Miscellaneous desk
< May 15	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	Current desk >

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.

May 16[edit]

How many times can a BC premier or Canadian prime minister be reelected?[edit]

I know Us presidents can only be reelected 2 times like Obama was. 64.141.83.200 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As per our article List of political term limits, there are no set limits, but holders of those offices must retain support of their respective legislatures, which are re-elected every four years (for the PM) or five years (for the premiers). Rojomoke (talk) 05:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, technically, the Canadian PM is not "elected" at all, but rather appointed by the Governor General, though ordinarily the GG has no real choice in the matter. Slightly less technically, the PM is still not chosen by a general ballot, but only indirectly by party representation.

The only ballot on which Justin Trudeau's name appeared was the one to elect a Member of Parliament from his own riding. I think he didn't technically even have to win that one; it's very unusual for the PM not to be an MP, but I believe not constitutionally forbidden.

So people didn't vote for Trudeau per se; they voted for the Liberals. It was understood that if the Liberals made the government, then Trudeau would be PM. But Trudeau himself was not "elected" as PM.

You can say, if you like, that there's a sort of formal analogy with the Electoral College, which is the body that actually elects the US president. But it's a very weak analogy. The EC ceases to exist between elections, and a president cannot be removed by losing the confidence of the EC. Moreover, the EC has no other functions. You may want your MP to be a Liberal even if you would rather someone else be PM. --Trovatore (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada, AFAIK, every PM has also been either an MP or a Senator List of Prime Ministers of Canada tells how they were elected to Parliament, the last Canadian senator to serve as PM was Mackenzie Bowell well over 100 years ago, since 1896 every PM has been a member of Commons. As with every country in the Westminster system, political expedience is more important than what is written in the Constitution, so while legally Parliament in Canada (and other countries whose system is based on the UK's system) could just pick a random person off the street and elect him PM, in practical terms no, they're not going to do that. They're going to select the person who is the named leader of the majority party in Commons, and there's no reason to suppose they wouldn't. Incidentally, the List of Prime Ministers of Canada by time in office is informative here, the mean time in office is about 6 years, and the median time in office is about 5 years. William Lyon Mackenzie King who had the longest total time in office, also had the longest term in office at one stretch, just over 13 years, just edging out John A. Macdonald, Canada's first PM, who had a stretch of just under 13 years during his tenure. --Jayron 32 12:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible for a Prime Minister not to be a member of either the House of the Commons or the Senate, albeit for a short time. It happened at the provincial level in Quebec after the 1985 Quebec provincial elections. The Liberal Party of Quebec, led by Robert Bourassa, won a majority, but Bourassa failed to be elected in the riding in which he was running. he was still named Premier, formed a government, and quickly one of the elected members from his party holding a safe seat resigned to allow him to run in a by-election, which he won. Had he failed to win, however, he likely would have resigned as Premier and the party would have chosen another leader among its elected members. At the federal level, in the Canadian federal election, 1945, the aforementioned Mackenzie King was defeated in his riding but stayed on as Prime Minister; he then won a by-election after one of his M.P.s gave up his seat in his favor. In both of these cases, the situation of an "unelected" PM or Premier lasted only a few months, and there was no major crisis because the party had won a majority in Parliament; had the party only won a plurality, things may have been more complicated. --Xuxl (talk) 12:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BC Premier Christy Clark failed to get elected in the 2013 BC election but was still Premier as her party won. She later got a seat when another party member stepped down, triggering a by-election that she won. Mingmingla (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another case was John Turner, who was out of office when he succeeded Pierre Trudeau as Liberal leader and therefore became Prime Minister. Rather than running in a byelection, he decided to ask for a general election immediately after taking office. He won his seat but the Liberals lost that election and the following one, after which he resigned the leadership. So he was never an MP and Prime Minister at the same time. --76.71.6.254 (talk) 08:14, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Air gun pellets[edit]

This discussion should have started and ended at the moment legal and medical advice was requested.--WaltCip (talk) 13:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I have to know what pellets were made of in the late 60's, please. There is a pellet of an air gun in my head since 1970, went through my left eye, around the cartilage and landed between my brain lobs, right behind my left eye ball. I started shaking 2 years ago, and doctors tested me for everything, but the cannot do a MRI. they are too afraid for the side effects of the heat and rays of MRI machine on my health. meanwhile I'm on 1000mg of dyna levetiracetam twice a day, together with 0.25mg of rivotril also twice a day. the only way the doctors will take a change for the MRI, is if there is proof that the pellets of those years are 100% pure lead. I also need to give them a lawyer's letter that nobody will be sued once the MRI is done and something might have happened to me. please help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.13.194.5 (talk) 08:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We cannot give any legal or medical advice or aid. Sorry.

As for the composition of air gun pellets, it appears impossible to make a generality. This source indicates that steel BBs were being used as early as the 1920s. Other sources (such as [1], [2], and [3]) give the impression that the 20th century was the transition period between lead and non-lead pellets. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Even so-called lead pellets were not made of pure lead, as it was too soft. They were usually an alloy, with small amount of tin, antimony or arsenic to make the metal more solid. Wymspen (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to see the responses to the thread below. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Magnetic resonance imaging#Projectile risk to understand why ferromagnetic objects are prohibited near MRI scanners. This has nothing to do with x-rays which are never used in MRI (a common misconception due to confusion with other types of scanning such as CT). If this can help I still have air gun pellets typical of those sold in England in the 60s and 70s. They appear to be a lead alloy that is non-magnetic and rustless. I shall be happy to post you one if your doctor wishes to inspect it. The pellets are branded Milbro "Caledonian" .177 Waisted Slugs No. 1 Bore - 4 1/2 mm Made in England and my can of 500 has a price label £1 - 10p which indicates it was sold shortly after UK Decimal Day. Blooteuth (talk) 15:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know that MRIs and x-rays are distinct, which was why I was wondering why about that possibility instead for determining pellet material. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unrelated hypothetical question[edit]

If, hypothetically, one were to have an indeterminate air rifle pellet lodged in oneself (let's just say in the shin, just to make it hypothetical), would it not be possible to use an x-ray machine, pellets of various materials, and a chunk of meat roughly the size of the shin that the unknown pellet is stuck in to determine the material? If the x-ray is cranked up enough to make a steel pellet "disappear" but the lead pellet is still visible, and the unknown pellet is still visible -- then it's probably lead, right? But if the steel pellet and the unknown disappear, it's probably not solid lead, right? I was under the impression that x-ray machines have that level of fine-tuning. Do they not? Or are steel and iron so close in resistance that it'd be impossible? Ian.thomson (talk) 09:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The pellets are not either there or not on the X-ray image, but they are visible in different shades of grey. Both steel and lead will absorb part of the X-rays and transmit the rest. A small fraction may be scattered. By comparing the amount of radiation passing through the pellet with that passing just besides the pellet, combined with information on the thickness of the pellet, one can determine the attenuation length of the pellet material for X-rays. Knowing the shape of the pellet or a CT scan can give this information. This attenuation length in turn is highly correlated to density, so assuming the pellet is either pure lead or a particular kind of steel, the density can show which of the two it is. But if we can't make that assumption, density alone is insufficient to determine the composition of the pellet. If the steel is an alloy of iron and tungsten with a density about equal to that of lead, it's indistinguishable from lead on an X-ray image. Similarly, you need a very high X-ray dose to get the accuracy required to see the difference between 100% lead and an alloy of 99% lead and 1% tin, for example.

There are some other options, I think, at least theoretically, but whether those can be used without killing the patient I will not comment on. PiusImpavidus (talk) 11:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hobbyist metal detectors can differentiate between metals with some accuracy. If there are two choices, lead and steel, calibrating a detector to tell between the two should be quite easy. 91.155.195.247 (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Steel pellets (BBs) are always sperical, lead ones are not, that's an easy way to tell what it's made of if you cannot actually touch it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:47, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of (non-BB) pellets are still lead, and waisted (see here for example). I wonder if the hospital has an ultrasound scanner that could determine the shape? Dbfirs 16:29, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]