Suxamethonium

Except that carbon tet is pretty nasty and harder to get these days. Can use Chloroform or DCM instead though as mentioned before.

Try buying ethyl acetate as a solvent first, as the nail polish remover has a number of co-solvents (propylene glycol, etc) and contaminants (dyes, fragrances, preservatives) that will probably interfere with your extraction.

They want 6% which isn't inherently explosive or irritating. Usually this is readily available as per the 3%, you may need to 'shop around' to find a specific company/branch that stocks it however. Personally, if you are using it for your teeth I would find a brand suited for oral use (e.g. Hydrogen peroxide 6% BP) probably from the chemist If you must use 12%, I think there is a version that is 15% BP. Not sure how readily available it is- but it can easily be diluted to required concentrations.

If you are doing this at home you may be able to use DCM from paint-stripper. In Australia we only seem to have the gel type readily available (which involves distilling before it can be used as a solvent- but it only needs a low temp so I use a water bath). Obviously this comes with its own hazards, and the impurities in the DCM in paint-stripper will likely contaminate your product (which may or may not be an issue depending on your application).

It's done all the time to produce decaffeinated coffee. I think they use supercritical carbon dioxide these days or they can use water- but they used to use DCM (which is available in most labs and can be special ordered by most schools if they don't usually stock it). Other solvents to try are ethyl acetate (safer), or the more hazardous benzenes (alkyl benzenes, or benzene) or tetrachloroethane.

To add to that, it is highly likely that such a case is under reported or reported with a bias and it is not yet known how provoked this assault actually was. Pending investigation it could be anything from unprovoked attack to self defense for all we know.

I thought motive was quite an important part of a prosecution. Without it 'reasonable doubt' could easily get the defendant off the hook unless theres obvious evidence that it was them (i.e. clear security/surveillance footage). Needless to say, the motivation behind the act would be interesting none the less, regardless of whether it justifies it or not.

I would suggest only cleaning with hot water and leave to dry for a day. Bleach and soap are more likely to cause problems with precipitation (especially if the water has some degree of hardness) leading to 'floaties' anyway. It's definitely not bacterial and if it is plastic then it's inert enough not to worry about. I doubt that it is contributing to your gastric condition.

I thought CFC's were primarily involved with ozone destruction (known mechanism?) by radical propagation. This resulted in increased UV transmittance NOT increased temperature. Whilst they are greenhouse gases I was under the impression that they are not nearly as important as CO2 H2O and methane? And we can make it rain when we want... We have seeded clouds with silver iodide or other salts and had exactly this effect. China did this to stop rain during the 2008 olympics (by making it rain before it got there).... (And I do realise the controversy around the effectiveness of cloud seeding (particularly in regards to solving water issues), however it has been reported to have caused rain before to some extent by various sources which is enough to demonstrate the point even if the 'technology' isn't very practical at the moment).

Yeah true, although I was mainly just proposing that should the graph be valid it would probably better indicate that man made CO2 did effect the mean temperature increase, even if the localised rates (shown) were the same rather than supporting the proposed argument that global warming and unnatural CO2 emission were not related at all (based on the assumption that other CO2 sources and sinks remained constant i.e. human CO2 emissions increase ∝ to CO2 concentration increase).

I was reading a post that used this picture (below) to support their argument that CO2 has no effect on the rate of heating, and that therefore there is no man made global warming effect. I just wanted to point out that whilst the rate may have been the same (and as such may be a natural fluctuation) the mean value over that range has increased dramatically (potentially in correspondence with the increased CO2). This could potentially explain why the second peak was only marginally higher than the first peak? Either way I found this interesting and thought I would mention it.

It's up to you I'm in Australia so I'm not sure how much difference there will be. I'm currently studying pharmacy (from a medicinal chemistry background). From my experience, I would say that pharmacists probably have wider job opportunities (i.e. can do a lot of pharmacology stuff, as well as being a registered health professional). Pharmacists roles are also quite varied, from industrial pharmacy (within organisations such as the TGA, FDA, etc., Poisons info line, etc etc) to the more familiar hospital and community pharmacy. Pharmacists may also work in peoples homes conducting services such as home medication reviews and in some circumstances (e.g. rural pharmacy) can apply for prescribing numbers. Pharmacologists would probably find most work in pharma industry or in other research organisations. I think your main factors for consideration in choosing would be based on weather you want a more research based job like pharmacology, or a more working with people/clients and putting pharmacological concepts into practice as with pharmacy. If you really can't decide I would choose pharmacy because you can always fall back onto pharmacology if you don't like it (after all, what is a pharmacist without pharmacology).

Wisdom is more than understanding, it is applying understanding in an appropriate way. I think the OP is challenging the appropriateness of such research. I personally struggle to justify why we have spent such a phenomenal amount of money on such experiments, which whilst they are great for testing the theories of matter and particles, hardly seem important when contrasted to the current state of humanity. Would this money not have a greater impact worldwide if it was distributed across the nations as various resources? Poverty is a big problem today (and has been for a long time), but the issue on everyone's tongue is a particle that is still going to be there in any number of years and that as of yet has no specific application outside of theory. The discovery is a big thing, for sure. But was it wise to find it now and distance ourselves from significant humanitarian issues, or would it have been wiser to sort ourselves out first, and then discover things collectively (i.e. where all nations are more or less equally positioned in global-economic status and able to contribute to such research)? I personally cannot understand why people are still dieing of starvation when we have the knowledge and understanding to change it.

Sometimes. If you mix ethanol and water 10:1 you wont get a total volume corresponding to 11 parts because the molecules 'slip between' each other and take up less volume. But the idea is correct.

Homeopathic remedies can have clinically significant (though not necessarily having a positive effect) amounts of an active ingredient. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/homeopathy Note: "Although people sometimes assume that all homeopathic remedies are highly diluted and therefore unlikely to cause harm, some products labeled as homeopathic can contain substantial amounts of active ingredients and therefore could cause side effects and drug interactions." Also, I think there is a general confusion in the general population between 'natural' alternative products (some being notably pharmacologically active like st johns wort) and 'homeopathic' products- so I wouldn't assume any product to abide by the true definition of the word. In Australia there is (usually? Although I have seen it always) an indication of the amount of active or potentially active ingredient (e.g. 2mg/g Zinc Oxide or 1000mg grape seed extract).

"IIRC it has to do with your neurons not firing as strongly as they were before. Since you had an overabundance of the negative colors, by focusing on the center, those neurons wont fire as readily as the rest." So that's kind of what I was saying- it's acting like a screen that "takes away" the negative from the white background, similar to a CMY mixing system. "Since color perception has to do with the colors that aren't being seen" Are you sure? That completely invalidates additive (i.e. RGB) colour mixing. If we see colour based on what we don't see, then red and blue making magenta implies that you see magenta when you don't see any green (but you must then also see magenta when you see blue or red on its own because green is still not present). It would also mean that when seeing white (i.e. mixed red, blue and green) you should really see black as all receptors are being stimulated. Unless I have miss interpreted you.

I think it is from the fact that the when looking at the white background, you do not see the negative/colour inverted image you were originally staring at, but the inverse of the inverted image. Although the colour information is present in the original image, a function needs to be performed on that data to show it the way it is seen when staring at the white background. The retina definitely plays a role, however if the function isn't purely additive (i.e. staring at the negative and then the white has a subtractive (CMY) colour mixing effect) then surely part of the function must be made during the interpretation by the brain.

Potassium also stops the heart if you have to much (hyperkalemia) which is easy to do if you are already on certain medications such as ACE inhibitors (an anti-hypertensive).

I would suggest dissolving everything in nitric acid (should be able to get away with a hot solution of concentrated HCl and sodium/potassium nitrate). Once dissolved then add HCl (not needed if used HCl/Nitrate) followed by diluting and collecting the silver chloride precipitate which can then be heated to obtain the silver (note: produces chlorine gas). Alternatively could try dissolving the silver chloride precipitate in ammonia and plating it onto a preferred surface using electro-chemistry. The tin (IV) chloride (I'm kinda guessing IV because of nitrate oxidation?) should be soluble enough to stay dissolved but can be precipitated later. Reaction with base and heating/smelting should get you the tin back.

What happens if you miss your target? :S I'm assuming a high energy laser light is going to travel much further than a bullet before the energy dissipates.

Has anyone here ever tried a small scale system based on the Girdler Sulfide Process? I figured that cascading would be resource consuming- but could always set it up in 'batches' and run through the set up repeatedly. Would also need to recover H2S which could prove irritating.

Propranolol for starters is not a good choice. It would automatically be contraindicated in asthma, COPD and other similar respiratory disorders. You would go with a selective betablocker like atenolol which would still be contraindicated in pregnancy, lactation, bradycardia, etc etc. Secondly this combination would not be used because: 1) Beta blockers and caffeine have drug interactions. MIMs- "Avoid Combination" Severity-2 (1 being most), Good documentation. Other reasons: * It changes an unscheduled medication to a scheduled one (i.e. requires prescription). * The tachycardia from caffeine is highly variable between individuals. Giving atenolol in less or non- tachycardic individuals runs the risk of hypotension and possible death. * Including something to suppress kidney function would effect the clearance time of all drugs. This would increase toxicity to various organs (for example liver) and would be highly problematic if severe adverse reactions were to develop (Possibly requiring immediate dialysis).

It can relate to bees. Bees have receptors to detect certain chemicals (termed pheromones), a lot of them esters. We too can detect these esters as smell. Many esters smell pleasant, fruity or aromatic. Octylsalicylate- not sure how it smells but it's used in sunscreen. And for three- if esters are not very soluble will the rain wash them away? If it is a cold day will the esters be as volatile? What consequences does this have?

"2 S2O32− + I2 → S4O62− + 2 I−" "2H+ + OCl- + 2I- → I2 + Cl- + H2O" Therefore 2 moles of thiosulfate will neutralise 1 mole of bleach. Don't forget to take into account bleach dilution (as in you added to a known amount of diluted bleach).

1) So, yes OH has hydrogen bonding. It can Accept and Donate hydrogen bonds. Acids have C=OOH. So Hydrogen band Accept and donate. Also acids can dissociate to give COO- which is much more polar than hydrogen bonding alone. Esters can Accept, but not donate hydrogen bonds. As such they have some polar characteristics but are not nearly as polar as acids and alcohols. Unlike the acid and alcohol, the ester is not polar enough to dissolve in the water solution and as such it separates as a non-polar layer. This layer can sink or float depending on the density of the ester compared to water. 2) Hint: Most esters have well-known smells. 3) Think about what you just said, and think about how you could use that to relate to the questions they asked. For example, do any of the questions refer to water in any way? Science is not just about knowing and understanding test data, but about extrapolating it and applying it to real-world situations.