hypervalent_iodine

! Moderator Note Moved to Speculations.

! Moderator Note Airbrush, Though this is certainly a fascinating topic, we have already requested that people divert their posts about it to the already active thread: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72880-meteorite-fall-in-chelyabinsk/ I'm going to close this thread as staff have already merged one of yours into the older thread, but please feel free to copy your OP here into the above.

Though this thread is really to respond to queries about moderator action, this post is to explain a lack of staff action following reports regarding the following: http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72619-what-exactly-is-the-connection-between-conscious-and-autosomatic-thinking/page-2#entry730312 And http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72619-what-exactly-is-the-connection-between-conscious-and-autosomatic-thinking/page-2#entry730200 Both reported as trolling. By no definition of the term were able to see how exactly either of these posts constitute trolling. As such, no effort is going to be made to reprimand the author of these posts.

Not a chance.

Look, Popcorn, we don't want you as a moderator. Not yesterday, not now and probably not ever. Do yourself (and us) a favor and give up.

If your son has any specific questions, you're welcome to pass them along. As a rule, we do not do people's assignments for them here, even if by proxy. The reason for this is that it defeats the purpose of the task, which is to learn something. I am unsure if you are saying that you are actually doing his assignment for him or not; if you are, then I strongly suggest you rethink what it is that you're doing, for pretty much the same reason listed above.

Are you actually after a philosophical answer to this question or are you after a scientific one?

! Moderator Note 'Off topic' seems to be a foreign concept to so many lately. I've split 9 posts into a new thread, found here. Could everyone please stop trying to derail threads.

! Moderator Note Popcorn Sutton, Please stay on topic. If you wish to start a thread about your proposed computer program, then do so.

Cut him some slack. It's exactly swansont's propensity to keep things on the 'DL' that would have had him outed eventually anyway.

! Moderator Note Przemysalw.Gruchala, This is not the first time you've been warned against thread hijacking. It is to stop.

I must have ALL the cheese nips. This guy gets it.

Judging by this, you can't access your old account? Cap'n can probably work some administratory magic and give you access to your old account again if you ask really nicely. Welcome back, in any case. Edit: I expect at least a 30% commission on any cheese nips exchanged for the purposes of recovering your old account.

You can. They both react with esters, but the products will be different.

I assume this is homework? You need to at least attempt the question yourself. We're not in the business of doing other people's work for them.

And what do you think Na metal does? Also, small point of contention, it's really bugging me that you don't write the elemental symbols with their appropriate capital letters.

As easy as that!

No, not at all. We welcome homework questions, but we don't welcome people coming in to get others to do their work for them. To answer your question, there are many, many natural products that remain to be synthesized; either because no one's gotten around to it yet or because they have proven quite difficult to tackle. In these cases, bioharvesting is the only means of obtaining the compound, but this can often be coupled with extremely low yields (in some cases you're lucky to get a few mg from kilos of raw material). On the flip side, there are also a lot of compounds for which bioharvesting is a more economical choice over synthetic means. Compounds that present the most difficulty in synthesis could broadly be described as those being especially dense in terms of their structure and their functional groups. Polycyclic alkaloids are a good example of this (e.g. the hetisines). The exact reasons for why a certain compound is difficult to synthesise is unique to each molecule, though many of them share common characteristics: The are almost always large molecules with a great deal of steric bulk. Involves complex and often polycyclic structures. Quaternary carbons everywhere. Multiple functional groups. Heterocyclic structures are common. (I may have missed something, but you get the idea.) The complexity of these compounds means that a great many present synthetic challenges too difficult to overcome with existing chemistry or require lengthy and expensive (and sometimes quite difficult) protocol to make for an incredibly small return (from start to finish, a 'good' yield of some natural products sits well below 1%). Since one of the largest driving forces behind natural product synthesis is medicinal and agricultural application, you can appreciate why this is quite problematic and how it leads to the necessity to obtain the products from their natural sources. Taxol is probably the best example of this. What exactly do you mean by plentiful resources? Unfortunately, and increase in the quality of technology available might not do terribly much to resolve issues inherent within the chemistry of a given compound, though it may give clues as to ways around them. Technological improvements and developments certainly could make (and has made in the past) some processes more streamlined and affordable on laboratory and industrial scales. Hope that answers your questions. Edit: I should say that one thing improved technology has done in the past few decades is make purification and separation of enantiomers and the like much easier. For some compounds, particularly amines, purification can be nightmarish using conventional means. Automated methods of separation (HPLC, etc.) allow for you to do all sorts of neat tricks that you couldn't do or couldn't do easily otherwise.

This sounds suspiciously homework-like.

Who said this was an American forum? There are probably as many Americans as non-Americans that post here. I think people just missed the 'anon' in the title and given the way the OP was written (i.e. you didn't indicate in the post that it was quoted from elsewhere), it's easy to see why people might assume that it was coming from you. Anyway, I found amusing.

How is that obvious? This, as with 90% of what you've said in this thread (and still refuse to back up), are based on vague or completely incorrect and ill-informed assumptions. And of course, you realise that antidepressants aren't going to reverse the nerve damage and various other consequences of chronic and severe B12 anemia that go hand in hand with the mood disorders? The indirect admission that people who don't eat animal products suffer from B12 also contradicts your earlier claims. Hah. Did you even read the end of the first paragraph in that image you posted? And of course the bit you highlighted has nothing to do with any of this.

Also Source: http://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0301/p979.html

Which bacteria, which enzymes and could you please provide sources for that claim?

! Moderator Note Popcorn Sutton, Firstly, please do not hijack threads. Secondly, this is an English speaking forum and we ask our members to try and adhere to that as it makes for smoother discussion. With that in mind, perhaps you could try sticking to the English language instead of Popcorn Suttonian. Much obliged.

! Moderator Note Przemyslaw.Gruchala, 'Heavier photons' constitute nonsense. And the second portion of your post is pure speculation - i.e. not something that belongs in a thread in the mainstream science forums. If you wish to discuss this, please report the mod note and staff will have a look at it. edit (swansont) see http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/72973-comments-on-moderation/