CharonY

I think you explained well, you just misunderstood me. The sweeteners that I mentioned are all natural sweeteners, not artificial ones (as I have tried to highlihgt). Drinks that contain them can declare themselves to be all natural or containing no artificial sugars. Just to reiterate and to be really clear this time: stevia, sorbitol et al are all so-called natural sweeteners as they are derived from natural sources (but can be processed). If you check, you will see that the sweetener is actually sorbitol, one of the natural sweeteners that I mentioned. The chunky bits in there are not related to the sweetness. Almost all low-calorie sweetened drinks contain either the one, or the other. If you only want to have localized sweetness it is often done with alginate, gellan gum, agar, starch or similar additives. The chunks in the aloe drink? Not aloe. Typically they are just a gelled polymer to give you the sensation of things (though the solution they are derived from may or may not contain aloe). If you wanted to, you can enrich those parts with sugar while polymerizing it. However, after a while it will diffuse in the drink anyway, which makes it typically rather useless for bottled drink that are going to sit around for a while before consumption.But with freshly prepared you can have sweet chunks in an otherwise unsweetened drink. The opposite is more often, however. Probably as it is easier to create. The whole thing is not a new concept either, especially in Asia these types of drinks are very common. For the "healthy" part: it has not been demonstrated that natural sweetener are in any way healthier than artifical ones. Both are processed, anyway.The truth is that they are probably not much different than any other vitamin c enriched water or soft drinks. They tend to be heavily processed and may lose quite a bit of their positive properties. Not to mention that the aloe part (usually added as powder) may be very low. It would be a bit of an euphemism to call them juice (which is why they do not call themselves that). Health drinks are a big market. But typically it is more marketing than anything (including the "natural" part). Drinking tea is presumable better.

Well, afaik viscosity should not elicit any taste sensation on its own. Typically, these low or non-calorie sweeteners are added a concentrations that are too low to create a pulpy sensation, so it is most likely a different additive that is independent of the sweetener. Among known natural sweeteners (which basically means that they are not completely synthesized) with somewhat low calorie content are e.g. stevia, erythritol, rebiana, maltitol and sorbitol. While the artificial sweeteners are more popular as sweeteners, there is no fudamental difference in use and some companies use e.g. stevia or similar for their soft drinks in order to be able to put an "all-natural" or similar label on it. Health-wise there is no known difference. It is mostly marketing.

He knows what he is talking about.

Yes.

Well in that particular case nutritional variation is likely to be more responsible for physiological outcomes than genetic variation. In that narrow sense both statements are not mutually exclusive. To be more precise, there are studies that indicate that mother's with low birth weight also often have children with low birthweight and higher mortality. Of course genetics plays a role to some extent, but some of the studies indicate that malnutrition as fetus (or child) can reduce their ability to nourish their own kids in utero. However, above a certain birthweight the correlation goes away. I.e. the stated positive correlation appears not to be substantiated by data. In that group chadn737's point is more relevant, i.e. nutrition is sufficiently high and variation are more likely to be explained by genetics. Edit: on reflection I may have just reworded chad's argument. Blame the lack of coffee. Also the typos. And grammar.

This is sometimes used in a confusing fashion. But the "lower" part typically refers to the concentration at which the analyte can be distinguished from background. I.e. a lower level means that lower amount of analyte can still be detected. I.e. a low LOD has a high sensitivity. The phrasing is confusing however, as a low LOD does not tell you anything about the actual sample concentration. Only how low you can go before you cannot detect it anymore. I am not quite following the second part of your question. Are you asking what the purpose of identifying the LOD is?

Nope. in both cases there is a risk of it happening. It does not happen automatically and is trivially countered by the number of people without allergies. The biggest issue is typically that people who are already allergic to gelatin could react badly to vaccines containing it. That being said, why would you think there are proteins in polysorbates? You may want to look up what compounds you are talking about. Also, a quick check did not reveal that polysorbates themselves elicit allergic reaction (though there are a few cases nonimmunologic anaphylactoid reactions). So before you ask the question why companies and FDA allow certain things or not, it may be useful to get the facts straight first and then draw conclusions (rather than the other way round).

Research papers and similar should only give you a rough overall idea what they are doing. No one expects intimate familiarity from the get-go. However, knowing the mission and purpose of the company and demonstrating the ability to fit in, is very important. The key point is really the overall fit rather than intimate knowledge of techniques. You should have (demonstrably) the technical background that they request but do not neglect the overall context (is it quality control? diagnostics? medical? manufacturing?). At entry level they tend not to expect too much, but everything that shows that you made an effort could increase your odds (e.g. infusing your cv with the right keywords that shows that you really want to do whatever the position they want to fill). Best case scenario is if you can speak with someone of that company about what they are looking for (i.e. network), though obviously cold calls are not really easy and often not really appreciated at that level.

Let's start with the minor points first. I started with microalgae because they are the most productive systems. Per volume they create the most biomass and oxygen of all cultivation systems. That would be a critical factor toward your proposal (that you have not addressed at all). That is at least one of the reason why people want to harvest them for biofuel production. Note that these cultivation systems do not produce biofuel per se as you may think, they are ponds or tanks for high-density cultivation of these bacteria. Thus, they are considered to be the most cost efficient means (a point that is constantly ignored). I should add that some newer research starts to contest this point, but AFAIK there is no really any large-scale evidence yet. As I tried to explain, cultivation of kelp, seaweed or other algae tend to be much less productive and per biomass are typically more expensive. The numbers that you simply cannot believe (for whatever reason) are those given for both systems based on estimates of engineers who actually design and scale this systems to industrial production. I even did the work for you and pulled the numbers for longline cultivation a method that allows the cultivation deeper waters (up to 10 m, I believe). Since you cannot be arsed to look them up, here one link that shows the costs involved. I was under the assumption that you were at least roughly familiar with the different types of cultivation and productivity values, so my apologies for not clarifying it enough. For the benefit of others (i.e. who actually may be interested) a typical longline system (as shown in the pics) of 1000 sqm yields about 3.6 t of dry weight biomass or about 14.5 t per acre. Contrast that with the over 200 t per acre rain forest. These are minor points, however, and I should not have getting sidetracked like this (but in this case the numbers are easy to come by, so I like to play with them). Arete has summarized the much more important points of your proposal quite succinctly and I have to note that you have not addressed the relevant point in any way. Most likely 1 and 2 are sufficient to stop the idea dead in its tracks (as I have tried to explain in an earlier post, though much less succinctly). At this point it should be clear that the idea has no merit at least not without a substantially new idea. And this reflects what John and Ophiolite have mentioned before, throwing around ideas with not substance is cheap and is typically a humongous waste of time. A proper brainstorming session would try to fill the ideas with meat, something that is curiously absent.

According to mine and incidentally your numbers the price for an algae pond is about 20k per acre (you really should google for an image of algae farms, it does not appear that you know what they are). I gave a source that you did not bother to check. Since you mentioned the lack of calculator I multiplied it with the number you provided for the area. 1E9 x 2E4 comes to 2E13. Your imagination of how large or not is not part of of the equation here. Feel free to as manufacturers of algae ponds for lower quotes. What is possible is that you confuse high-productivity microalgae with seagrass, which is much lower in productivity. Just to give some numbers here (which, no doubt will be ignored): 1ha of seaweed yields about 45 tons of dry biomass. Above ground (ignoring a substantial amount below ground) rain forest (South American) has values averaging 200-300 tons. I.e. we are talking about 5-fold difference here (quite a bit more if root systems are considered). Now the cost for a seaweed farm near the cost can be substantial, Just the longline scaffold amounts to about 30k euro per 100 sqm (see the Irish Sea fisheries board, they must be pretty insane per your definition, no?). I am pretty sure you do not need a calculator to see what is going to be more expensive. Note that these values do not even factor in operating costs. Now for the oxygen part. Most people are familiar with the concept of fire. And that requires oxygen. If you look at OSHA or other safety regulations with regards to enriched oxygen environments you will find that an increase of oxygen significantly increases fire risk. For example, fire retardant protective clothes loses their ability not to burn and at 25% lose protective abilities completely. Now, local increases of oxygen are somewhat risky. Increase of the whole atmosphere, and it is fair to assume that we have to rethink a lot of exothermic processes. The idea is not even close to be rough and is conveniently devoid of published information that has been around for quite a bit. Incredulity and handwaving are not acceptable

This makes no sense whatsoever. Phytoplankton is roughly 1 micron in size how is that magically turn into an enclosed system that can be sustainably fed? If you mean actual algae, the output will be much lower and the area would increase significantly. I also have no idea how plowing and plot has anything to do with the concept of algae farms. The time and cost involved are massively different and are based on well known concepts that are partially realized in an effort to create biofuels and wastewater plants, for example. Not informing yourself about this concept and instead try to wave it away with phrase such as: Is downright insulting, unless you can demonstrate that your kid has experience in the construction and maintenance of this algae ponds. The numbers I used are from various sources reaching back to e.g. publications from the 2002 Kyoto conference Benemann et al (Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies). A quick view over some manufacturers corroborate the estimate (some are higher, some are slightly lower, and I have taken the lower end while neglecting the total volume). As you mentioned yourself, the systems that you quoted is in the same ballpark. But again, these are all the high-yield microalgae system. It does not matter if they yield biofuel or not, you were talking about O2 production. I do not see how it would be cheaper at all if you then try to transfer this to the ocean (if anything the price would go up massively). Read up on oxygen cycles (or grab any basic text about biogeochemical cycles). It is pretty much standard textbook knowledge. I am surprised that you have not wondered how the oxygen can be so constant despite the massive amount of deforestation humans have done. Right, boy scouts. That must be the answer. What I tried to nudge you towards (in a futile effort, it seems) is that changing the O2 level would need massive efforts. The inventory is huge to begin with and there are large reservoirs. And then remember, that in the stratosphere the density is much lower. So the change on ground is likely substantial before it starts feeding into the ozone layer. If you propose to change the global fluxes you really should at least provide some rough estimates (no, I do not mean hand waving and I am certain that boy and girl scouts combined will have no impact whatsoever). With regards to CO2, fixing it in organic matter is explored quite a bit, though algae has some issues to be used efficiently. But looking at the OP, I would say this requires a new thread for proper discussion (other terrestrial plants may be more useful in terms of actually implementation). Now back to another question: do you think increasing oxygen concentrations has no negative consequences? Throwing ideas around could be fun, but paired with ignorance (willful or otherwise) does not really convince anyone. You could as well propose a magic device to make our lives better. And heck, why am I even spending more efforts into someone's thoughts than the person who proposes it? I must be getting soft.

All biochemical processes are stochastic. Few if any interactions in nature are 100% exclusively and is typically concentration dependent. I.e. at low concentration you have fewer interactions, at higher, you get more (typically). Higher specificity just allows things to happen at lower concentrations. Drugs typically swamp your body to some extent (as it has go through bloodstream to reach your target area) and it tries to push levels down to your normal ones. As you can easily imagine it will not be the same for everybody and cannot be controlled that precisely. But again, biological interactions are stochastic. The key lock image that some propagate at high school is simply not correct.

Well seeing that you proposed an approach I thought it was only fair to ask for numbers and mechanisms. Without those ideas have little if any merit. I will ignore the CO2 part for now as it was not part of the main topic. Going back to the link you provided, it discusses direct injection of O2, which is a completely different approach to rising O2 levels. The latter has massive consequences that one should think about (even before feasibility is being touched). One issue is that just adding more plants is not going to automatically raise oxygen levels. Ever wondered why the oxygen levels have remained fairly constant since ~500 millions ago despite significant changes in vegetation ? The reason is that the oxygen-carbon cycle has feedback controls that would sink quite a bit of surplus oxygen. So in order to increase you would have to outproduce these sinks and feedback loops. Based on this, it is unlikely that an area the size of the rain forest is sufficient for that (estimates put them at about 10% of total oxygen production, but it consumes almost the same amount). But let us ignore even that for a moment. That leaves us with massive algae farms. Note that oceans are typically very poor in nutrients, which will make it more costly than inland algae ponds that have a more restricted volume and are easier to fertilize. And ongoing research indicates that it is massively harder to sustain than using inland sites. Not that your ideas with wires is absolutely worthless as the high-yield producers are not seaweed (as you may think) but phytoplankton (i.e. bacteria). They laugh at your wires and get diluted into the ocean. In fact, except for having more space there is no merit whatsoever to use the open ocean as anything you dump in there to promote algae growth would be massively diluted. But let us assume that for some reasons we manage to do it at the same cost for algae ponds (which is very unlikely). The Amazon basin has roughly 1E9 acres and estimates I have seen place costs t roughly 20k per acre. So the investment would be in the order of 2E13 (20 trillions) $. Considering that it would be roughly a fourth of the gross world product, I will posit that it is not a feasible solution. Especially as it is not clear whether it will change the oxygen in the atmosphere at all (and again, not even addressing whether it would be a good thing).

First of all not all drug targets are proteins, nor are they super specific to only one target. Second, even they are, you have to remember that the protein/biomolecule target fulfills a normal role in your body. If you just inhibit/alter its function it will automatically have consequences. Side effects are a misnomer, all of it are normal effects of inhibiting or otherwise altering the drug target. It is just not desirable.

Does not make much sense. Could it be translation error (assuming that English may not be the first language?)

Let us discuss algae farms then. And I apologize for not being a native speaker. First, there is a balance of oxygen and ozone in the ozone layer. How much increase in oxygen would it require to noticeably shift the balance? Keeping in mind that the relevant altitudes there is much less oxygen to begin with. How much oxygen increase would be needed and how would that impact life on ground level? How much output does a marine algae farm require and how much would we need to achieve this? What are the costs? Is it sustainable even in theory?

Never heard of it either. Do you have more context in which the term was used?

Academia is well oversaturated (the part where the government actually could create jobs). In industry demand is at least partially partially artificial. The industry does actually have issues filling certain specialist positions, but it is partly a self-perpetuated problem. What I was told is that while they have candidates, their abilities are not up to par so they rather not hire (rather than train them up). Companies have shifted the burden of training and screening to unis. Truth is, they do not want to hire STEM grads but they want to hire the (in their eyes) best grads. The goal (or at least it appears to me) is to have a sufficiently large pool from which the top 20% or so are taken to fulfill industry needs. The rest can flip burgers for all they care. In addition, I think politicians also like to channel people into colleges as a) it keeps them out of the unemployment statistics for just a little longer and b) the unemployment rate is still lower for graduates for now. With increasing grads that is going to change, obviously, but politicians tend to have a short-term view on things.

First of all, almost anything of sufficient size has a potential (if very low) to elucidate allergic effects. If all potential allergens were banned, we would only be able to inject saline. That being said, note that the guideline mentions specifically extraneous proteins from cell culture produced vaccines. What is meant is that if you derive a vaccine from cell cultures you have to ensure that during the process no additional protein is added, or sufficiently diluted if it is necessary component (the mentioned serum is often a constituent of medium). None of which really applies to polysorbate 80.

The relevant point is that you are looking for a career, not a degree. Hence you should check out what qualifications hiring companies demand. If they state that for their position a bachelor in whatever field is requested than that is what you should be looking for. If they request a certification, then that. If they do not care for one, it would be potentially a waste of time and money There is no case where a degree itself leads to a job. And currently, the situation for grads since the financial meltdown is pretty bad in general (compared to earlier).

I am not sure why would link low requirements with bad school performance. At least it does not make sense to me. Typically I expect that one would pursue a career (e.g. technician) and does it best to get the requirements (i.e. bachelor or master instead of PhD). Looking at GPA and use that as sole decision maker is kind of arse-backwards. Not that either really matters much for the job, though (unless there is too much competition, at which point any little thing can be used to create a shortlist). That being said, you should look carefully whether you need a certification at all. In some jobs it may help, in many others you will receive company training anyway. You have to be careful when looking at MLS jobs, as the requirements can range from associate degree to PhD and the higher salary could be due to addition of the higher degrees into the same bracket. Instead of shopping for degrees and salaries it is probably worthwhile to shop for companies and positions and see what the potential employers want to have.

Treatment of tetanus is very involved and includes targeting the toxin produced by the bacterium (Clostridium tetani). Considering that the use of antibiotics has given rise to resistant strains, of which clostridia are a severe problem (especially due to their spores) anything else but vaccines is not sustainable.

Actually the question was about toxicity of seawater which can be characterized using standard tox parameters. Sea water is obviously a mixture but taking specifically sodium chloride the reported LD50 (concentration where 50% of test animals die) is at 3g/kg. About 4% of seawater is salt (let us assume all NaCl for simplicity), so in 1kg of water you got about 40g of salt. Assuming a body weight of say, 70kg the LD50 is estimated to be 210 g. So ingesting that amount has less then a 50% chance of killing someone. For more accurate assessment one would need to look at actual dose-response curves. To put that into relation, sucrose is at about 29 g/kg, ethanol about 7g/kg and caffeine 0.2 g/kg.

A colleague of mine one floor down. He roasts coffee as a hobby and I get free bags.

I do have the feeling that those with the highest points (i.e. active long-term members) typically do not care much about internet points. I may be projecting, though.