John Cuthber

"Over the entire history of the human race even though technology has expanded drastically there humanity has fallen by the wayside." In what way?

I doubt that. It's true for self-consistent units but if I choose to measure force in dynes; momentum in stone furlongs per fortnight and time in jiffies it's going to go to hell in a handbasket. None of that detracts from the fact that the best thing to do with BR-549's "contribution" is to ignore it

And, as every day where people use their 'phones but don't drop dead passes, the evidence mounts that they certainly don't cause much harm.

you don't seem to have understood. You won't be banned for saying that. You will be asked to demonstrate that there is at least some evidence for it. If , rather than providing evidence, you keep onposting the same unsupported assertion, you will probably get banned. As far as I can tell, (and it's difficult because of the way you write things) you mean that something like this happens CO2 for some reason falls apart to C and O2 The C reacts with water to produce HCHO That's unrealistic, but at least it is testable If there were carbon atoms floating round in the atmosphere we would detect their absorption spectrum when we looked at sunlight We don't. So that's it. The hypothesis leads to a testable conclusion; the conclusion is found to be false, so the hypothesis is false. For what it is worth the hypothesis that formaldehyde is a step in the photosynthesis of sugars was first put forward by Baeyer in 1864. It was wrong then too.

So, because you didn't realise that some chicken wire or a kitchen sieve would improve the set-up you didn't realise that the experiment was pointless. Back at the original question; is there any evidence that mobile 'phones produce ionising radiation?

Perhaps you should stop embarrassing yourself; Farrady cages can have holes in as long as they are small compared to the wavelength of the radiation. Did you think things through, and enclose the Geiger counter in a metal mesh cage to stop RF interference? If not, do you realise that the experiment was meaningless?

You might want to think a little harder about that.

You might want to say that but it isn't always true so you can't honestly say it.

Did you put a Faraday cage between the 'phone and the Geiger counter to make sure that you screened out radio frequency interference? If not, do you realise that the experiment was meaningless?

Ask an elephant or a sperm whale. Since they have large cranial capacities they must be very clever so they will understand it better than you can.

Maybe; maybe not. moving in together might be expensive too.

Show us one case where you answered a point put to you (as required by the rules). Unless you can do that for all the points put to you then it's not "merely a claim by members" it's simply a fact. Face it; you broke the rules.

Yes. It would matter because it would be very interesting chemistry.

For heaven's sake learn something about the subject before trying to preach to us. "The long-held belief that carbonic acid could not exist as a pure compound has reportedly been recently disproved by the preparation of the pure substance in both solid and gas form by University of Innsbruck researchers." from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid Incidentally, we certainly do not have much CH2 anywhere in the atmosphere. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methylene_(compound) it reacts very rapidly with oxygen to give (mainly) this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dioxirane Are you going to stop posting nonsense and learn some chemistry?

I hope Fuzzword doesn't mind if I reply on his behalf Have a look here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone#Production and you will see that ozone is made from pure oxygen more effectively than from air.Since there's CO2 in air, but not oxygen, the CO2 can't be needed (or even help). Most of what you are saying is nonsense. For example you say "a carbon element" and "the oxygen elements". Since carbon is an element those phrases make no sense. You are saying "an element element" which is silly. Also there's a really good reason that there isn't much CO in the air. It reacts with oxygen (especially in the presence of UV light from the sun).

Just plain wrong. The effect of gravity on light has been tested many times. This is, perhaps, one of the more impressive tests. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG But that's not the point. Einstein's theory led to testable proofs. Your ideas do not. (also, you really need to learn some chemistry) The pathways through which CO2 is converted to sugar by photosynthesis are quite well known. Why not learn about them? Here's a start https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-independent_reactions#Calvin_Cycle

I checked. There is CO in the tropopause. (from a number of sources- forest fires the photolysis of volatile organics from plants and, of course, from mankind) Which shows that it's time you did more learning. You make a valid point about Einstein. His theory predicted things that were not known to be true at the time. However, when people did check, those predictions were correct. So far you have made no testable predictions. Much of what you have said can be summed up as "everyone except me is wrong" and you have also said things that are plainly wrong.

"can a strictly steady repeatable diet delay (or even prevent) aging?" Almost certainly not. Apart from anything else, the body's dietary needs depend on external factors like the weather, physical activity, illness and (ironically) age.

How would you know? Plenty of people have thought they were, but found out that they were mistaken.

I'm usually a quick learner*, and I don't have anything important scheduled. Why not start now? Also, while any changes hat reduce energy use will reduce CO2 emissions. Since people have been doing that since they first started hanging tapestries on walls you are at least a few millennia worth of wrong when you say " Yet co2 emissions are not being reduced by any technology that we have that is cost effective.". Do you think it would it be better if, before spending 6 months telling us what you think, you spent one month finding out what is already known? * Even if I turn out to be an idiot, it's likely that someone brighter than me will read the explanation.

I can't easily find who said it but " true contentment is not the absence of desire, but the absence of jealousy"

In air, especially if it's moist, that's plausible. Why do you ask?

I would need to check the arithmetic to be certain, but I think you have got it sorted out . Well done. The small difference between your answer and that given is probably because the equivalent weight of magnesium isn't exactly 12; it's 12.153

There's solid evidence that the debate isn't being progressed rationally. The evidence is that you keep using strawmen. You say "And your implication that India has had no such incidents prior to the Industrial Revolution is based on what data? " when there was no such implication. Using logical fallacies like that makes it clear that your argument is not rational. Why do you keep doing it (unless, as has been suggested, you are trolling)?

It may have escaped your notice, but Venus is a different planet so you are changing rather a lot of variables at the same time. Fundamenttaly when you say "As the case of Venus illustrates, a high albedo alone can only do so much to mitigate high temperatures." you are strawmanning again. Nobody said that albedo was the only factor did they? The loss form the sunward side is actually higher- it's warmer during the day. So what? In the meantime you berate the IPCC saying "One of the alternative strategies strangely neglected by the ever solicitous IPCC is to make the radiation of excess heat to space more efficient. " but you don't say what they could do to improve the rate of radiative loss. What would you suggest?