John Cuthber

The reason I asked, in case anyone was wondering, is that representatives of the USA have said that accepting chlorinated chicken will be a condition of any trade deal (They may, of course have been wrong). People who are happy to leave the EU keep saying "It's OK- it will be labelled so, if you don't want it, you don't have to have it." My best guess is that the USA will also insist on exporting its labelling laws to the UK (precisely because the chicken won't be traded if it's labelled)- so there will be no labels. (and once again, the Brexiteers will be shown to be talking through a hole in their hats).

I was obviously trying to get an answer which would be yes or no. You seem not to realise that I can google academic papers on the subject just as well as you can. What I was after was the "lived experience" of someone who lives in the US. The site lists you as being in the UK- so you are simply not qualified.

No offence intended, but neither of you is well placed to answer the question. I want to know if it is currently labeled when sold in the US. (whether in a supermarket or a takeaway or whatever)

Sorry to drag this up but I just wondered about something When sold, for human consumption in the US, is chlorinated chicken actually labeled as such?

The snapshot on Stringjunky's post isn't going to update. Follow the link I had a look at the numbers. A log / lin plot looks a lot like exponential growth.

I doubt that you are qualified to say who is sane.

"If the Universe started approximately 13.75 billion years ago as theorized by the 'Big Bang' and TIME itself only came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang, then surely this must be 'Universal Time'." No.

Asking for due process is not an abuse of power. It's also not a thing to do lightly- because, if you do it and the guy gets cleared, you risk looking foolish.

That reaction goes "the wrong way".

I'd like to think it matters here on this site where, as scientists, we understand evidence.

Avoiding any trial is, of course, a way to ensure that you avoid conviction, but that ship sailed. He's getting a trial (of sorts). It seems reasonable to me that his team want to avoid the facts being heard, because they show that he's guilty. In effect, their actions show that they know he did the wrong thing. Otherwise, they would want a chance for the evidence to prove he's innocent.

Why would you not want to be exonerated?

Is there a consensus here that deciding to have a trial with no witnesses is admitting that you don't want a fair trial, and that anyone who doesn't want a fair trial doesn't want a rational, fair, decent outcome? Is there also a consensus that , if you don't want a fair trial, it's because you are scared that the guy is guilty?

No.

That's going to depend on the circumstances. In particular, if they are liars, trolls, and / or ignorant.

You need a whole bunch of solutions (all dissolved in water) 25% Ferrous oxalate Concentrated ammonia (not specified, but probably 25% w/v or thereabouts. A saturated solution of oxalic acid. Unfortunately, ferrous oxalate isn't very soluble in water. So the first of those is impossible. So this is going nowhere.

No. C is "the speed of light in a vacuum". And so C is constant. But, in the real world, we can see that the answers are right here in this thread. You are just ignoring reality. How do we distinguish that from trolling?

No. Since c is a constant it can't change under the influence of a force so it wouldn't tell you if that force was there- that' idea is just silly. By that stupid argument, nobody notices anything new. Probably the best known example is the precession of Mercury. They noticed it many years before they knew what explanation to look for. Please stop putting forward stuff that can be destroyed with just a few moments' thought.

No. "You" is a noun. Misusing Words like "adverb" doesn't help. Plainly wrong because, as it happens, I didn't use force and a knife. I used a super-power laser. But I got the same answer. That's what people here are trying to explain to you. The answer is the same - regardless of the mechanism. The density of an apple is a little less than 1 gram per cm3 I can make use of that fact by comparing it to the density of water, and, since the density of water is 1, I can predict that the apple will float. But, because I'm clever enough not to insist on asking "how is the apple divided?", I can make the same prediction without actually dividing the apple at all. So, when I go apple bobbing, I'm not stuck with a bowl of apple soup. Yes it is. Simply because any such force would, by now, have been noticed.

If you want to be stupid about it, you can consider density in terms of physically splitting things. If I take an apple and dice it into 1cm cubes then the number of cubes I get is (approximately) the volume of the apple. And, I have similarly shared out all the mass of the apple among all those cubes. The density of the apple is the average mass of each cube. The question "what divides the apple?" is a bit meaningless, but as good an answer as any is "my imagination".

If the proximate cause is "the fog of war"- and I accept that's plausible, then the root cause is "some bastard started a war". There are essentially two suspects for that. Both are saying how wonderful it is.

The logic is that you can't say it's 50% without further data. It doesn't say much else. If a hunter mistakenly shoots a man because he thinks he's a bear, is it the bear's fault, the victim's fault or the man who didn't make sure before he pulled the trigger's fault? Let's be clear about this; before you do something that may kill a lot of innocent civilians, you should put a lot of care into verifying ID. If you don't have the data on which to make that decision, you don't shoot. Shooting "blind" is not acceptable.

Only with metals. With electrolytes and semiconductors, they generally conduct better when hot. However, you may be right in thinking that chemistry gets involved, heating cellulose- a poor conductor- converts it to charcoal- a much better conductor. Also, flames are quite good conductors compared to air

If 50% of aircraft with the wrong codes get shot down.