In message <[email protected]>, dated Mon, 1 Nov 2010, Richard Nute <[email protected]> writes:
>Check the on-line definitions for: > > chemical energy: "The net potential energy > liberated or absorbed during the course of > a chemical reaction" > (Princeton University) > > biological energy: "In biology, energy is an > attribute of all biological systems from the > biosphere to the smallest living organism." > (Wikipedia) These definitions don't really add anything to the discussion. My point is that considering the minute amounts of energy involved when chemical and biological agents do harm as the 'cause' of the harm is overly analytical. This approach derives from your professor's theory of vocabulary, which not everyone subscribes to. -- OOO - Own Opinions Only. Try www.jmwa.demon.co.uk and www.isce.org.uk John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK If at first you don't succeed, delegate. But I support unbloated email http://www.asciiribbon.org/ - ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]> All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at: http://www.ieeecommunities.org/emc-pstc Graphics (in well-used formats), large files, etc. can be posted to that URL. Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/ Instructions: http://listserv.ieee.org/request/user-guide.html List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html For help, send mail to the list administrators: Scott Douglas <[email protected]> Mike Cantwell <[email protected]> For policy questions, send mail to: Jim Bacher: <[email protected]> David Heald: <[email protected]>
