John Cuthber

I agree that we should take action, but it's a bit late to torture Bush into accepting that he was utterly and stupidly wrong.

I presume that you are a complete idiot and don't understand the nature of the article I posted. It's a literature review. A bunch of people who understand science and statistics look at a wide range of papers (all peer reviewed) and decide what the evidence shows (if anything). Then they write a (peer reviewed) report summarising the data . So, it's exactly what you asked for, yet you wrote it off as "nothing".

Surface tension will also tend to narrow it.

Guy trying to make a fast buck, commits fraud. Indirectly kills and injures people - mainly children- and only gets his career destroyed rather than getting jailed. I'm a chemist not a medic and, for the record the review I cited is peer reviewed scientific literature which is what you say you want, but you dismiss it as "nothing" without giving a reason. Are you trolling, or do you want to be taken seriously about this?

The bacteria are laughing at this thread.

OK, so the issue of children is complicated. I doubt many people would consider a 3 year old broken because they believe in Santa. On the other hand, how long is it reasonable to hold that belief before you should "grow out of it"? If you reach adulthood (by whatever definition) without learning that religion really isn't based on evidence and so you should question it rather than accepting it blindly, then I still think that's broken. If it was any other belief, for example, belief in leprechauns or belief that you were Napoleon, then it would be generally recognised as "broken". If this belief is because of your parents' behaviour then perhaps you are broken because they broke you. That's going to upset a lot of people.

Oh My God! It turns out that giving me more money makes kids in the US get autism. Seriously, I looked at the autism incidence (from that paper which you agreed not to distribute) and I plotted them against my salary over the years. There's a very strong positive correlation. In a related study I showed that children keep their brains in their feet. I came up with the original hypothesis after a heavy night out in the pub. In the morning I realised it was testable. If it were true that kids keep their brains in their feet then the ones with bigger feet would do better at things like spelling tests or tests of arithmetic. I asked the headmaster of the primary school I went to if he could collect data. The kids do lots of tests like that anyway so it was just a matter of asking them for their shoe sizes. Shockingly, it turns out that I was right. The kids with bigger feet did better in the tests. OK, so I'm joking- I didn't do the experiment, but I assure you that, if I had done that test I would have found a very strong correlation between shoe size and ability to spell. Older kids have bigger feet and do better at maths and English. The study you cited falls into the same trap- it ignores time (and anything correlated with it) as a confounding factor. I'm surprised it was published. It's notable that it's near 10 years old and that science has moved on- not least in that the guy who first suggested a link has been found to be a liar. Oh, and there's the fact that thiomersal is an ethyl mercury derivative, not a methyl mercury one. Methyl mercury compounds are noted for neurotoxicity, ethyl mercury ones are much less so. Some people may find these informative. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17168158

I believe it was Douglas Adams. (Slightly belated "happy towel day!") http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towel_Day

Once it's in the body there no way to distinguish whether the cocaine was snorted as the hydrochloride (or free base) or drunk in a liquid extract. The only difference is the dose. Less coke would have the same effect as the coca. More coca would have the same effect as the coke. At least with coke you an (in principle) be sure of the dose. You are also missing the fact that many people take coke occasionally- some took it under medical supervision in the past) and get by just fine. There are certainly massive problems with this drug - whichever form you take it- but you are missing the point if you think that extracting it from the rest of the plant makes any difference.

It's not that I'm trying to antagonise anyone. As far as I can tell this post contains some assertions, like "(I) had made valid counter points" and " you may be a little premature with the Mission Accomplished claim." but no actual evidence: no counter points (just a flat contradiction) and no citation of any examples. To me, that looks a lot like a demonstration of iNow's point "but some refuse to accept that despite their lack of valid counter points or refutations". It really isn't enough to say "I have made valid counter points": you need to say what they were- at least give us a citation, if not the actual points.

You didn't raise any counter points.

I think the assertion was "their lack of valid counter points" and you seem to have proved it.

My first thought is that the thermal expansion coefficients of copper and glass differ too much for you to be able to weld them unless the copper is very thin. It is possible Unfortunately, a glassworking lathe is probably more expensive than a decent still. Depending on what you wish to distil, you may find that copper plumbing fittings and pipe can do the job more easily than glass.

You can calculate the energies concerned (to arbitrary accuracy) and those calculations are often in the forms of sums of infinite series so the answers are quite likely to be irrational. Also, the length of a bit of string is (almost certainly) irrational. Say it's about 15 cm long. If I measure it with a ruler calibrated in cm I get an answer of 15 cm. If I use a finer ruler I might get 15.3cm. with a better measurement I get- say- 15.31. Each time I measure it more precisely, I get more places of decimals in the answer. Even allowing for the nature of atoms, I can keep on getting more and more places of decimals and so (at least down to the Plank length) the measurement isn't rational. I'm not certain what's meant to happen on a smaller scale than that but I suspect that you sometimes get 15. ...........01 cm and sometimes 15. ...........02 cm. The more often you repeat the measurement, the closer you get to the true value, but the series never stops getting longer.

I suspect that, once it warms up a bit it will act very much the same as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_paraffin_(medicinal) which makes it a rather bad idea.

There were plenty of groups of people in the world who, though they had never heard of Christianity, still had weddings. Pair bonding was, in all sensible probability, here before Christianity or Judaism. So the point is not so much that they think marriage is still religious, it's wrong of them to assume that it ever really was.

I think it's clear enough that anyone who doesn't understand the relationship between entropy and endothermic reactions does not understand thermodynamics and is, by that fact, unqualified to offer a meaningful opinion about entropy. On that basis, and also because the OP's refusal to discuss his ideas is a breach of rule 8, I suggest closing the thread.

"So at the size it would need to be to be dispersed on the wind, are you saying ground glass wouldn't affect the eyes or lungs any more than normal sand?" That's exactly what I'm saying. Both materials are hard and they both form fairly sharp edged broken bits. I realise this isn't quite the same thing http://www.snopes.com/horrors/poison/glass.asp but it does show that there's a lot of cobblers talked about powdered glass.

Yes, you can burn it.

" Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." So, Heaven is full of clean-living lesbians then. More importantly, to whom is the quote actually attributed? Who said "Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?"? Was it Christ, or one of his followers?

It's easy to spot Christians who try to fix religion. Ask Galileo.

You have missed two points. The first is that you can't get gravity to supply work in this way. You are wasting your time. The second is that you have said "I have come up with an idea that will change the world. But I'm not telling anything about it" and you don't realise that it is like me saying "I have made you a medal as a reward for your work. But I'm not telling you anything about it.

And my point was that ground glass is roughly as toxic as sand- ie not very. (Actually it's slightly less toxic) Incidentally, does the story tell you what sort of gas masks they wore while they ground the stuff (and, indeed, why their enemies didn't have that option)?

So the "Christian" objections to homosexuality are essentially the same as the objections to eating shellfish. It looks like there's a presidential precedent. http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2510&dat=20070703&id=hVU1AAAAIBAJ&sjid=gCUMAAAAIBAJ&pg=2953,1126787

There is no evidence that your invention does anything except warm up water slightly.