Iota

Tell us what you think first

You're right, "Calculate the mass of a compound with a molar mass 392 in 100cm³ of solution" makes no sense here.

You already know its mass, which is what you added (0.7g). Therefore there's no calculation needed to work it out.

On the other hand, with the information you have available, i.e. RMM, mass, and liquid volume- you can calculate the concentration, which you don't know, using the mass which you do know.

.

What the US is doing now is no different to what most nations are doing today, most empires and countries have done throughout all history. Every nation is competing fiercely to be on top. If you're looking for a 'good' country, one doesn't exist.

The ability to do as one pleases, without oppression in any form by another person, in the purest sense, I suppose. Due to human nature some regulation is necessary to prevent activities resulting from one individual's liberty, from infringing upon another's.

Hence, I guess, as Delta and Imatfaal stated: the difference between being 'free from' and 'free to'.

Mods get all the women

WHAT! Mods don't get the ladies?

!This was posted after the mod notice, and has therefore been moved to a new topic here on 'how to get the ladies'!

When you can't be a mod, just pretend.

g) demonstrate your superiority calling other people stupid. Girls dig that.

!CharonY please stay on topic, which is 'how to become a moderator', not 'how to score with the ladies'. Please do not respond to this message!

I sometimes imagine a Cold War scenario, where instead of each side trying to invent new ways to blow each other up, they're both racing to find a cure for cancer. We'd most likely be a lot closer now. Not to mention the two world wars etc.

God created the realm and the rules. We are the players. The game is choice.

 

Science does not disprove God. It investigates truth and reveals the methods of creation. Those who seek knowledge, seek God.

 

Infinite potential has existed since the beginning.

Basic rational thinking disproves all existing claims of a deity, forget science. Of which 'God' do you refer to?

 

God created the realm and the rules. We are the players. The game is choice.

 

Science does not disprove God. It investigates truth and reveals the methods of creation. Those who seek knowledge, seek God.

 

Infinite potential has existed since the beginning.

Those who seek knowledge, seek knowledge. Those who seek God, say 'God' did it.

 

God created the realm and the rules. We are the players. The game is choice.

 

Science does not disprove God. It investigates truth and reveals the methods of creation. Those who seek knowledge, seek God.

 

Infinite potential has existed since the beginning.

If science can't disprove God, you can't prove God. Therefore making assertions like that is evidence of no thought process on the matter.

.

You must be incapable of writing in full sentences. No matter.

 

Or shall I clarify: Sentences. No. Worry. Don't.

I lol'd

Though it's not possible to say God doesn't exist, it's easy to show why all the religions that exist can't be true.

since I wrote it I have had a cancer operation and will be totally absorbed in surviving.

So take it for what it is. one atheists way to try to understand the logic of god.

all the best with your treatment man.

So primary is considered 'normal'?

Awesome, sorted. Thanks valent.

I didn't want to make a thread just for this simple question, but...

does n signify an integer, and if so ,what for?

Thanks in advance.

 

How do you feel about knowing the truth and not being able to do anything about it because it is out of your control?

 

Are you the type who rushes through life thinking life is too short?

Nah I definitely don't rush through life. I just try to bare in mind the fact life's short when considering things like this, it helps put things in perspective sometimes.

for me the answer to this question is quite obvious , we all should choose happiness .

And for those who chose intelligence , they must use it to seek happiness otherwise it's useless .

Intelligence is most useless when it's only used to serve yourself. That's the sort of thinking that makes society a worse place for everyone.

I'd rather have the freedom that comes with an intelligent/thinking mind, than the 'happiness' that comes with just not knowing. There's nothing better than knowing the truth/ being able to see the facts, having a fuller view, it's a lucky gift. Life is too short and the universe is too amazing. I'd rather have an interesting, fulfilling life with sadness, rather than a sedated form of mind that's happy.

Being ignorant of the things which make an intelligent person unhappy, also comes at the cost of being ignorant of all the wonder, amazement an intelligent person experiences also; in the way we perceive and understand the universe. Ignorance isn't bliss, it's a false sense of it. It's not knowing any better. During my one and only, short time in this universe, I'd rather be concious throughout the duration and have a clear view of it. I pity those whose day to day concerns are never beyond that of superficial inconsequential meaningless nonsense, whose minds never ponder life or the universe.

I'd liken an unintelligent person to a person constantly high on laughing gas or some sort of sedation; they're happy, but they don't really know what's going on and so long as they're sedated, they'll never have a clear view of their surroundings. All the intelligent people around them are the sober one's, wiping their drool.

Edit: It's beyond me how 5 people have voted happy.

Lying to kids about religious concepts will predispose them to assuming that all religion is a lie.

 

So ironically by lying to them you'd be showing them the truth.

The cross represents the piece of wood a Jew died on approximately 2000 years ago. As the story goes, an infallible Jew -who himself is God- while on the cross asked 'God the Father' (himself) 'why hath thou/I forsaken me/myself'? (cleverly contradicting the idea that he was infallible, or God.) Said Jew died/murdered himself on a wooden cross, came back to life, BUT in a different body to his original one (again cleverly confusing the reader into thinking it was probably not the same Jew who died on the cross moments earlier), then floated into the clouds back up to heaven. And the moral of the story is, God loves you.

Nobody is disputing the fact that fluoride has toxic effects in high doses, However, those doses do not occur via fluoridation, so those effects are irrelevant to the current discussion.

After all, 10 litres of water would probably kill you- are you going to ban it?

 

Pointless comparison, I'm not against fluoridation on the basis that it's a chemical. Consumption of water is a necessary risk because it takes vast amounts before it's toxic, because it's absolutely crucial that we drink it, and water isn't the cause of potentially carcinogenic compounds forming, as chloride and fluoride can do.

 

"I wholly disagree. It's evidence that a risk has yet to be known, not that one doesn't exist."

How do you sleep at night, knowing there's a risk that your room has a tiger in it?

Do you worry about that risk or do you dismiss it because, if there were one, you would know about it by now?

Well, it's the same with fluoride in water. The risk must be small or non-existent.

 

If tigers were being added to rooms at random, John, I'd be concerned. If nobody's adding them I have nothing to worry about, other than naturally occurring tiger's of course, but I'd accept that, because nobody is implementing it.

 

"I consider dental fluorosis a form of harm"

So do I. It affected my aunt who grew up in an area where the natural fluoride levels were high.

She has mottled teeth.

However, since they don't add enough fluoride to drinking water to cause fluorosis, that objection is also irrelevant.

 

Seeing as it occurred as a result of it being added to the water, not all that long ago, I see it has relevance.

 

"Not that I don't recognise the tooth decay preventing properties of fluoridated water intake."

Please yourself, but you are ignoring the science.

 

If, when, recognising the scientific findings, but objecting to the implementation of water fluoridation, I'm somehow 'ignoring the science', fine.

 

Who is being facetious?

If you think politics is letting you down, join a party that agrees with your views and campaign for it, or stand for election.

Good luck standing on a ticket that says "I don't believe evidence".

 

It was a blunt and unrealistic response to part of what I said. If it wasn't facetious, it was much more likely than not to come across as it.

"Skeletal fluorosis is also well documented (though not with the amount added to water supplies by governments, such as USA. It is caused by fluoride intake)."

So, it's not relevant.

I don't want to undermine your knowledge over mine, because yours is superior to mine by miles. But wow, very poor logic there. You're clearly fighting against fear mongering hype, which I recognise, because all too often it takes authority over fact and rational thinking in the minds of most people when it comes to issues like this. But you're in the wrong, the way you're trying to go about it here.

 

How many brush their teeth as often as they drink water?

So, it's not really relevant either.

I don't see that brushing and drinking water are equal in function or effectiveness in terms of dental care. Because people don't brush regular enough, doesn't mean everyone should therefore be subjected to taking fluoride unavoidably through their fundamental water supply.

 

 

If a lot of people have put a lot of effort into finding that risk, but have failed it is evidence that the risk isn't there.

I wholly disagree. It's evidence that a risk has yet to be known, not that one doesn't exist.

 

 

If you accept that it works when applied as toothpaste then you ought to accept that it works in the water supply.

I do, but to the extent that it's necessary, on top of brushing; necessary to the extent you force it on the masses, is very questionable. Both ethically, and scientifically.

 

 

And there's no real evidence of harm.

I consider dental fluorosis a form of harm, and don't consider the small benefits to a small proportion of the population adequate justification for mass-medication. I agree with the EU on this one.

 

 

So someone who says " I don't recognise the benefits of fluoridating water" is ignoring the science.

Yet you know in the context from which you quoted me, I meant the putative 'additional benefits' over just using brushing/flossing/other existing dental products which are used voluntarily by people, as opposed to unavoidably pushed upon people. Not that I don't recognise the tooth decay preventing properties of fluoridated water intake.

 

 

Stand for election.

Is there really any need to be facetious?

Tacitly, yes.

If there was not some sort of conspiracy to do it then why would they bother?

Some group has to be "conspiring" to do this.

Because I don't recognise the benefits of fluoridating water, doesn't only possibly imply a conspiracy. It implies in this case that I don't recognise the reasons given by those who are for it as adequate.

 

 

There are moral questions about involuntary mass medication- but the decision to fluoridate water should (at least in a democracy) have been made by the people through their representatives.

Hence, my main grounds for disapproval. The US didn't go about it in a democratic manner, nor do some European countries in their efforts to fluoridate table salt. There can be no democratic means by which a government can mass-medicate its population, unless everyone agrees. It should always be optional, never made unavoidable.

 

 

Also there's little if any real evidence of a risk and the benefits are well documented.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db53.pdf

40.7% of adolescents had dental fluorosis in 1999-2004 USA.

Skeletal fluorosis is also well documented (though not with the amount added to water supplies by governments, such as USA. It is caused by fluoride intake).

Also, just because the risk is small, or because a consequential risk hasn't currently been recognised as having occurred due to deliberate fluoridating of water, doesn't mean a risk isn't there. That's especially important to consider when the benefit of an action such as water fluoridating isn't all that necessary for the masses who are being medicated, and can be avoided without there being substantial or any real consequences. Hence, the risk is unnecessary, as well as being unjustified ethically.

 

Sounds like it. Especially when followed by the, frankly bizarre, "supposedly to prevent tooth decay."

Alright fine. I can concede that. I said that because I found it 'bizarre' that the reason given for the move is to raise the dental health of the population, by reaching those poorer areas. How many people can't afford toothpaste, how about a raised awareness scheme through education and advertising? Why the jump to this costly, 'let's fluoridate everybody's water scheme!'?

I don't see that rationale as being equivalent to the unscientific conspiracy theory class as John categorised it.

FFS! Can we stop promoting the "fluoride in water is..." conspiracy theories please?

This is mean to be a science site.

... simply stating that fluoridation of water is an 'unnecessary risk' is a conspiracy?