exchemist

The point is that none of us were aware of the background to what you were quoting. You did not make any of this clear. Furthermore it seems remarkably pointless for you to rehearse, on this forum, an argument from the British TUC Congress from 2017, without providing any context and introducing a number of misunderstandings in the process.

Of course not. It is the extremists who, if they gain power, can try to dismantle the democratic mechanisms of the state. Hitler did this. So did Orban in Hungary. The PiS party started to do it in Poland, until they were chucked out. And now we see Trump and his cronies doing it, with remarkable speed and focus, in the USA.

Aha. Alles klar. So “Congress” in this case refers to the British Trade Union Congress, which in 2017 was evidently arguing for the regulations on the UK national breast screening programme to be changed to allow male radiographers to do it, while still allowing women to ask for a female radiographer if they prefer. Very good. And now it seems, according to the BBC report, the British Dept. Of Health is considering this. Fine.

This is the second time you have responded with identical text. Is this a quotation, then? If so you should reference the source. Can you provide a link? Because, as I say, it seems very odd for the US legislature to be discussing British law and health policy.

But the USD or EUR value of your pipiruses may be only half what it was when you bought them. Or they may have collapsed entity because their founder is on the run from the police.

Have a look too at dimensional analysis. You can express most equations in mechanics in terms of mass M, length L, and time T. For instance velocity is distance/time so L/T. Acceleration is velocity/time so L/T². Force is, by Newton's formula F=ma, mass x acceleration. So that gives force dimensions of ML/T². And mechanical work, which is a mechanical form of energy, is force x distance, so energy has dimensions of ML²/T². The rule in science is the dimensions on the left side of a formula must be the same as those on the right. If they are not you are trying to equate apples with oranges, which is a nonsense, so you've got something wrong. A dimensional check is often a useful thing to do when you come up with a formula for the first time.

Yes, stable democracies, as opposed to the autocracies where you seem to think the people suspicious of crypto are located. I exclude the US because it is turning into an autocracy before our eyes - in fact may already have become one. Depends whether Trump eventually respects the courts, which at present he seems not to be doing. France and Germany are stable democracies as are most countries in Europe, apart from Hungary.

How is it possible that Congress, the legislative assembly of the USA, “notes” that there is an exception to the UK’s 2010 Equality Act, in relation to a breast screening programme of the British National Health Service? What is Congress doing poring over British laws and health practices , suddenly? Furthermore, at the risk of repeating myself, there is no limitation on men in radiography in general, in the UK. It is purely that they do not take part in the national free breast screening programme which is offered to all women, in order to reassure and reduce any psychological barriers that may inhibit women from getting themselves screened.

Why give up? Why not just read about science and learn a little bit about algebra, enough to understand simple equations? The mistake is to try making stuff up before you know enough for it to make sense.

Yes, as @Ghideon points out the dimensions don't stack up. Force has dimensions ML/T² , whereas on the right hand side of your first equation you have MLT. So it makes no sense. And then you make it worse by saying not only f=dmt but also d = mtf, when the first equation would imply d = f/mt. So the first 2 equations are mutually contradictory. You can't just make up like nonsense like this. It looks as if you don't have an understanding of basic algebra. If that is so it is very unwise for you to attempt to post algebraic formulae.

Lack of consistency is a big part of why Trump's tariff policy is a disaster. Also, the levels he has imposed are so high that nobody has any faith they will last, whatever he now says. So uncertainty is no longer something he has the power to dispel. His entire approach to governing is characterised by inconsistency, added to he which he lies all the time, so you can't rely on a word he says. But even if the policy were consistent it would be damaging to economic growth, which would reduce investment, most likely including green investment projects. I have some sympathy for your view that a reduction in mindless, ad-fuelled consumerism would be good for the planet. I remember during the Covid lockdown sitting in my garden enjoying the silence (no planes overhead, very few vehicles in the street) and becoming aware of the birdsong and the various birds responsible. I recall thinking that if this were the future it would help a lot with CO2 emissions and the world might be a nicer place. But I'm not convinced that making us all poorer would enable us to solve our climate change crisis. We need some major technology shifts to do that, which cost money.

Lack of investment in renewable energy. A large proportion of solar panels is made in China, for instance. Also, the lack of a consistent policy, that people can believe will be sustained over, say, a 5-10 year period, makes investors sit on their hands, because they can’t calculate any reliable rate of return. So that slows down the building of green infrastructure: electric vehicles, changes to the electricity grid, public transport, heat pumps…..

This is an incoherent muddle. Your personal attitudes are neither here nor there, so let's park them for a start. The issue about there not being anything sexual about breast screening is obviously true, objectively speaking. However this is not about that. It is about perception, by a segment of the female population. The BBC article goes into that, quoting someone from a breast cancer charity who appears to have evidence that having a man doing it puts some women off. There is also a reference to various religious minorities (muslim women come to mind) who would find it culturally quite unacceptable. The UK NHS struggles, generally, to get enough people from some segments of society, including people of South Asian, Caribbean and African heritage, to come forward for some of the free services that make the population healthier, such as screening programmes and vaccinations. So that is relevant background to why the policy has been what it has, up to now. Nevertheless, as the article makes clear, the issue is being re-examined, as times have changed since the policy was introduced, people being somewhat less prudish than they used to be. Maybe the policy will change. If it does, you will be pushing at an open door. Your question about why women are not excluded from studying the male urinary tract is just silly. No male health professional is excluded from studying the female breast. Both male general practitioners and male surgeons involved in carrying out cancer excisions need to know this area of anatomy.

Because it is what women prefer. They, by and large, don’t fancy having their tits groped by some guy. And we do need as many women as possible to come forward for screening. Men, on the other hand, tend not to be quite so shy about exposing their bodies to women.

OK. The BBC article explores the issue. In the UK, only female radiographers can carry out mammography on women patients, and this is partly to maximise take-up of the free breast cancer screening service offered by the NHS. Obviously the more of the population take part in screening, the better, both for citizens and for health costs to the nation. It looks as though in the UK about 70% of radiographers are female (whereas only 25% of radiologists are women). There is plenty of work for male radiographers to do. I have never heard of men avoiding radiography as a profession, as you suggest. But it is the case that many of the “caring” professions are more female than male, nursing being the most obvious example. That seems to be to do with human instincts, one of the many differences between the sexes.

You don’t need science to refute obvious ballocks that is not any kind of scientific argument.

In practice, crypto varies wildly in value, from one month to the next. They are a purely speculative asset and do not even remotely represent a stable store of value, as you seem to suggest. They have the further disadvantage of being unregulated and opaque are thus much favoured by criminals. There are plenty of people in stable democracies (amongst which I do not include the Unites States of America) who think they are a terrible idea. I'm one of them. And so is Jemima Kelly of the Financial Times.

Just a minute. Are you asking about radiology or about mammography? Mammography is but one particular application of radiography. Radiography is not radiology. Radiography is the taking of images, done by a technician. Radiology is the interpretation of those images to diagnose medical conditions and guide treatment. This is done by a qualified specialist doctor.

That would call into question the extent to which disciplines like socoiology can really be considered science. Generally speaking "science" is used as short for "natural science", i.e. the systematic study and understanding of nature. Human affairs are not normally treated as being simply part of nature.

"When the arrow is in a place just its own size, it’s at rest." is manifestly ballocks.

But both are very close to the -20C approx. temperature that was quoted. A 4-5C difference is pretty negligible compared to the extremes experienced by other bodies in the solar system. I don’t understand why you have decided to nitpick over this.

Yes you're right he relied on people like Stephen Meyer, Bill Dembski and Michael Behe to dream up the pseudoscience to underpin it. But the drive behind the ID movement and the strategy to get it into the schools was largely Johnson's, as laid out in the Wedge Document which Johnson authored and was accidentally leaked to the public. This makes clear the object was to combat what Johnson saw as a the march of "materialism" in society, by reintroducing the idea of God into school teaching, without actually calling it that. As such this was pure social engineering. Johnson's Wiki entry starts as follows: Phillip E. Johnson (June 18, 1940 – November 2, 2019)[1] was an American legal scholar who was the Jefferson E. Peyser Professor of Law at the University of California, Berkeley.[2] He was an opponent of evolutionary science, co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC), and one of the co-founders of the intelligent design movement, along with William Dembski and Michael Behe.[3] Johnson described himself as "in a sense the father of the intelligent design movement".[4] I think it is important to note one key feature of ID which is distinct from creationism in general is its intrinsic deceitfulness. Run of the mill creationism simply denies the science, preferring to rely on the creation accounts in Genesis. That is ignorant, but at least honest. ID tries to go along with most of the science but simultaneously introduces the bogus notion that certain features of life could not, scientifically speaking, have arisen by natural means, thereby implying a role for a supernatural creator. It thus pretends to be science when it is nothing of the kind. In fact, it is a "science stopper" because it suggests certain features of biology have no natural explanation, so we should just accept they are due to miracle, give up researching them and go home. It's God of the Gaps*, dressed up in sciency concepts. *a term invented by Prof. Charles Coulson, whose lectures on theoretical chemistry I attended at uni, who was well-known as a Methodist lay preacher. Coulson, a committed Christian, had no time for the Argument from Design.

Normally one can work with a wave function without having an exact solution to the wave equation, based on its qualitative properties. The actual solutions are very cumbersome algebra and exact solutions are only possible for the very simplest systems, e.g. the hydrogen atom.

Almost nobody has to actually solve Schrödinger’s equation. You generally work with pictures of the probability distributions. The key thing is to understand the phase and the symmetry, where the nodes are etc.

I'm not sure I entirely agree about the mathematics. You can put people off needlessly by overstressing the mathematics. One can get a pretty good grasp of how QM works for most purposes with a decent understanding of the physics of waves. Sure, if you want to do it properly you have to get into QM operators, eigenvectors in Hilbert space and all that, but most chemists at least can get a feel for it by understanding the physics of waves: standing waves, interference and superposition, Fourier sum of frequencies and so on.