John Cuthber

" Because the risk associated with small concentrations of radiation is proportional to it, dilution means that more animals and humans are exposed to a smaller increase in the risk." ​Most people are not in the middle of the Pacific. The point isn't one of linear or non-linear effect. It's that the levels become indistinguishable from background. The natural level of damage is not zero and the additional damage caused by the leak is going to be a lot smaller than the natural level.

If Christ were born about 2000 years later, Christians would be walking round with little electric chairs hung round their necks. And yet they think it's offensive if you ask them not to wear a cross. BTW, which cross do you think the OP had in mind? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cross#As_emblems_and_symbols

Well, you are wrong.

If there's some way for fumes to get into the car it won't discriminate between CO and NOx so if you don't find any CO there can't be much NOx

Diesel might be cheaper and easier to get than white spirit. Petrol would work, but it's dangerously flammable and more toxic too. Things like bicarb and vinegar are likely to promote rusting.

How can you arrange this "but nothing can be directly attached to the eggs. " The eggs won't just "float" in the middle of the structure. Incidentally, I think a bucket of porridge would do the trick.

It depends on the contaminants. But it would be extremely expensive to do that. Distilling it would work as well and be a lot cheaper. But the main thing to realise its that the amount of contamination leaking from Fukushima is only a local problem. Once it is dispersed in the ocean the radiation is not distinguishable from the natural background and presents practically no risk. It is, for example, a lot less than the radioactivity released into the Irish sea from reprocessing at Sellafield. In case anyone is thinking of saying I have no evidence for that, yes I have. Decades of experience at Sellafield and extensive research in the health of the local population.

The places that do MOT testing must have some sort of equipment for measuring those gases. They might be able to help you- not least because, if you have a leak from the exhaust to the passenger compartment, you are going to want to fix it , and they might want the business.

"A Human has user-potential. Are Humans meant to abuse the mind, body and spirit for all of their glory? " Meant by whom? I'd like you to address the fact that your ideas have been shot full of holes but you have not responded to that. So, for example, when you go to the dentist and get a Novocain injection, do you stop thinking? Or was you assertion that "At the end of the day, you do think with your tongue, and there is no escaping that fact with wit." total nonsense?

According to your earlier post the fact that I say things makes me religious- you said "But you're expressing your beliefs now, and you probably do this regularly. " as a reason why I'm acting religiously. Do you think it's "religion" to say "I think it's going to rain soon"? Or do you realise that making statements of opinion isn't the same as having a religion? In doing so, you have done as I predicted- you have tortured the word "religion" until it is meaningless. As for "I think I'm correct in saying you act very much alike a religion. " well, you shouldn't because I already pointed out the difference. The difference is evidence.

This assertion "At the end of the day, you do think with your tongue, and there is no escaping that fact with wit." is trivially falsified by consideration of those who lose their tongue to accident , caner or whatever, but continue to think as before. I't not just that S1eep needs to learn to back up assertions, it's that he needs to learn not to make silly claims in the first place.

"I'd like to see proof of something impossible being imagined/drawn, and that drawing the poster above linked is not impossible,." Build it. "And I know a lot more than you think," "I am just trying to demonstrate complex ideas that support God" If you know so much, how come you keep failing and, indeed, how come you keep trying? " revel in the stupidity of modern religious people." Are you not modern, or not religious? Or are you too stupid to see that coming?

Thank you for illustrating my point. I said "Atheism clearly isn't a religion ... (unless you torture the meaning of that word to include us- in which case it includes everyone so it's meaningless)." and you did. Incidentally the big difference between what I did there and what is usually considered religion is that I cited evidence. Specifically, I cited your own assertion as that evidence: "Not every Atheist is as good thinking as you though,". So, you are now arguing against yourself. Moontanman may well be right in thinking your are a troll. Or you may just be foolish enough to not realise when you are proving my point and, in doing so, arguing against yourself. Personally, I don't really care, but trolling is against the rules here.

I love the way that you started a thread with "I have read several times in this forum that ACA is a Republican health care plan. ... As I am sure you are aware, I believe all of the above is silly scapegoating. ... So for those of you that think I’m wrong, I’m wondering if you can provide any proof." yet,though that proof has been provided, ("The idea is that the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) was originally proposed by a right-wing conservative think tank called the Heritage Foundation back in 1989. http://healthcareref...l_americans.pdf "etc) you keep arguing. Presented with this "It's the plan twice former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney implemented in his home state back in 2006 when he was a Republican governor. It's the same plan, except the federal approach with Obamacare has better cost control measures than the original Massachusetts plan had. you say "So there were Republican bills two decades ago that died in committee. Thank you. I appreciate your Obama comment was informed speculation or a paraphrase but it clearly points out that Obama picked up this then 14 year old legislation that died in committee and promoted it. " Well, if that policy is 14 years old then you must be posting from (roughly) the year 2020. Can you let me know what happens? Because from my point of view you are half a dozen years in the future and I could make serious money from that. Can I trouble you to look up the winning numbers for the UK national lottery for November 2013 please? Or is it that you just ignored reality "but see no hypocrisy in your comments"

"Not every Atheist is as good thinking as you though," It only takes one to destroy the idea that "atheists are religious" because at least one isn't. So you can stop now. Atheists may be religious, or they may not. Atheism clearly isn't a religion because plenty of us are not religious (unless you torture the meaning of that word to include us- in which case it includes everyone so it's meaningless).

People can imagine things that are impossible, and draw them beautifully. Is there any doubt that the artist imagined this scenario? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Escher_Waterfall.jpg And, at the risk of lowering the tone, "When dreams occur, our thoughts are created; when dreams occur our imagination is closer to being God. " What, even the wet ones? That's a theological point I hadn't seen before S1eep You seem not to realise just how little you know. You turn up and make bold statements that are trivially proved false. Why do you bother?

You know you are a different sort of geek when you point out that the plural is formulae.

"Atheists are fond of saying that atheism is no more a religion that baldness is a hair color. But, this isn't exactly true. " Not really It's true that some people are both religious and atheist, just as there are some people who are religious and left-handed. But that does not imply that atheism is a religion any more than left-handedness is a religion.

Some areas were evacuated, others were not. Do you really think that they did that without measuring the levels of exposure? Assuming that they are not so bizarrely stupid as you seem to suggest, they have measured the levels of contamination, decided that some areas are still safe for the kids and put badges on them. It's not clairvoyance we are talking about here, it's measurements. And, imagine that I could give you a map of the world, accurately measuring the additional radioactive contamination from Chernobyl on each square metre of the earth's land surface- broken down into individual isotopes. What could you do with it? Now I'm sure it might be an interesting bit of abstract art, but it would serve no concrete purpose. That's why they didn't waste money measuring it.

"They don't know where most of the emitted radioactive stuff is, because they haven't been monitoring its travels or fates" Others have. ​Do you not remember that when Chernobyl blew up, the West found out about it when routine monitoring in Scandinavia picked it up. "It helps anyone who actually wants to have an informed opinion on whether people were exposed to serious radiation hazards in the wake of Fukushima." No, a bunch of results that all say "not detected" or "nothing above background" don't tell you anything. Technically, it's they are better "informed" but they knew that information anyway. If they didn't know that the monitors will show sod all squared, they would have moved the kids- not labelled them. "That may very well be - and with such authorities in control, even the most irrational aversion to building things like nuclear power plants becomes a reasonable political stance. " Indeed, the authorities should have explained to those who wanted their kids "badged" that there's no point- because there's no significant contamination. But people are not rational about things like that. They want to see "Something being done" even when it's clearly pointless. So the government does it because it's the easy option. It's a bit of a waste of money, but I can't imagine any government acting differently (except, perhaps some sort of dictatorship- is that what you wanted?)

The plant is where most of the radioactive stuff is, so it's the sensible place to monitor. On the other hand this "dosage badges on hundreds of schoolchildren living nearby, being worn for several weeks or months and read regularly. " is practically pointless. Measuring exposure doesn't help people much- it gives reassurance, but that's all. On the other hand, if the authorities were not pretty sure the levels were harmless, they would have done something else. Those badges are a political sop to the paranoid rather than a means to gather data. I'd happily go swimming off that coast (give or take the natural hazards like sharks).

"Is the pacific ocean really that radiated?"No "Is this all true?" No. It's scaremongering nonsense. Overtone, Fukushima is being monitored.

Countries doing OK includes this few dozen http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_health_insurance_coverage There may be some who tried it and failed, but none spring to mind- of course you could count Russia since their whole economy failed and too social healthcare with it, but I think even they still run the system as well as they can.

From memory it's the eqn you get from conservation of energy in MV, 1/2 MV^2 and MGH which you can convert to density + pressure by division by the volume (for an incompressible fluid). But I'm rushing to type this before I get a bus and trying to remember it from 30 years ago..

You dug up an old thread about nonsense to say that? Must be a Halloween effect.