SkepticLance

Actually, it depends on who you talk to. The Japanese claim Greenpeace rammed them. Greenpeace claims Japan did the ramming. The only video available of the incident was taken by Japanese people, and possibly edited. Surprise, surprise - it shows Greenpeace doing the ramming. There is no way to know who was at fault, and neither party can be trusted to tell the truth. However, I have no sympathy for Greenpeace, who should not have been there in the first place, and who are just prolonging the whale slaughter by not allowing Japan to back out with pride. I have no sympathy for the Japanese whalers, either. However, I just wish people involved on both sides would leave their gonads out of the argument.

Japanese 'research' on whales is, and always has been, a mere token. When asked about the research papers on whales published in peer reviewed journals as a result of such research, the Japanese authorities are embarassed. As stated, whaling is not for research, but food. Even worse, it is no longer really for food. There is a 'whale meat mountain' in frozen storage in Japan, as they cannot sell all they have. Whaling now appears to be about national pride. In other words, the Japanese government, which now owns the whaling fleet, continue the practise only because other nations are telling them not to! Greepeace is not blameless in this, and appear to be one of the main drivers keeping the whaling going. Again, national pride, and a refusal to do what Greenpeace tell them. In this, Greenpeace is especially guilty because they choose tactics that are provocative and aggressive. Greenpeace is one of the main reasons the Japanese still kill whales. The real way to approach this is to dump the provocative tactics. Stop confronting Japanese whaling ships on the high seas - actions which occasionally verge on piracy - and work on the hearts and minds of the Japanese people. Most of the people in Japan have little knowledge of what is happening, and care less. Japan is a very insular society, and is not a part of the world wide web, due to the fact that few Japanese use English. Instead they use Japnet. This keeps them ignorant of wider issues. That does not stop them from caring about whales. What is needed is a campaign based in Japan, run by Japanese, to win over the Japanese people. Until that happens, the Japanese government will simply dig in its toes and refuse to stop killing whales.

To POM There is no debate about the fact that humans cause widespread loss of natural habitat. The debate is about whether that is a major cause of extinctions.

paulo The word 'micro-organism' covers an enormous range of living things. Bacteri, Archaeans, various algae, Protists, various fungi etc. Each of which has a different structure, life history and a different method of culturing and studying. Are you able to be more specific?

bombus, You may or may not be correct. Are you able to give clear cut examples to prove your point?

to flynn It may not matter what elements make up a large star, and the black hole that forms from it. We are treading into an area where data and know-how are tenuous. However, the current theory suggests that, when matter enters a black hole, information is lost. That means that, if a black hole spews out that matter into another universe, it need not take the form of the matter that originally entered the black hole. ie. if heavy elements entered, what leaves may be quite different - light elements, or more likely, something totally exotic.

I suspect what you were reading about is a fuel-air explosion - a weapon of war. A tanker aircraft sprays an aerosol of petroleum fuel over the target area. When it has reached a safe distance, it ignites the fuel. The combustion both uses up oxygen and causes massive heat and expansion of gas for a moment. This leaves the air thin and devoid of oxygen. It is NOT a vacuum. However, to the poor bastards who are inside the zone, it is close enough, since there is no oxygen. They die of asphyxiation if the heat or blast have not killed them first.

As I understand this hypothesis, a black hole forms a portal to another universe and squirts half its mass through. Would this not cut its gravity in half? I suspect that astronomers would have already observed some puzzling phenomena if that were the case. After all, they are now viewing energy outputs around black holes. A cut in gravity of 50% would surely have some dire and readily measurable effects.

foodchain said : First the universe should be frozen in place Do not forget the time part of space time. Something may be frozen in space, but its position in time gives it movement. After all, time is a measure of changes in space. An object may be fixed in space time, but that means movement in space over time. The curvature in space time is necessarily 4 dimensional (3 of space and 1 of time). We are not able to visualise 4 dimensions, and that limits our understanding. The strength of this curvature depends on mass. Thus a big object causes a big curvature, and while most objects in the universe cause curvature that is immeasurably small. Large masses cause the aggregation of planets and stars at their origin. Going back to a singularity is only possible with extraordinarily large masses, since the collapse of matter together is opposed by other forces. Our Earth cannot collapse further due to the electro-magnetic forces of matter pushing atoms apart. Very large objects can collapse past this, but are stopped by nuclear forces. These form neutron stars. Only the very largest objects can collapse further and form black holes. Can curves be moved? Well, they are constantly changing with the changes in the masses that cause the curves. Why do we say light follows a curved path around objects with stron gravity, rather than some other force? The reason is because the pattern the light follows is exactly that which is predicted by the equations of curved space, rather than the pattern predicted by the equations for other forces. Do not ask me to elaborate on this. That is a post grad project!

To foodchain Re the warping of space time. You are correct. This is really complicated. Everything with mass warps space time to some degree. Your body warps space time. All those googols of objects warping space time to differing degrees means the pattern of warping overall is so complex as to be beyond human understanding. If you were to follow the movement of an object through space, such as an asteroid, and if you were able to map its path in the most minute detail, you would discover an incredibly complex pattern. It would be moving in a straight line onlyto the naked eye. On a tiny tiny scale, its movement would be anything but straight, due to the influence of the distorsion of space time. If you were 100 metres away watching it, your own mass would distort space time enough to cause a tiny distorsion of its path off the theoretical straight line. The amount of distorsion each object causes depends on its mass, and how far away it is. Very large or massy objects, such as out Earth, the sun, a black hole may distort space time enough to alter movement in space drastically. That's why things fall down. And yes, you do physically interact with space time. By being influenced by these distorsions, such as falling over, and by adding your own tiny distorsion from the mass of your own body.

To foodchain. The reason perpetual motion is impossible is because it requires the conjuring of energy out of nothing. To do work, energy is needed. If you tap energy from something to do work, then the amount of energy inside the thing you tapped gets less. If, for example, you have a perpetual motion machine which has moving parts that do work, then the work removes energy. Thus the machine has less energy and slows down. We have almost perpetual motion, which is not the same thing, on an astronomical scale. The Earth orbits the sun, and its movement is (from the human perspective) almost perpetual. But we are not using that movement to do work. As soon as the movement is used to do work, the Earth will slow down in its orbit. We see this in the spinning of the Earth, which is also almost perpetual. But not quite. The gravity link with the moon means that some of the energy of the Earth's spin is used as work to move the moon further from the Earth. With this eneryg removed, the Earth has less energy of spin and slows down. Physicists have measured the fact that the Earth is slowly spinning at a reduced rate. Gravity itself is not energy. It is a force. Forces do not need energy. However, if you move something away from the source of gravity, that is work, and requires energy. If you lift an object to a higher level, you are doing work, and putting energy into that object. If it falls, then the energy is seen to come out as increasing movement.

I have always loved the principle of Occams Razor. However, it is related to probability, not certainty. If various possible hypotheses compete as explanation for a particular phenomenon, then the hypothesis that is simplest, with the fewest new assumptions is the most likely to be correct. Not the one certainly correct. Just the most probable. Having said that, I find Occams Razor most useful in dealing with human stupidity. Someone shows a photo of a ghost. Two possible explanations. 1. A hoax using photoshop. 2. A genuine phenomenon new to science. Get the point?

To insane alien. Apart from a few very specialised uses for nuclear energy, or very large scale reactors, nuclear power does not make a practical 'battery' for everyday use. It is, as I said, inefficient and hazardous. On the scale of a nuclear power station, it becomes efficient and the hazard can be managed. If you want something like a power source to run a car, a house, a light bulb, then nuclear 'battery' is not it.

My earlier statement was : That is why it went to Saturn instead of staying on Earth. OK, Ok! You got me. Aarrgh. Bullets in the vitals. My wording was clumsy. I should have said " "That is why we cannot use that kind of power source on Earth."

A typical nuclear battery would be the type sent on the Callisto probe to Saturn. Very, very big. Very, very inefficient. Very, very environmentally unfriendly. That is why it went to Saturn instead of staying on Earth. To recharge, simply remove spent nuclear fuel and replace with fresh. Very quick. Not very practical for down to Earth activities.

Why is it that so many people prefer pessimism and predictions of disaster to reality? Globally, fertility is dropping. This is not some optimistic speculation. It is fact. In the first world, human reproductive rates have already fallen well below replacement. In many countries, there is now real alarm about the low birth rate. In Japan, the government is trying to figure out how to get women to have more than one child - and failing badly! Ditto for Italy and a number of other places. The United States population is growing only because of very substantial immigration - a million people per year. In third world countries, populations are still growing, but at an increasingly reducing rate. As I said earlier - at current fertility level of 2.5 per woman, as opposed to 5.5 some 50 years ago. And the fertility rate is still dropping. It is because of these long term trends that the United Nations can predict future populations. A peak of 9 billion plus or minus a bit by 2050, and then a slow reduction in global population due to the fact that all nations will have fertility rates less than 2 per woman. Overpopulation disaster is not coming. With a little effort we can cope with 9 billion, and things will get easier after that as economies grow and numbers drop.

lucaspa said : You stated it as FACT. You said "It is now expected that the world population will not exceed 9 billion." I hate to say this, lucaspa, but you are getting ridiculously picky. I have said several times that nothing is fixed, and there is the possibility of final population being more or less than 9 billion. I spoke of probability, and you say it is scenarios. We are arguing semantics. Who cares what word is used to describe it. Let's say that 9 billion is the 'central' scenario and stop arguing silly meaningless points. As I pointed out, the predictions are based on the long term trend for fertility dropping. That is a trend seen all over the world, including 'high fertility' third world countries. From memory, the average for the third world was about 5.5 per woman about 50 years ago, and is now down to 2.5. For first world countries, it is below 2 in most cases. There are still countries with fertilities of well above 2.5, but the average is falling. Not only that, but repeated surveys have shown that women the world over do NOT want large families. They end up with too many pregnancies due to lack of access to birth control. However, birth control access is increasing, and that is resulting in falling fertility. If you are worried about population growth, then push for more aid in supplying birth control to third world countries, and the result will be an accelerated drop in fertility. However, this drop is happening anyway. These are facts, and I do not see why you feel the need to argue.

Methyl mercury has to be close to the top of the list. A few years ago, a lady chemist was decanting methyl mercury solution from one container to another, wearing PVC gloves. One drop spilled onto her gloved hand. A month later, she died, in great pain. Methyl mercury goes straight through PVC, straight through human skin, and into the blood. It is carried to the brain, which it slowly kills. The most toxic of all poisons is the product used in the beauty industry - botox. That is, the toxin produced by the anaerobic bacterium, Clostridium botulinum. Acute oral LD50 is estimated at 1 part per quadrillion. The most toxic man-made chemical is the dioxin 2,3,7,8 TCDD. Minimum dose that might kill is estimated at 20 parts per billion.

Cars running on petrol and diesel already pump out vast amounts of water vapour. Hydrogen power will pump out more, sure, but I seriously doubt it will have any effect on global warming. And lets face it, many of our cities are already frantically involved in the process of recycling water. Vapour rolls in, rain comes down, streets get washed, more vapour rolls in etc. The amount of water vapour coming off the oceans makes any human attempt to increase it look utterly trivial.

Depends on your definitions. Translocation is a general term simply meaning moving something. Plant food could be minerals, CO2, water, or the manufactured food in leaves. Minerals and water are absorbed into root hairs, and pass upward through vessels and tracheids to all other parts of the living plant. Some parts of a plant (such as a big part of the wood, and the bark) are dead tissue and do not receive anything by translocation. Manufactured food (sugars) in the leaves are passed in the opposite direction to all parts of the living plant. CO2 passes from air through the stomata into the leaves to the photosynthesizing cells.

High standards of hygiene are very recent. Until a few decades ago, the normal state for a human was to carry a large number of parasites, which feed off us in one form or another, inlcuding blood sucking ticks. Obviously this is not healthy. These parasites consume scarce energy, and can carry disease. We, like other animals, have evolved itching as a signal to tell us to remove the parasites. Scratching is at least partially effective at such removal, and evolution has equipped us with a reward for carrying out the act - the feeling of relief having scratched. Hot water, presumably, stimulates the nerves that give the 'scratching' signal, thus stimulating the reward. Of course, today we itch for a variety of reasons which usually have nothing to do with parasites. But the old mechanism stays in place.

If you are after definitive answers, foodchain, you will not get them. Physicists are still working on the big questions relating to the Big Bang and what followed. Indeed, there are a number of scientists who are toying with the idea that our universe is only one of many, and the laws of physics are different from one to another, in what is probably a random way. Thus, we have the situation in our universe purely because chance dictated a set of laws, and these are different in other universes. For our universe in particular, the laws of quantum physics as we know them were set in place. This appears to have created a probability for a particular kind of matter and a particular kind of distribution of that matter. However, a feature of quantum physics is randomness when dealing with the very small. So, when the universe was very small, quantum randomness resulted in a kind of distribution of the 'stuff' that existed then. Then, according to current theory, the process of inflation took over. This accelerated all that 'stuff' so that the density of the universe dropped dramatically and its size increased dramatically. At the larger size, the quantum randomness no longer applied, and the uneven distribution of matter now forming was preserved. This uneven distribution, eventually after many millions more years, resulted in the formation of stars and galaxies.

I must really have ruffled lucaspa's feathers. We had no argument, but lucaspa appears intent of creating one. Let me just say this. When attempting to predict the future, it is easy to go wrong. However, one of the most reliable systems is to take existing long term trends and project them onwards. Not perfect, but more reliable than any other system. For population trends, the United Nations has taken a long term trend - the reduction in average fertility world wide - and projected that into the future. That trend leads to a prediction of a peak population of 9 billion. Whatever you say, that is a figure of greater probability than 8 billion or 10 billion etc. Sure, it might be wrong, which is why we talk of probability, not certainty. My statement about agricultural practices is also based on the same general principle. The long term trend is for continuing change in how farmers produce their crops, and for continuing increase in productivity per acre. It is a very reliable basis for predicting that trend to continue into the future. Sure, it is not certain. Perhaps an asteroid will fall on our heads. But it is probable. And biological productivity has limits, sure. But we are still a long way from those limits.

MC said : These, SkepticLance, were all the averages of many calculations assuming different scenarios. There is no guarantee that the peak will be 9 billion by 2050 because these calculations are based on the average fertility rate per year. That means that every year or so they have to revise their calculations in order to make up for this. The above is just a paraphrase of what I have already said. There is no certainty, and the 9 billion prediction may be wrong. However, it is interesting to note that the predictions have been coming down over the years. A couple of decades back, the UN was estimating more than 12 billion. Then it was 11, then 10, and now 9. The reason for these changes is that globally, human fertility has been dropping. The United Nations demographers now predict that, by 2050, average fertility will be less than 2 children per woman. Thus, the world population will drop. They could be wrong, sure. But they might also be wrong in the direction of over-estimating peak population.

lucaspa I get the impression that you are creating an argument where none exists. 1. I am not disputing that agricultural practices will or should change. However, I accept that it is going to happen. After all, what farmers do today is not what they did 50 years ago. Agriculture is in a state of constant change. In 50 years, farmers will operate in quite a different way to how they do today. They will be more productive per acre, due to increased efficiencies and better technology. 2. Population change. Sure, there are lots of uncertainties in the projections. This is called the error factor. The projection that the world population will reach 9 billion and then start to drop, is an average of many calculations. It is the 'most probable' figure, and will almost certainly be wrong. That is not a paradox. However, the probability of a maximum less than 9 billion is about the same as one more than. The probability of a maximum above, say, 11 billion is very low.