Jump to content

John Cuthber

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    17595
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    37

Everything posted by John Cuthber

  1. "Shock as in surprise is a massive missuse!" Err, no. The use of the word shock for a suprise is the original meaning derived from old French. When they wanted a word for loss of effective blood pressure etc they were too lazy to make one up and they started to misuse a perfectly respectable word. Or, more reasonably, like may words "shock" has more than one meaning and you need to sort out from the context which meaning applies in any given circumstance.
  2. Why not accept that those 17 are responsible for the lung cancers?
  3. It's probably important to realise that there are lots of different venoms from different snakes. They have different properties and therefore different potential uses.
  4. I think that the usual problem is (as mentioned above) that the recoil of the atom as it spits out the electron is so big it generally breaks the bonds but I also have a vague recolection that the first synthesis of perbromates was a radiation chemistry type synthesis. Something like 83SeO4 2- --> -83BrO4 - +beta. The tiny amount of BrO4- was coprecipitated withIO4- and tracked by its radioactive decay. Can anyone access this page? http://www.turpion.org/php/paper.phtml?journal_id=rc&paper_id=2526
  5. I don't seem to get flu when it does the rounds but if I did and I were, for example, asthmatic or elderly, then I would have to weigh up the risk from a tiny amount of mercury against the very real risk of dying from the complications of flu. That might be a cost that I wasn't prepared to pay. Think about that when you say "I would avoid it at all costs" the cost might be your life.
  6. "the authority comes from the ability of the information itself to pass the scrutiny of several experts who have been offered the chance to give criticism." If a theory fails to meet reasonable scrutiny from any source then it fails. I scrutinised it and I still think theres more Po in smokers from background than from smoke for the reasons I gave. Incidentally, what's the explanation of the raised cancer (of the mouth and throat etc) incidence in those who chew tobacco? You have said that the stuff in the GI tract doesn't stay long enough to cause cancer so what does? JT2095, do you st
  7. It's a bit worse than playing with fire; you can see fire coming, the temperature sensors in your skin give you a fair (though imperfect) warning of fire and the hospitals are quite experienced in dealing with the consequences of cocking up when playing with fire.
  8. Quote from Paranoia a page or 2 back (sorry, I'm a bit out of phase because of the different time zones) "Originally Posted by John Cuthber 'In the real world there are some things that are taken on trust to be so probable as to be regarded as facts, at least until proved otherwise and not something that you worry about or experiment on. ' But not science, right? I agree in that some things seem so probable that I may be so convinced of them, it may as well be fact, but they aren't facts - they are beliefs based on faith since I can't prove them. I may have a great reason to believe this -
  9. magnetrons are not the only way to make microwaves. The Gunn diode http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunn_diode offers another possibillity. Of course, a mobile phone is a battery powered microwave transmitter. The problem is that the "sparking grapes" sort of experiment requrires quite a lot of power and the only practical way to get that is to use a magnetron.
  10. Probably not. You might be able to use something else instead of tetralin. What are you hoping to find out by doing this?
  11. "Those that wish to believe the official truth of 911 will go to the most extraordinary lengths to defend their position, as it represents, at a deep psychological level, a defence of all they hold true. It is in effect a defence of their reality." Interestingly, the same is true of those who wish to believe the conspiracy theory. Since it's clear that nobody is going to change their mind about this, I wonder what this thread can hope to achieve.
  12. I just wonder about that wiki article. It tells me that there has been little research into the toxicity of this stuff. The stuff has been used for years, it was licensed by many authorities across the world. It was recemntly re-investigated because of some tripe about autism. It would have had its toxicity studied before it was licensed, then again over the decades through the adverse effect reporting systems then again on the autism bandwagon. It's a bit like saying that the toxicity of alcohol hasn't been researched. An interesting thing about dental amalgam is that it stays in the tee
  13. John Cuthber

    Help!?

    At best, CSI is a drama (I think it's a comedy). It's not real.
  14. long ago when Einsteins theory was new it was stated to prove that there was no "luminiferous ether". Some people clung to the old theory and said that Einstein had only proved that the ether could not be detected. What's the difference between something that can never be detected and something that doesn't exist? I can't detect the fairies at the bottom of my garden because they hide whenever (and however) I look for them thereby depriving me of evidence. On the other hand, people tell me that this absence of evidence is not evidence of absence so I should believe in them anyway. Unfortuna
  15. "A famous scientific principle is "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" Carl Sagan Demon Haunted World, pg 8." It may be famous, but it isn't true. How do you sleep at night with that elephant in the room? I realise there is no evidence of an elephant but you say that's no reason not to believe in it. If you look hard for evidence of something and there isn't any then you can start to justify the idea that the something doesn't exist.
  16. It's not alltogether clear what you are doing but I presume that you are classifying things as C10 or C12 based on the retention time. The benzene ring of tetralin is rather more polarisable than the saturated hydrocarbons so it tends to stick to the coumn by van der Walls like forces better than saturated hydrocarbons of the same number of carbons. That means that it will elute later from the GC than would be expected and this might explain why it coelutes with the C12 fraction.
  17. since canned food is sterile I wonder what they are adding a preservative for. On the other hand, I wouldn't worry about it because there are plenty of other phosphates in food and they don't do any harm.
  18. Might the mouse go into hibernation? If so that would probably save it. Incidentally, canaries can fly; to do that they need to be able to generate lots of power for their size. To do that they need very efficient lungs and circulatory systems. When they are at rest they presumably have lots of "spare capacity". The miners can't fly and they are working relatively hard (even if all they are doing is walking along carrying a canary in a cage). Who dies from anoxia first, the canary or the miner? Also, did you know that the cages had covers and air tanks so the birds were OK?
  19. "failing that, Blast it with a M.S :)" Yeah, 'cos everyone knows that they work really well for volatile things like metals. I'm not saying it's impossible- just that it wouldn't be my first port of call. BTW, before you use nitric or (God help you) perchloric acid make sure you boil the sample down with sulphuric. That takes out the easilly oxidised components (also known as fuel) before you add the oxidant.
  20. There are, no doubt, many errors in wiki. So what? The page about non-newtonian fluids was correct when I saw it. Nobody has actually said it's wrong.
  21. "Originally Posted by John Cuthber OK if 30 % of the Po is related to smoking then 70% isn't. If 30% of blood polonium..." Hey, you cited that paper- if it doesn't talk about what you though it did don't blame me. The only analytical evidence we seem to have here says that more of the Po is from other sources; not smoking. "Well, to begin with, your results contradict peer reviewed scientific research. I've cited two papers here... Martell's experimental measurment of radiation dosage and the paper measuring 210Po. You're contradicting them both." For the record you also cited
  22. I think you may find I didn't so much miss the point as give you a possible answer, Since you seem to have missed the point, here it is again. "You might be able to find a dilatant mixture of a solid and liquid (that behaves like cornstarch and water) where the 2 components have the same refractive index. Even then you will have problems because the optical dispersions of the 2 materials are likely to differ. I might try powdered glass in glycerine if I were looking for such a mixture." Just for the record our collective psychcic abillities are somewhat limited so, since you didn't tell
  23. What exactly do you mean by "air is heavy. 100x air is very heavy". Even at 100 bar air is less dense than water.
  24. I'd choose almost any other transition metal first. Ni can get lost as the carbonyl when you ash it. This isn't an impossible problem to deal with but why make life more difficult than you need to. Measure Cu or Mn or whatever. You can get round the problem by wet ashing (effectively boiling with acids untill all the organics are destroyed) but that's messy and you need high purity acids.
  25. It looks like a neat idea. A couple of thoughts struck me. We are going to burn the coal anyway because, at least in the short term, we need the energy. We might as well recyle the CO2. In the slightly longer term we can reuse the "diesel" to run the power station rather than engines. That way you get, effectively, a solar power station. With combined heat and power technology we can squeeze even better efficiency out of this idea.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.