John Cuthber

So, for a cost of just 200$ per head for everyone on the planet- that's a total of about a trillion dollars, we could add 238.02 i.e. 0.5% to the ozone layer. Seriously, do you think that's a good idea? And, while we were at it, we could use something like a trillion watts of power. That's about 9 million Kilowatt hours per year According to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electricity_consumption you would be talking about nearly doubling the world's electricity use or, if you prefer, an electricity bill roughly as big as the US and China put together. Why are you still even thinking about this?

"Whenever I am turning on my Cockcroft-Walton high voltage 40 kV generator I am producing ozone that's immediately detectable (by smelt)." OK, so that's a few cubic metres of air in which you raise the ozone levels to the odour threshold of about 100 ppb. You have made perhaps a few milligrams of ozone in about a minute. Now calculate how much we need to fill the hole in the ozone layer. Well "The total mass of ozone produced per day over the globe is about 400 million metric tons." according to this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone-oxygen_cycle So, if everyone on earth (call it 10^10) had a comparable generator that's about 50 Mg/ min or 72 Gg per day A tonne is a thousand kilos or a million grams so, if everyone had a generator, we could add 72,000 tonnes per day. It would add about 0.02% to the overall production. That's clearly not going to make a lot of difference. So, do you think that providing the equivalent of a CW generator to every man, woman and child on the planet (never mind the fact that most of them have no electricity supply) in order to make an immeasurably small difference is a worthwhile way to spend anyone's money?

And, once again... Because it lets you have a better protected brain and permits the brain tog work in an environment specifically designed for it's needs rather than the general requirements of the rest of the body.

Of course it can be increased, but not infinitely (for example, it obviously will not be increasing in a hundred years' time). That's the whole point.

Fine, let's deal in facts. The sages are factually wrong for the reasons I gave earlier and so you should not have brought them into the discussion. I observe that humans always seem (at least thus far, and I see no evidence of a change) to want to know more. That is, for example, the reason for web sites like this one. And so I deduce that , since people always wish to know more, but logically can not know an indefinite amount (given their finite brains), "we will never know everything we want to know.". As I said. So, yes, it is indeed, odd to me that this is not clear to people- even after the evidence is presented to them.

It seems to me that you are still missing the point. A chainsaw is very dangerous, because it could kill someone. But the intention of a chainsaw designer is to make something to cut wood. The fact that it is able to kill people is an unfortunate side issue. But a gun is quintessentially different. The intention of a gun designer is (generally) to produce a "tool" for killing people. (I'm ignoring the vanishingly small number of guns explicitly designed for target shooting). If someone invented a chainsaw that cuts wood, but can't harm people, then they would be praised as having made a contribution to society. On the other hand, the guy who invents a gun that can't kill or maim people is likely to be laughed at. The whole point of a gun is, broadly to kill and, broadly, killing is a bad thing. It's not just a matter of "it's a bad idea to carry a chainsaw about unless you are a lumberjack". It's an issue of "it's a bad idea to carry a gun about unless you plan to kill people- and since that's an intrinsically bad thing- its a bad idea to carry a gun." There are exceptions for valid security staff, but that's it. No civilian going about their everyday business needs a gun, and there is no logical basis to distinguish "assault weapons" from other guns. One is designed to kill people: and so is the other. Also Phi for all, re. "the people carrying guns as a 2nd Amendment statement are carrying them as tools to do work (security work, in this case)," Is that actually true? Are most guns owned and carried by people who legitimately work in security? Or are they, as Dave Gillson's post indicates, outnumbered 310 million to 4 million?

How, exactly, do you plan to check that there's not a single allergenic molecule present? The FDA realise that's not a valid goal to pursue, so they define a lower limit. The product meets that limit. What's the problem?

Some of the replies seem to have missed the point of the OP. It says "Let's assume drinking a litre in 24 hours is really bad for the body. Perhaps lethal. If only the sodium chloride is removed from seawater, leaving all other natural elements present in seawater; will drinking a litre in 24 hours still be poisonous ?" OK, the assumption is invalid (at least for a healthy 70Kg adult) Drinking a litre of sea water carrying about 40 grams of salt is unlikely to be fatal. But it's something like a fifth of the mean fatal dose so it is likely to be observably toxic. Let's look at the other point "If only the sodium chloride is removed from seawater, leaving all other natural elements present in seawater; will drinking a litre in 24 hours still be poisonous ?"" It has roughly 0.05 moles of Mg per litre: about 1.2 grams. That's probably marginal for upsetting your stomach a bit. Spread over 24 hrs along with a normal diet the answer is that it's not going to do any real harm (as moontanman said). But it's probably still rather high for drinking as your "normal" water supply every day. It's never going to matter: there's no practical way of stripping just the NaCl from sea water

I'm sure that things can only react as fast as they can mix and that is limited by the speed at which they move. Can you come up with a mechanism where sound helps, for example, fuel on the right of a cylinder react with air that's on the left?

Then we need better sages because it's clear that we can't know everything. It's plausible that we might know everything we need to know (though I doubt that), but we will never know everything we want to know.

Because it works better that way.

"And it's because they're just tools that can be used for good or bad, depending on the user." With the best will in the world, it's hard to see a gun as designed to do anything good. The guns under discussion are built to kill people. What's the logical difference between "I should be allowed to carry a gun" and "I should be allowed to carry a bomb"?

I doubt it's homework. The first equation is wrong. The initial precipitate is a basic salt rather than the hydroxide.

No, but convection (in the conventional use of the word- hot air rises, moves round the room + cools + falls again) might be thought of as a subset of advection.

OK, I know a bloke who is a murderer, and I think he's a reasonable person. He argued with a friend and it developed into a scuffle. That's not great behaviour, but I don't think it's "unreasonable"- I suspect many or most of us have done that. He shoved the other person away. They fell and hit their head. They died as a result of that injury. legally, that's death due to assault and battery. It's not self defence, so it's murder. You might argue that, perhaps he should have been tried for manslaughter instead of murder- but that's not what the court thought. I suspect that many "otherwise reasonable" people have killed in the heat of the moment. Perhaps it depends on the definition of "reasonable" which you choose to use.

Do you realise that doctors would still need to memorise the words "cerebral" and "spinal" and "fluid" Would you trust a doctor who couldn't work out what cerebrospinal fluid was? But, you expect them to remember two very similar words ("blood 1" and " blood 2" or whatever) and recall which is which. All this for no real reason (not to mention the cost of reprinting all the medical text books)? Why bother? What is wrong with the current system?

So, what you are asking about is the presence of something tested for allergens and not found to contain them "ultra-pure Polysorbate 80(HX2)TM for injectable grade, which has outstanding features as follows; ... Low Allergic Reaction (Low Degranulation)" What's the problem?

I think the issue here is that it's now possible to kill someone unjustifiably, but not in violation of the law.

Yes, Advection.

No

Why not just call them blood and CSF? That would avoid confusion. Calling the fluid round the cerebrum and spine the cerebro-spinal fluid looks pretty systematic to me.

It would be fantastically expensive. As you say "This is definitely something that needs to be researched." Feel free to do the arithmetic. You need to know the energy needed to make ozone, how much you need, and how much you can expect to pay (wholesale) for electricity. I'm sure you can find those on-line somewhere. As you say "This is definitely something that needs to be researched." Just think how much effort mankind has put into digging coal or drilling for oil. You would need something similar to make significant amounts of ozone. And, of course, the energy needed to make the ozone would mean that we would produce even more CO2 and damage the atmosphere even more than we already have.. Of course, the good news is that, since we stopped filling the air with ozone destroying chemicals, the ozone levels are , if not yet increasing, at least dropping more slowly.

In some bits of England- notably in the North, thee, thy, thine, and thou still get used, correctly, as the singular. However down South where the influence of the Norman court was stronger the people took to copying the "French" form of address. Slightly ironically, the time you are most likely to hear thee and thy these days is in the Lord's prayer- referring to God who is normally considered most people's social superior. The church didn't follow the fashion and kept the original singular.

OK, we could call both liquids "blood". What would it achieve? The doctors would have to distinguish between the two sorts of "blood". So, they would have to give them different names. We would be back where we are now. Also re "If you say defense line, I will rather say solid body components to CSF, like bones, hard skull or strong skin structure." You seem to have missed the point. If the blood goes to the brain there must be holes in the skull. You can't use that to defend against bacteria and toxins. However you can use the blood brain barrier as such a defence.

I understand it happened when the Normans invaded. The French still use you (plural) and you (singular) to distinguish "rank".