hypervalent_iodine

Is it April Fools' day there already? Cute kangaroo, though.

It depends what you're trying to do, I guess. A hot plate with temperature control is a better substitute for both of them if you're willing to spend a little extra money, though.

! Moderator Note Timothy Horton, Although this thread has already been closed, it's worth pointing out to you that we don't allow members to make personal and insulting comments towards others on SFN. That goes as much for Schneibster as it does to the people responding to him. We also generally discourage bringing in drama from other fora into threads here.

! Moderator Note Alright, overtone, that's enough. Your superior attitude and abrasiveness with other members is unacceptable. Furthermore, we will not allow you to continue to make and persist with claims that are unsupported and / or go against accepted science. Just because other members disagree with you (and can support their positions with rational argument as well as evidence) does not mean that they lack skills in reading comprehension. I suggest that on your return to SFN, you take into consideration the fact that your opinions on matters of science are not correct just because you think they are or because you are extremely persistent in your claims, especially when there is actual evidence that lies counter to your position. Please be aware that should you continue your present behavior following your suspension, we will ban you permanently from posting on SFN.

! Moderator Note In the spirit of swansont's mod note, I am also moving this to Speculations. Overtone, front up the evidence for your claims, or this thread is being closed.

! Moderator Note Hi br511, Welcome to SFN. Please be aware that the rules you agreed to upon signing up for an account here state that we do not permit threads to be opened for the purposes of advertising and driving traffic to other threads or websites. You are, however, welcome to include a link to your blog in your signature and on your profile provided that they are not commercial in nature.

Are you getting roughly similar concentrations? I'm very much speculating here as my experience with RNA extraction is limited, but is it possible that maybe your extraction method is excluding any damaged RNA from your final sample?

Just for the record, this thread was formerly about how the OP does not believe in the Big Bang or some such, but with no real evidence to support any alternative claims. Since they have now deleted the post, I will be closing this thread. Lacto Bacto, we generally frown on members deleting entire posts after members have responded. If you weren't prepared for criticism or to fully participate in your own topic, then you should maybe have waited to post it until you were.

! Moderator Note vampares, This is not the first time that staff have had to remove your posts for being wildly off-topic and / or complete nonsense. Please stick to the topic outlined in the OP in future or staff will be forced to take further action. In the mean-time, I am moving your post to the trash. Respond to this modnote via the report function or PM.

! Moderator Note See here

! Moderator Note So do you have some sort of hypothesis, or does this not belong in Speculations?

! Moderator Note Popcorn, could you please expand a bit more on your OP? What specifically are you trying to discuss here?

I would say firstly that the media does a very good job of overselling many "discoveries". This is especially true for the life sciences and perhaps physics, though I can't claim enough knowledge to pick up on errors present in such media reports. Scientific outreach is a pretty tricky business and it takes something fairly big to really grab public attention (e.g. X found to cure cancer, evidence for the Big Bang discovered, God Particle discovered, etc.). Unfortunately, discoveries in science occur over a long time and in a mostly incremental fashion. Your average lay-person seems to be very rarely interested in minor or even major advancement unless they have some sort of tangible outcome that they can in some way relate to or at the very least understand; I would think that even most scientists are not particularly interested in the small developments that make up the bigger picture(s) outside of their own fields of expertise. I would agree that, 'the discoveries that the scientific community is making aren't being advertised as well as they should be,' though perhaps not for the same reasons. I think that many discoveries are prematurely sold, over-sold and / or badly sold by the media to the point where they totally miss the crux of the discovery they are reporting on or misintepret it entirely. I'm not sure that more of the same really helps matters, but I would definitely agree that the public at large would benefit from adopting a culture that is more literate and more nurturing towards science and scientific progress.

! Moderator Note Samiul Haque, Comments such as this: Do not fly here. Refrain from insulting other members in your posts and if you could, please educate yourself on the use of the quote function.

! Moderator Note I've merged the above post with your previous thread on the topic. I would also like to remind you that this is not a conspiracy site and your assertions will need some form of evidence.

! Moderator Note Please refer to the forum rules about civility and do not derail this thread by responding to modnotes.

Not really related to the theory behind it all (I am sure I couldn't contribute anything meaningful to such a discussion), but related to the topic and kind of neat to watch one of the people who started it all find out about the evidence that supports his entire life's work: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZlfIVEy_YOA

! Moderator Note minass, This is a discussion forum, not your soapbox. Do you have anything that you wish to engage in converstion about and if so, what? It doesn't appear to be veyr clear from your thread what that might be.

Peter BE cimp has been banned for being a troll.

! Moderator Note Greatest I Am, We returned your posting privileges in this forum under the very strict condition that you abide by the rules to the letter. That includes our rules about insults. Unless you prefer we ban you, I suggest you exercise more caution when you post here in the future.

! Moderator Note Peter BE cimp, The deliberate trolling and personal comments stops now. We will not hesitate to suspend you from posting should you continue. Edit: on second thoughts, we're not even going to give you the option. Since you don't seem to be here for any other reason than to troll and be obnoxious, staff have decided to ban you.

! Moderator Note Okay, we were being pretty lenient with you until now, s1eep, but we're not going to tolerate you being belligerent and abusive towards the people taking the time to actually respond to your nonsense. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note SSDS, responding to threads with your own pet theories and citing your own non-peer reviewed articles is considered thread hijacking. Please do not do this in future.

Are you familiar with MSDS's? Make yourself familiar with them if not.

The question seems to be a bit odd. A polyatomic ion has a charge which results from the sum of the charges of its constituents, but I wouldn't call that an oxidation state. You have gotten the answer of +5 from the nitrogen, so I assume that's what you are talking about and what it is asking for? Positive oxidation states come from a loss of electrons (i.e. an oxidation) and they are perfectly common. How did you come to +5 as an answer if you don't know how to get there?