Tetrahedrite

The USA and Russia shouldn't have them either!!! They came very close enforcing their MAD (mutually assured destruction) policy during the Cuban missile crisis, illustrating that even supposedly civilised countries have the potential to destroy the world. This didn't have anything to do with extremist countries, just two governments gone crazy. What's to say it's not gonna happen again? BTW the USA is very fast becoming one of the extremist countries you talk of.

No it doesn't....intelligence affects education, not the other way around

Being poor, religious, or uneducated has does not affect your Intelligence Quotient (IQ)

Here you go! (Written before the invasion) In October 2002, Congress passed House Joint Resolution 114, which gave Bush limited authority to attack Iraq. This was basically an abdication by Congress of their power to declare war. Here is a complete text of the bill. Section 3(a) states: (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq. This would seem to give him unlimited authority to launch an unprovoked attack. But HJR114 also states in Section 3©(2) that: Nothing in this joint resolution supersedes any requirement of the War Powers Resolution. This means Bush cannot ignore any requirements of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 when determining what is "necessary and appropriate". So what does the War Powers Resolution say about this? Section 9(d)(1) states: (d) Nothing in this joint resolution-- (1) is intended to alter the constitutional authority of the Congress or of the President, or the provision of existing treaties; or So what existing treaties address the issue of attacking other nations? Two immediately come to mind: the UN Charter and the Nuremberg Charter. The Nuremberg Charter says that it is a crime to plan a war of aggression. Many people believe that Bush is the agressor in this situation. Iraq has made no threats or attacks against the United States. They have simply built weapons to defend themselves from attack. They are also cooperating, albeit begrudgingly, with the United Nations. Bush, on the other hand, has surrounded Iraq with a huge military force and has threatened to destroy Saddam Hussein and much of Iraq in the process. Bush has also labelled the UN as irrelevant. The UN Charter states that "All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means...". War can be used but only as a last resort and only under the direction of the UN Security Council. So if Bush attacks Iraq without UN permission then he will be in violation of the UN Charter, the Nuremberg Charter, HJR114, and indirectly the Constitution. These are ground for impeachment. Taken from: http://www.impeachbush.tv/args/noiraqauthority.htm

Heres some to start you off, I'm working on specific UN charters etc at the momment. (Not all of these are specific to GW Bush) 1. In December 2001, the United States officially withdrew from the 1972 Antiballistic Missile Treaty, gutting the landmark agreement-the first time in the nuclear era that the US renounced a major arms control accord. 2. 1972 Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention ratified by 144 nations including the United States. In July 2001 the US walked out of a London conference to discuss a 1994 protocol designed to strengthen the Convention by providing for on-site inspections. At Geneva in November 2001, US Undersecretary of State John Bolton stated that "the protocol is dead," at the same time accusing Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Libya, Sudan, and Syria of violating the Convention but offering no specific allegations or supporting evidence. 3. UN Agreement to Curb the International Flow of Illicit Small Arms, July 2001: the US was the only nation to oppose it. 4. April 2001, the US was not re-elected to the UN Human Rights Commission, after years of withholding dues to the UN (including current dues of $244 million)-and after having forced the UN to lower its share of the UN budget from 25 to 22 percent. (In the Human Rights Commission, the US stood virtually alone in opposing resolutions supporting lower-cost access to HIV/AIDS drugs, acknowledging a basic human right to adequate food, and calling for a moratorium on the death penalty.) 5. International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC. 6. Land Mine Treaty, banning land mines; signed in Ottawa in December 1997 by 122 nations. The United States refused to sign, along with Russia, China, India, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, Egypt, and Turkey. President Clinton rejected the Treaty, claiming that mines were needed to protect South Korea against North Korea's "overwhelming military advantage." He stated that the US would "eventually" comply, in 2006; this was disavowed by President Bush in August 2001. 7. Kyoto Protocol of 1997, for controlling global warming: declared "dead" by President Bush in March 2001. In November 2001, the Bush administration shunned negotiations in Marrakech (Morocco) to revise the accord, mainly by watering it down in a vain attempt to gain US approval. 8. In May 2001, refused to meet with European Union nations to discuss, even at lower levels of government, economic espionage and electronic surveillance of phone calls, e-mail, and faxes (the US "Echelon" program), 9. Refused to participate in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)-sponsored talks in Paris, May 2001, on ways to crack down on off-shore and other tax and money-laundering havens. 10. Refused to join 123 nations pledged to ban the use and production of anti-personnel bombs and mines, February 2001 11. September 2001: withdrew from International Conference on Racism, bringing together 163 countries in Durban, South Africa 12. International Plan for Cleaner Energy: G-8 group of industrial nations (US, Canada, Japan, Russia, Germany, France, Italy, UK), July 2001: the US was the only one to oppose it. 13. Enforcing an illegal boycott of Cuba, now being made tighter. In the UN in October 2001, the General Assembly passed a resolution, for the tenth consecutive year, calling for an end to the US embargo, by a vote of 167 to 3 (the US, Israel, and the Marshall Islands in opposition). 14. Comprehensive [Nuclear] Test Ban Treaty. Signed by 164 nations and ratified by 89 including France, Great Britain, and Russia; signed by President Clinton in 1996 but rejected by the Senate in 1999. The US is one of 13 nonratifiers among countries that have nuclear weapons or nuclear power programs. In November 2001, the US forced a vote in the UN Committee on Disarmament and Security to demonstrate its opposition to the Test Ban Treaty. 15. In 1986 the International Court of Justice (The Hague) ruled that the US was in violation of international law for "unlawful use of force" in Nicaragua, through its actions and those of its Contra proxy army. The US refused to recognize the Court's jurisdiction. A UN resolution calling for compliance with the Court's decision was approved 94-2 (US and Israel voting no). 16. In 1984 the US quit UNESCO (UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and ceased its payments for UNESCO's budget, over the New World Information and Communication Order (NWICO) project designed to lessen world media dependence on the "big four" wire agencies (AP, UPI, Agence France-Presse, Reuters). The US charged UNESCO with "curtailment of press freedom," as well as mismanagement and other faults, despite a 148-1 in vote in favor of NWICO in the UN. UNESCO terminated NWICO in 1989; the US nonetheless refused to rejoin. In 1995 the Clinton administration proposed rejoining; the move was blocked in Congress and Clinton did not press the issue. In February 2000 the US finally paid some of its arrears to the UN but excluded UNESCO, which the US has not rejoined. 17. Optional Protocol, 1989, to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aimed at abolition of the death penalty and containing a provision banning the execution of those under 18. The US has neither signed nor ratified and specifically exempts itself from the latter provision, making it one of five countries that still execute juveniles (with Saudi Arabia, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iran, Nigeria). China abolished the practice in 1997, Pakistan in 2000. 18. 1979 UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. The only countries that have signed but not ratified are the US, Afghanistan, Sao Tome and Principe. 19. The US has signed but not ratified the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which protects the economic and social rights of children. The only other country not to ratify is Somalia, which has no functioning government. 20. UN International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966, covering a wide range of rights and monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The US signed in 1977 but has not ratified. 21. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948. The US finally ratified in 1988, adding several "reservations" to the effect that the US Constitution and the "advice and consent" of the Senate are required to judge whether any "acts in the course of armed conflict" constitute genocide. The reservations are rejected by Britain, Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Greece, Mexico, Estonia, and others. Taken from: http://www.motherearth.org/bushwanted/laws.php#rogu

I managed to blow up an extremely expensive screw top teflon beaker containing an extremely rare specimen of the Murchison meteorite! I was doing a freeze-thaw cycle on the specimen using liquid nitrogen. After one of the cycles I screwed the top back on the beaker not realising that there was still a small quantity of liquid N2 left underneath the sample. All I can say is lucky I was wearing safety glasses, or I would've had pieces of meteorite and teflon embedded in my eyes.

Does it matter? It is an average, on average people who voted for Bush had a lower IQ!

Just as we suspected!! Is anyone surprised that Texas is down there at number 40?

Silicon based life are hypothetical living things in which Si chains makes up the building blocks of life rather than Carbon chains. You will notice that Si occurs directly below C on the periodic table, which means they share many of the same characteristics, the most important of which are a valence of 4+ and the ability to "polymerise". The main problem with this theory is that metabolism, as we know know it, would be extremely hard with Si based compounds (mostly because of the anomalous stability of the network structure in quartz, SiO2). At normal temperatures and pressures SiO2 cannot be reversible polymerised.

As per the above observations, that primitave organisms can survive in the vaccumm of space, I believe that it is equally possible that the original life on Earth originated from another planet or moon! Mars, Europa and Titan (among others) have much less gravity than earth, so meteorite impacts and volcanic eruptions could easily fling material into space, eventually landing on Earth. We may all be descendents of extraterrestrial life.

A study has been conducted that suggest that only half the "extra" carbon dioxide that should be in the atmosphere from fossil fuels is actually there. Why? It has basically nothing to do with sequestration by forests. The ocean is the biggest buffer of CO2 on Earth. It is all controlled by calcium carbonate equilibria. CO2 + H2O <---> HCO3- + H+ and, Ca2+ + HCO3- <---> CaCO3(calcite) + H+ Sea water is near saturated with Ca2+ ions, so according to Le Chatelier's rule increasing the concentration of CO2 will also increase the production of calcite, removing the CO2 from the system. The point of this is that not many people consider the effect the oceans have on the global warming debate, and that theoretically, given enough time, global warming should be reversible.

I stand by this statement.

The Sydney Morning Hedrald (10/11/04) had a small peice about this website crashing the other day because of so many people posting to it http://www.sorryeverybody.com On top of being very amusing, it makes an interesting commentary on some of the issues discussed in the forum recently

Does someone having an education make them superior? Are you saying that the people who voted for Kerry are uneducated? I would've thought that the geographical distribution of votes suggest otherwise. 80% of people in New York (city) voted for Kerry. I have a new found respect for the city! These people are probably more educated (on average) than most parts of Bush's USA. This results comes even with ground zero being in their midst. Your own state voted against Bush! The majority of the people around you must be uneductated and stupid!?

In terms of Avagadro's law, yes methane is lighter than O2 and CO2

As a follow up to the previous post, I would like to point out that being liberal doesn't automatically make you a "tree hugger" (or greeny as we cally them), as many people on this forum seem to think. I believe in liberal policies (as you may have guessed!) but was raised in a town where forestry was the main employer and I am all for sustainable forestry. I am now a geologist and chemist and deal with lots of environmentally friendly mining operations. I am all for nuclear energy as an alternative to fossil fuels. My point is that you can make money and be environmentally responsible at the same time. Leaning to the left of the political spectrum does not mean you are a greeny. The best arguement demonstrating this is the nuclear and chemical wastelands created by the soviet union

The correct IUPAC spelling is sulfur, sulfuric, sulfonate etc - Sulphur is a regional deviation

(Love the camels!)

They do if they have enough money to pay for it!