GDG

Well, you can always start with Wikipedia.

Genes encode the linear amino acid sequence. As the protein is translated, it starts to fold up into a particular shape (or a set of shapes), due to the fact that some amino acids are more hydrophobic than others. Think of that as the "oil drop" model, the amino acid chain balling up with all of the hydrophobic amino acid residues on the inside and all of the hydrophilic residues on the outside (exposed to water). Actual protein structure is more complicated, often characterized by particular structures like alpha-helices, beta-pleated sheets, immunoglobulin folds, barrels, etc. Some structures are stabilized by hydrogen bonds between side chain and/or backbone atoms, while others are stabilized by C-C disulfide links. And then there is the chaperonin class of proteins, which fold or refold proteins.

I think they've understated the amount of dilution: typical homeopathic dilutions are on the order of 1:10^60 (and can be higher).

The vaccine components diffuse into the intercellular liquid between cells, which drains into the lymphatic system. If the components are not picked up by dendritic cells in the tissue, they end up in the lymph nodes and/or the thymus. The flow of lymph does not carry things into the CNS, but ultimately drains into the thymus gland (which lies on top of your heart). As pointed out by Mokele, the blood-brain barrier screens out just about everything protein-sized and larger. If you wanted vaccine components in the CNS, you would have to inject it directly into the spine or brain. You have microglial cells in the CNS that respond to antigens much the same way that macrophages do.

According to Yorkshire Water, your water supply has natural fluoridation ranging from 0.1 mg/L to something under 1.0 mg/L.

Welcome back from the dead!

Keep in mind that these people have already rejected logic and science, and consider "faith" to be superior. Given a choice between faith and reason, they will always pick faith. For them, there is no contest. You're not going to convince them with logical arguments or scientific facts, because they've already rejected science and logic. Presented with an unassailable argument, they simply refuse to listen.

Yes, indeed, very democratic. Why should a few hold-outs degrade service that everyone else wants? As for property rights, water supply is a service, not a property right. I doubt that there is any law preventing you from obtaining water from other sources, be they bottled water or rain water collected in barrels. Mere ownership of property does not include the unlimited right to do as you will. For example, if you tried to replace your suburban house with a convenience store or a small factory, you would quickly find yourself in court, defending yourself from charges of nuisance (in the legal sense) by your neighbors, and zoning violations by your local government. You are not a soverign.

So far, there is no scientific evidence for either proposition, so we see no point in discussing these points in a science forum. If you come up with a possible experiment, then we might be more interested.

According to Wikipedia, it is "often used in the semiconductor industry to heat silicon and other semiconductors".

Yes. The process we call "vision" or "seeing" consists of detecting the light reflected or emitted by an object. By convention, we "see" the object, not the reflected photons; e.g., one says "I see the red balloon" and not "I see photons reflected from a red balloon". Since all matter (at least all non-dark matter that is available to us) is made of protons, neutrons, and electrons, we do indeed see protons, neutrons and electrons. Not individually, of course, but as constituents of the molecules that make up all solid matter. Further, by that convention, we do not "see" photons (although photons are what our eyes respond to) because photons do not reflect other photons. You cannot shine a light on a photon to observe it.

Psuedoscientific babble. As usual, there is an article in Wikipedia about biophotons. Although such photons do exist, they are believed to be a minor byproduct of metabolic chemical reactions. The wild extrapolations that attribute the photons to DNA, and that claim that the photons initiate chemical reactions (rather than result from them) have no scientific support that I can see. For example, AFAIK, DNA bases do not spontaneously emit light. Even if bases did emit light, you cannot transmit much information in a handful of photons. And even if you could, what mechanism aims those photons at their receiver? And why don't the photons streaming through your body completely overwhelm the entire system? Way too farfetched: not even good science fiction

IIRC, there are clinical cases of people who, due to trauma or disease (including severe depression), are rendered essentially emotionless. They remain conscious, and are able to learn and remember. However, they find it almost impossible to make decisions, to plan or schedule things. Apparently, deciding what to do -- what you want to do -- is an inherently emotional process. Based on that, I would conclude that emotion is not necessary to maintain consciousness. However, consciousness without emotion does not appear to be very useful.

I wasn't thinking of a comparison to hunter-gatherers, but since you bring it up, let me play devil's advocate. I'm not sure I agree that hunter-gatherers live more precariously on a day-to-day basis, and are more at the mercy of their local environment. As they generally rely on a much greater variety of foods, they are less at risk of any one food going unavailable. Their food supply is no more susceptible to fire or flood than any farm. The main differences, I think, are that modern monoculture farming renders one's food supply susceptible to devastation by pests (e.g., locusts) or disease (think "potato blight"). What the hunter-gatherer lacks is the infrastructure to get food from another area in the case of disaster (fire or flood), or to migrate into an unaffected area. Hunter-gathering worked for several hundred thousand years before the advent of agriculture, which we've had for what, 20,000 years? In my comments regarding modern agriculture, I was thinking more of the fact that it requires a fair amount of chemical supplementation (fertilizers, herbicides, and pesticides) to make it work, most of which is derived from petroleum. As oil becomes more expensive, so does our food. When one factors in the fuel necessary to make, transport, and apply the supplements, and then the transportation from farm to city, well, the only reason it is profitable for farms is that it is government-subsidized in the US. Intensive agriculture extracts nutrients from the soil, causing nutrient depletion that must be corrected with fertilizers. Yes, well-designed crop rotation minimizes this, and restores some nutrients (mainly organic material and nitrates), but not minerals. Unless your fields are subject to periodic flooding by the local river, or to being covered with volcanic ash every now and then, you'll eventually have to replace the minerals in order to grow anything. Perhaps we should split this into a separate thread, under "environment"...

This is called "ballooning."

Bacteriophages tend to be very specific to a particular bacterium. Antibiotics tend to wipe out a wide variety of bacteria (good along with the bad). Antibiotics are faster: bacteriophages more accurate. Probably mainly a reflection of our capitalist economy, vs. the state economy. Probably easier to develop an antibiotic as a patentable, exclusive product. From your questions, I thing you (too) would enjoy reading "Good Germs, Bad Germs" by Jessica Snyder Sachs. Has a lot to say about the use and misuse of antibiotics.

UV radiation tends to cause DNA damage by making pyrimidine dimers (T and/or C). In contrast, chemical mutagens typically either attach to DNA covalently, chemically modify a base, or insert between the stacked bases (called intercalation). Most of the time, DNA damage in your somatic (non-sperm or egg) cells causes the cell to undergo apoptosis. During replication, the cell hits a snag (say, dimerized T bases, that prevent replication from proceeding): when replication times out, the cell self-destructs. Only if the cell has a few mutations that disable the apoptotic system can it continue to divide. Enough accumulated mutations, and you have a beginning tumor. You wouldn't notice a single white (or black) skin cell. You do notice several thousand in a melanoma... Yep, but we call it "gene therapy" when applied to humans Only if it is present in your germ cells (ending up in sperm or egg). Virus DNA (and RNA) is subject to all the same mutagens as our DNA, and typically lacks the proofreading (in whole or in part) that we have in our polymerases. In addition, some viruses (like flu) can reassort -- basically mix and match similar genes.

Nothing stops evolution from occurring. Unfortunately, sometimes evolution involves things like mass extinction. Right now, we depend fairly precariously on the ability of modern agriculture to generate food -- far more food than sustainable methods would provide. We run the risk that our food supply will not be as viable under a different climate regime. Changing weather conditions can also affect the nutrition that food provides; e.g., you may find that wheat grows faster in a warmer climate, but is less nutritious. Something will survive: it just won't necessarily be human...

Read "Musicophilia" by Oliver Sacks. It turns out that if you know a song, you also know its rhythm and tempo -- very accurately, even if you are not a musician. It is obviously not based on your heartbeat, which changes 2X or more depending on your activity. Your subjective feeling of "how long a second is" also varies widely, depending on whether you're waiting in line, doing something absorbing, etc. Just guessing how long a second is turns out to be notoriously inaccurate. If you want an accurate way to count seconds, just find a song you know well that has a tempo of 60 bpm (or 120, or 180). I think many people use the music from "Jeopardy"

Well, all depends. Presumably, there is a constant exchange between station, Moon, and Earth, for trade and services, if nothing else. Given that, you would have periodic exposure to terrestrial microbes, and (hopefully) therefore would not lose all resistance to them. Depending on the degree of interaction, the immunological effect would probably be just like visiting a foreign country. Gravity could be a problem. However, again, there are ways to compensate. I would assume that people would undertake vigorous exercise (perhaps in a centrifuge) for some time in order to prepare for a trip to Earth.

In "Good Germs, Bad Germs", the author mentions a theory that the proximity between birth canal and anus virtually guarantees that a baby will be innoculated during the birth process (see at p. 53). Searching Google Books for "Good Germs, Bad Germs, birth canal" should start you around p. 34, which begins the section(s) on colonization of newborns.

That's the problem with little dictionaries -- not enough room to describe the differences between words with similar meanings In psychology, "happiness" is closer to contentment, satisfaction, lack of suffering, and can be a long-term feeling. "Euphoria" is generally reserved for a more extreme feeling, an intense (but typically brief) joy. If you were euphoric for a week, your family would suspect that you were on drugs or had a neurological problem: if you were happy for a week, you'd just be lucky I did not mean to imply any need for spiritual or religious values or goals. Current research in neuroscience suggests that the dopamine reward system is increasingly activated as you get closer to your goal, but then shuts off once you reach the goal. Think of playing a game that has different levels. You work and work to reach the next level, feeling more rewarded as you get closer and closer. Then you finally reach the level, and feel satisfied ... for a little while. Then you feel dissatisfied, and start to work on the next level to fill the resulting hollowness. I cannot imagine the sandwich that would cause me to break my own hand. What kind of jelly?

Our resident bacteria (and other microbes) provide a number of benefits, not all of which are digestive. There is some current research that suggests that our resident flora helps to regulate our immune system, and that absence of the right types of bacteria can lead to pathological inflammation. As for introducing an aseptic human back into the real world, I don't think the experiment has been done yet. Might be possible to colonize the person with appropriate flora, bit by bit, but there would be a real risk that the subject would never become tolerant of the necessary microbes. You might be interested in the book "Good Germs, Bad Germs" by Jessica Snyder Sachs.

The chart in Wikipedia has the atoms color-coded, and easy to trace. CO2 forms HCO3- when it dissolves in water, so they are essentially the same thing as far as biochemistry goes.

If you want to measure dopamine (DA) concentration directly in the brain, that's going to be pretty invasive: IIRC, DA neurons are burried under everything else in the brain. I think you can infer concentrations from blood levels, knowing the partition function between CSF and plasma. Most of what we know is based on animal experiments, where it is not unacceptable to insert a probe into the subject's brain and measure concentrations.