John Cuthber

They wouldn't live long enough to say anything. They are mainly water (all people are) so those cells would never stop firing, The charitable explanation is that she is suffering from hypochondria.

You may have made it clear that they were different , but you didn't even suggest that they were quarks. When lots of people say that you are not explaining things clearly, it is silly to say that you are.

If you look at the Snopes article you will see they don't know if it's true or not.

Most freezers are pretty nearly airtight; he may well have suffocated.

An illustration of the sort of thing Sansont means is the name UTC. If it was the abbreviation of the English or German version (Universal coordinated time) it would be UCT If, on the other hand it was the French version (Temps universel coordonné~), it would be TUC. But the English speakers refused to accept the French version, and the French speakers refused to accept the English version. So, we have UTC which is equally wrong in both languages. It didn't win because anyone liked it: it won because nobody vetoed it.

The problem is not that it "is difficult for some around here to understand". The problem is that you made no attempt to explain it. Why not try again, starting from the beginning with stuff that is known- for example we probably accept that the proton is made from three quarks so when you say "Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks = OO OO OO = 2160 degrees of stable variation" we know that you are wrong. "Proton/soul{?} = 3 quarks " Is almost certainly wrong simply because "Proton = 3 quarks" is (in a sense) right Unless that bit about the soul i.e. "/soul{?}" makes no difference then "Proton/soul{?}" can't equal "Proton" because they are plainly different. If the "/soul{?}" bit makes no difference then it's pointless. So we can all plainly see that your writing is either pointless or wrong. that's why we call it word salad.

OK, lets have a look at some data. Here's a map picked up from the web showing the "plume" http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26329323 Scary, isn't it? Now look at the scale Almost all of it is less than 100 Bq/m^3 OK, what does that mean? Well, according to this http://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/potassium-k-in-urine?page=2 human urine typically contains about 50mMol/litre of potassium which is naturally radioactive. 50mMol/litre is 50 moles per m^3 which is roughly 2Kg of potassium in each cubic metre of urine. Eagh gram of potassium has a natural radioactivity of about 31 Bq (from here) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium#Isotopes So the 2kg of the stuff in a cubic metre of urine would be about 60,000Bq So, to be crude, my piss (or yours) is roughly a thousand times more radioactive than that "plume" Why does anyone think it's going to do much damage?

Anyone who thinks that there are really left wing politicians in office in the US is, if not insane, not well informed.

We do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time It's just that we don't all set our clocks to it. On a slightly more concrete basis essentially anywhere on earth you can check the time WRT this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Positioning_System

It's a bit of electronic kit, what were you expecting to find?

Is that a serious question? It's the blog of the guy who draws this internationally syndicated cartoon http://dilbert.com/ and he's awell known social commentator.

Do you understand that people need oxygen N2O is not oxygen?

Then my source, who is a "famous name" trumps his. But that's hardly the point; the issue is that he refuses to discuss it because he thinks I haven't read his pet theory on the subject.

It's not a matter of how the universe works or even bad software. It's the wrong equation he's balancing, because it doesn't include the other product.

Are you here to put forward half-baked speculative ideas or to learn?

The two works seem broadly in agreement. "! at the core of political conservatism is the resistance to change and a tolerance for inequality, and that some of the common psychological factors linked to political conservatism include: Fear and aggression Dogmatism and intolerance of ambiguity Uncertainty avoidance Need for cognitive closure Terror management" and "Republican have it easier here too. Regarding the Middle East, for example, all they have to do is ask themselves two questions: 1. What does Israel want us to do? 2. Do we have any bombs left?" "Consider economics. If you are a Democrat, you have to balance all sorts of complicated economic theories in your head. That stuff is hard to understand and almost always wrong anyway. But if you are a Republican, all you need to know is that cutting taxes will make us all rich. " "Democrats are always worried about issues of fairness and equal opportunity. For example, workplace gender issues are a huge deal for Democrats. But if you are Republican there is no problem there to fix, except for all the whining. And you can learn to ignore that too." They look fairly similar to me.

Feel free to actually answer the question, rather than calling it pathetic.

I cited it rather than just doing the calculation for two reasons. First, I'm lazy. Second, the wiki page explains why it is very difficult to provide a meaningful comparison. Be very wary of drawing any strong conclusions from the data sets.

Can I just ask why your jackass' book is more valid than my jackass' blog? Note that my jackass is probably a better known social commentator than yours. Also, it's shorter so, if you can't be bothered to critique it, you can hardly blame me for taking a similar view of a much longer work.

You can make an indirect comparison using this data http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_Chernobyl_and_other_radioactivity_releases

Yes, what you are missing is that you can't expect to read three digits of accuracy from a graph. I suspect that the OP needs to read something like this http://www.bipm.org/en/publications/guides/gum.html

I hope so. The sad truth is that people kill themselves for bad reasons- for example some people might kill themselves to avoid the embarrassment of having been diagnosed with a mental health problem. The government keeps a lot of medical records like that. In general it does keep them secret- just as it obviously should do.

The tread title isn't really true. This question, "So question 1 to this thread is could you stop locking my threads swansont? ", for example makes the tacit statement that Swansont is the one locking posts. So questions sometimes are statements. Also, since the decision to close a thread is made by a team of mods, the idea that he's the one closing them is wrong too. But, as has been pointed out already, you seem not to have grasped the basics...

And the next time I need to explain what an ad hom attack is I will point to this as an example.