John Cuthber

Do you really think fire is just light? Do you not realise that, for example, fire spreads?

"How would a chemist pronounce that? " The triplet ground state of the oxygen molecule. "excited oxygen molecule (1O2)"" the excited singlet state of the oxygen molecule. ""an excited oxygen atom (O(1D))"." probably "an excited oxygen atom "

That's just silly for two reasons. Firstly, all (essentially) tinned food is cooked- otherwise it goes off in the tin. Secondly, there's no reason to think anyone is talking about salmon.

" Upon heating the solid to 146 °C, this material adopts the alpha-polymorph. In this form, the iodide ions form a rigid cubic framework"

You seem to have mistaken John 5742 (who is not advocating coerced gun control, but education) for the US government whom you believe to be in favour of coerced gun control (and whose policies have, predictably enough, increased sales of guns (much to the delight of the arms industry)). .

Or not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_ion_conductor

thiocyanate etanaycoiht

" I think we can forget the point on whether any more gas (meaning O2) is generated via iron bacteria as I do not feel it alone is the answer," Stop ignoring reality. We can forget it because it simply never happens. It's not that it isn't part of the answer; it can't be any of the answer. " but would explain, on testing the gas mixture, any increased in the amount of oxygen." Or the relatively high solubility of oxygen in water (compared to nitrogen) might explain it . This has the advantage that it's known to happen and doesn't require fairy tale bacterial production. "please explain why typing the following into google "reduce nitrates in drinking water" returns so many US states issuing nitrate related public health material. Strange for a non-existing problem." Sure, there's no difficulty explaining that (did you think there might be?) Nitrites are toxic (potentially carcinogenic) at rather low levels so a few ppm is a real problem (not, as you put it a non-existent one) However a few ppm of nitrite won't generate more than a few ppm of nitrogen oxides and, at that level they are soluble in water so they don't blow the tank up. I already explained that. Why didn't you believe me?

So, it is a "thin end of the wedge" argument then.

Fire is still a process- like building or cooking or metalwork.

Fire is a process by which fuel is oxidised and gives out heat. Electricity is a phenomenon where a variety of effects are brought about by the movement of electrons. Neither is a form of matter, so states of matter don't apply.

I only know of one case where two different compounds from plants were used synergistically in traditional medicine and that was a hallucinogen so it's probably not going to get FDA approval. So, where is this " ample evidence" that shows " it is most likely the result of the specific combination of chemicals (not one or two)"? Is it real, or is it wishful thinking? There have been a good number of cases of plant extracts being used as the basis for drugs. Artemisinin is one of the better known recent ones. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artemisinin But where have they ever found that they needed two (or more) compounds simultaneously from the same plant?

OK, you may have a point. I see that the NRA have got a valid education programme. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddie_Eagle Which teaches people to " Stop — to take time to remember the rest of the instructions. Don't touch — A firearm that is not touched or acted upon by an outside force is highly unlikely to fire, or endanger a person. Leave the area — By leaving the area the child removes himself/herself from temptation, as well as from the danger that another person might pick up the gun and negligently cause it to fire. Tell an adult — An adult, if not personally trained in handling firearms, should know enough to seek professional assistance." Now, all they need to do is realise that the same logic holds for adults as for children. Guns should be left to the professionals. In the meantime you say "It's a description of a real life political situation, one familiar to many US gun owners" and "you will end up using coercion to take guns from people who want to keep them." Yet that coercion isn't apparently familiar to gun owners- because they still have their guns.

It seems to rhyme with "luxury yacht" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyQvjKqXA0Y

This "you will end up using coercion to take guns from people who want to keep them." already happened? They already took away your guns? Really? Well, more sort of no. So If you begin by asserting that something has happened when it hasn't really that "is some kind of error in logic, you indict your own reasoning and undermine your own credibility." And I'd still like to see the evidence for this "the targets of the education are better informed in most relevant ways than the agenda promoters" Are they really better informed of the cost of gun ownership than the families of the victims?

" I have a well-informed and long experienced way of knowing what his agenda implies in the way of law and political event, regardless of what he thinks would happen. " Sounds like the "thin end of the wedge" logical fallacy to me. "Uh, dude, that would have been and be the same people, normally, all along" That's true but unimportant. Teachers were once pupils. The difference is the understanding and knowledge that they acquire in between. So. in the same way that teachers go to college and learn stuff that they pass on to pupils, those who get their kids shot learn what the rue cost of gun ownership is and, having received that information, are best placed to educate others. "And talk about "outdated" Constitutional rights is not forgotten by those you wish to reassure you only mean to "educate"." How many amendments is the constitution up to now? That evidence shows the original to be outdated.

Photons can coexist with photons and a photon is its own antiparticle. That depends on a rather odd definition of "matter", but it answers the question.

It seems to have been a while since anyone said anything about the topic here.

So, you have some magical way of knowing what he means better than he does. That's nice. "The direction of "education", for starters, would normally proceed from the better informed (the families of the victims) to the less well informed (for example, those who think their right under an outdated constitution is more important than the lives of those who die pointlessly.)

I could get a copy at work, but it would be a breach of the copyright laws for me to provide it to you. However, if you are a student then your library should be able to get a copy.

This certainly isn't chemistry and I think it should be in speculations.

"My Google search for an estimate of how many people were harmed by meditation found nothing." It wouldn't. However I invite you to consider how much time is spent (in my view, at least largely, wasted) by these billions of people who meditate rather than do something truly beneficial. That loss of productivity is harm. Imagine that they chose to work in a soup kitchen instead. Then more people would be looked after. Those who were not looked after, because people were meditating, rather than helping in the kitchen, were harmed by meditation. Obviously, no search is going to find that but if your estimate is correct (and I guess it's close enough) then billions of hours of effort is being wasted. Isn't that shameful?

"The only one in use is iron perchloride, FeCl3" No it isn't. That's why I cited two of the others. http://www.maplin.co.uk/pcb-etch-powder-47464 Why say something that's clearly wrong? And, incidentally, the name "perchloride" is so out of date that it makes "ferric chloride" seem positively cutting edge.

Why have you posted the same question twice?

"Even if meditation works due to a placebo effect, it cannot harm a person as poorly tested medicine can (e.g., Thalidomide)." Nope, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nocebo "What is good science if you sample is undersized, due to the difficulty of collection?" Well, the question was raised in connection with people doing research on humans. Are humans rare? If not then the choice of a population that's too small to give valid repeatable data is a poor choice. But that choice is deliberate- it's part of the experimental design. You can design the experiment to give a valid outcome for a given level of effect and probability by choosing the right sample size. So, if someone does an experiment with too few participants to get a valid, repeatable outcome, then they are not doing science at all. And, if they decide to do such an"experiment" knowing that the outcome will be invalid because of things like self section or an inadequate sample size, then you have to question their motivation. Why are they setting up an experiment which they know will give a bogus result? Is it incompetence or dishonesty?