John Cuthber

Just because a reaction balances doesn'y mean it will work. For example the reaction you posted won't. In essence it's because reactions generall produce stable products and a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen isn't stable. You could get the oxygen to react with the ammonia to give water and oxides of nitrogen which could then be cooled down and produce nitric acid which would react with the carbonate to make nitrate and CO2.

"Others may have, but I have seen no such data." I did, it seems there are a variety of definitions. I found a site that lists the fatty acid composition of foods. Chicken certainly contains a relatively large amount of this particular acid. So does human milk. Hardly a smoking gun. http://www.iupac.org/publications/pac/2001/pdf/7304x0685.pdf

Read this bit, "this part doesn’t decay in the earth.", laughed, wondered what the point of the OP was.

OK, that's the speed of microwaves. What about the speed of light?

"The deaths of those 66 people had zero to do with type of dog, and everything to do with the negligence of the person in their charge." That was 66 deaths due to pitbulls. If there were no pitbulls would those people have just mysteriously died anyway? If their owners had not had the option of getting pitbulls they would probably have got some other dog- they may well have mistreated it too. The point remains that the numbers show that pitbulls are more likely to kill than other breeds. Sorry, but this really does have something to do with the breeds. Dogs sometiomes act autonomously so it's not helpful to blame the owners. Anyway, as I have said before we can't ban bad owners.. The dogs that are no longer here in the UK do not attack people. You want me to evince that? What about deaths due to pixies?

"paid our £10 and got $16.88 back" What's the current dollar/sterling exchange rate? I think you were ripped off.

OK there are 4 choices on offer Acid + metal What acid and metal would it take? Well if you don't realise it would be sulphuric acid and sodium then I don't think you are cut out for chemistry or you haven't been taught much. Do you know anything about sodium metal? Now, if you want to try that with sulphuric acid you are a braver man than me. OK, what's next B Acid + insoluble base Did anyone tell you about solubillities of things? Here's a more complete table than you usually get in school but it wiill do the job. http://www.chemos.co.uk/Solubility.htm You could only use "B" if there were an insoluble base with sodium in it. Let me know if you find one. D Solution of salt A + solution of salt B This is generally most usefull when the salt you want is insoluble and falls out of solution when you mix the wto solutions. Have another look at that table of solubilities. C Acid + alkali Looks like it's the only one left. Now see if you can do something similar for the second compound, magnesium carbonate.

Well, all smoke is bad for you, but tobacco is the only one that people generally inhale deliberately. It's also the only one with high nicotine levels which are bad for you in addition to the problems due to the smoke and, of course, the nicotine is addictive too.

The first post here states that chicken is bad for you because it contains one of the essential fatty acids. That's a better example of faulty logic than the alkaline diet (no mean feat btw).

You would also need to know the heat capacity of the other objects in contact with the air.

Since the debate has slumped to one side posting patronising messages and links to sick videos (I can live without the PM's about them too.) I guess it's time to close the thread. As for "Quit asking us to provide really cool reasons why we should be allowed to do something - start providing really cool reasons why we shouldn't." I still say that I have frequently cited the reason for the possible ban; it's 66 deaths. Were those 66 people not cool enough?

The difference between an inbound and an outbound flight is a change in direction not magnitude. I think the earth's rotation has an effect, albeit an indirect one.

How cold is it? The effect of pressure on freezing point isn't usually very big (because the change in volume isn't very big). In addition, frozen butane would be reasonably soluble in liquid propane, so the freezing point of the mixture would be lower than that for pure butane. I think you have water in the line and it has frozen to ordinary ice.

Do you know about valency? The sulphur is 4 valennt, the oxyges are 2 valent and the hydrogens just 1. Generally oxygens don't form chains (in this molecule they do't) There is, I think, only one possible structure.

"What is being said is that the risk is minimal, and does not warrant a ban." At best that's debatable, dead people are usually taken as grounds to act where it's practical. "What is being said is that your identification of type is questionable." As was pointed out there's little chance that misidentification is the reason for the numbers. "What is being said is that there are several more effective ways to achieve the goals for which you are arguing (safety of others), and that the ban will not achieve that end." No other means has been put forward and the ban in the UK has proved effective. "What is being said is that it takes a very narrow and biased view to see this type of dog as nothing more than a killer which should be exterminated." No, I have fully accepted that these dogs offer some benefits to people. However I do not see why those same benefits could not be gained using a different less risky, breed of dog. "What is being said is that your argument is weak and rests on appeals to emotion." No, its based on the desire not to have people killed and to avoid all the greif that comes from that- not least for the dog's owners. Unlike any other argument that has been put forward it is based on the numbers. The other side, with cute pictures of doggies, is the one trying to apeal to emotion. "What is being said is that it's fine if you don't choose this type of dog for yourself, but the numbers don't warrant your blanket removal of that same ability to choose from others." I have said from the start that it falls to society to make that choice- not to individuals. "That means no value judgements on what people are free to do" We make them all the time. These judgements on good or bad behaviour are called laws. For example, we do not permit people the freedom to drop bricks off railway bridges. "It's consistent with the principle of 'innocence until proven guilty'. You're rights end when you or your property harms another or their property. No "preemptive" strikes allowed, like banning breeds of dogs that you think are "scary" or invading foreign countries that haven't done anything to us." 66 dead and a higher incidence of killing is not preemptive. It's acting in response to a known threat. Essentially none of this post in new material. I have just restated stuff in response to others' postings. If people are just making the same points again then I don't see this helping anyone anymore.

I think this http://xkcd.com/401/ is a vastly more likely scenario.

The video shows some people and some dogs. None of them atack anyone. This is not evidence that neither men nor dogs ever attack people. I guess I could find a similar video of a man and a different breed of dog so what's your point? The tag line to the video is "regardless of breed" which proves my point. You couls use another breed of dog that is less likely to attack people and get the same benefit. Anyway, this whole thread is going nowhere. You say these dogs should be permitted in spite of the risk "because you want to" (and that's what the argument from liberty really means) and I can't help thinking it's selfish. If I were to want to drop bricks of bridges I'm sure I could keep the death toll below 3 per year, but I don't see the police accepting an argument that it would be interfering with my freedom of action to stop me.

"I can't see how this gives you the required justification to remove choices from others." Because your free choice might kill me. "Also, "most dangerous" is some interesting rhetoric considering we are talking about 3 deaths per year." Would you be happier with "most likely to kill"? Most is simply a superlative; it tells you that there is no other breed of dog more likely (based on the evidence) to be responsible for a human's death. It's not rhetoric, it's simply a reiteration of the fact. 3 deaths a year is 3 too many. "Not relevant. You're trying to take away a freedom. The onus is on you to prove that they have no "saving grace," not on us to give examples of some." You are taking a risk with my life without my permission. The onus is on you to justify this. YOu have yet to do so and have repeatedly said that you don't intend to try. I particularly like "Each one of us kills more people than that every day with the cancers caused by the exhaust of our cars. If you were truly looking out for "the people," you'd focus on other issues with greater impact." If each of us killed 66 people a day then the following day there would be no people. If you want to say that we harm the environment then fair enough. Please remember that providing dog food also uses the earth's resources. You also assert "Your numbers are weak." Feel free to find better ones, At least I put some effort into trying. Are you scared to do this for fear that you will be forced to conclude that fewer than a third of US dogs are pitbulls and that I have a point? "You are misframing the question." I repeated your question about relative probabliities of attacks by different breeds and I answered it. "Your subjective interpretation of their worth is nonrelevant." My interpretation is that all dogs have the same intrinsic worth. I have asked for evidence to gainsay this and none has been produced. I therefore say that the breed that is no better than the others in any way but is worse in another way isn't a good choice. In particular, since this ill advised choice might kill me I want to see that risk eliminated. "You are trying to remove a freedom." You do not have a blanket freedom to put my life at risk; society measures up the risk and benefits and comes to a conclusion. Sometimes we accept the risk (cars are usually cited as a case in point) sometimes we don't- in much of the civilised world guns would be an example. We don't generally permit people to make their own explosives- that's the removal of a freedom but it's the choice society made. "You need to do better than 3 deaths per year as your basis." Ask the victim's families. "Here's another argument. The problem you've described is with the people, not the dog. It's not the type of dog causing the problems you seek to ameliorate, but the owners. Your ban will not stop the problems you've described." It did. It worked in the UK (give or take a few people who have broken the law. They get prosecuted and the dog's destroyed anyway). I grant you that getting a better class of owner would be better. I have said before that, since we can't ban stupid people, we have to ban the dangerous dogs. "Yeah, all three per year. Peanut butter kills more. Bathtubs kill more. Countless other things kill more." Stop strawmanning. Cardiovascular problems kill more people than murder; should we permit murder? Also, as I have pointed out several times, the things you mention have a benefit. That's why they are permitted. Show me the benefit fort this particular breed of dog and I will accept that you may have a point. If you can't then at least do us all a favour and don't wheel this nonsense out again. "The emotion in this argument is yours, sir. It's blindingly clear in the rhetoric you're forced to use in support of your weak attempts to convince others of the merit of your position." From the man who just rehashed the " other things kill more" so called argument.... " but the difference is that pit bulls get more publicity" We are countig corpses, not newspaper inches. "So in reality, pit bulls are no worse than any other breed. What makes them seem that way, is that some little 35 pound dogs have the strength to pull a car (some of them). these are extremely strong dogs for their size. Plus they have the reputation they do because of ignorant people." I'm not talkking about 35 lb dogs. I'm talking about dogs that are typically twice that. http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=450529&in_page_id=1770 (OK That paper is hardly the best of accurate sources but the figures quoted for the weights of that dog are not 35 pounds). "It's almost like arguing global climate change with a denialist or evolution with a creationist." I see what you mean; the thing is we both think we are right, but I'm the one with the numbers and I'm the one trying to stop people getting killed (even if it's not a lot of people). " I'm slowly starting to lose hope as pertains to convincing SkepticLance, John Cuthber, and others who support the pro-breed-specific ban position that they are no better than racists on this issue. " Of course you won't convince me that trying to avoid getting people killed is no better than racism. The question is why would you try. Anyway, as I have pointed out before the different races of people were not deliberately bred so it's a different question even before you consider that people really do outrank the other animals. "I was in their shoes once before. I hated pit bulls and thought they should all be wiped off the face of the earth." Whose shoes are those? I don't hate pitbulls or any other dog. I just don't think they have the right to kill children. Since the dog's are not in a positioon to make the decision I'm stuck with the idea of getting rid of the dogs. That doesn't mean I like it, just that I see it as a practical way to reduce the human death toll. "Once you've banned this type of dog, there will be a precedent for banning another type of dog, and sooner before later the doberman will be gone... the german shepherd.... the rotweiller... all because people thought it was the dog that was the problem and focussed their efforts there... instead of on the people in their charge." No, there really is a difference between "maybe 50 times more likely to kill" and barely "distinguishable from the average". Only one of those would be any reason to ban the breed. "It has been shown that the appropriate measure is within breed violence, not percentage of death by breed." How? Anyway, I took the trouble to calculate the statistic you asked for. The question is what do we do about pitbulls. To look at that we need to compare pitbulls on a dog for dog basis with other breeds. Pitbulls turn out to be more dangerous to humans than other breeds. Anyway, I'm late meeting some people for a beer.

"The larger point, of course, being that all dogs collectively kill very few people overall, so trying to ban the one type that seems to kill a little more than the others (by percentage) is odd. " So, if faced with this advert "New! Bloggs and co's new "thingy"! Statistically shown to be at least 26%* more likely to kill an innocent bystrander than any competitor's comparable product!" (* some estimates say it's 50 times more likely!)" you might buy the product? Oh, and BTW, 50 fold more likely to kill someone isn't a little. Remember to include both ends of the range of estimates (or come up your own based on better data). I grant the absolute death rates are very small, but why make them bigger than they need to be? Choosing another breed of dog drops the likelihood of having a death on your hands. I presume you don't want that. The only reason to choose the most dangerous breed would be if there were something special about it. If, for example, it could fly or make tea I might see why people would want to take the additional risk, but there's nothing in particular going for it and a nasty set of deaths against. That's why I keep asking for a "saving grace". If there is one, let me know. I know I have missed environment and conditioning out of this; I can't see how to include it and I don't see any evidence that it would make much difference. Sure, I accept that a poorly treated dog is more likely to cause trouble, but is there evidence that pitbulls are more likely to be poorly treated than other dogs? At least part of their breeding would have led to them being agressive* so it seems reasonable to atribute the excess deaths to that rather than a possible, but hypothetical set of environmental conditions. The benefit of the ban is most of 66 people and I don't see that as "lacking". * They were originally bred as bulldogs for which agression isn't a useful trait any more than it would be in sheepdogs. Courage might have been a more desirable atribute. However, once people started betting on dog fights involving these animals the "winners" would be chosen as breeding stock rather than the losers. That's pretty strong selection pressure.

"If trade winds where related to the earths rotation, how do you explain this map:" I don't. I just point out that they all seem to go perpendicular to the axis of the rotation. Quite a coincidence if there's no relation. However, a quick look on wiki and I find "The surface air that flows from these subtropical high-pressure belts toward the Equator is deflected toward the west in both hemispheres by the Coriolis effect. " Now, I'm pretty sure the coriolis effect has a lot to do with the earth's rotation. (Nice map BTW, it's on the same page I quoted) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_wind

Thanks for your support SkepticLance, I wondered if you had been eaten by a poodle. It has been pointed out that these dogs do exist so the argument about "who would have suffered if we hadn't bred them?" is irrelevant. I contend that we made a mistake and we can rectify it. If we neutered them all today the problem wouldnt be with us long. Humanity changes its mind quite a lot. We abolished slavery and accept that it was a mistake. At least one country has decided that pitbulls, while perhaps not a mistake in their day, are not longer appropriate. As for iNow's last post... "Yeah, I know. That's almost as weak as basing an argument on a mispresentation of the numbers which are truly important for such a decision. Gosh... two one hundreths of one percent." Actually, as I pointed out, the number which you originally asked for is somewhere between about 1.25 and 50. You asked this "How about you quantize how much "more likely" a person is to wind up with a death on their hands if they buy the pit bull, eh? Are we talking 90% more likely, or 0.00002% more likely? " In those terms the answer seems to be somewhere between 25% more likely and 5000% It represents the extent to which pitbulls are more likely to kill people than other dogs are. What was that about misrepresenting numbers? Oh yes, I'm still waiting for the answer to the question about what's special about this breed apart from the death toll? I know that lots of people think that their pitbull is the best dog in the world, but I could probably find people who said that about spaniels, beagles or whatever so it's not an argument for pitbulls. Now, I'm not going to speculate on people's motivation or the reasons for their stance on this matter. I'm just going to point out that this is a scientific site so arguments should be accompanied by some sort of supporting data rather than ad hom attacks.

What rebate cheque?

I think ascorbic acid is much more likely to be added as an antioxidant than as a microbicide. Much of it is made commercially by fermentation; it can't be that good at killing bugs if they make it. Unfortunately, the same goes for the other acids you mention. They may supress some moulds and bacteria but I don't think you could rely on them for long

There are two ways of looking at it. A lot of British students sit in French lessons totally failing to learn anything. However, in my school alternate years did French and German (which eased the timetabling problems for the languages department) so the kids in the year above me or the year below didn't learn French at all. Some of them managed to learn German.

"I think all british students learn French." I don't.