How Many Women Are Needed To Form A Chain 400 miles Long?

Source: Mashable

Recently, in India, a couple of women decided to be the first two women to enter a Hindu Temple.  This did not go over very well with locals since women are traditionally prevented (barred) from entering such temples in India.  The result was protest as described in an article from the news paper 'Independent' titled "Protesters form 620km ‘women’s wall’ in India as female devotees pray at Hindu temple for first time" is shown below:

Millions of women have formed a human chain spanning 620km (400 miles) in support of women’s rights in India, as two female worshippers became the first to enter a Hindu temple that has traditionally banned them from entry.   

The ban on women “of menstruating age” from the Sabarimala temple in Kerala has become a flashpoint in a national argument over gender equality and religious freedoms. Despite a Supreme Court ruling in September to lift the ban, devotees have amassed in their thousands to keep women out by force.

In the most dramatic display of support yet for women’s right to worship wherever they choose, millions gathered to form a “women’s wall” stretching from Kasargod in the northern part of Kerala to Thiruvananthapuram, the southernmost city and the state capital.

The thought of millions of women forming a chain (of protest) immediately entered my mind.  For the two days after, I have not been able to actually get rid of the urge to confirm this through calculations -- using dimensional analysis.  Below are the results of my calculations.

What is the average width of a female?

The first step in the analysis is to determine the average width of a women.  Yes, for the purpose of 'approximation,' the search engine 'Google' will be consulted with the following question: What is the average shoulder width of a woman?  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

The answer indicates that the average (shoulder to shoulder) distance is equal to 14 inches.  Measuring the distance shoulder to shoulder is shown below:

Source: WikiHow

Notice how the units of measurement are different for the values which we have obtained thus far.  The total distance of the line formed by women is expressed in units of 'miles', whereas, the average shoulder width of a woman is expressed in units of 'inches.'  Therefore, in order to use these two values to determine the total number of women needed to form the 400 mile long line, a unit conversion is needed.  Either convert 'miles' to 'inches' or 'inches' to 'miles.'



For the purposes of this  blog post, the latter conversion will be used to normalize the 'units' of measurement.  If Google is consulted with the following question: How many inches are in a mile?  The answer is shown below:

Source: Google

According to our search, there are 63,360 inches in a single mile.  This is a conversion factor.  With the conversion factor, the conversion from units of 'inches' to units of 'miles' is possible as shown below:

Converting 14 inches to units of 'mile' give us the equivalent distance (in miles) of 0.00022 mile.



With the units of measurement both expressed in units of 'mile', the total number of women can be determined as shown below:

Wow!  The calculation reveals that the total number of women needed to form a chain 400 miles long is equal to 1,818,181 women.

Conclusion...

The recent protest in India from women coming together to form a single chain spanning 400 miles is truly astonishing.  That is quite a feat to get that much of a presence for a given protest.  I have further questions regarding how a person might coordinate such a protest in the form of a single chain.  Amazing.  News accounts peg the number of women needed to form a chain of length 400 miles over a given range of 'millions' to '5 million'.  These are estimates based on a variety of sources - which remain to be questioned about their exact methodology in obtaining estimates of this size.  The analysis above sheds light on a method which might get a reader close to an actual number to rest assure that there is logic behind the methodology (an approximation).



Related Blog Post:


Parameters: How many sticks of butter are contained in 7.5 million pounds of butter?

South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster asks lawmakers for $1,228,000,000 For Recovery from Hurricane Florence?

Boston Natural Gas Explosion Reveals Old Piping Needs Replacement - Enough To Travel To Colorado?

A Forecaster Predicts That Hurricane Florence Will Drop Enough Rain To Fill 18,400 Mercedes-Benz Superdomes

Hurricane Harvey Drops Enough Rain On Houston To Fill 560 Dallas Cowboy Stadiums

How Much Water Is Contained In All Oceans Around The Globe?

Storm Raises Water Level In Lake Cachuma By 31 feet, How Much Water Is That?

How To Make Sense Of Water Flowing At 100,000 Cubic Feet Per Second

Can 11 Trillion Gallons Of Water Fill 14,000 Dallas Cowboys Stadiums?

How Much Rain Did The East Coast Receive From Hurricane Matthew?


How Much Rain Did Haiti Really Receive?

How Much Rainfall Has Dropped On Louisiana?


How Big Was The "Water Bomb" Of Rainfall In Macedonia?

How Much Rain Did Huauchinango (Mexico) receive?

How Much Rain Did Elliot City (Maryland) Really Receive?

If The Mosul Dam Breaks, The City Of Mosul Would Be Under 65 Feet Of Water?

What is the volume of water in a few inches of rain?


Volume of Waste in the Mine Spill (in Brazil) Equivalent to 78 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spills

Parameters: Trade Tariffs Will Affect International Science

Source: University of Pennsylvania 

I have written about trade before on this site.  First, about the potential benefits of 'global free trade' which can be found here.  Second, how the trade tariffs set to hit in recent weeks will affect a whole range of commodities (i.e. products, crops, etc.) which can be found here.  Recently, in the journal 'The Scientist' in an article titled "New US-China Tariffs Could Affect Science" written by Diana Kwon, the potential negative impacts to international science is laid out succinctly.  In the excerpt below, I include the entire article (not too long) to avoid butchering the piece with my own opinion.


Without further ado, here is the article shown below:

On June 15, the Office of the United States Trade Representative released a list of 818 Chinese imports that would be subject to an additional 25 percent tariff starting on July 6. These include products used in scientific research, such as microscopes and parts used in X-rays, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scanners, and other imaging devices. While the effect that these tariffs will have on researchers is still unclear, some policy experts worry that President Donald Trump’s policies may impede scientific collaboration and talent flow between the two countries.  

Brian Xu, a toxicologist with The Acta Group, a scientific and regulatory consulting firm, says that because China exports relatively few high-quality scientific instruments, the tariffs on those products are unlikely to have a large effect on researchers in the U.S. However, he notes that Chinese companies produce many synthetic chemicals used by pharmaceutical and biotech companies in the U.S. “If there are tariffs [placed] on those, that’s certainly going to increase costs,” Xu says.  

According to the Trade Representative office (USTR), Trump’s administration is implementing the new tariffs to address the results of an agency investigation, which found China guilty of unfair trade practices. “China’s acts, policies and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation are unreasonable and discriminatory, and burden U.S. commerce,” USTR says in a June 15 statement. 

China immediately retaliated to the US government’s announcement with a list of 545 US exports that it would slap additional taxes on starting next week, along with an additional 114 products—including chemicals and medical equipment—under consideration for additional tariffs.  

Some scientists in the U.S. have expressed concerns to Nature about the potential increase in research equipment costs as a result of the tariffs. But whether the tariffs will have noticeable effects for researchers remains to be seen. 

Scientific organization in the U.S. do not yet see cause for alarm. “At this point, it is unclear what impact this may have on the research ecosystem here in the US, and to date, we have not heard from any ACS [American Chemical Society] members or their respective organizations on this topic,” Glenn Ruskin, the director of ACS External Affairs and Communications, writes in an email to The Scientist. “It is a developing situation and one that we will be watching.”

Likewise, Tom Wang, the chief international officer at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), says that “it’s hard to say right now what the direct impact [of the tariffs] will be.” Wang adds that while it will be important to keep an eye on the products used the research community, at this point, the full extent of the tariffs that the U.S. will place on foreign products—and the retaliatory tariffs that may come as a result—is still unknown. 

On the other side of the tariffs, in China, worries are also reserved. Yibing Duan, a science and technology policy researcher at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, tells The Scientist in an email that the potential for the tariffs to increase the cost of research in China is not a big concern, because products bought from the U.S. for scientific purposes “could be imported from the E.U., Japan, and other developed nations.” 

There is, however, fear that the economic dispute between the U.S. and China may intensify. USTR has also released a second set including 284 products that may be subject to additional tariffs. (The agency declined The Scientist’s request for comment.) “Contrary to what the Trump administration has said, trade wars are not easy to win,” says William Hauk, a professor of economics at the University of South Carolina. “They have a tendency to escalate with tit-or-tat measures, and this could start affecting a broader range of products.” 

Spill-over effects  

Duan tells The Scientist that although he does not currently see the new tariffs as a serious concern for research, a trade war between the U.S. and China could create a distrustful environment that may stifle intercountry relationships in the areas of science and technology. 

Wang adds that other moves by the Trump administration, such as the tougher restrictions on visas for Chinese students studying in the U.S., may also reduce scientific cooperation between the two countries. Together, these kinds of policies could have a “chilling effect on collaboration, access to technology, and access to knowledge and talent,” Wang says. 

Hauk notes that, if the US-China trade war escalates, there could be additional restrictions placed on student visas, as well as H1B visas, which allow US companies to hire foreign workers. 

“The argument made by some in this administration is that somehow the U.S. is not the beneficiary of the talent, the knowledge, or the technology from other places, but that the U.S. is giving this away to other countries,” Wang tells The Scientist. “But I think that’s not reflective of how the US scientific system works, in which we do benefit from working with [foreign] people, technologies, and companies.” 

There is more at risk than just products.  Additional risk can be classified as 'services' which I discussed briefly in the previous blog post on trade.  Furthermore, students from China travel abroad to the United States to receive a graduate education mostly to return to China for future work. Although, the United States pharmaceutical industry along with the technology sector do hire and hold onto a large portion of these visiting scholars.  I was in a research lab with international students during graduate school and wrote briefly about the benefit to U.S. science of having diversity in the research lab setting - which can be found here.



Last week, after Independence Day, returning to work, I encountered a colleague who returned back home to visit to China after the end of last semester.  She was frustrated with her travel back to the U.S. on the China side.  Her visa was scrutinized by customs which held up the process for a couple of weeks.  Which translates into a hold on her research here in the United States.  This is normal for visiting scholars in the United States.  But for professors here trying to earn tenure at an academic institution, the delay is critical toward professional advancement.



She remarked that there were much fewer applications to travel abroad - which is a result of harsher immigration laws by the Trump administration (read here). Still, the process was held up on China's side.  The exact reason still remains unknown to this day.



Conclusion...



Overall, trade with China is important.  As I mentioned, more than products are traded and at risk with current negotiations.  The international political scene seems to be interfering with the field of science along with many others.  The potential negative fall out or adverse impact is that the United States could fall behind in output at the research level and technology transfer level.  If China holds potential imports to the United States such as vital chemicals used in research, this in turn directly impacts researchers ability to further advance the U.S. science arena -- which is bad.





More blogs can be found here:


Parameters: Tariffs Affect Trade In Both Directions -- In And Out Of The USA


Parameters: One Parameter Change In The Trade Machine Leads To A 'Re-Adjustment' Of Another


Parameters: Steel And Aluminum Tariffs Are Not Isolated - They Are Tied To Trading Of Other Vital Goods


More blogs are located here