John Cuthber

No. I presume the question arises from your ignorance of Israel's behaviour. Does this help enlighten you>? "... restrictions on movement put in place by Israel since the Second Intifada are generally accepted as a major reason for the worsening of the Palestinian economy and as a reason for the increasing unemployment and poverty among Palestinians in the West Bank.[31] According to B'Tselem, tens of thousands of Palestinians lost employment in Israel as a direct result of the closure of the West Bank that Israel initiated at the start of the Second Intifada. Before the closure 110,000 Palestinians were employed in Israel and the settlements, which has been much reduced depending on the number of permits that Israel decides to issue to Palestinians.[31]" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_freedom_of_movement

I wasn't sure whether to post this here or, by way of contrast here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84846-cross-species-altruism/ but http://www.addictinginfo.org/2014/08/02/trump-wants-to-abandon-u-s-ebola-victims-in-africa-they-must-suffer-the-consequences/

That might depend on what I had done to provoke him. If, for example, I had built a big wall round his house so he couldn't go out to work, I might consider that before opening fire- in particular I might not consider it fair to launch anti tank weapons at his house in retaliation for shotgun fire. And if I had the means to block that shot without significant risk to myself, I'd quite possibly realise that I didn't need to return fire- even with a shotgun. I also might think about moving a little further from his house- since my garden is big enough to let me picnic on the other side of it, out of range of the gun. Here's the real problem. He's shooting at me because of a feud started by our great great grandfathers. The shotgun isn't really going to do me a lot of harm. If I fire back I condemn my children and grandchildren to life in a war zone. If I stop, perhaps he will stop too (or at least I might get all the neighbours on my side) Maybe I'd not shoot back.

No. What question have you been asked?

It means they offer chemistry, or biology or both.

It's out of date, but it's still pretty nearly true compared to the number of civilian deaths on the other side.

It may seem that way to you. But lots of use here are scientists and we are in a position to tell you that you are simply wrong. Thus far you have been wrong about the title of the tread, this, "they cannot be seen or demonstrated for all to see" This "The TV science channel asks their viewers to QUESTION EVERYTHING and that is what I am doing --- taking nothing for granted" in that you took it and your beliefs for granted. This "Sonar only works in water and the fetus is in an amniobic fluid." and this "Their indecisiveness should be a warning to all scientists and would be scientists." Wouldn't it be better if you found out a bit more about science rather than coming here an insulting most scientists?

You realised that you don't know what is under the ground and you took it for granted that nobody else could.

Do you understand that half is not the same as all?

You are just making stuff up.

"i'm nearly 21 and realistically speaking here i'll still be studying when i'm 26-27. But to me that seems like most of the best of my life is spent in a classroom." I'm nearly 49 and all of my life is spent in a classroom- it's called life. You are currently in the easy bit so enjoy it while you can. To be fair, most of your life so far has pretty much revolved round education so it's no wonder you see it as a bit invasive. It goes with the territory of being the best educated species on the planet.

To whom? The way you present the product to doctors might differ a lot from the way you present it to patients. You might want to avoid re-inventing the wheel by looking at the current websites and how they vary depending on the drug. http://www.duragesic.com/ is rather different from http://www.nicorette.co.uk/?gclid=CIK2_6Cz9L8CFeTItAodoU0Ang

It hardly matters about the potato's origin, pumpkins are quintessentially North American and have quite a lot of vitamin C. They also keep quite well. Here's an interesting bit of folklore. http://lang-8.com/25769/journals/1237044 The "they can't get vitamin C in the Winter" argument is also fundamentally undermined by that fact that the body can store significant amounts of it in the rest of the year.

I doubt you would get the ethics cttee to agree to it, but I think it's probably treatable. The essential aspects are detailed here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9964767/Iain-Duncan-Smith-I-could-live-on-53-per-week.html The "patient" is suffering from the delusion that he could live on £53 per week. (strictly, he's just experiencing the delusion: he makes other suffer for it). I strongly suspect that after a few months trying to do so , he would come to realise that he was "confused" and that his "confusion" had led him to make grave errors. (Even if it didn't, it might make good "reality TV")

We do just fine, but thanks for asking.

"(some things are more deadly than others), but not the description of whether they are deadly. Much like pregnancy (you can't be a little pregnant), it's a binary state with a simple correlation." Hang on, you can't have it both ways. You can't be more pregnant than someone else. By the same token, you can't be more deadly than something else. It is, as you say, a binary matter. If it causes death, it's deadly. Meanwhile, back at the topic...

I think you owe the French Medical profession an apology.

"Scientists can only see the earth surface, can only theorize what is under it" Nope, we can make measurements. http://www.oilandgaslawyerblog.com/2009/04/how-do-seismic-surveys-work.html Do you understand that this means you are completely wrong?

You do realise that's part of the brain, don't you?

It may not be as clear cut as it looks. There's a story (I'm in no position to verify it) that during the 1st Gulf war the scud missiles fired were pretty ineffective at killing people, but quite good at persuading people to stay at home. The consequent reduction in road traffic deaths exceeded the death toll from the missiles. There was a net reduction in deaths among the "enemy" due to the use of scud missiles.

Tea tree oils isn't a particularly potent biocide- I'd still boil the water. Spuds are from South America,.

"I'm not a Liberal. I can't be, not the way I feel about how my teenage daughter should dress." Unless the way she dresses is a political statement, that's off topic. There is a thread here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/68375-has-the-republican-party-lost-its-collective-mind/?hl=batshit#entry697415 with ample evidence of lunacy among Rght wingers and relatively little among the Left. If anyone wishes to add to it - giving examples of either side's daft behaviour that would help inform the debates.

I'm not saying it's anyone's 'fault' but you did say "​Are you claiming that people will learn to process and eat bark and pine needles when they have a panoply of other C sources always at hand, and do not ever suffer from C deficit?" And I pointed out that they did, and still do. Feel free to actually answer the questions. Why do you think making tea is such a trouble?

Why are you expected to learn nonsense? Wouldn't it be easier to not look up nonsense after you have been told it is wrong?

Has there been a mass die-off in North America since this thread "established" that it isn't a fit place for humans to live? No...? There hasn't? Well how did that happen? "humans have to go to a great deal of trouble, including learning to eat pine needle soup" Have you heard of tea tree oil? Ever wondered where it got the name? Well, it's because the leaves of that tree were used to make tea. Ever seen those leaves? There's a picture here http://www.eranurseries.com.au/p/300-melaleuca-alternifolia.aspx It's a matter of definition, but I suspect that most people would describe them as "needles". Now the tree doesn't have a lot of vitamin c in it (as far as I can tell) and it grows in places where there would be plenty of fresh fruit. So people drink "tea" made from needle like leaves even where there isn't a shortage of vitamin c and even though these leaves wouldn't cure scurvy. People drink tea made from (not strictly a pine, but full of terpenes) needles because they like it. Why do you think making tea is "trouble"? (BTW, don't forget that if you don't boil the water, it's probably not safe to drink)