jdurg

I would actually like to know how simply drinking out of a glass will cause microscopic particles to come off. Glass is basically a liquid (It is not a solid mass) and is very tightly bound to itself.

Put it this way. Electricity is the flow of electrons between two points. In a metal, the outer electrons aren't really "bound" to one lone nucleus. As frosch45 pointed out, it is a "sea of electrons". When an electric current is applied to a metal, the electrons that are applied are able to "push" the electrons in that sea forming temporary charges on certain parts of the metal. This "pushes" the electrons in the metal around and ultimately through to the other side, hence the conduction. Now keep in mind that my explanation is very rudimentary and the actual science of it is more complex, but a good visual analogy is to take a carboard box and fill it completely with clay. Now have a hole on opposite ends of the box. If you go and push more clay into one side, clay will extrude out the other side. In this example, clay are the electrons and as you add more, some of it will come out the hole on the other side.

The whole reason biodeisel is so popular is that you are using what was once waste and turning it into something useful. Biodeisel is made from what's leftover of what you are processing. With regular petrol based compounds, the fuel isn't the result of a waste product. It's what you process the stuff for in the first place. So regardless of the energy cost in terms of making the stuff, the fact that you are also getting a bunch of other items in the process makes it worthwhile.

PC, I really don't appreciate you calling me a "minion". Your statement that "Drug companies and their minions" when do whatever they can to sell their drug is insulting, and rude. Again, show me that you have worked in the pharma industry and you know everything about the industry. If you so strongly feel that animal testing is wrong then don't EVER take a medication, don't EVER go to an ER when you are severely ill, and don't EVER take any drug to ease a life threatening condition. Better yet, make it your life's goal to shut down every pharmaceutical company on earth and then you can take the responsibility for the death and loss of well being for the millions of people that these "Evil Corporations" provide life and happiness for. Yes, the corporations do have profit in their mind with what they do. This "profit", however, is what pays for every single worker in that company from the custodians, to the security guards, to the people like me who work our asses off on these trials. I am NOT going to work for free which is what many people, yourself included, seem to want.

SO2 is NOT a peroxide! A peroxide is a species where the O-O bond exists. Thereby each oxygen has a single bond to the other oxygen. In SO2, the oxygens are bound to the sulfur atom, and each oxygen has an oxidation number of -2. So the S in SO2 has an oxidation number of +4. (SO2 is a structure like H2O where the O is in the middle with two hydrogens attached. In SO2, the S is in the middle with the two oxygens attached). Whenever you do oxidation numbers, it is CRUCIAL to know the structure of the compound you're looking at.

Uranium metal itself is FAR more reactive to oxygen in air than iron is. If you take some pure uranium metal and scratch it, the heat genrated from a match will quite quickly oxidize it. With iron, you can heat it up pretty strongly in air without actually seeing the oxidation. Not the case with uranium. Also, the heat of formation of Uranium Oxide is MUCH greater than the heat of formation of Aluminum Oxide. Therefore, the overall reaction is quite endothermic. That means the thermite will NOT work.

No you don't. I got my sodium off of E-Bay, and there are PLENTY of places online that sell it. The caveat is that you MUST ship it as a hazardous material since if you don't and you get caught, you are going to pay some INSANE fines.

It would be damned near impossible for cesium. With a melting point just above room temperature, it would probably melt together to form larger globs in a heartbeat. I would think the act of making a powder with it would cause it to melt together. (Unless cryogenic temperatures were used, but even then the friction generated would raise it above it's MP).

I think a lot of the reason why calves stop drinking their mother's milk, and why we as humans stop drinking our mother's milk, is because we all get too big. At a certain point, it becomes too much of a hassle for the calve to get under there and get the milk. Plus, milk is the initial form of nutrition because the organism's body just isn't able to digest or consume the food that the adult version does. For humans, it's pretty hard to eat anything without teeth. ;D In regards to the research on health aspects of consumption, I won't believe any of it. It is IMPOSSIBLE to get a good study on a food or drink unless it has something that is completely different in it than any other food/drink out there. (Research on Alcoholic beverages is pretty easy since alcohol is a unique compound and it's easy to see the effects in causes). To do a proper study on milk, one would need to keep track of EVERYTHING that a person ingests or is exposed to for a few decades. The "findings" in current research is flawed because you don't know if something else the people ingested or were exposed to caused any problems that are found. Unless you did a perfect control where the only differences in the subjects are the milk. This is only possible with identical twins to keep genetic differences out of the equation. As you can see, ethically a study of that nature would be horrifically wrong and impossible to do. I don't drink as much milk as I used to because living on my own and constantly being away from my home, any milk I buy tends to go bad before I can drink it all and spoiled milk is the worst thing on the planet. I also would only drink skim milk because yes, the fats in milk are not good for you. The health qualities of fat are pretty well known, but fat itself isn't horrifically bad. In fact, you need fat in order to survive. So I am not going to say that milk is bad to drink, nor will I say that it is a cure-all. I just do not believe any of the "conspiracy theories" out there and actually find many of them laughable. (People who go crazy over conspiracy theories have some psychological and cerebral deficiencies in my eyes).

Yeah, I would think that smaller bits of Rubidium/Cesium would have a greater chance of making a larger "boom" than a bigger chunk. Though, I think the best reaction would be to crack open some Rb or Cs, then pour the water onto that. You'll have a large amount of H2 produced very fast due to the large surface area, plus there would be plenty of O2 around to ignite the H2. That would probably be much more impressive than taking a chunk and dropping it into some water.

Hehe. You got that right. It is AMAZING how much data and documentation get submitted to the FDA. Even if we think that the compound works and is safe and have dozens upon dozens of medical individuals looking at it, the FDA puts the number of people we have to shame. I, for legal reasons, can't disclose specifics but there have been numerous products that appeared fine and safe, but further analysis by the FDA resulted in the drug being rejected. For me, as a colleague in the industry, it's frustrating as all hell the amount of work I have to do to be prepared for a random FDA audit, but at the end of the day when you realize why we are doing that it isn't bad at all. I agree with this. I in no way support the use of animals on cosmetic testing. You don't need a cosmetic to live your life. If you don't put makeup on, you aren't going to die. In addition, there aren't new chemicals being created that have absolutely not toxicology data on them in the cosmetic industry like there are in the pharmaceutical industry.

Well I wasn't really referring to measurement of the glucose. I was hoping that there would be some research to find if there were other chemicals produced by the body in response to glucose levels that could be detected. E.g. when the BGL is high, there's more of this chemical in the body, and when low there is less/none. I don't know if research into that has ever been thought of.

Yeah, I think every person who works in chemistry, or has an interest in chemistry, has wondered "Gee, wouldn't it be cool to see cesium in water? Or even better, francium?!" Once you learn a bit more, however, you realze that the relationship between the metal and the explosion isn't a linear one down the table. Theodore's explanation is a great one and all introductory chemistry folks should read it. There are also other reasons that aren't explained in as much detail. Cesium has a melting point just above room temperature. If you live close to the equator, it's melting point is probably below room temperature making it a liquid. (A very beautiful, golden liquid, however. ;D ) Cesium, however, is also denser than water. Even when liquid. So if you throw the Cs into a lake, it will sink to the bottom while also reacting. Inside water, there isn't a whole lot of oxygen. So while it's happily producing hydrogen gas, the H2 can only ignite when it reacts with O2. All the reaction you see is of that which is close to the surface. If you use a substantially large sample, most of it will likely sink down quite a bit and just produce H2 under water and not real big KABOOM. I took a full ounce of sodium metal, attached it to a rock with some string, and threw it in a lake. The rock sunk, we saw some bubbles of H2 come up, but nothing else happened. So the water was able to prevent a massive reaction with O2 and hence a fire/explosion. You'll still see a small boom with Rb and Cs, I'm guessing, because the reaction happens so quickly and with so much heat generated that water will vaporize instantly and flash boil. But with Na and K being less dense than water, they happily float on the water while generating lots of heat and H2 which can easily mix with atmospheric O2, hence the large KABOOMs. Francium, if it could even be isolated, would probably be a liquid, if not close to one, just based on the trends in the column. I haven't actually investigated that though. Still, the insane radioactivity of it which has been detailed here in this thread, would cause the Francium to boil away if it were ever isolated. It would then rapidly react with atmospheric air and oxygen and never have a chance to see water (which the heat the radioactivity is creating would probably vaporize before it touches the metal surface).

Uranium Thermite would be impossible since Uranium bonds so readily with oxygen that the heat created when it was formed would cause it to bind with atmospheric oxygen immediately. Plus, I'm not sure it would be thermondynamically favorable.

I'm not 100% sure of that. When I've done the experiment, the Pt has been hot, but not too hot to hold in your hands. If you have an ample supply of H2, it can't hurt to test it out a few times.

I got my degree in forensic chemistry but didn't wind up in the field for a career. (Not enough well paying jobs). Going down that road for a degree, however, is a good idea because it forces you to think logically and get solid proof to solve a problem. Gives you a large number of careers you can get into. (Got me into the pharmaceutical development career).

Another GREAT demo is to fill a ballon with two parts H2 an one part O2. Also, fill another balloon with just H2. Then, take a platinum wire and heat it up in a bunsen burner. Let it cool down a little bit so that it's not glowing any more but is fairly hot. Pop the H2 balloon with this wire. (Do some practice first so that the heat from the H2 doesn't ignite the H2. This will take a bit of time to get right). The H2 balloon should just pop but not ignite. Now do this with the 2/3 H2 and 1/3 O2 balloon. Pt catalyzes the reaction between hydrogen and oxygen so the warm/hot Pt wire should cause the balloon to ignite with quite a bang!

PC. For your own benefit, I would suggest that you stop all this propaganda regarding drug testing and pharmaceutical companies. From what you have posted, it is VERY obvious that you have NEVER spent a day of your life in the pharmaceutical industry and have absolutely no clue what it is like. You've stated that the pharma industry hides data in order to get their drugs out. That is so far from the truth that it could be considered libel. Every regulatory agency on the planet from any country in existance can demand at any point in time to see ALL of the data on a clinical trial. ANY clinical trial. If the company refuses to give them access, the company can be heavily fined and shut down. If it is found that a company falsified data, or threw out pertinent data, those involved in that hiding will go to jail. I work in the industry, and even if I played no part in the hiding of data I could go to jail. If I found out that data was being hidden or falsified, I would go to jail. You also don't seem to understand how the efficacy of a drug is determined in a clinical trial. It isn't determined qualitatively by asking every subject "So, do you think you're feeling better?" The results are determined through lab data (which is quantitative) and ECGs, stress tests, x-rays, ultrasounds, biopsies, etc. ALL test results that are NOT subjective. In addition, the number of subjects taking place in these trials are very large. There are some 5-6 year studies with over 5,000 randomized subjects. That is a LOT of data that can NOT be fudged. At the end of a trial, Clinical Study Reports are written and the MASSIVE bulk of those reports are Adverse Event data. The company sponsoring those trials can not withold one single AE regardless of suspected causality. In addition, Clinical Trials are very heavily analyzed before even going into existance. The process of developing a protocol (The specified manner in which the trial has to be carried out and specifics about the subjects that can be included in the trial) takes quite a while. Even then, the protocol has to be approved by every regulatory board in the countries that the study is carried out. With regards to the researchers (Investigators as they are properly called) not having access to the data, there's a reason for this. If a doctor is participating in a trial and knows that the drug works or does not work, he/she is more likely to become biased and potentially falsify data. This is too high of a risk to the safety of the patients and the eventual consumer. So the investigators are not allowed access to the unblinded data. They can get the CSRs if they so choose, but for everyone's benefit it is best that they do not know the success or failure of a drug. They are ONLY permitted to know the subject's status in the trial (Placebo or Active Compound(s)) for safety reasons. (I.E. the patient has a serious AE and they need to know this information for proper treatment). Even then, before they are unblinded the Investigator will have to decide whether or not to take the subject off of the "drug". (To them, they don't know if "drug" is placebo or active compound). It's fairly obvious that you are quite passionate about your beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with that. In fact, passionate feelings can help lead to great research. However, this is a scientific community and beliefs won't win you any arguments. Coming into a debate with heresay and beliefs will not sway anybody's beliefs or win any debates. It is a massive shame when someone learns a little bit about something and believes they are an expert on the subject which you appear to be. I too had some misbeliefs about the pharmaceutical industry until I actually did my research and even became a part of it. Then I saw all the lengthy regulations and requirments and LEGAL implications for not following them.

The literature I've seen regarding Type I is new methods of treatment and not really ways to cure it. One thing that could be researched and might be the best option is to find a way to monitor blood glucose levels without the need for actual blood. With the advent of insulin pumps, the treatment options for Type I diabetics has gotten much better. Also, insurance companies are now starting to pay for them since the cost to the company is a lot less than the cost of ER visits and later complication treatment. So if they can find a way to accurately, and continuously, monitor blood glucose levels they could tie that in to a pump and have the pump dispense the proper amount of insulin based upon the patient's current blood sugar. In a sense, they'd make a robotic pancreas. That's something that I think the medical/scientific community is getting closer to doing.

The big advance in curing Type I Diabetes will be when they detemine exactly what it is that causes the body's own immune system to flag the islet cells as "foreign" and kill them, and not any other cells. Until they can figure that out, it's going to be a losing battle trying to reproduce islet cells or transplant them since the faulty immune system will promptly kill them.

Oh yes, I am quite aware of that and do have insulin and glucose on me constantly. Symptoms of high blood glucose don't really kick in until blood sugar is too high anyway, and symptoms of low blood glucose can really be mistaken for may other things as well. Plus, the transition from "able to function" to "uh-oh" is VERY quick. As a diabetic, you have to take the lesser of two evils: 1) Keep a lower blood sugar and deal with the side effects of hypoglycemia which can be broken bones due to falls caused by loss of muscle control, unconciousness, immediate death. 2) Keep a higher blood sugar. No short term issues, but over the long term it totally destroys your body.

Random flashes of light and floaters are things to get check out. The random flashes can be signs of retinal issues such as dying cells, detachment, nerve damage, etc. Floaters are caused by objects, or blood, moving in your vitreous and casting shadows on your retina. Your vitreous should be 100% clear so something moving around in there and causing shadows is a sign of some damage. Now granted, just seeing one flash of light or one floater is nothing to be concerned about. Not all flashes are caused by retinal damage. It's when you get a combination of the two that it's a bad sign. In many sports injuries or car accidents, the victims will see flashes of light afterwards due to detachment of parts of their retinas.

As a Type I Diabetic for 26 years now, the scar tissue all over my body from multiple injections are sad proof of that.

Ugggh. It's very painful reading through this thread, but thankfully this hasn't broken out into a personal assault against each other. Thank you! Now, I think there are some ideas in people's heads that need to be cleared up. First of all, drugs aren't discovered by just throwing things together in a pot and hoping something good comes out. It starts out by defining what it is you are looking to treat. Companies spend years researching the disease/impairment and trying to figure out what is causing it. Look at the advances in HIV research. Science has begun to figure out exactly how the virus works, replicates, and infects cells. This has led to much better treatments as the treatments can be developed based on these modes of attack. So the company now has a condition/disease in mind that they want to treat. They will now investigate more into what is causing that condition/disease. (This is all considered the "Research" part of R&D). Once they think they have discovered a pathway that they can develop a new drug for, they begin the chemical research. They try and synthesize this chemical, and if they do, they then run it through numerous analyses to figure out its exact structure and see what level of purity they can develop it at. With the synthesis route determined, this compound and all the data about it gets put into the computer. These computers (which I have now been fortunate enough to actually see) are MASSIVE! We're talking multiple floors in large buildings FILLED with systems all computing in unison. More computing power than we could ever imagine. The structure of the compound, and all data determined from the analysis are fed into this computer. It then researches the billions, if not trillions, of compounds that are already known. It sees which ones it resembles the closest and what those similar compounds do. The computer will then spit out this information along with what these other compounds do. If the similar compounds all produce toxic effects, the drug ends there and never touches a living creature. If the similar compounds haven't produced toxic effects, then further testing can take place. Here is, again, where I think people are not fully grasping what pharmaceutical research is about. They don't just dump the chemical into every single animal they can find. From the computer research, they know which organ systems are targted, which pathways it will affect, and what metabolites are "likely" to be produced when this compound is ingested by humans. They will then test the compound on animals WITH THE SAME, if not INSIGNIFICANTLY different biochemistry. So if it's a compound that is likely to be targeting the liver, they'll test it on an animal with the same liver function as a human. After this testing, analysis of the animal organs and fluids will tell them how it was metabolized. They don't just see if the animal lives and go "Let's get to testing on humans!" They enter back into that computer system what that compound did with that animal. They will record the metabolic pathways they could see and what the biochemical interactions were. This is so that when a new compound goes through the system later on, the information will already be there. As a result of this, they will not need the extensive animal research needed before. This is quite cost effective. So the drug has been tested on the animals and they are able to see the toxicity of the drug. If the drug was toxic to the animal they will know why. They'll also know if there is a good chance that this will be toxic on humans and the drug stops there. It's actually pretty uncommon for a drug to be stopped because it's "ineffective". If it's "ineffective" because it doesn't have the action on the specific molecule that the company was looking for, then yes, it will be stopped. But if it is ineffective for other reasons, it will be noted but human trials will continue. Again, animals aren't tested on willy-nilly. They are chosen based upon what biological pathways/systems they have that are similar to humans. They are also not just thrown random chemicals. They are given compounds which have been developed to treat a very specific condition/disease in a very specific way. When the drugs pass by the animal testing and the results show that it is not likely to be toxic to humans, it then starts the Phase I trials which are under SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO much scrutiny and watch from all the regulatory agencies in the world that they are really quite safe. The large number of "failed" drugs that have passed through animal testing is not proof that animal testing is useless. It's proof that the regulatory agencies are very strict, or that the expenses required to administer the drug are too high. (Animal testing is not intended to determine if the drug can be produced in an economically beneficial way. It is inteded to see if doing trials on human subjects will put people at too great of a risk). It is the tests on human subjects that determine if it's worth proceeding. A drug might do everything the company wants it to, but might be too expensive to produce at the level needed to provided the benefit. That drug will be removed. A drug might be perfectly safe in all the testing done, but if mixed with compounds C, X, Y, and G at certain doses that simply could not be imagined but were found in a couple of patients after being approved, it causes a serious adverse event. This drug will then be pulled. A drug might be found to be safe in animals, but in humans the dose needed to provide benefit compared to the dose required to cause harm could be too close for comfort. The drug will then be removed. There are too many ways in which drug development can be stopped after animal trials that are not reason to stop animal trials. I just want people to understand that the animal trials aren't just "throw random chemical into a rat, goose, bunny rabbit, kitty cat, chimpanzee, toad, mouse, and dog and see what happens."

As a Type I Diabetic for 26 years now, I am never even intrigued by announcements of new "treatments" unless it is for Type I diabetics. Sadly, there is little to no desire to work on Type I research since it isn't really an "epidemic" like Type II has become. There's no point in the eyes of researchers to spend so much time, money and effort on something that will help out an insignificant number of people compared to Type II which is much easier to treat. In addition, the treatments for Type I Diabetes are deemed "good enough". The science community generally feels that there's no need to mess with what is already working. At this point, I think the best line of action would be to develop a compound that will absorb extra insulin when the blood sugar is too low, yet not absorb it when the blood sugar is too high. This way, the number one danger of current treatments would be completely eliminated. Type I Diabetics could inject more insulin than they believe they need and not worry about going into a diabetic "blackout". I myself have had a HORRIFIC time keeping my blood sugars in check. My A1c is averagin around an 8% which is HORRIBLE. The thing is, when my blood sugar level is between 200 and about 330 it seems to be quite stable. It takes a good deal of insulin to drop it down, and when I ingest carbohydrates it doesn't make it rise a great deal. If I get down into the "normal range" of 75-125, the slightest bit of food makes it skyrocket, and the slightest bit of insulin makes it plummet where my body starts having severe reactions. I completely totalled my car a few months back because my blood sugar was 90, I ate a breakfast bar for breakfast and gave two units of insulin to cover the breakfast bar. TWO FREAKING UNITS! I was driving into work when suddenly my blood sugar dropped and I lost all control of my body, and hence my car. THANK GOD nobody got hurt and the only damage was to the car. Still, my blood sugar was only 68 when the medics measured it and with what I ate and what I injected no reaction should have EVER happened. Sadly, because of that incident I've been running my blood sugar higher than I should in fear of having that happen again. Do I have any hope for a new treatment or a cure? Nope. The only thing I have to look forward to is decreased blood circulation, loss of nerve sensations, eyesight loss, kidney failure, and eventully death. I'm not even 30 and I've already lived well more than half of my life.