John Cuthber

Thank you for making it clear that you are unable to show that there is a difference between God and the dragon because there is no difference. We can move on now.

All unsupported statements are equivalent. Assertions of the properties or existence of God or dragons are unsupported. The two ideas are, in that sense, equivalent. So, Iggy, if you want to show that they are not equivalent, it's perfectly simple- you just have to point out the difference. Please do so.

Let's just have another quick look at para 1 "1. Weather/climate is a cycle of cycles of cycles of cycles..... To infer AGW after only a few years of warming on our 4.5 Billion year old planet is like infering a bull market based on a one second up-tick in the DOW. The glacial ice/deep ocean record has been/can be sliced and diced by whoever wants to prove their point. Cherry picking data is not science. Data minipulation by E. Anglia in the U.K. a good example." You don't seem to know the difference between weather and climate. It hasn't just been "a few years" Inferring a change based on the data might be tricky, but we are actually explaining a change (in temperature) based on a known effect of another measured variable- the CO2 concentration in the air. It has, it can, and you are doing so. Indeed not- perhaps you should stop doing it. Since they didn't actually manipulate the data you have no base on which to make that comment. OK, you are right. We only needed to look at the first paragraph.

Indeed, but I'd still like to know how many steps are involved in your method for finding sin " 1.3372986 rads" and how it compares to two long multiplications, a subtraction, and a division?

"It is mainly an upper class public school thing, I see so many who cannot pronounce an 'r'," Or, at least as likely, you see people who do not pronounce that r (or, at least, not the way you would). You are assuming an inability, rather than a choice.

Para 4 is baseless. Science knows that science is not settled. It is (as was pointed out earlier) just like the creationists' "mantra" that Science doesn't know everything. Well, of course it doesn't. If it did, it would stop. So, your best shot at redeeming this lost-cause thread is to cite yourself, then state something blindingly obvious (but irrelevant).

"spider is trying to get its venom in the heart causing a break in the artery or heart cardio" You are attributing an unreasonable amount of understanding of human anatomy to a spider. "EDTA well chelate beer or vodka from the liver " No it will not. " I notice when taking large amounts of EDTA then drinking that my liver felt really different" You can't really feel your liver. " I ordered the doctor to..." If you "order" the doctor to do something that he knows can not work, it's no wonder that the circumstances in your deleted post arose. Since the body needs calcium, anything which chelates it is toxic.

"Like dangerous as per the definition of dangerous." So, like coal mining then? Of, perhaps the construction industry? Many industries have problems that are similar to the "continuing problems with Fukushima." Most of those don't have threads dedicated to them, unlike "continuing problems with Fukushima." but it's not easy to see why they are viewed as bogeymen- unlike the "continuing problems with Fukushima."

No, I'm not making an appeal to popularity, I'm pointing out that courts don't need absolute proof.The definition of reasonable is well documented and is, I grant you, essentially one of vox pop. It is , as you say, a poor standard of proof. The point remains that the God squad still can't prove the existence of God beyond reasonable doubt. And it remains true that, since they can't manager a lower bar, they are not going to meet the gold standard. That the same can be said of the dragon (or, indeed, the lack-of-God or lack-of-dragon) is the point here. The two stories are equally poorly proven, and are in (at least) that sense, equivalent.

As has been stated, we are not talking about mathematical proof of God. Perhaps we should be prepared to accept the lower standard of proof used in court. Is there proof of God "beyond reasonable doubt"? Clearly the answer is no, because there are lots of reasonable people who strongly doubt there's a God. Since the believes can't even manage this lesser standard, they clearly won't be able to reach the "gold standard" of a mathematical or scientific proof. Nor will the dragon fans. From that point of view, the undemonstrable God is equivalent to the undemonstrable dragon.

Whether you like it or not, they are related. However you said "But for me it's this apparent philosophy of: justify nuclear by find something that you feel is worse." and nobody is doing that. I'm not justifying nuclear power because coal is worse, I'm justifying nuclear power because we need to get energy from somewhere. I'm comparing it to nuclear power because I want you to see that nuclear power isn't the bogeyman you claimed to think it was when you said "I'm of the view that nuclear power is the most dangerous method of power generation" .

I can't think of any reason why EDTA would affect this stuff http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latrotoxin however EDTA is poisonous . Take the bites to a doctor.

OK, this is what you said "But for me it's this apparent philosophy of: justify nuclear by find something that you feel is worse. I'm sorry, but that's no justification for anything. But rather a policy of descent to chaos if applied generally." Nobody was seeking to do that. Nobody sought to justify nuclear power by "finding" something worse. As I already pointed out, nobody "found" the coal industry- it's there already , and killing lots of people. I did two things. I sought to put some context to the people killed by nuclear power by showing that it is much fewer than get killed by things that don't cause the same sort of reaction and I'm pointing out that, given that we need power from somewhere, if we were to choose nuclear power over coal we would end up with fewer deaths. What you talked about might be a descent into chaos- but nobody has advocated it. however the alternatives to nuclear power are thin on the ground and you have to weigh up the problems with all of them. Once you look at gross death toll, nuclear power stops looking like a bogeyman.

Since nobody seems able to agree whether we should use pi or 2pi (or, if you prefer, tau or half tau), I propose as a compromise we use the symbol Ѯ to represent 1.5 pi. It's part of the early cyrillic alphabet and annoyingly difficult to write. I would have suggested this but that would be silly because the noodles are not round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biangbiang_noodles

It is not sufficient to show an error in just one sentence of a page in order to write it off as bullshit. Even less so when that error doesn't materially affect the outcome. If you made the (let's say, "dubious") claim that Fukushima has killed as many people than all other nuclear power combined then you raise the death toll per TW Hr from .04 to .08 compared to about 100 for coal. So, your comment (while valid per se) doesn't actually change things. You still need to point out factual errors in the report. BTW,re" Lord help us if the Chinese start building nukes the way they dig coal." They do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_China and it worries me. However the fact that China can't behave itself is not an argument against nuclear power in Japan or anywhere else but China. Delbert, replacing something by something demonstrably less harmful is not "descent into chaos"

The attachment seems to have been lost.

I think Swansont has explained the cooling issue. If we could move the stuff about freely there would be no problem keeping it cool. However we have to keep it cool, predominantly because we don't want it to catch fire or react with water to generate hydrogen. Again, that's a consequence of the design. In any event, the heat flux calculation is correct. If you have 10 tonnes of stuff that dense... If it's dispersed in a bigger building then that's more surface area to radiate from and the surface temperature would be lower. The temperature within would depend on the thermal conductivity of the material. Perhaps you would like to do the calculation? Incompetent government by the Chinese has little to do with the problems in Japan. You keep complaining that, when I draw analogies to other places, I'm adding stuff that's "irrelevant". Well, now you seem to have understood why it is relevant. And, of course re. "links to bullshit." Either prove that or stop repeating it.

Have the zeeman splittings from those magnetic fields been observed? If not, why not?

Logically, all the anti darwinian ddos attacks would have died out with the first anti malware package. They couldn't accept that they needed to change in response to a new environment.

Would someone like to check these numbers? OK, call it 10 tonnes. That means we would have to dissipate 100KW. As a worst case (i.e. the smallest surface area to lose heat from) lets say it's as dense as uranium and it's spherical. 10 tonnes at a density of about 20 means half a cubic metre. For a sphere that's a radius of 4/3 pi R ^3 is 0.5 about 0.5 metres. OK, and the area is 4 pi r ^2 about 3 square metres. 33Kw/ metre square this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law lets us calculate the surface temperature it needs in order to radiate away that hest T^4 *5.67 E-8 =33000 I get T=873K above ambient 850C Fairly bright red heat, but a steel can would handle it. That's making some pretty pessimistic suggestions about the material's density and configuration. Passive cooling should be OK after a year or so- if you could let it radiate away directly into space which might be a problem. But cooling it isn't a huge problem.

Congratulations on spotting that it doesn't make sense. Now, if you could just notice that the same is true if you put the word God, instead of the dragon we would be making real progress. Because the dragon is made up we can assign any properties to it that we like. The same is true of God. But if God's properties are arbitrary then He can't be real.

One is a made up fanciful construction- and the other is a dragon. They are not different ideas. Also, while you might not think you are trying to convince me that He exists, His existence is a prerequisite of His meaningfully having properties.

If God could create an invisible cor- pooping dragon then it's every bit as possible as God. On the other hand, "God: A mind that is not part of the physical universe." Not part of the universe- so, not actually real then? Seems legit. "Moral in nature" Not according to any of the accounts I have read. Anyway, the point remains that both God and the dragon are extraordinary and so, to convince me of the existence of either you would need exceptional evidence. Can you cite evidence for God that is so robust that comparable evidence for the dragon would convince you that the dragon is real? If not, do you see the problem? There's no more reason to believe in one than there is to believe in the other.

"Can you please place this comparison business in the trash can." No, because mankind has to make the decisions and, if those decisions are to have any hope of being sensible, those decisions need to be made on the basis of comparisons of the alternatives. It's not a matter of "find something that you feel is worse." because the nuclear industry didn't '"find" the coal industry. Coal was happily going along killing people, then along came nuclear which kills (according to that page I posted earlier ,which you have all been unable to find any serious errors in) roughly a thousand times less (per TW hr). Yet there's no thread here discussing "Continuing problems with coal" and, as far as I can see, the difference is simply bias. If those figures are right- or even close to right- then replacing coal by nuclear energy would drop the death toll enormously and yet, somehow, you want to label that as " a policy of descent to chaos ". Why is fewer dead people "descent"? Dead people are just as dead if they are Chinese coal miners or Russian fire-fighters. Why are you apparently a thousand times less bothered by them?

I keep posting it because it's still important. If you replaced nuclear power with coal (and, in the short term, that's the only proven viable alternative) then you would end up with more dead people. Do you really want to do that? It's also relevant because it puts the harm done by Fukushima into context- yes it's bad but so are road deaths and I don't see a thread titled "Continuing problems on every road in the world". So, once again,Perhaps you would like to point out the factual errors in this analysis Apart from anything else, you are using this as your "justification" for your libellous statement that I "don't care about the death toll from Chernobyl" Your logic is faulty anyway, but it relies on the assertion that I have posted a "link to wingnut crap" so you ought to be able to show that it's crap. Incidentally I don't work for the nuclear industry or any of it's subsidiaries so its just silly to call me "an apologist for nuclear power".