John Cuthber

Planes don't typically have to navigate round buildings or account for children , wheelchair users, cyclists ... Essentially, there's nothing up there to hit.

I suspect it's the spores of the fungus that killed the fly.

You earned the downvotes. What do you propose to do to earn the upvotes?

Stranger still when they start telling everyone that they are the only one who understands logic...

This bit reminds me of something. About 30 years ago I used to live in London and, from time to time, in the pubs I would meet American tourists who explained to me at length how much better America was than the UK. To be fair, it wasn't only Americans- some of the Aussies were just as bad. And, of course, it was only ever a small minority. I'd wait for them to finish their rant and then politely offer to pay for their ticket to the airport so they could go back. They never took me up on it. Here's your ticket back to your forum where you are happy. Would you like directions and/ or help with your packing?

Ooh! I have a "master". That's remarkable. So... "as much about censorship ..." That's probably true. This form is, to a vanishingly small degree, about censorship, and I imagine that's true of lots of other fora which also have other topics to focus on. You are not being censored here. We don't have any authority to do so. Much as we may wish to, we can not stop you spouting nonsense on the web (or in your local high street if you wish). But we can stop you wasting our time and bandwidth.

Without wishing to appear offensive, if you aren't trolling, I suggest that you seek medical help.

No. That's my point. It shows that they are competent criminals.

How did you come to the conclusion that you had " a dramatic effect on correcting the layers of the atmosphere."

How did you "find" this?

LOL It's an interesting point. Almost any government decision is good from someone's point of view. The current UK government is clearly plutocratic. But within that context, the politicians arevery competent. They are doing a fine job of making sure the rich get richer. They aren't " incompetent and corrupt"; they are very competent in their corruption. They get away with it.

Why are you torturing worms?

https://xkcd.com/1020/

That's a good order of magnitude or two more expensive than tap water. A friend of mine who used to work in a pub was always pleased to see people drinking cola in his bar. It had a mark-up of essentially 100 %. The brewery supplied CO2 for dispensing beer, so he didn't pay for that. The price of tap water is quoted in pennies per ton. The flavouring syrup cost a few pence. He sold the drink for a few pounds. I think he worked out the most expensive bit was paying someone to wash the glass afterwards.

The difference between pharmacology and toxicology is intent.

It would be an exceptionally safe drug. Even placebos have about a 5% risk of adverse effects. https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/science-blog/harmful-placebos

OK Let's start there because we agree about it. If the risk is low enough, it's not worth worrying about. Why? Do you accept that essentially, it's "too small to worry about" because it's "too small to make any (noticeable) difference"? Well, we have been using the stuff for over half a century. And nobody noticed the difference. Even though we have systems in place to check, nobody noticed.

Choosing to get the wrong answer is also absurd.

No, and that's the point. It's clearly absurd.

"Is it permissible to use infinity, which is not defined in physics, to assume the impossibility of traveling at the speed of light?!" Yes, particularly if you use a reductio ad absurdum argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum It is absurd to imagine that something with a non-zero rest-mass could get to the speed of light because it would take an infinite amount of energy to do so.

I'm sorry; I thought I had made it clear. For any set of experiments, statistical power is finite. I understand that. How did you come to the conclusion that such a test has not been done? You are the one saying we need more testing; You are also the one saying that we don't need to find the problem Come back when you have finished arguing with yourself. As I said, are you offering to pay for it? But. more importantly, what do you think this is? AFAICT you have yet to explain why you think we do not already know that the risk from H pylori is greater than that from the drug. Do you realise that neither estimate of probability needs to be very precise? We know that it is small. (Because, if it was high, it would be noticeable- e.g via the yellow card scheme or through American ambulance chasing lawyers As wiki points out "In 2020, it was the 222nd most commonly prescribed medication in the United States, with more than 2 million prescriptions.".) And that's all we actually ned to know. This is exactly what statistical power has to do with it. We did tests. They were not powerful enough to be sure of the outcome; they never can be. But they were good enough to know that the cure was better than the disease.

Reminds me of this.

Iodometric titration, but I can't see how that's relevant. It's a chemical. It is always the same. Fundamentally, the material you posted the data for is just bleach. I think the amine oxide is there as a surfactant/ thickener. The other alkalies are there because hypochlorite is more stable in alkaline solution. What are you trying to achieve?

Really? This whole thread seems to be full of speculations and errors.

I don't think you can get high purity sodium hypochlorite as a solid powder- it usually decomposes a bit when you remove the water.