John Cuthber

But no net work is done. It was once, when the earth was young. What are you saying provides that potential energy?

By the way, I forgot to point out that if "your first hint of an intruder could very be the blow of a ball bat." then a gun is just something else valuable for them to steal. The top floor of my house is toroidal. and getting past someone isn't a major problem if you have just staved the back of his head in.

Yes and no, he's delusional anyway. OK, I'm making a lot of assumptions there, the principle one is that he thinks God exists.

"So how do you explain what happened in Tokyo where there was a catastrophe because the walls melted and leaked radioactive material into the atmosphere?" Well, there was this earthquake... "Yes, neutron moderators can be in any form, they typically use water don't they? But what happens if the walls melt and the gaseous moderator leaves? No moderator anymore." And, without the moderator the reaction will shut down. Fast neutrons don't produce a lot of fission. "I think uranium has a half life of something like at least a few million years." I think you need a few more noughts. "And on top of that, the heat would lead back to it becoming critical" No it won't, the heat will cause it to expand thus increasing the surface area for neutrons to be lost from and stopping the reaction. "maybe just put it in a rocket" Maybe not. For a start launching something into space costs about its weight in gold. Also http://www.ov-10bronco.net/users/merlin/flight/kaboom.htm You really need to understand the difference between moderators and absorbers (or you need to stop posting about them)

I prefer Pepsi.

My security system cost less than some guns do. A dog would, for most people, be a much more sensible option. Do you agree that the only (realistic) way to get rid of the guns is to convince people that they shouldn't want a gun in their house?

" how many bottles of coca cola you and your classmates need to buy ?" I need to buy 28 bottles. How much I pay for them is another question. There is no such thing as a free lunch.

If someone believes in an all powerful God and yet they know that an all powerful God is a logical contradiction then they believe in something which they know (or should know) to be impossible. That's not rational. The fact that it's logically impossible should count as evidence against it. They may have been the nutters, but the point is that they would have been spotted even though they wouldn't "have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought." The evidence has changed in the meantime, so the group who are "on the wrong side of the evidence" has changed,but the idea of "delusional" is pretty much the same.

Sambridge. With a well designed reactor, overheating it (within limits) will make it less likely to go critical. Heating it will stop the reaction. In fact, that's what stops teh reaction in a nuclear bomb. It heats up, expands and becomes non-critical again. Incidentally, moderators can be solids liquids or gases, melting doesn't change the capture cros section of the nucleus.

"Even under more common use, in order to consider someone delusional it would at least require them to have examined the foundations of their belief and evidence to the contrary, with a mind sufficiently well trained in theology, science, and critical thought." OK, two thousand years ago few people would have met those criteria, yet I'm sure that the locals spotted the "nutters" then.

For a start, you can make it a lot better by putting a cage over it to trap the flying glass if it breaks.

It would make you the victim of child abuse, but that's another story. The evidence is in the scriptures. They are claimed to be divinely inspired by a perfect God, yet they contradict themselves. There'a re also the "Can God set Himself a task..." issues that show that the scriptures are logically impossible. To believe in something that contradicts itself isn't going to win prizes for rational thought.

"John it is so easy to stand off at a distance and make these assertions but how do you take away all the guns?" Well, first, we stop lying about them. I have a few friends who have pet rats. The law in this country lets you keep rats if you want to, but most people don't want them. People pay to get rid of them. That's because rats are generally seen as disease spreading smelly vermin. Once you explain to people that the guns they have been keeping as pets are liars which claim to make you safer, but are more likely to kill your family than an intruder then perhaps the tide will change. It won't change while people are saying things like they are less harmful than cleaning products or comparing them to cars. It won't happen while people still think it's reasonable to ask " How Exactly does me owning a gun represent a threat to you personally?" without realising that the answers are obvious;someone can steal it and shoot me or you might go dolally and shoot me or whatever. it won't happen while someone who carries a gun professionally says ". I don't use fists because I would go to jail. Fists cause maiming and death." without noticing that the same is true of guns. It certainly won't happen while the facts are ignored by people saying "Where are you getting this nonsense that they are more likely to kill a family member than “good things”? What is needed is a program of education and, at the moment, the NRA and those like them are winning the propaganda battle. As for "you are at the mercy of any intruder that comes into your home." No Here's what would happen. The intruder breaks in and trips the "silent" alarm in my room which wakes me up. There are passive IR sensors on every room on the ground floor and contact switches on teh windows. I pick up the remote control and leave the bedroom via the back door (there are two doors to my room) If he's planning to attack me then he has to come up stairs. When he gets to the top the lights go on in the room to his left. He pulls his gun and turns towards that room. He gets hit on the back of the head with a rock- I left that room, picked up a rock (I'm a rock collector) walked round behind him and turned the light on with the remote as he got to the top of the stairs. I'm barefoot, walking on carpet and my eyes are used to the dark. He never knows what hit him. Because he has a gun there's no question of my having acted in legitimate self defence even if he dies He thought the gun made him invincible.

"It seems like what this argument really comes down to is a difference in opinion on what an acceptable risk is. I'm willing to accept the risks that come with gun ownership, and you're not. So don't buy a gun. " Your summing up there is childish since it ignores the real problem. I'm not prepared to accept the risk from you owning a gun- why should I? I don't accept the risk from you getting drunk and driving (and nor does society, though they used to)., Why should I accept the risk from you having a gun, particularly since you have already shown that you don't understand the risk- you think it's less than the risk from cleaning products. "Still doesn't change the fact that the average home contains items that can be just as dangerous to children. (cleaning products, knives, mains electricity, ect) Nobody said it did. What you seem to persist in ignoring is that the likelihood is that cleaning products and knives are going to be used for good things, but a gun is more likely to kill a family member. And my point was quite simple I was pointing out that what you said was utterly wrong, and, as such, counts as the misinformation that you said was the root cause of the problem. "The flaw in your speculation is that people get into fist fights and gun fights for different reason." Possibly, or perhaps they git into a fight and it escalates. If neither has a weapon, then it can't escalate into a gunfight can it? Are you seeking to pretend that nobody ever picks up a gun in the heat of the moment? Perhaps you can show the evidence about what sort of fight people get into (and, I remind you that I was talking about " people who are deliberately killed in a "heat of the moment" fight where, if guns weren't present, there would be a fist fight") "because somebody got into a first fight and lived doesn't mean that if they had been armed it would have turned into a gun fight and people would be dead." Nobody said that it would. The point is that you are looking from the wrong end. When people are shot in a fight it's safe to say that, if there had been no guns they wouldn't have been shot. They might have been killed in a fist fight, but that's a lot more hard work and so it's much less probable (or we are back to the question of why carry a gun if fists are just as lethal- which, by the way, you didn't answer)

" Acute infectionHepatitis C infection causes acute symptoms in 15% of cases.[5] Symptoms are generally mild and vague, including a decreased appetite, fatigue, nausea, muscle or joint pains, and weight loss.[6] Most cases of acute infection are not associated with jaundice.[7] The infection resolves spontaneously in 10-50% of cases, which occurs more frequently in individuals who are young and female" from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_C Assuming that the disappearance of the infection is due to the silver is a logical fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc However it is known that the colloidal silver is toxic. The mechanisms by which silver is microbicidal are not well targeted towards viruses.

Not my field but... How much "space" is there in the cells? How much in the extracellular compartment? "But crystalloids should also then be considered plasma expanders because add the end, they also increase the fluid even if it is not as great as colloids." Yes, but what happens next?

Yes, they believe in a God in spite of the lack of evidence for one. If, rather than God, they claimed the the tooth fairy was real would you think that behaviour was delusional?

You should move to revolutionary France. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Republican_Calendar Or, perhaps we should learn what happens if you have two sets of units in use at the same time. http://articles.cnn.com/1999-09-30/tech/9909_30_mars.metric_1_mars-orbiter-climate-orbiter-spacecraft-team?_s=PM:TECH

Oh look suddenly a word has slipped in you now say " But not all homes keep dangerous cleaning products either." but previously you were talking about " So do cleaning products, which are statistically probably more dangerous." Were you hoping I'd not notice that change? Suddenly you have tried to change what it was that you said. Since you have moved the goalposts to talk about "dangerous" things, does that mean that you accept that the vast majority are not dangerous? Do you accept that such a view would mean that you are admitting that your original point " So do cleaning products, which are statistically probably more dangerous." was not actually true? Whatever, let's look at what else you have said. "Most drain cleaners are concentrated sodium hydroxide or other extremely caustic solutions. So are oven cleaners." (fair enough) " I don't keep them in the house. If I need drain cleaner I use it then dispose of it immediately after." A very sensible precaution. Now, all we need to do is get people to apply exactly the same logic to guns. People practically never need one and they are very dangerous, so perhaps you shouldn't keep them in the house. "But your argument is mostly speculation. People still kill each other with fists in the heat of the moment." I'm "speculating" the the death rate in fist fights is lower than that in gun fights. If you don't believe that, what would you carry a gun for- shouldn't you just use your fists? You see, it's not really speculative, it's common sense. "You also said yourself that criminals mostly kill each other so there's no need for one for self defense. Which is it? Either only criminals kill each other and they aren't useful for self defense, or the world really is a dangerous place and they are useful" I'm not a criminal so I'm largely immune to most of the gun fights in the UK. The criminals don't like it when innocents get caught in the crossfire because then the police put a hell of a lot more effort into tracking the killers. They also don't want to waste bullets which are relatively difficult to get. So, it's a false dichotomy. From my point of view, crooks kill eachother (but not me) and so the world is not that dangerous a place so guns are of little use to me (though they would pose a clear threat to my family). OK, you don't live here but, even in the states I gather that a lot of petty thieves etc. don't carry guns because, if they do, and they get caught the penalties are much higher. So, unless you are a criminal (or, I guess have other reasons to go where they are holding their gang fights) the world isn't that dangerous a place. OK, that's a problem for the people who are stuck with living in those areas. One thing we agree one is that the problem isn't easy.

1 False dichotomy. 2 "All of the practical ways to knock somebody out also have an unfortunate side affect called death." No, that's the ways to kill someone, rather than the ways to knock them out. the point is that the attacker only has to incapacitate ( just punched + knocked down would do) rather than kill so you are more likely to get killed than me. 3 Look up the word "if" "But making this personal is mostly irrelevant. I carry a duty weapon. No amount of legislation will have any affect on it." OK, I always said that the police and army would need guns so that's not really part of the argument. Nope, it's perfectly fair. Guns kill people all over the place: bleach doesn't. You are the one who chose the comparison. There's also the statistical exposure. Essentially all children are at risk from cleaning products in the home, yet few are killed by them. Relatively few children are exposed to guns, yet more are killed by them. You keep trying to ignore people who are deliberately killed in a "heat of the moment" fight where, if guns weren't present, there would be a fist fight and people would probably live but, because guns are available it becomes a shooting and people die. Excluding them makes your argument look better but, unfortunately, it doesn't stop a lot of people dying. So the thing to count isn't just "negligent discharge" deaths but probably a lot of domestic killings. "Man beats wife" is bad but "Man shoots wife" is a lot worse. The deaths from car accidents, fires or whatever are, of course, a red herring. They constitute "misinformation" even if they are accurate. Then, as we already know, about 90% of the "accidental poisonings" are due to drugs (legal or otherwise) and most of the deaths are adults so you have inflated the deaths of young children from cleaning products from the real counted data of (certainly no more, and probably much less) than 26 up to 33,000 And you have ignored the deaths that happen because they were deliberate. Something like 10,000 Americans are deliberately shot dead each year. It is difficult to estimate how many of them died in domestic fights where a gun was used in the heat of the moment but it's absurd to ignore them.

Counter theory At constant volume nothing moves up or down. No work is done (because the forces don't move through any distances). Since no work is done there is no energy release. Because there is no energy transfer, the temperature remains constant. On the other hand, if radioactive decay causes heat to be released within the earth then it can produce convection currents. It's the heat that generates the movement, not the other way round.

1 Practically nobody ever does. 2 So, if someone wants to attack you they know that they need to shoot to kill, but if the wan to attack me they know they only have to knock me out. 3 Lots of people are actually shot in petty fights.The fact that you discount that suggests that you don't understand how likely it is that your guns will kill someone that you would rather not kill. Even if you are God's gift to responsibility, most people are not. 4 from http://www.alegentcreighton.com/body.cfm?id=1478 The American Association of Poison Control Centers reports that in 1994 over one million children under the age of 5 were potentially exposed to poisonous substances. In that same year there were 26 children under the age of 5 who died because they accidentally swallowed medications and household substances. and from http://www.cdc.gov/homeandrecreationalsafety/poisoning/poisoning-factsheet.htm "In 2009, 28,754 (91 percent) of all unintentional poisoning deaths were caused by drugs." So it's reasonable to guess that about 2 or 3 kids are killed by cleaning products. compared to "Every day eight kids under 20-years-old die from gun violence in America. That's 56 kids a week, 340 kids a month and over 3,000 kids every year." Sorry, I couldn't find data for identical age groups but unless you are saying that after the age of 5 kids somehow start drinking bleach by the gallon, you are wrong by a factor of something like 10 or 100 In reality, cleaning products are not that dangerous. But that's not the point. Cleaning products do actually serve to protect people because there really are lots of food poisoning bacteria etc that are out to get us. But guns can only protect us from "bad people" and those are so rare that the overall effect of guns is to increase the risk of death.

But as it doesn't work (and there is no reason to think it does) then it is not evidence of Agni. In fact, it's weak evidence against. So, do you have any real evidence that it exists? And I remind you that the mods have already warned you about not providing a rational debate or evidence and stating opinion as fact.

We have such a warning system. It's called getting thirsty.

Not giving people guns isn't an option, but buy back schemes or licensing the sale of ammunition might be. The problem is that the likes of the NRA are saying that the solution is more guns. " Guns are necessary to assist us in killing people." How often do you need to do that? Is the gun you keep for that purpose more likely to achieve that goal or is it more likely to kill someone in an accident or a petty quarrel? Once people realise that having a gun in the house makes them and their kids less safe perhaps the problem will start to solve itself as people get rid of dangerous weapon that they seldom, if ever, actually need.