This was indeed a test: the volume of water was about two cups of water (a bit less than 500mL). The article does not say what the concentration of the chemicals in that water was.

However, it does sound like it can be applied on a larger scale fairly easily.

>“The advantage of this technology is that it is very sustainable,” Liu said. He noted that hydrogen that is introduced into contaminated sources during the process becomes harmless water at the end of the reaction. 

>At this point, the system is still in an early phase of research, but the team hopes to eventually develop it into a commercially viable machine that could zap PFAS compounds out of large water tanks, and other sources.  

>“The hydrogen-based polarization technique may be readily applied to other water ionization systems to enhance reductive destruction of PFAS and other contaminants,” the researchers concluded in the study.

Obligatory link.

Yeah, I think whoever linked this misinterpreted what "injunction" meant in this context. Because the article basically says that the First Nations protestors will get arrested if they keep protesting against a housing development built on tribal land, and that's not really uplifting.

First, the vacuum of space isn't inside something else. Remember that a vacuum is a volume with nothing inside it; no gas, liquid, or solid, nada (technically the vacuum of space isn't perfectly empty, but it's close enough). The reason space is a vacuum is that matter, like those gases, liquids, and solids, has mass; things with mass attract other things with mass (that's what gravity is). Simply put, matter clumps together, which is why stars, planets, and other things form.

Since that matter ends up clumped together, the space left between those clumps is more or less empty -- in other words, a vacuum.

Second, the negative pressure of the vacuum by itself is not what causes a collapse. Remember how matter clumps together because of its mass? The more mass something has, the stronger its gravity, and the more firmly things are clumped up. Earth's mass is great enough, and its gravity strong enough, that the gases in the atmosphere squeeze things inside it very strongly; at sea level, the weight of the air that is above a square inch of paper, going in a column all the way up to the top of the atmosphere, is almost 15 pounds. The higher up you go, the less air there is above you pressing down, which is why air pressure gets less the higher you go. In addition to that, those gases want to fill any empty space (because gases expand), so if there's an area that they can expand into, they will.

Combine those two things, and the air around you is actually pressing quite strongly on everything around it. So if you take a water bottle, and suck all the air out of it, there's nothing inside it -- in other words, a vacuum. But because a vacuum is literally nothing, then there's nothing inside that bottle pushing back against the air outside it -- which, as we just saw, is pushing really hard against that bottle. If the bottle had water inside, it would be strong enough to resist the air pressure at sea level -- even if it had air from the room it would be strong enough, because that air would be at the same pressure -- but the plastic along isn't strong enough. So it goes squish.

What causes the bottle to collapse isn't the negative pressure by itself; it's the difference between the positive air pressure outside crushing the bottle, and the lack of pressure -- negative pressure -- inside.

Imagine two people leaning against each other with their hands. Suddenly one of them lets go and steps out of the way real fast. With nothing stopping them, the other person falls forward, squashing anything that's under them. Removing the air from the bottle is like that person stepping away.

Point taken!

Uhhh ... wouldn't it have been faster to get it from Antarctica? I'm assuming there's something that prevented them from doing that, but darned if I can figure out what it is. Unless it's the strong currents that circle Antarctica?

Oddly enough, as a Christian I'd disagree in this case. The reason being that the CoE doesn't have anything like the separation of church and state you'd find in the United States: some of the bishops in the CoE automatically have a place in the House of Lords merely by virtue of being bishops (these are called Lords Spiritual). They can't have their cake and eat it.

​

Now, if all they wanted to do was articulate a view of human sexuality that holds that the male and female sexes are complementary halves of the divine image that are united in marriage, that's fine -- and if people don't like it, they don't have to join their church. Withholding your church's rites from someone that disagrees with its teachings is indeed distinct from homophobia, which is failing to grant people equal legal rights. (Though as we know, many people have been doing both, sadly). You can't expect people to follow your clubhouse's rules if they aren't members -- but you also can't expect the clubhouse to let you in if you don't want to play by their rules.

​

But here's the problem: they're trying to do that while also being basically an extension of the state -- a state, in this case, which holds a very different view of human sexuality, as does much of the populace. Those clubhouses overlap, quite messily. And, again, we know that a lot of them aren't just holding a different view of sexuality -- at least some are also trying to deny people those legal rights, which they have the political oomph to do thanks to the Lords Spiritual. And in this case, the guy mentioned in the article, Bradshaw, is saying that if this disagreement continues, "disestablishment" may have to result -- in other words, severing the link between the government and the church.

​

Which, as a Christian -- and ironically an Anglican at that -- is honestly what should be done anyway. I agree strongly that faiths should not be bullied into doing anything, but I also strongly think that any time the church tries to coerce instead of persuade, it is doing wrong -- people shouldn't be bullied into doing anything by faiths, either.