hypervalent_iodine

You might want to reconsider that equation. NaOH is absolutely, 100% not an acid.

1. Why does the NH3 turn into an NH2- in your first step? That doesn't make sense. Neither does the next step. 2. Do you have to calculate the magnetic moment? 3. No. The halogens won't coordinate like that. You have another atom in there that can coordinate. 4. a. Yes. b. Close. If you have two of the one type of group, you have to specify that by adding a di- prefix. d. Yes.

1. That's the name that is commonly used, but it's not the IUPAC name. 2. Is it high spin or low spin? How many unpaired electrons does the iron have? Magnetic moment? 3. Will wait for your attempts. 4. You're missing the other functional group. What is the functional group present in the starting molecule? What are the structures of the products? Yes, LiAlH4 is a reducing agent, but that isn't an answer. What about 3? 5. Break it down. What functional groups do you have and what do the reagents do to those groups? 10. What were your answers?

! Moderator Note This a discussion forum. If you want to post your book excerpts, please start a blog.

! Moderator Note 1. Is there a question here? Please elaborate / clarify. Nothing you've said in your OP makes sense.

! Moderator Note You need to outline your theory and the predictions it makes here.

! Moderator Note 1. Stop spamming the forum with this. 2. Your post is so ridiculous, I don't even know where to start. One thing is for sure though and that is that this nonsense does not belong here. If you have something remotely science related to ask, please start a thread and ask it.

! Moderator Note Hello, andsm, and welcome to the forum. Part of the rules that you agreed to upon signing up for an account include those that prohibit advertising or using the forum to drive traffic to external sites rather than for its intended purpose as a discussion forum. I am closing this thread and have removed the link to your blog in accordance with this. You are welcome to open a new thread, but please use your OP to introduce and summarise your ideas and not to tell people to go to your blog.

! Moderator Note Threads merged.

anonymousone had been banned after a spectacular meltdown.

! Moderator Note One thread per topic, please.

That's plain untrue. A number of metals besides gold may be found naturally in their elemental state, either as an alloy or singly.

1. Yes. 2. That depends. In general, it's probably not a terrible idea, but it depends on circumstance and what you find valuable in it. A large part of my dialogue / connection with international friends and family is through Skype and Facebook, so for me it would result in some loss. It is also where a number of my friends choose to organise events and though I'm sure I could manage without in that regard, it's simpler to just use it. Surely that depends on how you use it? A phone or Skype would be useful for most purposes. Plenty wrong with it and I am conflicted with how I feel. On the one hand, I find it a useful tool and on the other, so does Facebook and a lot of other organisations. If they're your friends, why do you need to use FB to make them like you?

! Moderator Note techtalknow, First and foremost, your attitude here sucks. If you have come here for genuine discussion and debate, you should be willing to take the constructive comments directed at you and respond to them rather than cherry picking one-liners you believe to be an attack on your faith. No one here is doing that. Even if they were, it doesn't then mean you get to be insulting in return. If you think you are being personally attacked (note that this is not the same as having your ideas attacked), then report the post and let staff deal with it. Secondly, stop shifting the goal posts. The use of logical fallacy is not allowed here for the simple reason that it is a disingenuous way to hold discussion. You asked a question about evolution. You don't get to redefine those terms when people reposed to you with valid science by saying you were specifically talking about human evolution. Regardless, the science that applies to the evolution of dogs or bacteria is the same as it is for humans. Finally, cite your sources. You claim to have a quote from SciAm, so please provide a link. Edit: I missed that this was later linked. Thanks, overtone, for mentioning it. This is the only chance I am going to give you in this thread. As a side note, you really do need to take some time to study biology if you want to argue the science behind some of it. Stubborn agendas are not welcome here and if you do not rectify your attitude, your time here will probably be quite short. Do not reply to this mod note in-thread. If you have a problem with it, PM staff or report the post.

! Moderator Note Well spotted. Ridiculous thread closed.

You already have a thread on this. Stop spamming the forum.

! Moderator Note Somehow, I don't think that consent to cook someone dinner implies that you have consent to give them drugs that could potentially be harmful to them. Please, 1. don't do this ridiculous thing (conversations are a thing people have when they have issues with one another) and, 2. review the forum rules on posting hazardous and illegal information before you decide to post something like this again.

! Moderator Note 1. Do not hijack other threads / spam the forum with this. I have hidden one post so far that did not belong. 2. This is complete jibberish. This forum is not your soap box and you are not welcome to use it as one. If you have something to discuss in all this, you may open a thread. BE CONCISE. To say this was difficult to read is an understatement. 3. Cut the references to LSD. Your comments are dangerously wrong and inappropriate for this site. 4. See 2.

It is also worth noting that engineers are not scientists. They have very different outcomes in terms of career, pay, etc.

It provided valid counterpoints to your post, as did Arete's. I'm not sure how that isn't starting a discussion?

You should at least be willing to discuss your opinions, however, or else all you're really doing is soap boxing. QFT

This has already been argued. It wasn't convincing then either. We can assume for the sake of the argument that any sentencing of a prisoner to be passed on for medical experiments would have to be equivalent to the death penalty, since there is every chance that some unforseen side-effect will cause individuals in a given experiment to die. These experiments can be lengthy and presumably, painful (studies may involve, for instance, inducing cancer in individuals), which I would think falls in the category of human rights violations. As well, our justice system is imperfect and you cannot guarantee with absolute certainty that every person sentenced to death is guilty of the crime that put them on death row (especially when considering some of the charges that put people on death row in certain countries). As a punitive measure, it has been shown that the death penalty is largely ineffective at reducing crime rates and I doubt that the threat of medical experiments would be any better in that regard. Finally, using a population of death row prisoners for medical experiments is hardly going to give you statistically valid results for most studies. Not only do you not solve any ethical dilemmas, you create a few new ones and you struggle to generate any decent data. I do not see why you cannot extend this to the medical advancements that stem from animal testing (which encompasses most, if not all of the more modern ones from the past ~ 100 years). If we didn't develop chemotherapeutics, as an example, a lot of people that have otherwise survived their cancer would be dead. In a way, the animals we sacrificed to develop these drugs is a necessity and it will continue to be so until we can develop methods that are as robust and translatable to human models as the various animals we currently use are.

Could you be more specific? 'What can be learnt?' is a little vague and would encompass too big a list for it to be useful to you. It depends on a lot of things, like how new the affected area is, how many people are there, if they have a history of bad storms, what type of storm it is, etc. I live in the sub-tropics, where there are realistically only two seasons: hot and stormy and not as hot and stormy. We are pretty well versed in how to prepare for and deal with storms in the summer months, but we are always finding new ways to improve. This is especially true as climate global warming its mark more apparent and the storms we get are more violent and out of the ordinary. One big thing that is often learnt in the aftermath is that insurance companies are not your friends and always make sure you have proper storm and flood coverage. I would think that many places build to withstand local whether events and the like so as to minimise damage, though technology is always improving. In New-Zealand, for example, many buildings are built to withstand the constant barrage of earthquakes the country received and here in Queensland (Australia), houses are built to stay cool in the summer and not get blown away during storm season.

Perhaps this is a useful time to define what you mean by not good, so we aren't talking past each other. Usefulness of a drug to society is more or less considered when animal experiments are put forward for review and approval (note that I am strictly talking about the pharmaceutical industry, not the cosmetic industry; I have very different opinions on cosmetic testing). It is not really possible to predict whether a marketed drug will be subject to the serious abuse that results in those statistics and I don't think that it would be productive to prohibit animal testing based on those sorts of, 'what ifs.' Halting drug development because of the possibility of abuse would almost certainly stymie useful research. I don't think that potential for abuse unrelated to a drug's intended use should really be considered in drug development to the extent you seem to think it should. How addictive a drug is should be investigated in the same way that other potential side effects are (and I imagine it is), but this would usually be part of the investigation anyway and would probably require animal testing of some sort (though I'm not familiar with how addictiveness is tested). Anyway, abuse should certainly be addressed, but in other ways and by other avenues. I mean, you can overdose on any drug. You can overdose on water. That's not the water's fault, though, and it's not the fault of the government faction supplying the water if it was found to be safe for normal use. The opioid pain killers that are mentioned are very useful tools for a large number of people. Many of them could be better and new things are always on the way, but they are all we have for now. Cancer sufferers, for example, would be in unbelievable amounts of (additional) pain were it not for drugs like morphine. Should we not have tested those drugs on animals and therefore not marketed them because some people chose to misuse them? Specifically what drugs are you talking about to lead you to this opinion?

The thread of conversation that overtone was directly replying to concerned the use of the quote function, not GMO's. So you're right, he didn't bring it up, but that's not the point. At all. Moreover, on my part at least it was a general observation - and one I've brought up before. The difference between this and how some like JohnC uses the quote function (or doesn't use it), is that it is usually clear who John is replying to. It is not always clear who overtone is replying to and that can make it difficult to read. In any case, don't like that this has turned into a thread railing against one particular member. You are correct that this method is not an ideal way to go about it and so I am bowing out.