John Cuthber

Nobody is disputing the fact that fluoride has toxic effects in high doses, However, those doses do not occur via fluoridation, so those effects are irrelevant to the current discussion. After all, 10 litres of water would probably kill you- are you going to ban it? "I wholly disagree. It's evidence that a risk has yet to be known, not that one doesn't exist." How do you sleep at night, knowing there's a risk that your room has a tiger in it? Do you worry about that risk or do you dismiss it because, if there were one, you would know about it by now? Well, it's the same with fluoride in water. The risk must be small or non-existent. "I consider dental fluorosis a form of harm" So do I. It affected my aunt who grew up in an area where the natural fluoride levels were high. She has mottled teeth. However, since they don't add enough fluoride to drinking water to cause fluorosis, that objection is also irrelevant. "Not that I don't recognise the tooth decay preventing properties of fluoridated water intake." Please yourself, but you are ignoring the science. Who is being facetious? If you think politics is letting you down, join a party that agrees with your views and campaign for it, or stand for election. Good luck standing on a ticket that says "I don't believe evidence".

"Skeletal fluorosis is also well documented (though not with the amount added to water supplies by governments, such as USA. It is caused by fluoride intake)." So, it's not relevant. " How many people can't afford toothpaste," How many brush their teeth as often as they drink water? So, it's not really relevant either. "Also, just because the risk is small, or because a consequential risk hasn't currently been recognised as having occurred due to deliberate fluoridating of water, doesn't mean a risk isn't there. " If a lot of people have put a lot of effort into finding that risk, but have failed it is evidence that the risk isn't there. Also, you can't have it both ways. The fluoride doesn't know how it gets into the body. If you accept that it works when applied as toothpaste then you ought to accept that it works in the water supply. Do you not know how they found out about the effect of fluoride on caries? It's because they found that people in areas with relatively high fluoride levels suffered from less tooth decay. So, there's no question that it works- the benefits are real. And there's no real evidence of harm. So the risk benefit analysis is pretty clear. So someone who says " I don't recognise the benefits of fluoridating water" is ignoring the science. Which is why I can class it as "unscientific conspiracy theory " And, re. "The US didn't go about it in a democratic manner," Stand for election.

Ho Hum. The application(s) of Bernoulli's equations that give rise to the simple explanation of lift remain the same if you turn the camera upside down.

And I answered. The wing would push the plane down.

Postmodernism might explain it. Especially in consort with the absolute certainty people have when they feel that God is on their side.

What he said was "The point remains that a plane can fly upside down, although Bernoulli would suggest it can't. due to other lift producing effects." Bernoulli would say that a wing on an upside down plane would force it downward. But you can fly upside down - all;though Bernoulli 's principle would say you cant. So there must be other effects. The thing is that Bernoulli's ideas are not compatible with a plane that can fly either way up.

" Therefore, words are equal to barks" Clearly bollocks or you could have just written "Bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark". Now I'm not saying that what you wrote made a lot of sense but it's clearly not just "Bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark bark". You are also failing to account for the written language, not to mention those used by people who can't speak. re "Wording something with your mouth is not comprehending something," I already told you that word isn't a verb. If you make up words nobody will be able to understand you. Little of what you said makes sense. One of the small number of assertions you have made that has a clear meaning is this "On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist," You really should justify it or withdraw it and apologise.

Tacitly, yes. If there was not some sort of conspiracy to do it then why would they bother? Some group has to be "conspiring" to do this. Also there's little if any real evidence of a risk and the benefits are well documented. There are moral questions about involuntary mass medication- but the decision to fluoridate water should (at least in a democracy) have been made by the people through their representatives.

Plenty of cartoons are directed at adults. Know many kids who would get the jokes in these? http://www.dilbert.com/ http://xkcd.com/archive/ I suspect that one reason that there are a lot of animated cartoons directed at kids is that they are cheap.

FFS! Can we stop promoting the "fluoride in water is..." conspiracy theories please? This is mean to be a science site.

"Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style " No, really, just no. "What Atheism is, is pronouncing the fact that they are not believing in God, which is the same logic as saying "I'm not a collector of stamps", Yes (sort of) and following that as a religion. " No. "and you've based your beliefs around science saying that it disproves God" Nope, I never said it disproves God, nor did I say anything else disproved God's existence. " You promote Atheism." No, I promote rational thought. If that trips your religion up then you can either ignore logic and reason, or change religion. ". You are exactly like someone who promotes the Bible." ​Not really, the death toll is rather lower for a start. BTW, when you say "Address" do you mean 1600 Pennsylvania avenue or do you want me to address this "A bark is different from the mind, and the mind is different from the heart. A word is not a mean between all parts of a human; each part stands out in its own light. You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound. Word-knowledge is not real knowledge, it is nullified life."? I can't address that because it doesn't make sense. "A bark is different from the mind." What do you mean? the noise a dog makes or the skin of a tree? Both meanings make the assertion true, but it was never doubted. "and the mind is different from the heart. " Again, so what? Nobody said it wasn't. But this " A word is not a mean between all parts of a human;" simply makes no sense. the word "mean" used as a noun refers to an average. and an average between things is meaningless. An average of all the parts of a human would- in a way- mean something, but it's not clear what and it's even less clear what you mean. Similarly " each part stands out in its own light." Each part of what? The word? The human? neither option makes sense because neither is a light source. Did you mean "in it's own right"? This too You say "cat", but you didn't comprehend the cat in mind; you worded it, with sound. is Bollocks Where, other than my mind, could I comprehend a cat? Word isn't a verb so worded isn't meaningful. I could go on, but really, if you are going to make any progress here you need to stop saying things that are plainly not true like "Someone with no hair can be put in the position to exhibit hair style ", and you are going to have to communicate a lot better. But before you get to those, it might be better if you apologised for making the false allegation against the site. "On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist,"

"But you can relate not collecting stamps with collecting stamps; look at both contexts, one where collecting stamps was significant; someone asks you "do you collect stamps?", you say "no"," And if they ask if I have a religion I say no. You have forgotten that the only thing atheists have as s defining feature is no belief in God. "You had recently expressed your social power over me " I don't have any "social power" I'm just a member of the forum like you are. "And you are indoctrinating with the knowledge that you use to challenge children's beliefs," No, I might be indoctrinating them with the method by which to challenge any set of beliefs, but that's not the same thing. Any so called "scientific truth" could be overturned tomorrow by evidence. Please rewrite this " In situations where scientists object something and numbers agree, which can often be socially (and often stupidly) conformed, close friends, etc, people are demonized and all powers are abused to remove them because they are deemed to hot to handle, simply because they don't agree with what you are saying and, you are all pedantic." so I can interpret them. "I don't agree with any of your post." Feel free to cite evidence.

That's an advert for a product that only sells based on what can politely be described as hype (or, more accurately described as lies). Of course the amount of chlorine in water isn't toxic. There are (largely theoretical) risks associated with chlorination of water- mainly to do with the production of chemicals like trichloromethane in the water. It's true that trichloromethane is known to cause cancer- if you ingest enough of it. But the amounts formed are tiny. On the other hand, cholera (one of the better known water borne diseases) kills a lot of people if you don't disinfect the water supply.

OK, lets start with the first one Atheism is not a religion. Saying that it is one is like like saying "not collecting stamps" is a hobby. "" an Atheists God is science."" An atheist's God does not exist by definition of atheist. "They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible." No, for two reasons. Not all atheists are scientists and science isn't a set of beliefs like the bible- it's a way of organising and challenging beliefs. "On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist," No, what the God squad usually get banned for is refusing to debate. They refuse to answer valid questions. In any event, you can only get banned for breaking the rules you agreed to when you signed up. "Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power," Nope, they just point out the evidence. They might not be polite about it, but it's not the shouting or name calling that makes the difference in the end. What suppresses non science is that it doesn't tally with the evidence and when your ideas don't agree with the evidence, it isn't because reality has made a mistake. "Children are forced to believe in science." Nope, children are scientists to begin with- they play with things to see what happens. That's the same as the scientists. It's religion that forces them to stop doing that. " There are plenty of reasons not to," Name one.

The following assertions are wrong. "Atheism is a religion" " an Atheists God is science." "Atheists, like Christians, preach their beliefs " "They are indoctrinating children’s minds with science as Christians do with the bible." "On this website, if they do not win the debate, you are banned, or criticized unfairly as a pseudo-scientist," "Scientists suppress any non-scientific theories with shouts of stupidity and exerts of power," "Children are forced to believe in science." " There are plenty of reasons not to," There were probably others too.

"Didn't they have some functional steam devices around the time of Ptolemy in Alexandria? A bit late for the Giza pyramids, " The steam engine was documented about 200 years BC, the pyramids were built about 2000 years BC. That's more than "a bit" late. "Romans wouldn't acknowledge it for what it was, and i'm pretty sure the Egyptians wouldn't share it." I'd not bet on that. The likes of Wernher Von Braun indicate that people are often happy to help the winners.

Make up your mind.

The best you could hope to do would be to make the gel from something with a lower refractive index- i.e. nearer to the index of air. Silica already has a fairly low refractive index so that might be difficult. How do you get the rice husk ash to form a gel?

"In one TV show I caught heard of the theory of an American scientist..." " I can find “irreducible complexity” in Google and I can independently conclude that the theory. " It's not a theory, barely a hypothesis and a falsified one at that. May I ask why you want to find the name of this particular mistaken individual rather that any other similarly misled person?

I'm saying that a lot more of it is empirical than theoretical. The point remains that a model bird, if it was light weight would glide quite well. If you stuck a rocket motor where the sun doesn't shine, it would fly. You wouldn't need to know "why" to know "how". It still isn't clear to me why people think it's all down to Bernoulli, even though planes fly upside down.

Well, you now know that, at near room temperature, it has a vapour pressure of a little under 12 mmHg.

Why do you want to know the boiling point? It's likely to explode if you boil it.

The first source says "Physical Data: mp 0 °C; bp 25 °C/12 mmHg; d 1.038 g cm−3 at 20 °C." The 25 °C/12 mmHg; means that the stuff boils at 25C under a pressure of 12 mmHg. If you don't understand that sort of thing you probably shouldn't be working with explosive- far less planning to boil them. What are you hoping to achieve?

It does not matter that you have a PhD if you can't count to two. Nor can you justly claim to be doing science if you do not listen to the ideas of others. There are quite clearly two different cells there as I already pointed out. The reactions you can't understand taking place at the Cu and C are the reactions of water. The net effect is 2 H2O --> H2 +O2

If you didn't find it you can't have looked very hard. Here is the bit that you didn't understand the relevance of. "Another problem with Volta's batteries was short battery life (an hour's worth at best) which was caused by two phenomena. The first was ...The other was a phenomenon called local action, wherein minute short-circuits would form around impurities in the zinc, causing the zinc to degrade. " I'm sure I have seen that described in elementary physics textbooks, and it explains the evolution of hydrogen at the zinc electrode.