John Cuthber

Why is someone talking about peeing on the floor? Is this a linguistics issue?

There is insufficient clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of garlic in preventing or treating the common cold. A single trial suggested that garlic may prevent occurrences of the common cold but more studies are needed to validate this finding. Claims of effectiveness appear to rely largely on poor-quality evidence. from http://www.cochrane.org/CD006206/ARI_garlic-common-cold and there's also a huge difference between "while the garlic group only had 24 occurrences. " and " the most common ills are gone/never appear." isn't there? So, as I said, Why say daft things like that?

If vitamin C killed bacteria then fruit wouldn't be attacked by bacteria.

If someone is good at getting someone else to do things, is that a bad thing?

Does this help?

I'm all in favour of glorifying lazy. If it doesn't need doing, don't do it. If it needs doing then do it in the way that takes the least time and energy. Or, as Bill gates put it " “I choose a lazy person to do a hard job. Because a lazy person will find an easy way to do it.”"

Clearly not true. There are plenty of people who eat garlic every day- most of the population of Italy or France, for example- and yet they still get ill. Why say daft things like that?

The good news is that you are right it is simply a matter of counting the hydrogens. When drawing structures like that people don't always draw in all the hydrogens (because they get in the way). There are 14 hydrogens altogether in that structure, but only 9 of them are written as such. Each corner of the pentagon represents a carbon atom and it will have 4 bonds to it. if you can only see 2 then the other 2 must have hydrogens on them. Similarly, if there are 3 bonds to carbons then there must be 1 hydrogen.

You insist on using a definition that is strained to the point of uselessness. Since everything is made of atom, what do you think is not particulate?

unfortunately, this "flow rates below 1/32* of a gallon" doesn't mean anything.

They still are not particulate because they are in solution. "As it relates to the distinct particles of pollutants or contaminants that may comprise our tap water." In my town the tap water is comprised of water. In the real world, if all the people living near the OP were ill, the monitoring programs run by the CDC etc. would have spotted it and it would be a major news story. It isn't; so they haven't; so they aren't. "You’re right; however, it is relevant to your comments to me regarded the safe nature of City tested tap water , which inferred to me your belief " The nature of city water can't "infer" anything- it isn't an entity capable of thought. You probably mean "implied". Do you often have difficulties with the meanings of words?

What's the context here? There are meters that measure a billionth of a milliamp or for which "drip drip" is their full scale.

FFS! While people continue to die,"big pharma" will have a market. It will have to move from on project to another as it always has; that's all. A more interesting question is why does "big pharma" spend as much on advertising as it does on research?

That's a bit like saying "I want to bake a cake; what size saucepans do I need?".. Give us some hints at what you are doing.

" Here's one definition of Particulates, which applies to my usage " No, the materials you mentioned, like lead, are present in solution- rather than as suspended particles so they are not particulate. "here is evidence suggesting that government inspected drinking water isn't always sate. " And all the people who live round the OP who are not ill are evidence that that the water is safe. "According to this article 1 in 5 states do not even regulate bottled water. " It's not bottled water causing the problems so that's just irrelevant. "So before you start on my commentary and critique my meaning, perhaps you should educate yourself. " Get a mirror.

Actually, that's not a great way to test- though it's a start. You need a blind test to say anything at all- and a double blind test to be anywhere near certain. testing the pH of something as poorly buffered as tap water is very difficult. And since humans were essentially designed (via evolution or divine intervention) to drink rain water which is slightly acidic, the idea that we need slightly alkaline water is clearly nonsense. Since you don't know what particulate means it's difficult to know where to sart on that. Mainly it's wrong. City tap water is tested to make sure it's safe. if it wasn't, the city would be sick or dead. Well, I sure as hell hope it's treated- chlorine is one of the commonest- but others are available. Why even mention fluoride in a discussion about water treatment and ill health? Odd as it may seem they don't add it at toxic levels- why would they?

Do you mean measles or rubella (Not that it matters much- the point is still valid)

The universe has no reason to conform to the intuition of an ape here on Earth.

It would be an odd design that wasn't already vented to deal with changes in air pressure due to the weather.

It's difficult to say that the (traditional) media is "culpable". It's just doing what the billionaires who own most of it pay it to do- which is to preach their messages of "blame the poor" and "blame the immigrants". There might once have been a time when the point of the media was to tell the truth. I personally think that ended when the former Tory party chairman was given the job of running the BBC. At the moment the only reasonably reliable source of data seems to be things like facebook- which is saying a lot.

You may find this helpful https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_flow

http://bfy.tw/4weU

I'm waiting for the OP to hand in the result and get told "Oh,! sorry, I meant 5000^3. Oops!".

https://xkcd.com/675/

Only to the extent that the proof is valid, and accepted as such. I suspect that means "no"