John Cuthber

OK, that looks like a fair point. Pick a Reynolds number and answer the question. Apply your theory and see how well it matches these measured drag coefficients:

Since it lack vowels, you can't write "bollocks" with the Hebrew abjad. That, in itself is proof that it's not a perfect script or language. ”if nature and the universe do not follow the will of God then such a God is not God”. OK, since bad things happen there is no God or He's a nasty piece of work: take your pick. Also, if you look at the way your computer works you will find that the alphabets (and the pictures etc) are often produced from these mathematical objects. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C3%A9zier_curve The "magic" spirals of yours don't get a look in.

Indeed, perhaps it's just me being thick, but when those rebels include religious extremists with access to sarin, I'm genuinely not sure we should be supporting them. Their links to Al Quaeda are not strong, but it's difficult to ignore them.,

It wouldn't have known it was in a cloud. It was just doing what it always did.

That God exists. That objective morality exists and has its source in God. That love has objective reality and has its source in God. That God is the reason the universe exists. Nope, there's no evidence for God and Occam's razor rules Him out. Morallity (as has been pointed out) has nothing to do with God- who seems to be an utter shit, but it has a lot to do with self interest for a member of a social species. It is exhibited by animals who don't seem to have much religion. Love is biological- many, if not most complex animals need to learn from their parents. That requires that the parents )or, at least one parent) hangs round long enough to do so. No need for God there and also God's idea of love- wiping out practically the whole species, condemning those who don't worship Him to eternal torture etc- is so warped as to be unrecognisable as love in any normal sense of the word. And the Creation doesn't need a God either and there's no evidence for Him so that's not scientific either. so, sorry zero out of 4 there. Would you like to try again? Incidentally, what I meant by "the religious view" on creation is exactly the one you put forward- God made everything. Odd as you may think, that is pretty much "that single homogeneous religious viewpoint on creation that all religious people hold regardless of their religion? " Had you not noticed?

LOL The British ca. 1775 Anyway, I still want to know who these possible missiles might be targeted at. Both sides have access to sarin and both sides are "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" so it's difficult to work out which side was responsible- especially since both groups would probably have had the sense to use it in a way that implicated their opponents. You could, I guess, hope to find where the stuff is stockpiled and target that- but such action would almost certainly release some of the material which would leave the missile launcher open to accusations of having deliberately released poison gas in someone else's country. If you used enough fire-power to ensure the destruction of any sarin, then the collateral damage would be a PR disaster. What purpose could missiles actually serve, especially against a regimen that's happy see its own citizens killed?

That chart seems to miss out the stage the precedes the Hebrew. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenician_alphabet and the one that precedes Phoenician http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Sinaitic and so on So, it seems that Hebrew is derivative and as such can't be thought of as anything special- it was just one of a series of alphabets (Abjads if anyone's getting technical).

Well, it depends on your definition of religion. Most would say that it involves the supernatural so "almost supernatural" pretty much rules it out. ​Also there would be evidence for these aliens and most religion is based on faith- pretty much by definition so. as I see it, no, that's not a religion.

Of course nobody here would be stupid enough to do that (any more) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monkey_hanger

If you boil it. Boric acid is a very weak acid but the reaction can be driven towards the production of CO2 by removing the gas as it's formed. Why do you ask?

Nobody else ever will unless you can explain why you think that and also explain away hundreds of years of experimental evidence (and, let's face it, you won't - not least because you can't be bothered to do the basic study) Bringing in friction illustrates my point about the Zimbabwe dollar: It's important in its place, but not relevant here. You really need to learn more before you seek to criticise.

No, It rather suggests that you don't understand what you are talking about. It's a bit like saying "I heard on the radio this morning that there are 1.5 dollars to the pound. Does that mean I can sell 150 Zimbabwe dollars for £100?" The answer is no: you are talking about different things. The US dollar exchange rate doesn't apply to the Zim dollar. Now, as you have been asked before: "Can you just write newtons third law as you understand it in your next post, please so we are all on the same page. "

If you are going to adjust the pH of the material later then it won't matter much if you start with the di sodium or tetra sodium salt.

I think you need to read about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_addition as well as this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_standard

Your post doesn't make sense so there's no point in bumping it. You would do better if you explained what you thought 1K meant.

I saw this and wondered how valid it is http://dcclothesline.com/2013/09/04/is-the-united-states-going-to-go-to-war-with-syria-over-a-natural-gas-pipeline/

Yes I did. "And I suggest justifying something by identifying something worse is also not scientific." True, so it's fortunate that I didn't do that. I pointed out that something worse- Sellafield- has a 40 year history of not causing a measurable problem so something less bad- Fukushima- is unlikely to cause a problem. It really would be better if you looked at what I said. Re "You can only try to argue against harm from Fukushima by invoking the planetwide weathering of rocks once," It's just as well that I didn't then isn't it. I said "Weathering of rocks containing potassium is putting more radioactive material into the sea than the nuclear plant." which is perfectly true. The biological damage produced by equal activities of potassium and caesium is comparable so the threat from the two is also comparable. Can you refute that? The point of making the comparison is (as with most of the points I have made) to indicate the magnitude of the problem on a global scale. Other facts you may wish to consider include The bioaccumulation factors for potassium are about the same as those for Cs. You might like to explain the other paper about uranium in coal- it has numbers. (presumably the AAAS was also "lying" as you put it- or providing data as it's more commonly known.)

So stop there, and record the fact that you don't have the central and most significant data you need to continue your argument - it's all bullshit from now on. That's me being complained at for not checking the currents off Japan. Here's where you say you didn't "I didn't." and here's where you accuse me of dishonesty. "A phrase I have now repeated several times, as the continually necessary response to your habit of posting falsehoods like that in this discussion. Maybe if you actually quoted me, you would make "mistakes" like that less frequently"

Before you make detailed plans you should check if the paper is A4 or 11 by 8.5 They are not the same.

"You out yourself: that is one of the more famous and well-analyzed items of wingnut propaganda to have appeared in the nuclear power debates in the US." Glad you liked it. I hoped it would persuade you to actually provide some numbers (by way of refutation) you didn't, which is slightly disappointing though no shock. You may also like this http://www.sciencemag.org/content/202/4372/1045.short "You are consistently refusing to address Fukushima or its continuing problems - why is that?" In a very real sense (i.e. not at all: that's irony and so is the first line of what I said earlier) "Of course, none of the detracts from the fact that building a nuclear reactor in an earthquake zone is a really great idea. But I'd be interested to hear what options you think Japan had. Also, the design should have taken more account of the likely problems that design shouldn't have been built, but it's easy to say that with hindsight. It's been said that there is evidence of deliberate "cutting corners" in the design and build, and that should be investigated. If it's true then those responsible should be held to account and (in my opinion) jailed. But what really doesn't help anything is to run round saying that a little more Cs and Sr in the sea is a disaster. It's a drop in the ocean. Labelling it as anything else just distract people from the job of making sure it doesn't happen again." BTW, rather than complaining that I hadn't checked out the speed of the current off Japan, perhaps you should have found out what it is. It's pretty much the same as the Gulf stream (I thought it would be, they are similar sizes and driven by pretty much the same mechanism). http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081124083138AAISD8o It's about half as fast so the material would have had time to go a little more than the whole way round the world by now. The assumption of good mixing isn't bad and, remember, if I'm out by a few orders of magnitude, the original comparison was 0.5 TBq vs 100000TBq. http://xkcd.com/radiation/

Because it's based on data. No, it's your turn to stop. You berate me for not supplying this item of data, but you have provided exactly none. By your own argument you should stop. Incidentally, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Religious views on what? The creation? Well, no, not really. The religious view doesn't tally with the evidence so a scientist would have to reject it. How about evolution? Nope, same problem. Abiogenesis? Nope, still a non starter. Same sex marriage? Well, I guess it depends but same sex courtship is observed occasionally in other species, and there's no evidence for actual harm from allowing it.On the other hand, there's ample evidence for harm for oppressing people so, once again, the evidence doesn't agree with (the commonly held) religious view so it looks like no again. Perhaps you'd like to tell us what a scientist might have a religious view about (If it conflicts with the evidence, it's ruled out)

What those people have in common is a lack of understanding of radiometric dating. They say things like "What about radioactive variability? It shouldn't always get the right answer anymore than being able to predict which side a coin will land on." If they learned more they would realise that the objections don't ring true.

"You can't by presumption use a couple of isotopes as proxies for the rest of the problem. " I'm not doing it by "presumption", I'm doing it because those two isotopes are often used as markers of contamination - not least because one of them is a serious radiotoxicological hazard. "Given those assumptions, the only remaining difficulty would be that the thread is about Fukushima,...>" In know, dreadful isn't it.science has this weird habit of assuming that if something happens in one set of conditions then something similar will happen in a similar set of conditions? If you went out in the rain yesterday in Ireland, and got wet, would it be reasonable - at least as a starting point- to assume that if you went out in the rain tomorrow in Japan, you would also get wet? I can't tell you about 40 years of history of the leak at Fukushima- because it hasn't been there for 40 years, but I can tell you about a bigger leak that has been. Are you saying it's unreasonable to extrapolate? If so perhaps you should explain to Delbert who think's it's just fine to extrapolate to the risks experienced by the clean up team in Chernobyl. Odd as it may seem, I didn't say the studies were perfect. However, the obvious fact is that if there were a lot of deaths people would notice. No such effect was noticed. Do you have any actual evidence to the contrary? " You can't deal with the exposure and medical or ecological effects from Fukushima by averaging over the Sea of Japan," The initial quake happened a couple of years ago, so the leak is happening over that sort of timescale. I can't find data for the coast of Japan (incidentally, isn't the "sea of Japan" on the other side), but the gulf stream averages about 4 miles an hour In two years it would go three times round the world. So, it is actually reasonable to assume that the pollution is fairly well mixed over that sort of time-scale. You just assumed it wasn't. "You can't assume "dilution" on that scale." Nonsense, that's the one thing you can assume- it sure won't have been concentrated: it will have undergone dilution, otherwise it won't have got to that scale. Seriously, I'm saying that the sea is big compared to 300 tons of water, and you are saying that's an "assumption" And so forth. That's not ignorance, it's nonsense - incomprehension of the information you have

Odd, you have quoted me saying "It rather depends on whether the "worse" thing is the alternative." but not read or understood it. Nor did you look at the next line (which , btw makes it look like you are "cherry picking") It's well documented that coal fired electricity dumps more radioactive material into the environment than the nuclear power industry does. Smoking isn't an alternative to nuclear power. On the other hand, coal power is. So, given the two alternatives, it seems odd that you despise the one that dumps less nuclear material into the environment. You are not seeking to compare apples with oranges you are comparing apples with dry-stone-walling. Drinking and smoking have practically nothing to do with this and introducing them makes you look silly. Why is it that you consider it reasonable to compare water borne radioactivity flushed out to sea with that inhaled by people in Chernobyl, but you don't accept that it's valid to compare it with other radioactivity, also flushed into the sea? Is it because one of them agrees with your world view and the other doesn't? Do you worry that your world view includes things like insoluble caesium compounds and is, accordingly, untrustworthy? (And, did you think I was going to forget about that?) We know what doses the heroic clean up team in Chernobyl experienced and we know what it did to them. And we know that the doses from the water leaking from Fukushima are vastly lower. Why do you want to pretend that they are the same? Re "Again, those who like nuclear power should feel free to volunteer to help with the clear-up, if not being there and helping out at the beginning during the initial loss of control (even if it's only to make the coffee). If they wouldn't be prepared to do such, then as far as I'm concerned their argument falls. " So, I take it you get involved in mine rescues. Or are you being a hipocrite? And this "I'm sorry, figures or no figures, I think I'm expressing a valid viewpoint. " is very close to being an argument from ignorance. It is a viewpoint, It's possibly valid per se, But it's sure as hell not a scientifically valid one and this site isn't called "guessworkandbiasforums" So, I suggest that you come back with some evidence.