Psycho

We need some kind of point of reference (scale), if these are only taken at 10x magnification those are probably hairs, dust and dead skin flakes You could see anything as big as the lines with the naked eye at 10x magnification.

Link There is an explanation of how to find Km and you can rearrange the equations to find Km without drawing the graph.

Better get studying then.

Diagram Assuming this diagram is correct, AML mutation occurs within the Myleoblast before differentiation occurs and then excess clones of this cell being formed, however all your other options are differentiated from this cell, implying they would be reduced rather than increased. Colony-forming unit erythrocytes are definitely reduced as this is a key symptom of the disease, however I can't workout which one would be increased. What would be increased is the number of progenitor cells and myeloblasts, but that isn't one of the answers, are you sure the question is correct. AML Myeloblasts

Are you going to post the mathematics of how you derived your numbers or not? I am looking for a Yes or No answer any answer that isn't a Yes or No will be assumed to be a No and therefore an admittance of not knowing how you derived the mathematics. If Yes, please post the mathematical derivation, preferably without any words as they shouldn't be needed, it should be logical enough to follow on its own merit.

This should be the case assuming a new strain of salmonella immune to the vaccine doesn't evolve, however this is very unlikely and depending on the vaccine maybe almost impossible.

Not necessarily (but don't eat them ), there are two methods of infection one is via the stool when the chicken is sitting on the egg, the other is via the ovaries which the bacteria can also infect if it escapes the intestinal tract. The chicken has no way to remove the infection so it will be prevalent until slaughtered or antibiotics are administered. The salmonella bacteria can sustain itself inside the chickens intestines and is endemic in nature, but normally doesn't lead to mortality in mature chickens, its spread occurs when it is excreted in faeces and other chickens come in contact with it. However, most commercially produced eggs are from chickens vaccinated for salmonella, in the UK this can be verified by the British Lion Mark, however other eggs without it may also have been vaccinated.

A person who actively participate on a science forum is hardly a good example of someone who isn't going to comprehend the meanings of the facts given on an advert, however I could find you many people who, though would claim they understand the effects of smoking or drink couldn't actually describe what those effects mean. There is a difference between knowing facts and comprehending them. In relation to the argument surely that should mean they shouldn't be allowed to partake in the activity, yet society say they can even though they are no less naive than a child.

Yes, apart from it was shown not to be occurring.

I don't think it is really fair to compare it with religion, which everyone knows is just made up really has been proved to be. There is a fundamental answer based in science to this question on an individual basis anyway, the problem is this age differs from person to person and therefore you have to set the bar high to encompass most people as with anything rules are designed to protect, whether they work out achieving that in some cases isn't so. I don't really see an argument for being allowed to have sex with anyone who can't full understand the consequences and effects of the actions but at what age that is, is hard to determine. The real problem is that children don't really understand long term consequences such as getting pregnant, so even if you full understand the practicality of the act should they be allowed to be involved without full education of their actions. The ironic consequence of this argument is that most adults are allow to do many things (smoke, drink) without understanding the biological effects that occur, so really is the idea of understanding consequence even relevant. I would personally say that a note of caution should be taken as people are hardwire to try and protect there own from harm and in most cases it has nothing to do with protecting children from the act itself but its consequences both physiological (pregnancy, infection) and social (peer rejection, legal issues, false emotional attachment). Sex isn't actually the problem, it is societies attitude towards it.

I imagine they were also the source of the information on nano-suits. I would think either biomedical engineering or materials engineering would be a good choice, that's if computer games design doesn't work out.

Anyone else fine this overtly ironic. You seem to have missed the idea that intelligence isn't defined as one parameter and therefore your question isn't answerable, not to mention your studies variables not being in anyway scientific and seem to be arbitrarily pluck for the sky.

Sounds like a version of Panic disorder which is formed due to you avoiding situations that caused the trauma in the first place and this is then extrapolated by the mind to irrationally include any similar situation even if these weren't the direct cause of the original trauma, the most common solution panic disorder is Beta blockers which stop the physiological effects of panicking such as increased heart rate with only fairly mild side effect, however these should be complemented with cognitive behavioural therapy (but normally aren't ) , in which the aim is to find the underlying cause of the problem in your mind and show you that it is an incorrect assertion to make and to change your thought process to have a more positive and realistic outlook on any situation you may come across in everyday life. Panic disorder is often linked to depression due to the similar way of thinking involved in both conditions, in depression it has been shown that the mind goes over and over a problem looking for a solution and if it can't find one this process can go on for a long time, hence talking to people can help with depression as they can view the situation from a different perspective and maybe help illuminate the solution. This is the same as in panic disorder where you over think the problems that could occur in a situation and therefore convince your body that these bad conclusions are already occurring before the situation presents, this is also extrapolated by the fear of panicking in a normal simple situation enhancing your chances of actually having a panic attack.

He didn't like the fact that his theories lead to quantum physics which is based on the idea that at the subatomic level things can move randomly, Einstein believed there would be a mathematical theory that could explain everything from the ground up and maybe there would have been if he hadn't died.

Where have you got the idea that fatty acids can't cross the blood brain barrier?

That isn't physically possible unless he consumed 200 pounds worth of food and drink in 2 days, now bare in mind that it is said you should drink 2 litres of water a day that is the equivalent to 4.4 pounds and 1kg of bolognese is the equivalent of 12 servings and contains 2580 Calories and a man is supposed to consume 2500 per day, so he would have to have eaten 45kg of bolognese a day which is around 500 servings. Not unless you're a caterpillar. I have no idea what "shrink" refers to (maybe reduce expression of), you can't shrink a gene, I assume "stall and paralyse" means inhibit, but I fail to see how you have come to the conclusion this is a genetic problem. The problem you have described, despite being impossible in its current form as you have clearly sensationalised it, most likely isn't any fixable genetic problem. Far more detail is needed for instance how much did he weigh before he put on 200 pounds? What was his diet? What was his job? What is his family history? Has he had any CT or MRI scans and what of? How long did it actually take him to put on 200 pounds? Where have you got this idea from that it is genetic?

Muscles are a tissue.

Surely this can be solved by putting a litre of water in a sealed container under standard conditions on a balance and then freezing it and seeing if it changes weight. A litre of water will weigh 1000g and then see how much the "litre" of ice weighs, but I guess no one has thought of that in the 300 hundred years science has been going on. Or even just put a block of metal in the freezer on a balance...

The muscles are also kind of important.

I'm a Molecular Cell Biologist, I also say Yes. Most physicians know jack all until they have looked it up in a book. Get a new dermatologist.

Link to study

This is true, however interestingly these patten recognition abilities become specialised in very early childhood so you can recognise the differences in the human faces for instance, however before 9 months old they can easily tell the difference between the members of all kinds of animal species that a child older than 9 months believes are the same animal. So in very early childhood the brain has the ability to tell very small differences in all kind of objects, but loses these abilities later in life when the brain specialises for other functions.

I was just wondering if this abnormality could have any real world effect or are the differences in number irrelevantly small for any real world application, or are levels of toxicity also measured in the same way to cancel out the effect?

Not outside the brain as such, apart from of course external stimuli which effect decision making, my point really was that there are some decisions that don't have a direct stimulus source to choose for the brain the "right" option and therefore the brain becomes a self-contained system that has to choose the "right" option for itself. But it has been shown in the cases of simple decisions that the decision is made in the brain before the person consciously knows about it and therefore can they have really chosen to make it or has their subconscious brain decided for them and then their conscious mind just goes along with it. If the conscious mind had made the decision surely the studies would have shown a subconscious decision being made but not always coming to fruition due to the conscious mind overriding it. However, due to the simple decisions being made in the study (left or right) maybe the conscious mind never needed to disagree with the subconscious due to the mundane nature of the task and therefore in more important decisions it does play a role if time permits it to, but this is just another unknown. (This of course can't be true of any innate reflex response where the subconscious brain completely takes over normally to protect you from harm.) I will give an example, you want to buy lunch, you have a decision between a Pasta salad or a Mcdonalds burger. First you have external stimuli, these will be what the food looks like, how it smells etc. Second you have internal stimuli, these will be things like your ion levels, whether you are dehydrated and your overall energy level. Thirdly you have your opinion/prejudice of the food, pasta is high in carbs, the burger is high in fat. Fourthly you have the environment you are in, maybe it makes you feel healthy or the people around you aren't the prettiest bunch. Fifthly you have your current mindset (mood) that has been caused by stimuli before the decision was even known about, maybe your boss just had a go at you (therefore annoyed) or you just gave some money to charity (therefore content) These are really the things that make all decisions for you, but there is also a 6th factor and that must be entirely self-contained within your brain and based on something else, otherwise how would we ever be truly creative. This 6th factor must make decisions for us that aren't based on any of these factor, such as choosing right or left, but are we really in control of it?

How can 1 ppm = 1000mg/L if different compounds have different molecular weights and therefore different molar amounts?