Rebdragon

It should be, theoretically, possible with all elements as well, save hydrogen. Spontaneous fission is only theoretically possible with elements of atomic mass 100 u or greater, and only energetically feasible for atomic masses above 230 u. So only Iodine even has the physical possibility of spontaneously blowing up, and it's only a fraction of a fraction of one percent of the human body by mass, on the order of micrograms. Even with that small amount, the amount of energy required for total fission to happen is absurd. In fact, if you could actually get enough energy to fissure enough Iodine to actually kill a person, the energy used to initiate the fission would probably kill the person first. So no. And on a side note, I found where Iodine is found: the thyroid and parathyroid glands.

Hit the gym, meet new people, and get really awesome at rap-battles.

Bullies tend to pick on easy targets: those with few friends as protection, those who are physically weak, those who don't verbally stand up for themselves. Fix one of the above three, minimum. Teenage life can be hard, but if you keep on improving it gets easier :thumbup: . Wow, what? I know I'm a jerk online but you want to kill me?

I can totally hook you up with this hot lesbian chick in my old Runescape clan. Or Goddess. Although seriously, personally I always took that Yuri talk as just teenage fangirl stuff; kind of surprised to hear it's for real. Do you think your parents would be cool with it? Or are you really unsure how they'd react?

How would one atom splitting do anything? There's no element found in the body that's reactive enough to start the chain splitting reaction of a nuclear explosion. You'd have one atom go pop, and that's about it.. It's actually quarks flipping and breaking the triplet bond, and that starting a chain reaction. I forget exactly how that works, though. Anything above Bismuth either degrade or go boom-boom. I'm pretty sure Iron is about as high as bodily elements go, spare Iodine. As a refresher, the whole nuke thing is just a chain reaction started by launching a neutron into a Uranium 235 atom (rare, like 1% of Uranium is this iso), which splits and releases three neutrons, which split more and etc etc... BOOM. EDIT: What's this "quark flipping" business? I've never heard of that, and with Conservation of Charge I don't see how neutrons could turn into protons or vice versa, nor do I see how a nuclear reaction could break a bond within a hadron. The strong force is far too powerful. Learn to have fun. If being a moron is your idea of fun then you are not very classy my friend.

Discovery channel says no. Discovery channel doesn't lie.

... okay? Who are you?

Holy JESUS did I read that wrong.

Sweet, Goddess wants you to get picked on. Welcome to the dark side m'lady :thumbup: . Wait, my b. I forgot you were here before I was.

i think shadow's an angry drunk :D

You know, it's kinda hard to believe someone like you even tries to be cool on the interwebz. ... thank... you?

A smile is just a smile and you're probably reading far too much into it because you like her. Best thing to do it to try talking to her and see where it goes from there. The worst that will happen is you end up asking her out and she says no and you move on. Yeah I guess youre right. But this is coming from a school where, if you look at someone, they'll say "What the [bleep] are you looking at [bleep]?" etc You know, if you stop being a loser you'll stop being a loser. Fact.

The sheer normality of this ('school is a joke for me', ugh) combined with his usage of that "thing" legitamitely pisses me off.

INSERT LINK TO ONE OF THE MILLION LISTS OF HOW AWESOME THE 90'S WERE. ALSO INSERT ORIGINALITY.

Hm, actually, my first and second time reading your post it seemed sarcastic, and my last post was about how unclear it was whether that was sarcasm or not. But upon reading it a third time, I see that it appears genuinely sincere. My b.

Ha, and you have better support than him? Read the title. I was supporting his answer, genius. A thousand pardons to you and your crystal clear sarcasm, young master.

Eh, Promise, personal experiences and online data check of the past five minute incline me to disagree yet again. I've never heard of sprinters using their heels. The 40 isn't the best way to test general sprinting speed- the 100 or the 200 are the real ones for that (past 400 and endurance becomes a heavy factor). The 40 puts a heavier weight on quickness and reaction time, skills that honestly shouldn't factor in to what we call "speed". They're... different. You can have a faster 40 than someone and it's still possible for them to catch up to you in a straight run. It was hyperbole, kind of a politcally correct way of saying "black guys still gunna be fasta den you". Form can be trained but there has to be some kind of plateau. Romantically acting like there isn't one is just misleading.

In all seriousness (I know I say this a lot, but), GET THE F**K AWAY from this forum. The only person on this thread who I have yet to find in any way knowledgable is Promise; everyone else seems to be offering [cabbage] that will only hurt your speed. Hell, I was about to come on here and bluntly say "you can't train speed" before I checked some of these online articles: http://www.jasonferruggia.com/2009/01/0 ... ick-beith/ http://www.elitefts.com/documents/speed ... _myths.htm http://www.sport-fitness-advisor.com/speedtraining.html My personal feeling, even after reading these articles, still remains much the same though. That is, as much as you want to improve speed, you shouldn't get the dumb idea that that means that anyone can become Usain Bolt with enough training. Sometimes it really does just come down to genetics. The world doesn't work like Dragon Ball Z. I know this is counter-intuitive to the learning process, but I'm inclined to disagree, on two counts. First, I distinctly remember learning about running that sprinters run on their toes and cross country runners run on their heels (something about using less energy that way). Second, I just checked my form, and I run on my toes. And I was the fastest guy on my Select A soccer team and one of the fastest in my high school, class size of 400.

Hilarious. Because this one-word, completely unsupported answer is as valid as any other on this thread. But hey-- the futile discussion is entertaining and sometimes even educational. So let us all continue. Ha, and you have better support than him? Read the title.

I guess that's true. She was just the perfect personality for me. Bah seeing her with this dude makes me so angry. ;_; You know what? You all spout that [cabbage] of a statement up way too much. "She's not worthy of you", "she's not worth your time", "you're better than this, better than her". You know what else? Stop. You may think you're being helpful but you're really not. You're telling the person that they shouldn't change, that they shouldn't improve themselves, that the world should fit them. You're treating them like five-year olds. Expect more of users. Treat them better. And when the truth needs to be said, say it. Derek, you have this all wrong. It's not that she isn't worth your time, it's that you aren't worth hers. Why? You're boring and uninteresting (and most likely fit other bad personas), and you need to change that. Do you need to change who you believe you are? No, but you need to learn from this and improve yourself. You need to learn from her that she doesn't want to be with you, and she may not be the last to feel that way. Strive to improve yourself in every way, every day. Oh, and stop with the stalking. One of the reasons she listed for you, bluntly, was that you were smothering her. Trying desperately hard to get her back... do you even need a short version of the explanation? Just... stop. Move on. [riku, if you agree with me (if you're merely telling him to move on rather than flatter him, the latter which I see a lot), my b. just trying to make a point, not single you out]

Oh get off your high horse you little dweeb.

Nice, you've got a good face shape for the change. Although, honestly, compared to this lot you didn't look half bad with long hair.

That seems to be the motif of this thread. 2's and 8's don't mix people. 2's and 8's don't mix.

19. My dad was a pretty late bloomer and is three inches taller than me, so I might grow some more. Doubtful though, but considering I don't play basketball it don't bother me too much.

6. I'm short. 5'7", to be exact. Didn't like that the height comments were only coming from the tall people. Demographical bias, I say!