it (usually by preventing entry). Taking real property through eminent domain is a condemnation process. Condemnation is an act that derives its authority from eminent domain (at least in the U.S.). They aren't different. The scope of what is taken and it's resolution varies based on the interests of the public. A building condemned for a fire code violation may be returned to the original owner when the violation is resolved. A building that is condemned and demolished may only involve the structure and not the real property it is on. Every government authority that has the power to condemn is going to have different requirements, but they must first have eminent domain authority, I believe. That's why condemnation redirects to eminent domain as condemnation, in all its forms, is an act of eminent domain. --DHeyward (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Except our article doesn't say that - and, in fact, specifically says not to confuse the two meanings of condemnation. Rmhermen (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

They are very much interrelated - see Regulatory taking. Eminent domain condemnations usually require compensation. Statutory/regulatory taking condemnations often do not. There is a distinction in that eminent domain is a sovereign power where regulatory takings are a police power - I'm not aware of governments having one power without the other. The meaning of condemnation is the same though - it deprives the owner the use of the property. [2] --DHeyward (talk) 08:15, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link which clearly distinguishes between eminent domain takings and non-compensatory nuisance and hazard ones? Rmhermen (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Start the article if you wish. Condemnations are the process of taking property that stem from sovereign power of the state. --DHeyward (talk) 03:23, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is dilun in the clothing industry?

I have these cosy "jogging" pants made of "70% cotton, 30% dilun", but I can't find information on the internet about "dilun". I'm quite sure it's synthetic, since it makes the fabric more sheer and slippery, much like other poly-something synthetic fibers do. --Rev L. Snowfox (talk) 13:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could it be a fake branded item? Labels on such items are frequently misspelled.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 14:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to translate.google.com , dilun, or with the tone marks dílún, is the pinyin for 涤纶, which means polyester. Red Act (talk) 14:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nucleus of atom

For example, in a Pb nucleus, should we think of it as neutrons and protons flitting around within the nucleus, or perhaps the neutrons and protons tend to clump into alpha particles that fly around within the nucleus? thanks.76.218.104.120 (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear structure is the main article on this topic, with a higher-level summary at Atomic nucleus#Nuclear models. DMacks (talk) 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution book

I’m looking for a book on evolution but there are so many out there so I thought I would ask here. Basically I would like it to explain logically how 1) single celled organisms formed and then 2) how those evolved into multi celled organisms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ManOfTeeth (talk • contribs) 16:03, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you're looking for comprehensive coverage of the subject of evolution, you might want to start with the seminal work on the topic: Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species and go from there. Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:11, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt Darwin would be at all helpful. He's very dry and technical and doesn't at all focus on the origin of multicellularity. Nowadays Origin is read mostly out of historical interest.

Ernst Mayr's What Evolution is is cheap, recent, well-written and authoritative. Mayr invented the biological species concept. But even that books spends only a chapter on the rise of multicellular organisms, and very little on the transition itself. The solution, unless someone else can name a specific book off hand, would be to go to the local library and bookstore and ask for help on eukaryotes, multicellularity, the protista, and the evolution of plants, evolution of animals, and evolution of fungi. μηδείς (talk) 17:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless, as Medeis says, Darwin shouldn't be used as a scientific reference nowadays and is of historical interest and provides some backdrop for the topic—which is why one's exploration should stem from there. The origin of multicellularity is still a topic that is extensively researched and debated in the scientific community and, as such, your best bet is to take Medeis' suggestion and look at a number of books to get a reasonably comprehensive synthesis of current knowledge. Tyrol5 [Talk] 18:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Dawkins's The Selfish Gene is often recommended in this context. I haven't read it myself. APL (talk) 18:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(ec, and a humorously coincidental one, at that) I find Richard Dawkins very readable and persuasive, specifically The Selfish Gene and The Blind Watchmaker (although neither of these deal specifically with the jump from single-celled to multi-celled life, that I can remember). —Steve Summit (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those two books are excellent, but they deal with the mechanisms of evolution at the genetic/chromosomal level, and the mathematics related to it. More helpful might be Dawkins' The Ancestor's Tale, which tells the story of human evolution by going backward from our closest relatives to higher and lower primates, early mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish etc, down to the single-celled level. The book is heavy on narrative and light on technical details. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the Ancestors Tale and would recommend it too, but I agree about it not really showing single celled life in its due importance. I suppose it is difficult to make a good story of them but when one considers the number of generations of them with in the order of an hour per generation for three billion years it does show how important just getting single celled organisms working well must have been in our evolution. And it is very hard to really say much about how life actually started. Dmcq (talk) 22:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking, the origin of single celled organisms is not the purview of evolution, which is generally about how life forms can change over time. The question of how life arose from non-life is the topic of abiogenesis. At the popular science level, I highly recommend "At home in the universe". For anyone feeling more adventurous, the same author also has a more rigorous monograph titled "Origins of Order", in a bit of a nod or jab at Darwin. Further bibliographic details at Stuart_Kauffman#Publications. As a parting note, I'll add that panspermia is now considered a somewhat reasonable position on the topic of life on Earth, but it doesn't really solve abiogenesis, just punts it out into the universe somewhere else. SemanticMantis (talk) 22:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify: Kauffman's books are not general overviews of the topic of abiogenesis. Rather, they mostly promote his own autocatalytic/self-organizing view. According to our article, Dawkins also seems to like the autocatalytic framework and includes it in some of his books, but there are many other competing hypotheses. The most prominent dozen or so are outlined in our article on abiogenesis, and there are plenty of further refs there too. SemanticMantis (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! Yes, I didn't bring it up since it is so technical, but if you can wrap your head around Stuart Kauffman's Origins of Order, it is one of the most profound speculative science books ever written, and by far the best on abiogenesis. μηδείς (talk) 23:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "At home in the universe" should be accessible to a bright teenager, so he really does give us some options :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend Nick Lane's Life Ascending, which won the 2012 Royal Society Prize for Science Books. Among its "Ten Great Inventions of Evolution", it has the origin of life and the evolution of complex cells. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:03, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]