jake.com

http://www.bellaireneurology.com/headaches/migr_pain.html

and also

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Migraine#Depolarization_theory

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/25/health/research/25aids.html?_r=1

Is this any help?

i have a feeling penicillin is going to go the way of DDT...

well, i had swine flu. it really sucks.

Campylobacter is a bacterial pathogen that causes fever, diarrhea, and abdominal cramps. It is the most commonly identified bacterial cause of diarrheal illness in the world. These bacteria live in the intestines of healthy birds, and most raw poultry meat has Campylobacter on it. Eating undercooked chicken, or other food that has been contaminated with juices dripping from raw chicken is the most frequent source of this infection.

E. coli is a bacterial pathogen that has a reservoir in cattle and other similar animals. Human illness typically follows consumption of food or water that has been contaminated with microscopic amounts of cow feces. The illness it causes is often a severe and bloody diarrhea and painful abdominal cramps, without much fever. In 3% to 5% of cases, a complication called hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS) can occur several weeks after the initial symptoms. This severe complication includes temporary anemia, profuse bleeding, and kidney failure.

Clostridium botulinum- This organism produces a toxin which causes botulism, a life-threatening illness that can prevent the breathing muscles from moving air in and out of the lungs. Sources: improperly prepared home-canned foods; honey should not be fed to children less than 12 months old.

those are a couple. btw, it sounds more scientific if you call them foodborne illnesses.

http://www.fightbac.org/content/view/14/21/

if you're talking about this from birth, then the person wouldn't know what you're talking about. they would have no concept of sight or vision, since they have never experienced it. The closest thing i can think of for a comparison would be what a deaf person "hears". If it was from birth, he would have no concept of sound.

Jake, please read our policy on homework questions and in particular note that we DON'T give out the actual answer but help our members to learn it for themselves.

 

I always tell my students they are welcome to copy each other, but that they should copy the method not the answer. that way they only have to copy once.

sorry, my bad.

You're right. From now on, I'm not letting mice starve when there are perfectly edible young birds just out of their reach.

Thanks . lolz

Standard enthalpy of formation:

 

Species Enthalpy (kJ/Mol)

 

Br(g) 111.9

Br2 (l) 0

Br2 (g) 30.9

 

What is the standard enthalpy of vaporization of bromine?

What is the energy neede for the reaction Br2 (g) ---> 2Br (g), i.e. the Br -Br bond energy?

29.96 kJ mol-1 of Br2

Br-Br 228

If you don't limit it to the sun (and perhaps the surface), there's an example. Tc has been discovered in the spectra of certain stars, and is considered to be not naturally occurring on earth (you get trace amounts in fission)

Tc is techtium, right?

I know it is possible to break glass with high frequency sound, but is it possible to achieve the same with ice?

Is it to do with finding out the resonant frequency of ice?

Any help would be appreciated.

Not a cube of ice, most likely. Shock waves (produced by sound) can, but a block of ice doesn't have a cavity that can be filled and ruptured with just the resonance frequency. A block of ice is much more structurably stable than a wine glass, which is what you're talking about, right?

It's not so much that it's so unreactive, as argon was discovered in the atmosphere, but the fact that there isn't much in the way of sources for it. As far as I know, all of our helium is from natural gas sources. The helium is the result of alpha-decay of thorium and uranium minerals (the alpha particles slow down, capture some electrons and become [ce] ^4He [/ce]). It becomes trapped in the same impermeable pockets of rock as the natural gas.

 

I believe a uranium mineral that had the gas trapped in it directly was responsible for the original discovery on earth though.

That's the most informative thing I've read all day! Thanks!

I was going to say that these are only plausible, but not likely. However, a quick search in PubMed turned up:

• S. Hakomori, Biochim Biophys Acta (1999) 1473(1):247-66, which mentions the fact that some cancer patients with type "O" blood start expressing type "A" (this is possible because most type "O" alleles are caused by a frameshift or terminating mutation in a regular "A" or "B" gene: further mutation in a tumor cell can essentially "undo" that shift and regenerate the "original" allele)
  
• E.R. Littler et al., JAMA (1979) 241(12) "Anomalous Blood Typing from Impersonation" (Abstract: "Biological factitious, and technical reasons have previously been reported for real or apparent changes in blood type. In two cases, an apparent change in blood type resulted from a previous impersonation of the patient by a different person.")
  

 

Haven't read the second one, but the first is certainly plausible.

thanks!

AFAIK, we are not confined to particular sections. You are certainly free to ask medical questions in the Medicine forum -- and to expect better answers than if you were to ask medical questions in the Physics forum

 

The only things I can think of that could change your blood type are (a) gene therapy or genetic damage; and (b) an enzyme inhibitor (whether a small molecule or a protein).

 

It is possible that an inhibitor exists, and could be found in some edible plant, but I have not heard of any. If the inhibitor sufficiently inhibited the enzymes that decorate your blood cells with carbohydrates, it could effectively convert your type from A or B (or AB) to O. If it affected different enzymes, it might convert your blood type from RH+ to RH-. Depending on just how the inhibitor affects the enzymes, it is also possible that you could go from AB to A only (or B only). Fortunately, in each case this would be a loss of antigens, so your immune system would not respond. You would have to have a sufficient amount of the inhibitor in your system at essentially all times in order to maintain a consistent type O (or Rh-), and when you stopped eating it, your blood type would return as new blood cells were made (you make them constantly).

 

Radiation could damage the genes that encode the enzymes, again possibly changing your blood type to O (or Rh-). However, it is unlikely that radiation would knock out just those enzymes, and do it throughout all the hematopoietic tissue. More likely to kill you first.

 

Gene therapy (or infection with a virus that carried a gene for the enzyme -- I don't think anyone has identified such a virus) could potentially change your blood type from anything to anything else. Again, if this caused you to gain an antigen (e.g., going from O- to A+, or A- to AB-, or O+ to B+, etc.), chances are that your immune system would attack your blood cells.

Are there any examples of this ever happening? I understand that it's unlikely and more than likely fatal, but has it ever happened?

The equation is for a bulk material, not a single atom. If you shine light on a material, the amount that penetrates falls of as an exponential.

So its an exponetial decay equation? I'm just learning that in Algebra II

Hi. Each human cell contains the gene for how many traits? I know that a cell has chromosomes, on which there are thousands and thousands of genes. Does this mean thousands and thousands of traits can be inherited by the genes in every cell?

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Never mind. I realized it can be thousands, or more, traits!

 

Sorry, I forgot I had to merge my posts.

This is a genome map for chromosome 3

This shows how detailed a chromosome is for programming you. While a number of certain traits is impossible to determine, it's easy to guess that there are more than a few.

Also, heres a map of the chromosomes that make up a human genome. This one is diagrammed to show all gene entries and QTL that have shown associations or linkages with exercise-related phenotypes. This shows how many phenotypes are related to one general trait. Seeing how there are hundreds of traits to choose from, an simple estimate shows that there must be thousands of traits in one gene.

No shit Einstein, I said that myself.

 

Where I draw my line of value for humans vs other organisms gives more value to other organisms relative to what most other people would give, it seems. But I'm not a loon. I disinfect my bathroom weekly killing millions of bacteria and fungi. I would not as easily dispatch a million human beings. I would have to be a loon for my ethical code to be airtight.

 

 

 

Those are curiously arbitrary quantities, several animals and one or two humans. And that's why I dislike ethical discussions. They are fuzzy and squashy and completely arbitrary at the end of the day. We might as well argue about our favorite color.

 

What about saving an endangered tree, or the spotted owl? This puts people out of jobs (for some extent of time). During that time period an individual or two so unemployed may lack the medical insurance needed to treat their daughter's acute lymphoblastic leukemia. There are numerous realistic scenarios we can imagine.

 

 

 

The difference in the analogy is obvious. People don't accidentally conduct medical research, and vice-versa people don't aim their cars at squirrels or young girls (usually). One is a premeditated act, the other is not. The comparison is invalid.

 

You'll notice I didn't say that I'm against animal research, only that it disgusts me, but not to the point where I'm going to wage a campaign against it. My training is as a biomedical scientist. I understand as well as anyone the need for animal research in the progression of human health.

 

 

 

I'm curious if your bias ends with your species. Would you choose a person with the same background (likes/dislikes, politics, nationality, ethnicity) as you to live over someone more "different" to you? What about someone closely related to you? Do they have more value than others?

Hey, my trick knee's actin' up... I feel a hatecrime lawsuit abroilin'.

So a case for pseudoscience?

sounds like it. I like the theory, but it will definitely cause some serious controversy.

[math]I = I_0 e^{-\alpha x}[/math]

 

Light gets absorbed, and this is more likely at the surface of a material. Interior atoms are shielded.

So, pretty much, the closer to the interior you are as an atom, the less light that can possibly reach the surface of the atom. This equation is just explaining mathmatically why you get less light if you're further away, right?

You have Beer's law, which says that macroscopically the intensity drops off exponentially. Atoms near the surface are more likely to interact.

What?

Probably not. When doing x-ray crystallography, one rotates the crystal bit by bit over more than 180[math]^{o}[/math]. If an atom was "hiding" behind another, it should show up at some point when illuminated from a different angle.

You said probably. Can you think of some hypothetical situations where this might occur? In an extremely large molecule maybe?

Like maitotoxin?

or a water molecule structure?

Baryogenesis refers to the event in the early universe when the imbalance between matter and antimatter began. However, wiki puts forth no possible mechanism for such an event, and I'm curious as to how modern scientist suppose this occurred. Any ideas?

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Baryogenesis

http://www.experiencefestival.com/baryogenesis_-_the_sakharov_conditions

There's a book on in too, called Theories of Baryogenesis, by- Antonio Riotto

c=speed of light.

 

E²=m²c⁴+p²c²

 

Do you have any idea how much energy you're talking about?

How much energy would this take, hypothetically?

Why is 2 not biology? I would consider 4 not to be biology. And most likely quite complicated to sum up all the relevant factors.

No, I didn't mean that it wasn't biology. I just said it doesn't interest me enough to even consider it for a research paper.

Given four choices...

 

1. Discuss how advances in molecular biology and genetic engineering have permitted numerous technological advances.

2. Discuss how advances in the development of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) have affected growth rate and yield.

3. Discuss the importance of maintaining the rainforests as a natural resource and what it means to our environment.

4. Discuss why earth's climate is changing (the roles of man, naturally occurring trends, and earth's cycles are considered, and an outlook for what can be expected in the near and distant future is given).

 

Which would be the most interesting? I like them all.

#4 would probably be the easiest. #1 is the one I would do, the easiest one to research. #2 I wouldn't even consider for a biology paper.