Psycho

Well to start with you have to ask yourself a few questions, the first would be what did you originally start with, you have HCl, but what was the foil made from? The second question you have to ask is what are you getting rid of when you use the flame to make a pop, as that obviously can't be part of the end product but must have been in the original reactants. Then when you have an idea of what it might be look the chemical up on google to see what it looks like, if it is a yellow powder you have the right one. Well you will have to work out the original product first, but then you have to work out what is being added to it, what is the chemical formula of ammonia. Then you have to work out what is being substituted for what and then what physical properties that has, so in this case whether it is white crystals.

I fail too see the point, they still are murdering people giving it a different name doesn't make it any different. Up to the 1920 in china kung fu "sport" fights sometimes ended in death it is just the way it was. Society decides the rules and people accept them if they think they are reasonable, if not people break them such is the case with some drugs as well as many others. If you see a 16 year old drinking in the park you aren't really going to call the police or do anything about it, if you see them beating some one up in the park you might, that is just a moral choice both are illegal due to society it is just whether or not they are condoned. That is completely true and still happens today, ever seen a death count for iraq's on the TV yet you see one every time a solider from the "allied" force dies.

I did it, pretty interesting, one problem with it is that the term religion is so broad that totally different systems are classed under it when in reality things such as Buddhism and Catholicism are completely different in both structure and ideals.

Morals are just what society deems to be acceptable as if you don't conform with them then society won't accept you and humans are inherently social animals who work in groups to succeed. For example when trying to catch larger prey or out smart it, it is far easier for a group to do it and there for these traits to work together will be selected for due to greater survival rate. Humans also do have instincts, however many are taught out of use due to them being little use, such as babies not eating sour food this is due to it usually being poisonous in the wild, however we are taught that things like lemons aren't so we ignore it.

Why not just make them actively abstain from the voting, rather than not voting they have too go and tick a box saying they don't want to vote for any of the candidates.

If you look really skinny and think you are weak just start yourself on a simple exercises program, due to your nature any increase in muscle will be very obvious as with most people they have a relativity thick layer of fat covering it reducing the definition of it.

The real question is will we change at all, the reason organism change is to better adapt to their own environment but if you control your environment such as in a house with the temperature then there is little too change for. Also in the case of survival of the fittest, does that really apply to humans any more, in rare cases such as chronic or genetic disease but for the the general population it doesn't really, most people live in a society where when you get in a relationship you stay with the partner in a 1:1 ratio meaning there isn't a lack of the opposite sex to go around. Then of course studies have shown people of the same attractiveness are attracted too each other in greater amounts than someone who is on the other end of the scale so everyone isn't after the alpha male of the group. It would be hard to predict what humanity will evolve to become more intelligent, yes but will the individual be or will it just be that they started from a higher step on the ladder with a greater knowledge base. What you really have to ask is in the 1st world such as Europe and America what traits are selected for and who is having the most offspring, then of course you then have to ask are the same traits being selected for in places like China and India or do they prefer other traits. The film Idiocracy, give a humorous look at the whole idea with the storyline being scarily resemblant of what could happen at one extreme.

If you put the phage on a plate on a bacterial lawn and the bacteria lysis forming plaques you know it has worked. Antibiotics will always be used as in most cases the most common strain of the bacteria isn't resistant plus they are far cheaper than any phage therapy, however they would be more useful in cases when the bacteria have become resistant and antibiotics are of little use. Another use for them could be if someone is allergic to the antibiotic required however they would have to be allergic too several before it would become a desired option.

To be fair there really aren't any good scientific arguments against it, there are ethical ones, but I wouldn't really call them good ones. You could go with the whole idea of cost as well as them having to be specific to each patient but then again for complex conditions specific treatments maybe the only way to go and will be the most effective and a higher percentage of cases.

To be fair the ways described here to find out if it is the Penicillium species aren't very good the easiest way is to just to grow it on a bacterial plate and then on the same plate grow the fungus with penicillinase if the one without it kills the bacteria and the other doesn't you have a fungus making penicillin.

It is called an average, there aren't actually millions of little balls floating around in the sea, there is just a piece of rubbish in 1/1000 of the square meters, or some number similar.

Indeed, or at least the option to view the page in multiple different formats depending on which you like best as mots search engines do all use the same format.

For acid and bases you could put a pack of mints in a bottle of coke and watch it explode that is pretty simple, however the kids may then destroy the school!

It doesn't make multiple copies of the bacteria it makes multiple copies of itself, the bacteriophage. When the bacteria lysis releasing the phages they can infect other bacteria until they are eradicated therefore meaning there is no more bacterial infection. The problem with the whole idea is that some bacteriophages have been linked with increased mutation rates in ordinary body cells and therefore an increase in the prevalence in cancer rates, however it depends on the type of phage used.

Some sink unblockers have HCl in them as I found out when one broke and went all over my hands, it is pretty dilute and would need purifying which could probably be done by make some of the other components precipitate. As long as it didn't matter if it is rather impure that would get you some.

What statement with what degree of certainty? Yes they are, is it relevant, not really as we aren't susceptible too them and generally the products used are in higher concentration than the bacteria can tolerate anyway so inevitable they are killed at some point probably by the same product that caused them to have a breif advantage over another strain.

Presuming the water didn't boil dehydrating it, which could be prevented in some way such as how halotolerant bacteria change their concentrations of chemicals too stop plasmolysis replacing the water with other biochemical analogues such as glycerol. Of course as well as being able to be created and destroyed very quickly which would be very energy intensive it would have too with stand the temperature and pretty much all their internal mechanisms would have too be different. It wouldn't really have any chances of occurring, their are too many extreme factors involved.

We aren't breeding new strains of antibiotic bacteria they are all ready there, however it doesn't matter that they are there because that is why we have an immune system, antibiotic resistant bacteria are only a problem when our immune system is weakened and only occur in large numbers when antibiotics are prevalent and therefore it is of great advantage to be resistant to them, hence the problem in hospitals and the search for new antibiotics (which will only be a temporary fix) and other treatment methods.

No, as hyperthermophilic bacteria have a phospholipid bilayer which will break down above 60 degree centigrade therefore causing them to lysis, any hyperthermophilic archaea that can survive above that temperature due to their glycerol dialkyl glycerol tetraether monolayers, which don't break down till above 120 degrees, still wouldn't be able to live with the variation in temperature due to the monolayer freezing below 65 degrees. Then of course there is the fact that with the nature of a kettle the concentrations of salt such as CaCO3 would be so great that they would also have to be halotolerant as well, that is if they could exist in the first place.

The same could be said about humans except you would need 2, that doesn't mean they can't be classed as individuals, the rate of replication maybe a bit slower but it is the same idea.

I would personally call it being a teenager, the only difference between you and others is that you actually worked out that you are doing it, whereas most just deny they are like that. In the case of food maybe you have a slower response to increased sugar levels and therefore they stay in your blood longer, or just the raised sugar level causes it before it is levelled off.

The whole problem with cancer is that cancer isn't one thing it is a group of different conditions that have similar, but in some cases completely different causes. Cancers is more common in older people due to the fact that there needs to be a build up of genetic mutations in places such as the RAS, FAS and P53 genes, the P53 gene been prevalent in over 50% of colon cancers, this is due to the nature of what the protein does, it repairs the damaged DNA. Therefore you could quite happily have a mutation in say a RAS pathway gene and everything would be fine your cells would grow faster but as soon as they fail they are destroyed by apoptosis. Of course over the years you will gain more and more mutations, which I might add are extremely common to levels such as 10^6 cell divisions however most of the time the P53 protein catches these and fixes them lowering the number as well as them being in the non-coding DNA 95% of the time. The once the original mutations have occurred speeding up cell growth, removing receptors that cause apoptosis, removing repair mechanisms the tutor will need to metastasis and this once again is a completely separate gene mutation. If this had happened before the P53 gene had been mutated it would be fixed but as the protein no longer functions it is free to break down the E-caherin's and connexins. Furthermore other gene mutations have to occur to allow angiogenesis as to allow the tumour to grow and this alone without any metastasis can cause problems such as blocking of of the blood flow causeing strokes and hypooxygenation to certain areas of the body. The reduced blood flow could also cause a clotting effect and therefore thrombus to form which is a whole other problem.

An ionic solution of Na+, Cl-, H2O, OH- and H3O+ in varying proportions.

Not conclusively you would need to obtain which allele is at the known loci and compare that with similarities between other alleles in the genotype of the other cattle as well as the individuals. What size sample is this and how common is the recessive allele in the population?

Well for starters you couldn't run 3 miles at your top speed, the lactic acid build up would be too much, however I will presume you mean the fastest you could run 3 miles. It is a good question, I would say that you would burn more calories doing it slower, however you would probably burn more fat doing it slower, whereas you would burn more sugars and glycogen doing it faster. It really depends what the purpose of the exercise is, that is of course if it has one and it isn't for its own sake. It you are planning on doing a marathon then it would be better to do it slowly but if you were planning to sprint the 100meters, the faster would most likely be preferable. Doing it faster would increase your overall cardiovascular system better however might not be so sustainable to do everyday where as the jogging would be, so each style has their own advantages.