41

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Maximum heart rate and fitness

« on: 19/09/2005 09:07:57 »

David's explanation is exactly why some competitive athletes do what is called blood doping.  This involves having a pint or two of your blood drawn and stored.  Then, after your body has replaced the lost serum and hemoglobin, the drawn blood is transfused back into the body.  This adds extra hemoglobin and allows greater amounts of oxygen to be carried by the blood to the muscles.  I'm not sure what the health repercussions of doing this are, but I would guess that it would be an increased risk of thrombosis due to excess platelets and increased blood viscosity.  

This is frowned upon in the sports world, but I'm not certain of its legality.  Technically, you're not taking any enhancement drugs...



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

42

That CAN'T be true! / Re: thermodynamics ???

« on: 18/09/2005 12:36:13 »

Fats are the most dense source of biological energy.  Whichever of the two can accumulate the highest body fat percentage would be the answer....my guess is rats as they likely have a slower metabolism than rabbits....rabbit heartbeat rates are insane.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

43

General Science / Re: mercury

« on: 18/09/2005 12:10:06 »

Mercury is still used in the treatment of stomach disorders in some countries.  In liquid form, it's much less harmful to you...it's the vapors that have a pronounced effect.  When they cross over into the bloodstream in the lungs, the mercury molecules are incorporated into metal-catalyzed enzymes as well as other proteins, changing the proteins shape and reactivity.  That's bad.  

For more on mercury toxicity and the variable harmfulness of elemental mercury, mercury vapur, mercury salts, and organic mercury, check out  http://www.emedicine.com/EMERG/topic813.htm




This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

44

Chemistry / Re: Calibration Curves

« on: 18/09/2005 11:59:16 »

I've found that I minimize the variance in my calibration curves when I use a Fibonacci sequence for the calibration points as well as repeat a few of the lower points.  For instance, say you want to use concentrations of 0.01M at the low and and around 0.40M in the high end.  I would plot points

1)  0.01
2)  0.01
3)  0.02
4)  0.03
5)  0.03
6)  0.05
7)  0.10
 0.15
9)  0.25
10) 0.40

This gives you a 10 point curve, slightly weighted towards the low end because that's where variance has the largest effect on your calibration...hence you want more data points there to minimize the variance of any one point.  

As David said, if you're not hitting origin with your calibration, don't force it.  You have some background noise or other experimental error that needs to be addressed in your calibration.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

45

Chemistry / Re: periodic table

« on: 29/08/2005 01:13:38 »

In general, you can think of it as a tendency for larger elements to have the repulsive force of the protons in the nucleus start to become stronger than the attractive nuclear force that holds them together.  Islands of stability come from the ratio of neutrons to protons (i.e. added nuclear force from neutrons) being favorable towards nuclear force holding the nucleus together.  Once you reach a certain nucleus size, the nuclear force becomes less and less able to overcome the repulsive force of the protons.  I'm told the actual structure, that is relative positions of neutrons to protons, is a factor but I couldn't begin to explain how.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

46

Just Chat! / Re: Hi I'm back

« on: 28/08/2005 04:17:52 »

Since you asked so nicely.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

47

Just Chat! / Hi I'm back

« on: 27/08/2005 06:28:16 »

Did you all miss me?  


Sorry I've been shirking in my know-it-all duties.  I'm back and stuff.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

48

Chemistry / Re: purifying expolsives

« on: 27/08/2005 06:27:34 »

Get an organic chemistry book and look up purification of organic compounds.  Organics are generally more soluble in stuff that salts are not.  You can take advantage of this to separate one from the other.  I'm afraid that's the straightest answer you're going to get on the subject.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

49

Just Chat! / Re: Who doesn't believe in God?

« on: 27/08/2005 06:25:26 »

I propse that we just let all of the God folks be "right" if they promise to stop talking about Him.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

50

Famous Scientists, Doctors and Inventors / Preformation Theory?

« on: 28/01/2004 06:01:15 »

Does anyone know who first proposed the preformation theory of genetics?  You know, the one where they claimed a homunculus (a miniature dude) lived in each sperm and/or egg cell, and that was what grew into offspring?  

We were discussing the history of genetics in (surprise) my genetics class and each of the incorrect prior theories had info about who started it except for that one.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

51

Physiology & Medicine / Re: Pain Killers ? Can you mix them ?

« on: 20/04/2005 23:03:56 »

What about mixing prescription pain killers?  For instance, instead of taking 2 vicodin, taking a vicodin and tramadol.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

52

Chemistry / Re: DYE THAT CAN BE SEEN WITH A PAIR OF SUNGLASSES???

« on: 09/04/2005 21:59:36 »

I've heard tales of someone using something like this to mark cards at casinos but I don't know what they could have been using.  There aren't glasses that can make you see in the infrared or UV spectrum except for like big bulky night vision goggles and inks are either going to reflect visible light or they're going to fluoresce under UV light which everyone would be able to see.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

53

Complementary Medicine / Re: Need new vitamin source

« on: 29/03/2005 13:34:38 »

quote:Originally posted by MachineGhost



Well, there is one objective way to observe the difference as far as I'm aware of.  Other than Kirilian photography to observe the "life force", you can beam polarized light into each of the two different molecules.  You'll be able to observe a significant difference in that the natural molecule bends the light ONLY to the right and the synthetic molecule bends the light to the right AND to the left.  This is why synthetic Vitamin E has half the potency of natural Vitamin E, or synthetic Beta-Carotene increases risk of cancer, or S-Alpha Lipoic Acid has less potency than R-Alpha Lipoic Acid, and so on.  You get what you pay (less) for!  :-)

Machine Ghost

You're talking about the chirality of the biomolecules here, the ability to rotate plane-polarized light of a molecule.  Here's where you're incorrect:  the bioactive conformation of saccharides rotate plane-polarized light to the right, using the R designation.  (i.e. R-Glucose, and this is the anomeric carbon that is designated as such)  Amino acids, however, are the opposite, L-tryptophan, L-carnitine, etc are what we can integrate into our protein synthesis.  Wether or not a synthetic source will create one conformation or the other depends entirely upon the synthetic route used to get there.  Some organic reactions create a racemic mixture, that is a mixture that includes equal proportions of both stereoisomers.  Some will make exclusively stereospecific products.  Some are in between the two extremes.  Synthetic chemists take this into account when designing syntheses for drugs/supplements and they can be separated from each other anyway.  Besides, how many supplements are synthesized as opposed to simply extracted from biomass?  Very few.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

54

Just Chat! / Re: Science vs. Religion

« on: 29/03/2005 12:41:13 »

quote:Originally posted by Tronix

Science and religion are both modes of understanding. One understands by reason, another by faith. A scientist may have faith that his theory is true, which spurs him to find the answer, and a buddihist or wiccan or christian or what have you needs to have some small bits of proof to back up his faith. A possible mix, but not an easy one. But, i dont see why someone cant believe that god sent life on the path to evolution, or that thier is a possibility of ghosts and such.

Scientists don't use faith to develop hypotheses.  Say that I believe a mutation on the gene for a certain enzyme is responsible for the development of type 2 diabetes.  As a scientist, I would not have come to this conclusion randomly, by praying, or by seeing someone's face embedded in a potato chip.  I would have come to this conclusion by analysis of known facts about genetics, physiology, and biochemistry.  Now, I would like to test this hypothesis.  I perform a variety of experiments and with the proper controls, I can demonstrate whether my hypothesis is supported or unsupported.  If the data supports the hypothesis and (and here's the tricky part) is reproducible under similar conditions in another lab then I have a nice little theory on my hands.  

The difference lies in that religious hypotheses (there is a divine creator who made everything, he sees all, he knows all, yadda yadda) cannot be tested or proven in any way as of this point in time.  They are believed in because they are passed down culturally across generations and people are indoctrinated into them at a young age.  It's hard to shake a belief in something that's been told to you your entire life that can't be directly disproven by anyone.  

And this is exactly why hardcore scientists and hardcore religious people simply do not get along when it comes to discussing the nature of life, existance, the soul, the universe, or anything that contradicts faith vs. observation.  We think they are stupid and they think we are heathens.  

With that aside, I'm not willing to rule out the existance of some source of energy that drove our universe into motion or even a higher intelligence that designed the physical laws.  But that's as far as I go.  With so many religions out there clamoring that they are the one true faith and the behavior that so many of them exhibit in trying to demonstrate their righteousness, I'm loathe to believe that any of them are even close to the truth.  The Zen Buddhists have a good idea because they admit they don't know crap and are willing to sit and meditate until they figure something out.  That's not the course I'd choose, but at least they're not killing anyone.

This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

55

Complementary Medicine / Re: Magnetic Therapy

« on: 29/03/2005 12:26:39 »

There's no accounting for the healing power of placebo.  Magnets, glyconutrients, ginseng, whatever the trend de jour is will have a fantastic placebo effect which is often more powerful than any prescription.  

Here's a fun article on the self-healing power of the mind:

http://www.newstarget.com/001125.html

Your body has physiological mechanisms to repair almost any injury or illness.  You just need to trick yourself into doing it.  





This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

56

Complementary Medicine / Re: Anyone Try Music Therapy

« on: 29/03/2005 12:15:56 »

Your brain is very much in tune with the oscillations of sound waves and magnetic and electrical fields.  Relaxing music in a quiet, safe area is a fantastic stress reliever.  If it works for you consistently, I say go with it.  There are even CDs designed to emit certain subharmonic tones that supposedly stimulate the brainwave state of relaxing.  I can't say wether they really work or not as I don't have access to an EEG but the hypothesis is sound.  Either way the music is relaxing.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

57

Complementary Medicine / Re: Usefulness of Glyconutrients

« on: 29/03/2005 12:11:05 »

quote:Originally posted by glycomom

 our bodies were made to utlize FOOD not synthetics. Our entire family uses products from a good company and we have seen amazing recovery in several areas. I am a "medical mom" and have done my homework. Glyconutrients DO WORK!

Our bodies evolved to utilize the biochemicals contained in food.  Your body does not care if a particular chemical comes from a plant or comes from a pill as long is it is the proper chemical in the proper conformation.  Just because we started off eating food is no reason to think we should only obtain our nutrients from food and food only.  

Most nutritional supplements are extracts of biomass anyway.  Do you know how hard it is to synthesize an enzyme or a vitamin?  How is this any better or worse than the source of these miraculous glyconutrients?  

58

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: protozoa

« on: 27/03/2005 06:21:52 »

Probably not until 1000x unless you stain or have a phase-contrast microscope.  They move pretty rapidly and they're colorless so it's not easy to spot them.  





This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

59

Cells, Microbes & Viruses / Re: what color would they be

« on: 27/03/2005 06:19:36 »

Are you looking at entire blades of grass?  If so, your problem is that your sample is too thick for the light from the microscope to penetrate.  Try taking a cross-section, some shavings, or just scraping some tissue off using the sharpest razor you can find.  Also, wash the grass first unless you want to see all the critters living on it, too.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

60

Complementary Medicine / Re: Insomnia

« on: 24/03/2005 14:00:41 »

quote:Originally posted by neilep

If I could find a red wine that I could like (remember , I'm a tea totaller)..one that doesn't give me chronic indigestion and actually tastes nice...then I would red wine away , as far as the whiskey/scotch/bourbon  and other spirits are concerned...oh my word !!..how disgusting are they ?...YUK !!.in fact, I think the whole world hates these drinks but nobody has the guts to say so !!

Men are the same as women.... just inside out !!

I'll admit when I don't like a drink.  I don't like tequila.  But damn do I love the burn of a nice shot of Wild Turkey followed by a cold beer.  It'll put hair on yer chest and make sure you sleep well that night.  

Seriously though, I can't recommend drinking alcohol regularly to fall asleep.  Dependency issues aside, going to sleep drunk causes restless sleep which really isn't much better than not sleeping at all.  Might I suggest trying a nice 5-HTP supplement instead?  Its a direct precoursor to seratonin.  If seratonin levels are low you can have difficulty falling asleep.  5-HTP can help if that's the reason.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People