DrDNA

Hey! Why isn't 8 track part of the poll?

I have thought for a long time that biology education would benefit it it evolved into a more "professional" system, much like engineering. I think that the programs often seem to be loosey goosey.....its a free for all.

Get a subscription to Scientific American..... Great way to get your feet wet in many fields.

He will probably end up being the head of a major corp. or go into politics.

Being a libertarian of sorts, I tend to view it as a liberal and a conservative problem. They are all running towards the cliff like a pack of lemings.....please help us get out of the way so we don't go over with them. Exactly!

No. My position is fine the way it is.

I think one difference in the way Nodoz acts phyisologically is the way you take it compared to coffee. What does it take, 20-30 mins on average to drink 2 cups of coffee? But if you take a couple of pills, the caffine should hit your bloodstream much faster. Not fast enough for a bolus effect like you would get from smoking, injecting or snorting a substance, but probably much more of a quick jolt than you get from sipping a dilute, hot drink.

Welcome to your future............

I can't speak personally for 1947 since I was born in late '59. Careful what you read, it has a way of rewriting itself. Besides, I don't know if that would be a fair comparison. It was likely a different world with a different kind of paranoia. I assume you are refering to the percieved internal communism threat and Soviet nuc/spy threats. But I believe that the gov had fewer ways to act on fascism then. That said, still not sure.... But, I can speak personally for my lifetime.....since the late 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's? Definitely, YES.

Yes.

Older than my teeth and as young as my gums.........

Pinesol is: Pine oil 10-20% IPA 4-7% Alkyl alcohol ethoxylates 2 - 6% http://www.thecloroxcompany.com/products/msds/pinesol/originalpine-solbrandcleaner.pdf Ingredient Concentration Worker Exposure Limit Pine oil 10 - 20% Not established. CAS # 8002-09-3 Isopropyl alcohol 4 - 7% 400 ppm - TLV-TWAa CAS #67-63-0 400 ppm - PELb 500 ppm - TLV-STELc Alkyl alcohol ethoxylates 2 - 6% Not established. CAS # 66455-15-0 aTLV-TWA = ACGIH Threshold Limit Value - Time Weighted Average bPEL = OSHA Permissible Exposure Limit - Time Weighted Average cTLV-STEL = ACGIH Threshold Limit Value - Short Term Exposure Limit None of the materials in this product are on the IARC, OSHA, or NTP carcinogen lists. II Health Hazard Data III Hazardous Ingredients Eye irritant. May cause skin irritation. Avoid contact with food. No medical conditions are known to be aggravated by exposure to this product. FIRST AID: EYE CONTACT: Immediately flush eyes with plenty of water. If irritation persists, call a physician. INGESTION: Do not induce vomiting. Promptly drink a large amount of milk or water. Call a physician. SKIN CONTACT: Wash skin with water. If irritation persists, call a physician. INHALATION: Remove to fresh air. If breathing problems develop, call a physician.

I must be getting old. I remember the "good ol days" when young ladies wore tight skirts or hot pants and low cut tops to get a reaction........ I hope that this doesn' t sound TOO sexist.......

I think this is a matter of active vs passive assualt. As soon a bathtub chases someone down the street and mauls them, we should consider a ban on bathtubs.

She obviously isn't a retraded space alien. "We are strong. [MIT students] are smart." She could "make our spaceship go". She was looking for a reaction of some sort, that much is clear, and she got one. Of course it was a little larger than what she originally bargined for. A "misunderstanding"? That's too funny. Can you major in fashion at MIT?? If so, she's doomed. After seeing a pic of her "circuit", if she's is a EE major, she's in big trouble too......no wait, on second thought that thing does look like something a retarded space alien might build.......(no offense to you InsaneA )

Perhaps there is some type of affinity chromatography (or similar) system available, or you can make one.....thiols and disulfides stick to gold but not to glass (nor mica) and thiolated/disulfide silanes (silanes are used to derivatize affinity supports) are readily available, so the affinity supports are either available or they would certainly not be to difficult to make. After the functionalized support is in hand, flow the mixture over the support and the gold should stick while the rest of the stuff flows right over it.....IF the gold particles are small enough to bind tightly to the support. Then the gold should come off the thiols with mild denaturing conditions. It would be worth a quick google search.... On the other hand, it just occured to me.......mica is negatively charged (SiO- on the surface), so in an electrical field, the mica should be attracted to the postive electrode. But gold should not be attracted to either electrode.......Sort of like electrophoresis.......this might be easier

Interesting article, but it appears to be total speculation. Is the Indian journal Current Science generally considered reputible? I can't recall ever seeing it.

Let me know when you need test subjects for a proper study in this matter. We will be compensated, won't we?

If all you want to do is see if the UVC casues mutation, I'm pretty sure that it would be much easier to expose bacteria to UVC and grow on selective media, for eg, in the presence of an antibiotic (eg, Strep). You would then compare these to control bacteria which are not exposed and calculate the difference in the number of mutant colonies. I recall that we analyzed potential mutagens this way in my undergrad bacteriology lab too many years ago to count.... For example: "This experiment introduces the simple technique of direct selection for the detection and isolation of certain mutants. This technique involves plating bacteria on a selective medium on which only the desired mutants can grow. Specifically, the experiment involves taking a culture of microbes at a high density and plating them on a rich medium containing the antibiotic streptomycin. Streptomycin inhibits protein synthesis by binding to the small subunit of the ribosome and blocking entrance of initiator N-formyl methionine tRNA into the ribosome, thus preventing the start of protein synthesis. A single mutation in the S12 protein of the small subunit of the ribosome prevents streptomycin from binding, thus causing the microbe to become resistant to the antibiotic. By plating a strain onto a medium containing streptomycin, it is possible to fish out the microbes present that have a mutation in the S12 gene. Please appreciate the power of this selective technique. By performing a very simple experiment, it is possible to fish out the 100 or so cells, in a mixture containing billions, that have a change in a specific gene. Also, note how easy it is for a microbe to become resistant to an antibiotic. While the drug is killing 99.9999% of the microbes present, 0.0001% are able to survive, and these microbes are now resistant to the antibiotic. This explains why drug resistance in microbes can occur so rapidly and is a constant problem in medicine." http://www.bact.wisc.edu/microtextbook/index.php?module=Book&func=displayarticle&art_id=127

No. I think I understand what it is that you are looking for now. It was just unclear to me but your statment clarified it.

I'm unclear on how resistance to UVC postively would correlate with mutation induced by UVC. It seems like the opposite would be true. Maybe I'm missing something.

So you I posted the same link you did. So what? "Selective data"????? That's why I copied the reference. Did you expect me to cut and paste the whole thing? I believe that you selectively exerpted info. So what? A court ruling means nothing scientifically or practically (except in a legal sense). Courts make rulings all the time. And they are NOT always (hardly ever in fact) scientific. That is why I used the actual data about dog attacks from the study. A study that you also referenced I might add. Now that it doesn;t support your position, you say that it is wrong? Selective data? According to your position, we shouldn't believe any data because it could be selective. It's not perfect, I'll admit, but you shouldn't dismiss it. A wise man once said that "seriously maimed or killed" is bad. I REALLY don't understand how including maimed or killed discounts the validity of the data. In a previous post I list a stat on the number of bites that go unreported.....for every dog bite death 230,000 go unreported. So if there are unknowns, the data is flawed? There are unknowns in EVERY data set. This is no more skewed than any other large set of data. It is the largest set of data I have seen so far...not that I claim to have seen them all or that many for that matter....I'm no expert in this field. Have you seen a larger one? If so, please post it. I would definitely like to read it. You are assuming that 100% of that 1% trained should have viscously attacked humans? I seriously doubt that ALL Pitbulls trained to fight would attack humans. And you are assuming that none of the non-trained Pitbulls would attack? Also, you are leaving out other forms of animal abuse and mishandling that can bring out dogs' agressive natures..... I speculate that an important number we don't see is number of attacks on other dogs. That number should be seriously misrepresented. I think a key flaw in your reasoning is that we should discount the data because they were only serious attacks and death. Conversely, I think that this information is important. How would you suppose to get the remaining data: including attacks where people were not maimed sufficiently to be admitted to hospital or killed?

Of course some (many) are. They just have a different belief system than you. Some creationists believe that evolution is possibly just a tool....a means to an end.....a matter of detail. Are they smart, ill informed, or stupid? And who is going to decide how best to do that? The state? Obviously, parents are not well informed enough to decide what is best for their children. Are they? Do you really trust some beaurocrate that much?

It is possible. Have you seen that randomly generated, identical copy of my stinky, worn out tennis shoe anywhere? You said it best in your logo....it's a good plan............................................to fail.

Since out of 2209 dog attacks doing bodily harm, 1110 were by Pitbull terriers..... not counting pit bull mixes, http://www.dogbitelaw.com/Dog%20Atta...%20Clifton.pdf it is clear that the pro Pitbull camp must make an assumption if they are to have ANY hope to claim that Pitbulls are nice by nature (breeding) and only dangerous because of bad nurturing (abuse or mishandling). The assumption that would have to be made is the majority of Pitbull owners (most?) are sadistic jerks that participate in acts of animal cruelity (as compared to owners of various other breeds). Otherwise, all the Pitbulls would be friendly and there would be very few Pitbull attacks. Are you willing to make that assumption?