no-one has ever been killed or injured in a fire, as a result of a faulty chocolate fireguard.
i just love statistics, dont you,
2006-09-08 23:28:19 · 27 answers · asked by chris s 3 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Mathematics
Chris - I love your train of thought here - very Schrodinger's cat so - yes, as you say, a chocolate fireguard is 100% safe.
However what I like even more are the responses that completely missed the point of the question.
Just in reply to Crystal's response: Crystal you have the cart before the horse - a theory must be disproved before you can disguard it, if you cannot disprove it, it then becomes fact.
The clash between 'pure science' and 'alternative' (only personal opinion here) is that the 'pure scientists' can neither prove nor disprove theories of spirituality etc. They use the reasoning (wrongly or rightly) that as the spiritual thinkers cannot give hard evidence (as say an organic chemist could) for their theories then they are of no consequence and not worth taking seriously.
And I want one of Clyde's marbles.....
2006-09-08 23:51:21 · answer #1 · answered by weatherwax1 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well there are no statistics available because no-one has used a chocolate fireguard there has to be some sort of test carried out first anyway.
2006-09-09 10:43:59 · answer #2 · answered by HEATHER F 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
you ask us to disprove you? I have a better idea,how about you prove to us that anybody in any fire anywhere actually had a chocolate fireguard! Then that useless statistic you quote might have some credibility. Otherwise it is just that-totally useless.
2006-09-09 06:51:48 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'll pass on the invitation to disprove it since it doesn't matter to me. If you believe choc firewalls are the way to go, hey, you can even believe invading Iraq and the war on terrorism are the same thing if you want. The only time I'd care is when the number of believers in crazy things outnumbers the number of, shall we say, more rational people, and so far that hasn't happened in the case of chocolate firewalls.
2006-09-09 06:41:42 · answer #4 · answered by JustaThought 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If a chocolate fire guard was not edible and contained toxic substances then it would not be 100% safe. In this recent hot weather, a chocolate fire guard would of melted making the area around it slippery and unsafe.
2006-09-09 06:49:06 · answer #5 · answered by PHILIP C 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all it is about proving and not disproving, otherwise all alternative and spiritual type thinkers and believers would not be shunned and outcast by so many of the so terrible intelligent but not wise scientific experts.
Secondly it would be safe from me cause believe it or not I don't like chocolate!!
2006-09-09 06:33:31 · answer #6 · answered by Crystal 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Anything chocolate is not safe round me. I will eat it, regardless of the consequences, possibly by sticking my head in the fire at the same time. In which case it would be hot chocolate.
2006-09-09 06:40:58 · answer #7 · answered by knighttemplar1119 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Melted chocolate can burn skin extremely bad so technically you are wrong. When I have made chocolate rice krispie cakes I burnt myself on the melted chocolate, so as a statistic it is pretty lame.
2006-09-09 14:43:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Care to put your love of statistics to the test and play russian roulette with a gun loaded with a chocolate bullet?
2006-09-09 09:34:45 · answer #9 · answered by John H 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
There has never been a fatality on the Flying Pig Airline in all the years of aviation. This easily beats all other forms of transport for safety!
2006-09-09 06:42:57 · answer #10 · answered by d.perrot@btinternet.com 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋