John Cuthber

Babies' bottles have been sterilised with dilute hypochlorite for just over 100 years without any problems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_sterilizing_fluid The hypochlorite isn't the problem. People cook chicken and that kills bacteria. The bacteria,are not the problem It's the shit. If you process the carcasses appropriately, you don't get them so badly contaminated that you have to bleach them (rather than just washing them). Chlorinated chicken is an excuse to literally sell shit to the consumer.

There are two things. Water can form two hydrogen bonds to other molecules; ammonia can only form 1 Also, while ammonia is much more volatile than water, it's much less volatile than, for example, methane.

Do you mean endothermic? I'm fairly sure that the reaction of bicarbonate of soda with vinegar is endothermic.

No. But I'd consider using sodium metabisulphite next time.

Nobody asked about what eats humans My point was about what humans eat. Did you understand that and post something deliberately irrelevant (which is called "trolling", btw)?

What? What eats cow blood? Humans. What eats wheat? Humans What eats glue? Humans. https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2tofr7 Anyway, as is often the case when the question is "What eats...?", the answer is "humans Now what mistake did you make which led you to think that "..which will be ultimately wrong answer unless your dead body will be cremated..." was even relevant, never mind correct? .

It is true that the solubility of potassium tartrate in water is quite low. It is also, of course, irrelevant. The environment in which it is present is a solution of bicarbonate of soda, in which it is much more soluble- because it reacts. You should read your own "advice" Your perspective is absurd anyway. If the tartar didn't react, what would be the point of putting it there? Of course it reacts. It makes rather more sense to check something we don't actually know. How much did the OP use. If it's a teaspoonful of baking powder in a litre of water then there's enough water to dissolve it anyway.

It's complicated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_function#General_formula

WTF? Bicarbonate of soda reacts with potassium bitartrate to produce potassium sodium tartrate (known as Rochelle salt) carbon dioxide and water.

I'd bet against that.

These days there's a reasonable chance that I'd take a picture of the object and a ruler at the same time (and at the same distance) and then measure the distances on the screen.

"Not farage's views" is more popular. It's also important to recognise that the Brexit party has been elected to the EU parliament. There are 751 MEPs 29 of those are now Brexit party MEPs. They can't possibly win a vote, so... 3.8% is not a landslide.

I did count them. Well, I counted half of them- on the basis of the available evidence which said that, at the Referendum about half of them voted each way. Do you have better data? If so, I'd love to see it. Can you have a landslide minority in a PR election? I am. But that's only based on the available facts, and the votes and polls since 2016 What's the basis of your conviction? Do you feel that a 4% majority in a 2 horse race is insurmountable or do you think that people have not taken account of the new information (post referendum) and changed their minds? However, even if I'm mistaken, it has to be worth a try. What do we have to lose?

Not very... I'm trying to work out if it's a bad joke or a mistake. Anyway, as is often the case when the question is "What eats...?", the answer is "humans though personally, I will stick to black pudding.

I guess you didn't read this bit. Getting them to stop lying may be impossible, but, at least, we can get them to stop cheating.

Perhaps we should have a referendum to sort it out (but this time, get the Leave camp to obey the rules).

OK. You have pointed out that some of the Conservatives (9.1% of teh votes) would be pro brexit. And you have ignored the fact that some of the Labour voters (14.1% of the votes) would be anti brexit. So, let's try looking at it as scientists. The first thing to do is accept that we have poor, incomplete data. Any outcome will be an estimate. We do, however have additional data. For example, we know that, at the referendum, roughly 2/3 of Labour voters voted to remain. We also know that roughly half of Conservative voters voted for remain. Most people won't have changed their minds (there's data about that too, if you want to look for it). So we can, very roughly, allocate 2/3 of the 14.1% to Remain Remain gains 9.4% and Leave gains the other third i.e. 4.7% and very roughly 1/2 of the 9.1% to Remain which is about 4.5% and the other 4.5% goes to Leave. Pro Brexit goes up to 36.8 + 4.5 + 4.7 46% Pro Leave goes up to 38 + 4.5 + 9.4 51.9% Now, consider the original result was 52:48 in favour of Leave and then consider this assertion, brought about by only counting Tories as pro without counting Labour as anti. And contemplate the irony of

On a related note. https://www.indy100.com/article/quentin-letts-twitter-swiss-border-brexit-skiing-switzerland-schengen-free-movement-8784326 Anyway, I'm delighted to see the fall in support of Brexit. At the referendum they had 52% of a 72% turnout which meant that 37% of the population voted for them. In the MEP elections they got about 32% of a roughly 40% turnout so that's 12.8% Roughly a third as many voted for the Brexit party this time as voted for brexit at the referendum. If you look at the other parties, the picture is the same. Pro remain parties got more votes than pro leave. And, the icing on the cake is that "Tommy Robinson" lost his deposit. Now, let's see how the media portrays this swing to remain.

Please cite the outright lies of the Remain campaign. Also, do you recognise just how much the Leave campaign cheated? https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/journalist/electoral-commission-media-centre/referendums-to-keep/media-statement-vote-leave Lots of people are talking about Boris as the next PM. It is entirely possible that he will be prosecuted. https://metro.co.uk/2019/05/14/case-boris-johnson-brexit-lies-will-public-hearing-eu-election-day-9540055/

Democracy may be many things, but brexit is the result of lying and cheating. Lying was writing on the side of a bus that we would gain £350 million a week to spend on the NHS. Cheating was not admitting that the bus cost money and should be included in the election budget. If this had been a football match and someone had cheated, we would be demanding a rematch. Shouldn't we hold politics to the same standards?

No https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C288426&Mask=400#UV-Vis-Spec Possibly, by quenching, rather than absorption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quenching_(fluorescence)

Do you understand that "Man bites dog" does not mean the same as "Dog bites man"?

Get a strawberry. Freeze it and then thaw it out.

Like circularly polarised light?

I wonder if anyone has ever set up a chain of frequency multipliers (doublers or whatever) to convert the very accurate 60 KHz signal used by radio controlled clocks up to something in the MHz region for calibration/ checking of frequency meters. You can get multipliers designed for this but they are PLL based. A sequence of accurate 60, 120, 180... KHz test frequencies might be useful. A trippler gives you 180 KHz and a quintupler gives you 300 KHz Any thoughts?