Toxic properties of electron discovered

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Theorist, please read the Speculations forum rules, particularly rule 1. If you don't want to back up your ideas and answer questions, then this discussion has no point.

[insane_alien]

Hydrogen peroxide has to react before it comes toxic...

 

really? name ONE toxin that doesn't undergo a reaction.

 

The very fact that a toxin causes intoxication means that it is affect your body chemistry. and the only way to do that is to react.

 

it'll either cause new reactions in your body or inhibit normal ones leading to damage.

 

there are other examples of toxic chemicals that don't fit your rules:

 

for instance, formaldehyde should be non toxic by your reckoning. (hint: its toxic)

 

are you going to argue that every compound we class as toxic isn't really toxic because it has to react first?

 

if you are then that means you aren't describing toxicity, you are trying to change the definition of toxicity to something that fits your hypothesis which is very very bad science. Once you came up with the prediction that 'compounds with lone pairs (except when on each element it is a multiple of two) are toxic' you should have had a look to see if this were actually true. wikipedia makes this almost trivially easy as it shows the structures along with MSDS information.

 

so first off we have ALL the amino acids and proteins. plenty of lone pairs on all the nitrogens. non-toxic. as essential for life as water. so thats a first counter.

 

then we can look at the other side. toluene. no lone pairs at all. still quite toxic.

 

it seems your hypothesis doesn't stand up to reality. reality trumps everything. It doesn't care how good it sounds. It doesn't care that you spent so much time developing the hypothesis. It just is. This is why we have the scientific method. 99% (if its that low a fraction) of hypotheses get chucked at the first hurdle because they do not accurately reflect reality. Nothing wrong with being wrong about something. We ALL do it. Just, when people prove that your idea is wrong, accept the fact and move on. Sticking with it is just going to make you look like a stubborn git and make everyone a wee bit hostile because it is annoying as hell. It'd be nice if we didn't get so annoyed by it, but we are human. Humans get annoyed by having to repeat the same thing over and over again ad nauseum.

[Theorist]

According to the theory, WHENEVER ELECTRONS IN ANY ELEMENT IN A COMPOUND IS FOUR, the element does not contribute to the compound's toxicity. Once the number of electrons on element of a compound are 1, 2, 3 it contributes to it's toxicity. The work, Special theory of toxicity handles toxicity of inorganic compounds. General theory will soon be published. Mind you, this theory has been published and peer reviewed by experts. Thanks.

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Theorist, this is a Forum, which means you must engage in a dialogue. That means listening and answering questions from others too.

At the moment, you give the impression of having a monologue, and you completely ignore all other posts, which is against the rules.

Do not reply to this post.

[Phi for All]

Mind you, this theory has been published and peer reviewed by experts. Thanks.

I find it hard to believe that your colleagues at the conference didn't ask the same questions our experts here have asked, the questions you have failed to answer. Were any of these peer reviews published?

[John Cuthber]

It has indeed been peer reviewed, by us. And we are all laughing at it because it's so absurdly wrong.

 

The biggest joke is that, as insane alien points out anything that is toxic needs to react.

And "Theorist knows this because, as I quoted, it's part of his "big idea".

He hasn't realised that his explanation of why H2O2 is toxic is a contradiction of about the only sensible part of his whole notion.

 

So, back to one of the clearest examples.

Theorist,

why is water not as toxic as H2S even though they both have the same number of lone pairs ?

[swansont]

Theorist, you are required to counter our arguments with science and evidence, as per the rules of this forum.

 

!

Moderator Note

Repeated for (official) emphasis.