# Unbelievable facts that turn out to be true. **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [February 27, 2010, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648 "2010-02-27T14:47:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/121 "2010-03-15T00:52:57Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > and some of the atoms in my body were probably once part of William Shakespeare. I don’t believe this. Given the size of William Shakespeare, in comparison to the size of the Earth & it’s atmosphere, there must be only a tiny, tiny percentage of atoms that were once part of his body. And an equally tiny chance that one of them is now part of your body. So I do not think that qualifies as ‘probable’. Quite improbable, actually. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/122 "2010-03-15T01:13:38Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > I think you are out by a factor, using 10 meter squares you would have 10,000 squares per square km and the US only dropped a thousand and a fraction bombs per square km. > > The thing that most surprised me was that I never knew we where at war with Laos. Stupidly at war with North Vietnam yes, but Laos??? Some days I believe I’ve been cursed by the Math gods; perhaps I should pick up a calculator and walk around until someone asks me what is it. ---
**Author:** ![Siam\_Sam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/d78d45/32.png) [@Siam\_Sam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Siam_Sam)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/123 "2010-03-15T02:38:00Z")
> [@don\_t\_ask](#): > > More bombs dropped on Laos than in WWII - fucking unbelievable. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > Why unbelievable? > The war in Laos went on for twice as long. > And the US government had decided that the public was unwilling to accept soldier casualties, so they tried to win it with aerial bombing instead of infantry. Not quite twice as long. The main fighting was 1964-73, roughly equivalent to the action in Vietnam, although American military “technicians” were there as early as 1959 training the Royal Lao Army as well as Hmong hilltribe guerrillas. (There had been an American presence in Vietnam from 1950, when an advisory office was set up in Hanoi). But the Lao experience gives the lie to the school of thought that says we lost Vietnam because there were too many restrictions on what we could bomb. In Vietnam, the “rules of engagement” (ROEs, or Romeos as they were called) prohibited bombing within 500 meters of a temple, while in Cambodia the limit was a full kilometer. There were NO such restrictions in Laos. Any- and everything that came into the bombardiers site was fair game to be decimated, and we still lost. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/124 "2010-03-15T02:52:37Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Because most of us Americans think of Maine as “way up North,” and Africa as South and West. We would guess Florida would be much closer. Not once has someone guessed it when I asked it as a trivia question. Huh. I haven’t been asked that question before, I likely would have gotten it wrong, too. But I wasn’t surprised when I read that tidbit. But I don’t know if I would have guessed Florida. In the globe that exists within my mind it matches up OK. I’ll have to take your word for it! ---
**Author:** ![RheaDark](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/edb3f5/32.png) [@RheaDark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RheaDark)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/125 "2010-03-15T03:13:34Z")
100 grams of broccoli can have up to 60 aphids on it. ---
**Author:** ![Bacon\_Salt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/65b543/32.png) [@Bacon\_Salt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bacon_Salt)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 4:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/126 "2010-03-15T04:31:49Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I don’t believe this. > Given the size of William Shakespeare, in comparison to the size of the Earth & it’s atmosphere, there must be only a tiny, tiny percentage of atoms that were once part of his body. And an equally tiny chance that one of them is now part of your body. So I do not think that qualifies as ‘probable’. Quite improbable, actually. Well, you have to remember three things. First, we are talking about all of the atoms that were ever part of Shakespeare. This includes every molecule of CO2 exhaled, every skin cell sloughed off, every mililiter of urine (as well as all other precious and non-precious bodily fluids), and a good part of any fecal matter (as some fecal matter is unabsorbed material and doesn’t really count), not just his body when he died. Second, it takes an unimaginably large amount of atoms to make anything large enough to be visible with the naked eye, let alone something as large as a human. One gram of carbon has about 5.018\*10^22 atoms in it. Third, atoms are actually recycled in our biosphere quite quickly. With this in mind, it doesn’t seem so hard to imagine that every person alive today has a few atoms of Shakespeare in their body right now. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 11:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/127 "2010-03-15T11:29:38Z")
> [@TreacherousCretin](#): > > You didn’t say, but I’m guessing this applies to more people than not, and therefore “probably” you. Right? Correct. Assuming 4 generations per century, I have approximately 2^48 ancestors going back to the 8th century. That’s far more than the number of people who have ever lived. Of course, lots of the branches in my family tree will meet up with each other, but it’s still likely that I’m a direct descendant of Charlemagne. > [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > I don’t believe this. > Given the size of William Shakespeare, in comparison to the size of the Earth & it’s atmosphere, there must be only a tiny, tiny percentage of atoms that were once part of his body. And an equally tiny chance that one of them is now part of your body. So I do not think that qualifies as ‘probable’. Quite improbable, actually. Someone has done the the maths on this. Every atom in your body is replaced every 7 years or so, and there are a lot of atoms a body. They are rapidly reclycled around the biosphere. According to this estimate, I have more than 200 billion of Shakespeare’s atoms: [http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/shnecal.html](http://www.jupiterscientific.org/review/shnecal.html) Unfortunately, this hasn’t had a positive impact on my writing skills. ---
**Author:** ![Floater](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/dc4da7/32.png) [@Floater](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Floater)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/128 "2010-03-15T12:16:25Z")
> [@Shmendrik](#): > > The southernmost point of Canada is as far south as (the northernmost point of) California. As it happens 27 of the 50 United States lie, wholly or partly, North of the Southernmost point of Canada (if I counted correctly the other day). ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/129 "2010-03-15T12:55:01Z")
> [@MPB\_in\_Salt\_Lake](#): > > This is one that I read here on SDMB a couple of years ago, and if indeed true it blows me away. > > 16 year olds are legally allowed to work as fully nude strippers in Rhode Island, though they can’t work past midnight on a school night. > > With the various child-porn laws and child labor laws, not to mention liquor laws, I find this almost impossible to believe, but some poster (dont remember the poster’s name, or where they lived) swore it is currently the law in Rhode Island. > > Frankly, I am doubtful that it would be legal in Bangkok or Amsterdam, let alone somewhere in the USA, with the hyper-sensitivity we seem to have regarding anything sexual and children under the age of 18… > > Anyone know the Straight Dope? > > If true, are Rhode Island strip bars chock full of guys from all over the world who crave 16 year old girls? I’d have to look into this one, but it wouldn’t surprise me. Prostitution was, until recently, completely legal in Rhode Island as long as it was done indoors. ---
**Author:** ![Eutychus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/a3d4f5/32.png) [@Eutychus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eutychus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 12:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/130 "2010-03-15T12:56:47Z")
[And apparently, it’s true.](http://www.projo.com/news/content/teen_dancers_07-21-09_Q6F39ID_v80.3985e27.html) ---
**Author:** ![dhkendall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9adbd/32.png) [@dhkendall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dhkendall)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 1:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/131 "2010-03-15T13:32:16Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Correct. Assuming 4 generations per century, I have approximately 2^48 ancestors going back to the 8th century. That’s far more than the number of people who have ever lived. Of course, lots of the branches in my family tree will meet up with each other, but it’s still likely that I’m a direct descendant of Charlemagne. Makes sense on the surface, but it also raises a question. There’s quite a lot of people living now in the world who don’t have a smidgen of European ancestry in their body (I’m sure there’s hundreds of thousands of them in China and India alone, not to mention Africa). The math works out the same for them as it does for you and I. Would _they_ be also “likely” descended from Charlemagne? Would I be “likely” to be a direct descendant of Kunta Kinte? (For the record I’m white, and can hit Europe if I go back about 4 or 5 generations) ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/132 "2010-03-15T13:51:44Z")
> [@dhkendall](#): > > Makes sense on the surface, but it also raises a question. There’s quite a lot of people living now in the world who don’t have a smidgen of European ancestry in their body (I’m sure there’s hundreds of thousands of them in China and India alone, not to mention Africa). The math works out the same for them as it does for you and I. Would _they_ be also “likely” descended from Charlemagne? Would I be “likely” to be a direct descendant of Kunta Kinte? (For the record I’m white, and can hit Europe if I go back about 4 or 5 generations) I’m from the UK, so I’m probably decended from most people alive in 8th century Europe, whose line wasn’t quickly wiped out by disease. I’m also likely to have a large number or African and Asian ancestors, due to a relatively small number of inter-marriages. I can’t find a cite, but I think I’m right in saying that genetic profiling of Europeans tends to show significant evidence of Asian and African ancestry. I’m guessing that most Chinese and Indians living today are also desended from Charlemagne. Kunta Kinte (I am wiki-ing the right one?) lived in the 18th century, so probably only has a few hundred to a few thousand descendants. ---
**Author:** ![Waenara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/50afbb/32.png) [@Waenara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waenara)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/133 "2010-03-15T14:14:57Z")
> [@dhkendall](#): > > Makes sense on the surface, but it also raises a question. There’s quite a lot of people living now in the world who don’t have a smidgen of European ancestry in their body (I’m sure there’s hundreds of thousands of them in China and India alone, not to mention Africa). The math works out the same for them as it does for you and I. Would _they_ be also “likely” descended from Charlemagne? Would I be “likely” to be a direct descendant of Kunta Kinte? (For the record I’m white, and can hit Europe if I go back about 4 or 5 generations) I’m not sure how “likely” someone from China/India/Africa/Australia is to be descended from Charlemagne, since he only lived 1,200 years ago. However, some people think that the [most recent common ancestor](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Most_recent_common_ancestor) of all humans might have been within historical times - possibly 3rd millennium BC to 1st millennium AD. > [@Wikipedia](#): > > Depending on the survival of isolated lineages without admixture from Modern migrations and taking into account long-isolated peoples, such as historical tribes in central Africa, Australia and remote islands in the South Pacific, the human MRCA was generally assumed to have lived in the Upper Paleolithic period. > > However, Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004), using a non-genetic model, estimated that the MRCA of all living humans may have lived within historical times (3rd millennium BC to 1st millennium AD). Rohde (2005) refined the simulation with parameters from estimated historical human migrations and of population densities. For conservative parameters, he pushes back the date for the MRCA to the 6th millennium BC (p. 20), but still concludes with a “surprisingly recent” estimate of a MRCA living in the second or first millennium BC (p. 27). An explanation of this result is that, while humanity’s MRCA was indeed a Paleolithic individual up to early modern times, the European explorers of the 16th and 17th centuries would have fathered enough offspring so that some “mainland” ancestry by today pervades even remote habitats. The possibility remains, however, that a single isolated population with no recent “mainland” admixture persists somewhere, which would immediately push back the date of humanity’s MRCA by many millennia. While simulations help estimate probabilities, the question can be resolved authoritatively only by genetically testing every living human individual. > > Other models reported in Rohde, Olson, and Chang (2004) suggest that the MRCA of Western Europeans lived as recently as AD 1000. The same article provides surprisingly recent estimates for the identical ancestors point, the most recent time when each person then living was either an ancestor of all the persons alive today or an ancestor of none of them. The estimates for this are similarly uncertain, but date to considerably earlier than the MRCA, according to Rohde (2005) roughly to between 15,000 and 5,000 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![Contrapuntal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@Contrapuntal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Contrapuntal)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/134 "2010-03-15T14:15:21Z")
> [@DoperChic](#): > > Amazing but true. The circumference of any circular object can be found by using the formula 2_pi_r (pi roughly equals 3.14, and r is the radius of said object). > > Let b = radius of a basketball > Let e = radius of the earth > > 2pi(b+1) = 2pib + 2pi (used distribution) > 2pi(e+1) = 2pie + 2pi > > In both cases, the extra length is the same - 2pi, or approximately 6.28 in. This is independent of the original radii (note I even used variables rather than actual measurements). “e” was an unfortunate choice for one variable. ---
**Author:** ![Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/earl_snake-hips_tucker/32/3269_2.png) [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Earl_Snake-Hips_Tucker)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/135 "2010-03-15T14:26:15Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > Kunta Kinte (I am wiki-ing the right one?) lived in the 18th century, so probably only has a few hundred to a few thousand descendants. Kunta Kinte was a character in a novel, right? Unless you mean that metaphorically. “Roots” was a novel, not a history book, and partially plagiarized at that. ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/136 "2010-03-15T14:36:07Z")
> [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > Kunta Kinte was a character in a novel, right? Unless you mean that metaphorically. “Roots” was a novel, not a history book, and partially plagiarized at that. Regardless, it was based significantly on the actual history of his ancestry. I shoudl know. I work in the library with Alex Haley’s private papers on file. 😃 BTW, A bit of a note about the “size” rankings there. The USA is 3rd, not 4th. If you follow Wiki’s own link back, you will see the correct size. The listed size is actually cutting out a good chunk of U.S. territory. ---
**Author:** ![dhkendall](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a9adbd/32.png) [@dhkendall](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dhkendall)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/137 "2010-03-15T14:50:23Z")
> [@Alka\_Seltzer](#): > > I’m from the UK, so I’m probably decended from most people alive in 8th century Europe, whose line wasn’t quickly wiped out by disease. I’m also likely to have a large number or African and Asian ancestors, due to a relatively small number of inter-marriages. I can’t find a cite, but I think I’m right in saying that genetic profiling of Europeans tends to show significant evidence of Asian and African ancestry. I’m guessing that most Chinese and Indians living today are also desended from Charlemagne. > > Kunta Kinte (I am wiki-ing the right one?) lived in the 18th century, so probably only has a few hundred to a few thousand descendants. > [@Earl\_Snake-Hips\_Tucker](#): > > Kunta Kinte was a character in a novel, right? Unless you mean that metaphorically. “Roots” was a novel, not a history book, and partially plagiarized at that. Well, I couldn’t think of any famous 8th-ish century Africans, Kunta Kinte was the furthest back I could think of (and I was awre he may not be historical in the strict sense of the word). I really hate to get back to the arguement our dear nutbar Egmond Codfried [started](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=544874), but wouldnt’ this mean dark-skinned Europeans? And what about those remote tribes in the jungles of New Guinea/the Andaman Islands/the Amazon/Africa that have had barely any outside contact (and want to keep it that way), surely none of them can be descended from Charlemange! As I said, on the surface your theory makes sense and I generally have no problem with it. But there are a few things that make you think there must be holes. > [@smiling\_bandit](#): > > BTW, A bit of a note about the “size” rankings there. The USA is 3rd, not 4th. If you follow Wiki’s own link back, you will see the correct size. The listed size is actually cutting out a good chunk of U.S. territory. I thoguht the discrepancy was not about the US area but about China’s, ie what to count as “China”, if we count the aireas it claims as China (like Aksai Chin and Arunchal Pradesh (not counting Taiwan, every non-PRC source I’ve seen leaves that out)) it’s bigger than the US, if not it isn’t. These areas aren’t that large, smaller than several states, so the US and China are practically the same size. ---
**Author:** ![Alka\_Seltzer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c89c15/32.png) [@Alka\_Seltzer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alka_Seltzer)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/138 "2010-03-15T15:02:29Z")
> [@dhkendall](#): > > And what about those remote tribes in the jungles of New Guinea/the Andaman Islands/the Amazon/Africa that have had barely any outside contact (and want to keep it that way), surely none of them can be descended from Charlemange! > > As I said, on the surface your theory makes sense and I generally have no problem with it. But there are a few things that make you think there must be holes. Sure, that’s why I say ‘probably’ and ‘most’, there are some very isolated ethnic groups. But even somewhere like the Andaman islands, it only takes one sailor in the 18th century to get washed up there, and potentially most of the current population could be descended from Charlemagne by now (I’m not saying this actually happened). ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/139 "2010-03-15T15:30:26Z")
> [@postcards](#): > > I don’t believe any of them. OK, then believe this: A little over ten years ago, someone started a thread on the snopes message board where people could post odd “facts.” Most of them were pretty ridiculous, but a fair amount were almost sort of plausible enough that they might pass the sniff test for the less skeptical. One person decided to collect the best ones and send out a “Strange but true, pass this along to everyone you know” e-mail to everyone he knew. We wanted to see how long it took for it to show up in our own inboxes. It never did. The “facts” that I posted are the only ones I remember. The Tony Orlando/Angelica Huston one was mine. I’m very proud of it. ---
**Author:** ![Crotalus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crotalus/32/41_2.png) [@Crotalus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crotalus)\ **Post date:** [March 15, 2010, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648/140 "2010-03-15T15:46:10Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > OK, then believe this: > > A little over ten years ago, someone started a thread on the snopes message board where people could post odd “facts.” Most of them were pretty ridiculous, but a fair amount were almost sort of plausible enough that they might pass the sniff test for the less skeptical. One person decided to collect the best ones and send out a “Strange but true, pass this along to everyone you know” e-mail to everyone he knew. We wanted to see how long it took for it to show up in our own inboxes. > > It never did. > > The “facts” that I posted are the only ones I remember. The Tony Orlando/Angelica Huston one was mine. I’m very proud of it. So you posted stuff here that you knew was untrue, as an experiment of some sort? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/unbelievable-facts-that-turn-out-to-be-true/530648.md?page=8)