John Cuthber

OK, let's start with the easy one "come with any SINGLE idea to absorb CO2 gas from atmosphere, in such way, it will be stuck in newly created molecule (that's not organic like tree or plant). We're waiting patiently for your idea." http://theconversation.com/eco-cement-the-cheapest-carbon-sequestration-on-the-planet-10978 I'm not claiming it's original- but at least it's workable. " while you're supporting petroleum industry.." Nope, I'm supporting facing up to reality. At the moment we actually really burn a lot of fossil fuel to get convenient energy. If you want to use solar power to sequester carbon dioxide from the air, then there's a very simple way to do it. Plant trees where there are currently none (large swathes of exploited rain forest would be a good place to start) I wonder if you are just annoyed that I pointed out that there's no "magic" source of NaOH. Yes you can make it, but in the real world, today, doing so generates a lot of CO2 That's because today (no matter what might happen in the future) we generate most of our electricity from fossil fuels. So today your "solution" would create more CO2 than it absorbs. In the real world in which we live (rather than some renewable powered utopia) we don't have energy to spare for making caustic. So, you have provided a "solution" for a fairy-tail world. Just to make things more absurd, in that imaginary world, the problem would be self-solving- because we wouldn't need fossil fuels, and we would be more or less carbon neutral.. If we did live in that world, the OP's question would be irrelevant. Sadly, as a species, we have yet to adopt a sensible approach to energy use. And meanwhile, back to the chemistry. Yes, you can indeed make NaOH from salt- and they do. The side products are chlorine and hydrogen. And the fate of the chlorine is - eventually- to become chloride (zero- and positive- oxidation states of chlorine are unstable in the biosphere). Similarly, the fate of the hydrogen is to produce hydrogen ions. So, the long term net fate of those elements is to form HCl. Industrially, that's also the commonest fate for the two gases as produced by the NaOH manufacturing plant- They burn the Cl2 and H2 together to make HCl (and they recover some of the energy). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_chloride#Direct_synthesis OK, so your "CO2 free" method for making NaOH produces HCl as a by-product, in a 1 for 1 mole ratio. Essentially you use a lot of (CO2 -intensive, electrical,) energy to reverse the usual reaction. NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O Some of the Cl2 is tapped off for other uses; for example PVC and other halogenated organics. In the long run, those are hydrolysed in the biosphere (or burned in refuse incinerators) and the Chlorine is released as HCl. So, all the chloride from the salt you used gets turned into HCl. Eventually, that ends up back in the environment and dissolves into water. That water will contain carbonates and bicarbonates (all sea, river and ground water does). Adding acid (like HCl) to that water releases CO2 So, in the end, the HCl from your "not actually going to exist in this world" "solution" ends up producing CO2 And, by a "remarkable coincidence"- it ends up producing half a mole of CO2 for each mole of NaOH- exactly the same as the CO2 that the NaOH can absorb. Let's summarise that. You say we should use energy to turn salt into NaOH, (with CO2 as an inevitable long term by-product) and then use the NaOH to absorb that CO2. (Obviously, that's pointless) In doing so you will need electricity. That electricity is, in the real world, largely made by burning fossil fuels. To do this on a "grand" scale, you need lots of electricity- so you need to burn lots of fossil fuel. You propose to burn lots of fossil fuels- to achieve nothing. And yet you say "this thread is pro-ecologic, while you're supporting petroleum industry.." My view is don't piss about with lakes of caustic- stop wasting energy and start using renewables. Well, perhaps you could "rethink your own attitude to the subject, ". Perhaps you might even go in for some "self-censorship"

Was that ironic, or don't you understand chemistry either?

And, if we had enormous reserves of cheap energy (1) we wouldn't need fossil fuels so CO2 would be a solved problem and (2) we could reduce the CO2 back to coal and bury it again. Equally- as I said, we could shoot the CO2 into space. But we haven't, so, for the time being, your suggestion is about as useful as saying we could shoot the CO2 into space.

Don't forget that you will need other nutrients. This https://catalog.hardydiagnostics.com/cp_prod/Content/hugo/LactobacilliMRSAgar.html suggests that 2% dextrose keeps the bugs happy. Cow's milk is about 5% lactose.

Thanks for clarifying your perspective. Can I ask what you are doing on a science web site?

Wouldn't they need evidence of a crime of some sort? If they have that, why wait for the election? Why not just launch the court case? (Obviously, if they think a crime has been committed, they have a moral obligation to ensure that it's investigated at the first opportunity)

Hillary was investigated and found innocent. Trump has admitted to criminal behaviour but this has not yet been investigated. Legally, he's innocent of a criminal offence- but he has said he did it. Prior to the completion of the investigations, Hillary was legally innocent of a criminal offence- and she didn't say she had done it. (and this was subsequently found to be the case) There's a difference: a confession. (It might be simply that Hillary is bright enough not to claim to be crooked) Perhaps the most interesting point is that someone who thinks it's "Clever" to brag about their criminality is considered a viable Republican candidate-( I guess the magic underwear guy was busy or something). Why didn't the Republicans notice that he's an arse?

She doesn't need his help on that score, but it's another story. The point is that it's very difficult to make the rank + file republican policies look good. The way to do it certainly isn't to tell the truth about them, and that's what Trump's done.

Did you see my earlier post on this? It was right at the bottom of a page- so you may have missed it. I posted it in response to your assertion that there was no evidence against Trump. Here it is again "Setting aside, for the minute, the fact that Bill's not standing so his actions are irrelevant, There are women who say Trump did it and he says he did it. More importantly, while what Trump did was (perhaps) immoral; what Trump says he did was illegal. Do you accept that it's not "puritanism" to uphold the law- especially as it applies to contenders for the highest office in government?" If he says he's a sex-pest, and others are prepared to say they are the victims, then I'm not sure I need DNA before I believe him.

The fundamental problem for the Republicans is that they didn't notice that he's a disaster because they actually agree with much of what he says. It's not as if immigration control, or tax breaks for the rich while cutting funding for those in genuine need are anything but standard Republican policy. It's just that when Trump gets (ironically) a bit more honest than most and highlights this, the policies look stupid. The Republicans have to recognise that Trump isn't actually making their policies look bad; the policies are bad. I can't see how they can get round that.

Yes, but do you accept that there's a real difference between the irrelevant - but legal- actions of Bill and the illegal activities that Trump claims to have taken part in?

While ever parents still tell their kids "Two wrongs don't make a right" the death penalty will remain unethical. Similarly, while they ask kids "What would happen if everyone did that?" there is a way of objectively judging morality.

The problem may not be REACH. The problem may be that your supplier doesn't understand it. Does your request for material where you "asked to try a particular chemical" count as research? If so, get your supplier to read this https://newsletter.echa.europa.eu/home/-/newsletter/entry/5_14_your-research-chemicals-could-be-exempted-from-registration If you are dealing with less than a tonne per year you don't need to register. If you are using more than that much, how can you justify doing so without bothering to find out what harm it does to the environment? If yours is a small or medium sized enterprise the fees start at 65 euros. Is that really too expensive for you?

Setting aside, for the minute, the fact that Bill's not standing so his actions are irrelevant, There are women who say Trump did it and he says he did it. More importantly, while what Trump did was (perhaps) immoral; what Trump says he did was illegal. Do you accept that it's not "puritanism" to uphold the law- especially as it applies to contenders for the highest office in government?

OK, you say all politicians ignore questions, and you cite Hillary for doing so about the emails "scandal". You say she never answered the questions. The problem is that, unlike Trump, she did answer- and apologise. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34195144 Show me where Trump comes clean about admitting to sexual assault- a criminal act- and you will have a point. The problem is that he can't. If he says "OK, I'm a sex pest" then even his supporters won't swallow that (though their support won't matter much if he gets jailed for it). So, that leaves the interesting question- why doesn't he simply say, clearly, that he didn't grope women? Face up to the fact that he can't say that because the women would come forward and point out that , he's not just a criminal sex pest- but a dishonest one.

Were you unable to find this page? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idebenone

A lot of the air would dissolve in the oil. Also, unless you carefully dried the air first you would get a lot of water into the oil. Neither of those is a good thing.

Well, I'd rather not be a vegetable or a mineral so...

Yes, even the most conceited people I deal with normally know that the correct construction is "different from". They generally lean how to spell their subjects too. I presume that nothing else you wrote was any better constructed.

There's no reason why he would have aluminium in there. It's implied that the alumina is reactivated by soaking it in sodium hydroxide solution, then rinsing that off (carrying the fluoride with it) and then re-acidifying it.

Science doesn't get things wrong. Scientists get things wrong a lot. Reality then corrects their errors, and science edits them out.

I'm probably a good basketball player, compared to Stephen Hawking. I would quite possibly miss 100 in a row. How do you define "good"? But, in the end it doesn't mater- the odds are not zero.

That makes roughly as much sense as saying "we just need to pump it into space." The manufacture of NaOH by the traditional pathway releases CO2 into the air- using it to trap that CO2 back again would be a waste of effort.. The more modern- electro-chemical- method would require the use of a lot of energy. Since most energy production releases CO2 it wouldn't produce a net benefit. The idea that a garden sequesters CO2 is interesting. If you have a a lawnmower- for example- you are certainly making more CO" "off-site" to power it. In the long run I suspect the most CO2 friendly garden involves not actually gardening.

I see plenty of prescription drugs on sale on-line. However , wiki says the stuff is prescription only.

When tacitly told "you have no skills beyond basic numeracy" most groups here will cut up pretty rough; especially when it's by someone who admits they don't know what they are talking about- and then seeks to cover up for it by trying to move the goal posts.. The distinction between chemistry and physics is pretty much arbitrary.However if you want to study chemistry at degree level you had better understand quantum mechanics, group theory and so on because they are part of the syllabus.