John Cuthber

Well, we know when it happens in the real world, so we can see if your model either (1) agrees with the current model and is redundant, or (2) is wrong,and therefore useless

Just a thought. One answer might be that the electron sticks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture

That's interesting, because the paper doesn't mention mate selection, sexuality or homosexuality. In the real world, at most, this effect might be one of many factors involved in rat sexuality. There may even be a parallel in humans.

Yes. The right sequence is to start by learning some science. If you can also learn how to stop your text appearing like this it will be a step forward too

OK, I will think about it. I have to admit I don't know much about them but here goes. Almost all the mass of the solar system is the Sun, and it hasn't got much iron in it (0.003% by number of atoms I believe) If I make the (dodgy) assumption that all the other stars and planets in the galaxy are similar then I conclude that the galaxy hasn't got much iron in it.

No Pressure is force/ area and there's no area defined. This goes to show the depth of your ignorance which puts the rest of your comments in context

It isn't. The Kg is, by definition, based on that lump of metal. So, the answer to the question in he thread title is "no" Incidentally, it's not clear if it has lost 50µg or if the secondary standards have gained that much. That's the essential reason why they want to replace it.

Unless you can come up with evidence for that, there's nothing scientific to say.

Not in stellar terms. The iron in the sun is a vapour.

I see an image showing where Xrays are emitted from. Nothing to do with iron; almost any element will emit xrays if it's hot enough.

Because most of those metals at those concentrations will precipitate at pH10 and 12 there is no meaning to a sorption experiment in those conditions. You might be able to stop them precipitating by adding something like EDTA, but what would be the point? In the real world, there wouldn't be EDTA present.

That's generally the case; it's part of the body's defence against toxic chemicals- make them more water soluble (by hydroxylation or conjugation with glucuronic acid or some such then get rid of them via the kidneys. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glucuronidation Don't overdo the vitamin D https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitamin_D#Effect_of_excess

Somebody did something and it didn't happen by accident. Not really very ironic.

Metallic lead exposed to the atmosphere typically forms a layer of carbonate on the surface. That slows down the rate of reaction. However lead carbonate is slightly soluble in water about a thousandth of a gram per litre. That's much more than the permissible levels in drinking water (and is said to be part of the reason for the fall of the Roman empire). The lead silicates in lead glass are probably roughly as soluble as the carbonate. However it's likely that, in the strongly reducing conditions in a landfill site the dominant leas species would be the very insoluble sulphide. In that case, the environmental risk is comparable with that from natural lead sulphide.

Is there a reason why they wouldn't vote for the teenager-dating Mr Moore without this sort of action?

It's legal in the UK, the EU and the US for a start. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroin#Legal_status

No, it isn't ironic at all.

Yes, it's a dratted nuisance having to carry the sun round with you.

You keep saying that as if it is important.. Nobody said it was a loss of freedom, so it's not relevant. So? (Though you are wrong, BTW, a bullet passing through your brain would destroy the detailed structures needed for thought). The point is that, if I did all that I could stop you thinking. And again; nobody said it kills everyone, just that it kills some. The logical fallacy you are trying to use there is a false dilemma. (It's sometimes called the excluded middle). Logical fallacies usually get picked up on quite quickly round here. Don't use them unless you wan to look foolish. Again, not an issue of debate- why mention it? In the same way that bullets don't kill you- brain damage does. You can't claim that a snipers kill but smoking doesn't. Largely with irrelevant nonsense and strawmen; for example this wasn't a sensible response to my question because I was talking about setting up a poll regarding this comment of yours. (Spoiler alert; look at our reputation scores here)

Nonsense; it's easy for me to prevent you thinking what you want to- I simply have to shoot you... However, I'm not granted the freedom to do that. Would you like me to start a poll on that? And, once again, it's you who fails to understand. Take 1000 smokers and 1000 non smokers picked at random from the population. Wait 40 years. Count the survivors in both groups. There are fewer survivors in the group composed of smoking. If you choose the groups carefully so that smoking is the only difference then the only thing that could have killed the "extra" dead folk in the smoking group is smoking. Smoking killed that number of people. The fact that we can't reliably say which ones were killed by smoking does not affect that. Smoking kills. Incidentally, is there a reliable way to check that you are not trolling?

How much paper do you have?

If you live long enough, you die of cancer.

One of the most cancer ridden species is as inbred as the European royal family. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tasmanian_devil#Devil_facial_tumour_disease Inbreeding to the extent of near total genetic homogeneity is at odds with a high rate of evolution.

If (as a home scientist) Did you hear about the constipated mathematician? He worked it out with a pencil and paper. If I want to buy sodium hydroxide or sulphuric acid over the counter, I buy them as drain cleaners. Both chemicals are quite good at doing this. The instructions are written on the container. Follow them. Don't mix the two materials. Just in case you missed that Really, don't mix them.

Why do you think there's "grammar thing" there? Damn you! You have just stifled my freedoms to prevent you thinking what you want, to prevent you dancing in your house and my freedom to ban you from the woods. How dare you destroy my freedoms like that. Now do you realise you were wrong? Your freedom to do something is a restriction on my freedom to stop you doing it. Show me someone who died from smoking. Yet we know that smoking kills.