Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 A new scientific theory titled "special theory of toxicity: toxic properties of electron discovered" has been published and can be found on google and other search engines. Read on and tell me your opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 ! Moderator Note 1. I'm moving this to speculations for the time being. 2. How about you link us this study and summarise it for us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 ! Moderator Note 1. I'm moving this to speculations for the time being. 2. How about you link us this study and summarise it for us. According to this theory, single electron, lone pairs or three electrons in any given compound manifests toxic effects on the compound. It goes further to show (with examples) that four electrons in an element of a compound is stable, this is the new electronic property called quad static property of electrons. Here is the link www.ipcbee.com/vol14/24-C10004.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aman shah Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Electrons And the type of electron pairing /reaction obviously decides the toxicity of compounds!But this is not a new topic of discussion!Its obvious to me. No body also can't tell that the elementary particles recently discovered like quarks inside the electrons are toxic on their own!The toxicity of electrons depends on the type of molecular bonding or the mechanism of reaction!Electrons are not directly toxic in nature!Sorry if I am wrong!Please correct me. Edited March 13, 2012 by Aman shah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Electrons And the type of electron pairing /reaction obviously decides the toxicity of compounds!But this is not a new topic of discussion!Its obvious to me. No body also can't tell that the elementary particles recently discovered like quarks inside the electrons are toxic on their own!The toxicity of electrons depends on the type of molecular bonding or the mechanism of reaction!Electrons are not directly toxic in nature!Sorry if I am wrong!Please correct me. @Aman. I have two degrees in Chemistry and have read wide on chemistry and physics principles and theories. Apart from the work, Special theory of Toxicity: Toxic properties of electron discovered by Ejikeme Nwosu, can you quote or link me with other work that tells us electron is main causative agent of toxicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 You do realize how many biomolecules posses lone pair electrons right? You are essentially claiming that every sugar or amino acid is toxic. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Study the theory first. Which sugar possess lone pair??????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Every sugar, every strand of DNA, every protein, lipid, steroid, hormone... Also, I read a little of the paper. I loved this bit: Thus, there must "something" in the compound of high toxicity, which is absent in the other compound that is predominantly non-toxic. For instance, there must be "something" in hydrogen cyanide (HCN) that is absent in water (H2O). That "something" is hydrogen cyanide. Also, as luck would have it, water should be pretty darn toxic by your reckoning. I suppose it is the lead cause of drowning, but I'm not sure what that has to do with it's electron configuration. Study the theory first. Which sugar possess lone pair??????????? All of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Not really. In glucose for instance, all the carbon and hydrogen have no unbonded electrons. Only oxygens that have four electrons each unbonded. According to the theory, glucose is non toxic because of the quad static property of electron which confers stability and non toxicity to four electrons per element of a compound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Wrong. Each oxygen has 2 lone pairs of electrons in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
insane_alien Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Not really. In glucose for instance, all the carbon and hydrogen have no unbonded electrons. Only oxygens that have four electrons each unbonded. According to the theory, glucose is non toxic because of the quad static property of electron which confers stability and non toxicity to four electrons per element of a compound. what about hydrogen peroxide then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 non toxic because of the quad static property of electron which confers stability and non toxicity to four electrons per element of a compound. What does that even mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Not really. In glucose for instance, all the carbon and hydrogen have no unbonded electrons. Only oxygens that have four electrons each unbonded. According to the theory, glucose is non toxic because of the quad static property of electron which confers stability and non toxicity to four electrons per element of a compound. Not even a coherent chemical sentence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 @Aman. I have two degrees in Chemistry and have read wide on chemistry and physics principles and theories. Appeal to Authority does not prove Aman shah wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mississippichem Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Appeal to Authority does not prove Aman shah wrong. When you follow that up with fundamental misunderstanding of the subject that you just claimed to be educated in...priceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Each Oxygen in glucose has 4 electrons (2 lone pairs) which makes them non toxic (quad static property of electron). Study the theory over and over first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) I'll ignore how ridiculous that is for a second, because now I want you to explain why it is we aren't dead from all the amines in our body. That includes every protein present in our bodies and all of our DNA, as well as a very large number of other biomolecules I'm missing out because the list is too long. Also, you should answer IA's question. What about peroxides? And heck, while we're at it, you could try explaining why H2S is toxic. It has two lone pairs as well. Then we can move on to...oh, I don't know, let's start with Sarin nerve gas. Edited March 13, 2012 by hypervalent_iodine wrong person... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 If you've studies the theory very well you wouldn't have asked these questions. They are all answered in the theory. In hydrogen sulphide, the 4 electrons on sulphur are in lone pairs (according to the theory). That gave rise to the phenomenon, ATOXOPY. You can as well check the meaning of atoxopy in Wiktionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 I fail to see how that is different from the 4 electrons on oxygen, which are also in lone pairs. You still haven't answered the question about peroxides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imatfaal Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 If you've studies the theory very well you wouldn't have asked these questions. They are all answered in the theory. In hydrogen sulphide, the 4 electrons on sulphur are in lone pairs (according to the theory). That gave rise to the phenomenon, ATOXOPY. You can as well check the meaning of atoxopy in Wiktionary. Can you just clarify - Did you or one of your co-authors/colleagues introduce the word into Wiktionary? I note that the only citation is your own paper. If that's the case then it is a little disingenuous to proffer wiktionary as a source of confirmation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 Step 1 Count the lone pairs in a water molecule. Step 2 count the lone pairs in H2S Step 3 abandon the idea that lone pairs are responsible for toxicity. That's before you start to worry about the compounds with no lone pairs that are toxic. If you get past that there's yet another killer problem What exactly counts as toxic? You couls ask this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 13, 2012 Author Share Posted March 13, 2012 Hydrogen peroxide has to react before it comes toxic, please take note. How else can a new word be coined or made known to the world if not by proper indexing with leading dictionaries etc. You can as well search for Atoxopy on any search engine. @John. You have to study something and grasp it before criticizing. -1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Cuthber Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) Hydrogen peroxide has to react before it comes toxic, please take note. How else can a new word be coined or made known to the world if not by proper indexing with leading dictionaries etc. You can as well search for Atoxopy on any search engine. @John. You have to study something and grasp it before criticizing. LOL I studied a little bit. This is the least controversial part of your idea, quoted from the web page you cited. "The assumptions are as follows: • Intoxication is a chemical reaction". I agree that in most cases, possibly all of them, some sort of chemical reaction has to take place to make something toxic. Something like nitrogen which barely reacts with biological materials isn't toxic. So, obviously, in at least most cases, everything has to react before it's toxic. Now, I agree that hydrogen peroxide is also toxic because it reacts with things. It oxidises them. In fact it will oxidise quite a variety of things so it essentially reacts with something important in the body and, as such, it does damage and so it's toxic. So what? It still has paired lone pairs, and according to your idea it shouldn't be toxic. Meanwhile, how do you account for the toxicity of things like chloroform, benzene, DDT, Carbon tetrachloride and so on which have no lone pairs. Edited March 13, 2012 by John Cuthber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theorist Posted March 14, 2012 Author Share Posted March 14, 2012 @ John. Don't study a little bit. Study all and grasp first. -2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hypervalent_iodine Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 What a cop out. Theorist, you are required to counter our arguments with science and evidence, as per the rules of this forum. We've all raised valid points, which you either respond to with nothing or by saying 'you need to study more' (or some other vague nonsense that has no place reality). We are not the ones who need to 'study and grasp' the theory. Take a look at the compounds John Cuthber listed and the compounds I listed a few posts back and explain why they are toxic, despite not fitting your model. Hydrofluoric acid doesn't fit your model either - are you saying that HF isn't toxic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now