-1=e^ipi

Wow! I never knew that! *sarcasm* Your knowledge of science is so large! High energy photons (gamma radiation) is the main concern when it comes to health effects. Did I not say "let alone the fact that uranium is a heavy element like lead"? If you want to argue the negative effects of bio-accumulation of heavy elements then that is fine, but that doesn't make radiation from say Cs-137 any worse than radiation from K-40.

Why is this relevant to whether or not the water with food colouring warms faster? As long as the ppm is non-zero it will warm faster (ppm will only affect by how much).

Here you can do an experiment all by yourself to demonstrate the idea that a more opaque fluid will absorb more EM radiation. You will need: - Some tap water - 2 cups (preferably transparent, glass cups should do) - A light source (preferably either the Sun or an incandescent light bulb cause they emit black body radiation) - Some food colouring (black is preferable) - A thermometer 1. Pour an equal amount of water to each of the cups 2. Add some food colouring to one of the cups 3. Place both cups under a light source 4. Wait say an hour 5. Come back and measure the temperatures of the water in the cups. The water with food colouring will have a higher temperature. Edit: note that the radiative greenhouse effect is due to the atmosphere being more opaque to radiation from the earth compared to radiation from the sun.

Look, if you want me to demolish your retarded understanding of economics then fine, but you will have to create another thread for that. I know, it says we should NOT be compelled to join them, but in many cases being in a union is mandatory for a job. Anyway, I found it funny that according to the UN we all have a right to get paid while on holidays. Not everyone wants state recognized marriage. Could you at least say 'some people' rather than 'people'? What about homosexuals that wish to marry but can't in the majority of the world where their marriage is not recognized? What about the minority that want polygamous marriage? Discrimination is okay, as long as you are on the benefiting end? Why is this a should? Why not treat people as individuals? The whole concept of common law couples is dumb. Marriage should be about consent. If two people never consented to marriage then they should be considered married. There is a difference about not giving a damn about what an organization thinks and giving a damn about the organization itself.

Looking at the un charter it has some weird 'rights': "(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests." It's a right to form monopolies on labour that counter the economic interest of the entire nation? "No one may be compelled to belong to an association." Well so much for mandatory labour unions. (edit: not saying there is anything wrong with this 'right' just pointing out that most western countries go against this) "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay." It's a right to get paid while on holidays? "Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace." So education should NOT be about teaching people useful skills that they can use in life and/or increasing the knowledge of the society? It's directed at developing our personalities (whatever that means) and making sure we worship the UN? "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children." So religious fundamentalist parents have a right to choose what kind of education the children receive? So if they don't like evolution they can choose to send kids to a school where they teach creationism as science? "Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible." What does this even mean?

Yet the idea that different races might have genetic tenancies to live longer alludes you? What are you trying to say? That we should have marriage because it makes people live longer? Correlation != Causation. Why? According to you, it is not discrimination because anyone can become muslim. Why do you keep talking about single vs married, you are making a false dichotomy. What about all the non-married couples (some of which are in happy relationships and may even have children)? " Article 16. (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State. " Where does it say that the state must define marriage and make it a state institution? Edit: not that i give a damn what the UN thinks

Yes. This question has poor grammar so I do not understand it. The absorption spectra of different gasses is used in a wide number of ways.

I'll play Mohammed's advocate here: Since when do human laws trump the laws according to the will of Allah?

Why are you not applying the same standards of controlling for income, smoking, etc. to your claim that married people live longer and healthier lives? Whether there actually is a genetic tendency for people of some races to live longer than people of other races is besides the point. So if a law was passed that says that all non-muslims must pay a jizya tax to the state (but muslims are exempt), then you would be fine with it since anyone can choose to become muslim? Could you define these rights?

Yeah it is discriminatory, and not just against singles. Why should non-married couples have to pay higher tax than married couples? White people live longer and are healthier than black people. Is it not reasonable that insurance companies charge lower premiums to white people? not withstanding clause.

Uhhh yeah we have. Uranium has been on earth since the earth's formation and originates from the dust of a super nova that occurred billions of years ago before our sun's formation. Heck 1.7 billion years ago, uranium concentrations were high enough for natural nuclear fission reactors to occur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor Also, I love how you say we've been living with potassium for centuries. What are you, a young earth creationist? K-40 has always been on earth since the earth formed 4.5 billion years ago. If you live in an area with more naturally occurring background radiation then you are at higher risk of getting cancer. Depends on how much vs how much.

Uranium 235 or Uranium 238. Uranium 235, obviously not, but let's compare Uranium 238 with Potassium 40: U 238: Half life: 4.5 billion years Photon Energy:4.267 MeV Atomic Mass: 238 K 40: Half life: 1.2 billion years Mean Photon Energy: 1.343 MeV (90% chance of 1.33 MeV and 10% chance of 1.46 MeV) Atomic Mass: 40 So a gram of U 238 produces 1.22 x 10^-8 W of power from radioactive decay. Similarly, a gram of K 40 produces 8.55 x 10^-8 W of power from radioactive decay. So the U-238 is only about 4x as radioactive as the K-40. So obviously I would rather ingest the K-40 (let alone the fact that uranium is a heavy element like lead).

Name changes, divorces, alimony, etc. So you admit income splitting exists. Good. I'm a person and I don't want the government to recognize marriage. I know many people that would agree with me. So if enough people want Sharia law then it is the government's duty to enforce Sharia law? So discrimination is okay as long as it is done by private companies? If you get rid of the legal classification of people by marital status then insurance companies can no longer do this. Income splitting + progressive tax system.

Yeah, this pisses me off too. Too much of the voting population does not understand math. Bananas contain the radioactive isotope K-40. Your question is dumb in the context of your claims of Fukushima Daiichi poisoning the ocean. How does a 0.022% increase in the radioactivity of the Pacific Ocean constitute the end of the world? Maybe a better question is, which is more radioactive? A banana or a fish from the pacific ocean?

Nazism?

Yeah cause placing disproportionate tax burdens on non-married individuals is totally fair. *sarcasm* Unnecessary legal costs associated with state defined marriage also make sense. *sarcasm* That aside, I don't understand why it should be a state institution. If we got rid of it, people could just enter in their own legal contracts and have their wedding ceremonies and call each other husband and wife. Marriage is a cultural thing and does not need government. Income splitting. Not to mention married couples often benefit from each other's insurance. I agree, so let's abolish the progressive taxation system and have 1 rate for everyone (plus a minimum guaranteed income). On the other hand, why should a married couple earning 80,000 dollars total pay less tax than a non-married couple earning 80,000 dollars? Incorrect definitions. Polygamy - a marriage that includes more than two partners Polygyny - a form of polygamy whereby a man takes two or more wives at the same time Polyandry - a form of polygamy whereby a woman takes two or more husbands at the same time

Wait, what prevents a woman from marrying multiple men?

Abolish alimony payments then?

Yes. There should be no taxes and benefits for marriage. Marriage is fine. Reproduction on the other hand is problematic as it creates offspring with increased vulnerability to genetic diseases. Interestingly, the closest relatives of humans (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans) are all polygamous and most likely the common ancestor we had with them was polygamous, so humans aren't naturally monogamous like swans. However, as humans developed larger brains, the requirements for parents to take care of their children to teach then skills has grown (and it's still growing, some people live with their parents for the first 3 decades of their life); this increase in demand for parents has encouraged humans to be more monogamous than their ape-relatives. So to answer your question, humans are nether completely monogamous or completely polygamous, we are somewhere in between. Anyway, to answer your question, as long as it is between consenting adults then why shouldn't those consenting adults be able to get married? Heck, if you could prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a non-human wants to marry a human then I would be fine with that too. But overall, I think that the institution of marriage should be abolished. The state shouldn't determine who is and who isn't married, individuals should. If those individuals want to enter in contracts (like they want to share property and live together) they can do that without the state institution of marriage. You can have wedding ceremonies and wear rings even if the government institution of marriage no longer exists. Getting rid of marriage will also get rid of all the legal costs associated with divorce, income-splitting, etc. That said, the government might have a role when it comes to reproduction. Obviously you want to avoid genetic diseases (as a result of incest for example), if the population growth rate is too small then you want might to incentive child births (ex. Russia) and if the population growth rate is too high then you might want to discourage child births (ex. China).

Of course I would mind, the backyard is my property. Though a better comparison would be if I'm BBQ'ing food in my own backyard and my neighbor tries to take me to court and ban BBQs because they have a religious belief that BBQs will cause the sky to fall. I do. Why would we not use internal combustion engines?

See, the thing is you actually have to prove/justify that reducing CO2 emissions is good and worth the implementation costs of policies that would encourage such behavior. You cant just go CO2 is rising -> therefore we must implement mitigation policies.

I know, the radioactivity you get from eating bananas is far greater than anything you would get from fukushima. Here I'll do some calculations for you cause clearly you don't understand the concept that the pacific ocean is really really big: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_effects_from_the_Fukushima_Daiichi_nuclear_disaster#Total_emissions "On 21 April, TEPCO estimated that 520 tons of radioactive water leaked into the sea before leaks in a pit in unit 2 were plugged, totaling 4,700 TBq of water release (calculated by simple sum, which is inconsistent with the IAEA methodology for mixed-nuclide releases[66]) (20,000 times facility's annual limit).[66][84] TEPCO's detailed estimates were 2,800 TBq of I-131, 940 TBq of Cs-134, 940 TBq of Cs-137." I-131: has an 8 day half life and releases 971 KeV of energy upon decay Cs-134: has a 2 year half life and releases ~1600 KeV of energy upon decay Cs-137: has a 30 year half life and releases 1176 KeV of energy upon decay Note that: "The primary releases of radioactive nuclides have been iodine and caesium". The majority of I-131 has already decayed due to it's short half life, while over half of the Cs-134 has decayed due to the 2 year half life and fukushima being 3 years ago. So approximately 9.4 x 10^14 Bq of Cs-137 and an equivalent amount of Cs-134 was released in 2011. Now, 3 years later, this would leave approximately 0.33 x 10^14 Bq of Cs-134 and 8.77 x 10^14 Bq of Cs-137 in the ocean. Given the decay energies, the power produced from radioactive decay (of the radioactive materials released into the pacific ocean by fukushima) is approximately 173.7 W. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean Now the pacific ocean has an area of 1.65 x 10^14 m^2. If the radio active isotopes have spread across the surface of the pacific ocean then the power produced from radioactive decay from radioactive isotopes released into the ocean by Fukushima per unit area of the pacific ocean is 1.05 x 10^-12 W/m^2. http://physics.nist.gov/PhysRefData/XrayMassCoef/ComTab/muscle.html Now the mass energy absorption coefficient around 1 MeV for human biological tissue is approximately 0.002 m^2/kg. This means that a human on the surface of the pacific ocean will receive about 1.05 x 10^-15 Gy/s of additional radiation from radioactive isotopes released into the pacific ocean by Fukushima. Edit: just wanted to add that I divided the radiation reaching the human by a factor of 2 since for radiation coming from a large thin plane, half will go up and half will do down. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sievert Using a weighting factor of 20, this means that a human in the pacific ocean receives 2.10 x 10^-14 Sv/s or 6.63 x 10^-7 Sv/year. A human on earth receives about 3 x 10^-3 Sv/year from natural background radiation (cosmic radiation, terrestrial radiation, etc.), though this can vary from approx 1.5 x 10^-3 Sv/year to 4.5 x 10^-3 Sv/year depending where on the earth's surface you live. Therefore, (using this rough approximation) radioactive isotopes released in the pacific ocean from Fukushima Daiichi result in sea life today in the pacific ocean receiving approximately 0.022% more radiation than they would without Fukushima Daiichi. I hardly consider this 'poisoning the ocean'.

Here is an article to help calm your delusion. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/11/16/fukushima-radiation-in-pacific-tuna-is-equal-to-one-twentieth-of-a-banana/ If you are that concerned about radiation then I suggest you avoid bananas.

Appeal to authority and/or ad populism fallacy. Yes we are changing it to make the planet better suited for life and more similiar to the atmosphere of the planet for the past 590 million years since the Cambrian explosion. Oh the horror! I'm pretty sure that if someone tried to dump beta-carotene into the water supply of children that suffer from vitamin A deficiency, it would not be so bad. Anyway, CO2 is not an 'unknown' substance. It's a colourless, odourless inert gas that is essential for life on this planet. I don't believe in god, sorry. Yes, the people that want all of society to stop emitting CO2 have the burden of proof. It's as dumb principle that allows eco-luddites to stop human progress. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle#Criticisms

You are saying that oil backed experts are saying that doing something about CFCs today is futile? Douchiness does not have an angular momentum nor does it contain CO2 or any matter.