CO2 to Became Public Danger

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

With regard to Cockney Blue:

Compounds differing from each other in chirality are NOT the same arrangement of atoms. If there is only one chiral center, rather than being the same structure they are mirror-image, differing structures.

With regards to claims of different chemistry if having radioactive isotopes: there is virtually no difference in chemical properties of a given atom with a given differing radioactive isotope during those times (practically all the time) that it in fact has that isotope. The moment that it breaks down though then of course radiation is emitted and molecule is broken into a differing structure. I would challenge you to find a chemical test or reaction, other than what I stated, where you see differing chemical behavior for carbons or other non-hydrogen atoms.

Reason being that the chemical bonds are almost exactly the same regardless of isotope, and there is no large percentage change in mass. (In the instance of hydrogen, however, there is substantial difference.)

Accordingly, what I said – that in practice one doesn’t care about random variations in for exmaple carbon isotopes within a molecule, and calls them the same structure although in fact not exactly the same arrangement of atoms – is the way things work in practice. E.g., one does not care if a given molecule of testosterone has a carbon-13 in a given location or does not. It is a difference that makes no practical difference with regard to how the molecule acts biologically or in any chemical reaction.

(The difference will show up in the mass spec, though, and is a way of discerning artificially-made-from-plant-sterols testosterone from made-by-the-human-body testosterone. And there is a slight difference in rate of some enzymatic reactions, but this is not important because in practice the average composition varies rather little, and the reaction rate differences are small.)

Just to give a concrete example.

82

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
With regard to Cockney Blue:

Compounds differing from each other in chirality are NOT the same arrangement of atoms. If there is only one chiral center, rather than being the same structure they are mirror-image, differing structures.

With regards to claims of different chemistry if having radioactive isotopes: there is virtually no difference in chemical properties of a given atom with a given differing radioactive isotope during those times (practically all the time) that it in fact has that isotope. The moment that it breaks down though then of course radiation is emitted and molecule is broken into a differing structure. I would challenge you to find a chemical test or reaction, other than what I stated, where you see differing chemical behavior for carbons or other non-hydrogen atoms.

Reason being that the chemical bonds are almost exactly the same regardless of isotope, and there is no large percentage change in mass. (In the instance of hydrogen, however, there is substantial difference.)

Accordingly, what I said – that in practice one doesn’t care about random variations in for exmaple carbon isotopes within a molecule, and calls them the same structure although in fact not exactly the same arrangement of atoms – is the way things work in practice. E.g., one does not care if a given molecule of testosterone has a carbon-13 in a given location or does not. It is a difference that makes no practical difference with regard to how the molecule acts biologically or in any chemical reaction.

(The difference will show up in the mass spec, though, and is a way of discerning artificially-made-from-plant-sterols testosterone from made-by-the-human-body testosterone. And there is a slight difference in rate of some enzymatic reactions, but this is not important because in practice the average composition varies rather little, and the reaction differences are small.)

Just to give a concrete example.[/quote]

Thank you, I was just going to say the same. Yeah…

Ok, fine, in a few more semesters I would’ve!

83

Now as to hydrogens, it can be very interesting.

I never read the original reference, but in an enzymatic mechanisms class, an example was given of a reaction where it was shown not only that quantum tunneling was involved (which is perhaps not so unusual in itself, though not ordinarily demonstrated), but the distance was rather remarkable.

Because of its greater mass, a deuterium atom is much less likely to tunnel as far, and so for a reaction depending on that effect, there would be a large difference.

But much more important biologically, if one were to make the mistake of drinking heavy water, is that water’s interactions, which largely are from hydrogen bonding, with other molecules are extremely important to biochemistry, and D2O does differ quite significantly from H2O there. But here, the differing isotope is twice as heavy as the normal isotope, so the effect is much greater than when, for example, greater by only 1/12th more, as is the case with C12 vs C13. and much less if considering the entire molecule rather than just the atom.

84

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Now as to hydrogens, it can be very interesting.

I never read the original reference, but in an enzymatic mechanisms class, an example was given of a reaction where it was shown not only that quantum tunneling was involved (which is perhaps not so unusual in itself, though not ordinarily demonstrated), but the distance was rather remarkable.

Because of its greater mass, a deuterium atom is much less likely to tunnel as far, and so for a reaction depending on that effect, there would be a large difference.

But much more important biologically, if one were to make the mistake of drinking heavy water, is that water’s interactions, which largely are from hydrogen bonding, with other molecules are extremely important to biochemistry, and D2O does differ quite significantly from H2O there. But here, the differing isotope is twice as heavy as the normal isotope, so the effect is much greater than when, for example, greater by only 1/12th more, as is the case with C12 vs C13. and much less if considering the entire molecule rather than just the atom.[/quote]

Bill, thank you very much for going in depth - though I am barely treading water here ; )

I am curious; if D20 is heavy water is water that has been treated through an RO system ‘light water’?
What would happen if I treated D20 through RO and/or if I added activated carbon to D20 and/or put D20 through an UV sterilizer?

And this may seem like a stupid question but I still have that child like wonder curiosity:

Can I swim in heavy water?

85

More crappy science by the folks who “settled the science”.

86

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Now as to hydrogens, it can be very interesting.

I never read the original reference, but in an enzymatic mechanisms class, an example was given of a reaction where it was shown not only that quantum tunneling was involved (which is perhaps not so unusual in itself, though not ordinarily demonstrated), but the distance was rather remarkable.

Because of its greater mass, a deuterium atom is much less likely to tunnel as far, and so for a reaction depending on that effect, there would be a large difference.

But much more important biologically, if one were to make the mistake of drinking heavy water, is that water’s interactions, which largely are from hydrogen bonding, with other molecules are extremely important to biochemistry, and D2O does differ quite significantly from H2O there. But here, the differing isotope is twice as heavy as the normal isotope, so the effect is much greater than when, for example, greater by only 1/12th more, as is the case with C12 vs C13. and much less if considering the entire molecule rather than just the atom.[/quote]

Bill, thank you very much for going in depth - though I am barely treading water here ; )

I am curious; if D20 is heavy water is water that has been treated through an RO system ‘light water’?
What would happen if I treated D20 through RO and/or if I added activated carbon to D20 and/or put D20 through an UV sterilizer?

And this may seem like a stupid question but I still have that child like wonder curiosity:

Can I swim in heavy water?

[/quote]

The density of heavy water (without looking it up: of course the measurement has been made) is probably 20/18 as much – or about 11% greater than that of water. That about splits the difference between fresh water and Dead Sea water, so you’d ride a little high in the water but not drastically so.

I don’t know whether there would be harm to your skin from the D2O permeating through it. Quite possibly that would be the case: the outer layers of the skin are dead anyway so it wouldn’t matter, but the viable epidermis might receive too high a concentration of D2O from diffusion through the skin. Don’t know.

I don’t know how D2O is produced, though I expect it is via separation of naturally-occurring deuterium from hydrogen gas. Whether it’s via centrifugation or membrane diffusion I don’t know. I would guess centrifugation.

And given that most deuterium in natural hydrogen gas will be found as a DH molecule (one deuterium atom bound to one hydrogen atom) I don’t know how they wind up with fairly pure deuterium, unless they don’t work with hydrogen gas but instead some hydrogen compound with only one hydrogen (or deuterium). For example, perhaps they work with hydrofluouric acid, which would naturally be almost all HF but would have a trace of DF in it.

Interesting question I never looked at and never saw the explanation for.

Reverse osmosis works by diffusing water through membranes, and heavy water would diffuse ever so slightly less rapidly. The problem there would seem to be that – unlike uranium enrichment – the desired product (deuterium) is going to be the last to reach the finish line, and so wouldn’t tend to be concentrated that way. But perhaps there is some clever way by which it can be done that way.

Isolating deuterium is a substantial project, but deuterium compounds are commercially available at not-outrageous prices per gram.

There probably has been enough made for the nuclear industry that one could fill a swimming pool with it – a small one anyway, or who knows, maybe even Olympic. It might be hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars worth of water, though!

87

Or, it could be that the Dr Evil method of using “lasers” might be employed.

The absorption spectrum of a deuterium-containing molecule will differ slightly from that of its hydrogen-containing counterpart, and conceivably a chemical reaction might be made to occur selectively by triggering it with a precisely tuned laser wavelength.

I really have no idea if that is done: it just occurs to me as a possible and cool method that potentially might work.

88

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

Can I swim in heavy water?

[/quote]

The density of heavy water (without looking it up: of course the measurement has been made) is probably 20/18 [/quote]
Yes, you are correct as I did look it up before I posted my questions. [quote]
as much – or about 11% greater than that of water. That about splits the difference between fresh water and Dead Sea water, so you’d ride a little high in the water but not drastically so.

I don’t know whether there would be harm to your skin from the D2O permeating through it. Quite possibly that would be the case: the outer layers of the skin are dead anyway so it wouldn’t matter, but the viable epidermis might receive too high a concentration of D2O from diffusion through the skin. Don’t know. [/quote] I wasn’t thinking about the danger as much as I was thinking about the experience: whether it was possible and what it might be like. [quote]

I don’t know how D2O is produced, though I expect it is via separation of naturally-occurring deuterium from hydrogen gas. Whether it’s via centrifugation or membrane diffusion I don’t know. I would guess centrifugation. [/quote] Technically speaking it is “enriched”. Process similar to distillation: Getting Brandy from Wine. [quote]

And given that most deuterium in natural hydrogen gas will be found as a DH molecule (one deuterium atom bound to one hydrogen atom) I don’t know how they wind up with fairly pure deuterium, unless they don’t work with hydrogen gas but instead some hydrogen compound with only one hydrogen (or deuterium). For example, perhaps they work with hydrofluouric acid, which would naturally be almost all HF but would have a trace of DF in it.

Interesting question I never looked at and never saw the explanation for.

Reverse osmosis works by diffusing water through membranes, and heavy water would diffuse ever so slightly less rapidly. The problem there would seem to be that – unlike uranium enrichment – the desired product (deuterium) is going to be the last to reach the finish line, and so wouldn’t tend to be concentrated that way. But perhaps there is some clever way by which it can be done that way. [/quote] I work with RO systems. Hence my question about “light water”.
( RO water is used in aquatic systems to recreate the ideal habitat for marine coral tanks )

I am going to go ahead and answer my own question here:
I do not think one could call RO water light water, since the RO system only renders it to a very low ph ( 3 to 5 ) and is therefore more appropriately called soft water. Having looked a bit more at “heavy water” which I had never heard before you introduce it to me, I would say it should not be called heavy water* but more accurately, due to its density and therefore viscosity and lesser fluidity, it should be called light magma ( cold ) or viscous liquid gas or meteoric water.
I imagine swimming in it would be akin to swimming through molasses ( a light one ) or swimming in a cluster gas of atmospheric pressure ( plus gravity ).

*Heavy water would more accurately describe water where the Nitrite ( NO2 ) content is high:
At 1.6 mg/l the fish are suffocating to death and at 3.3 - 33 mg/l its a blood bath. They are/were basically swimming in ammonia.

That is all in my head, of course. Not scientific but it was what was upheld by my direct understanding.[quote]

Isolating deuterium is a substantial project, but deuterium compounds are commercially available at not-outrageous prices per gram.

There probably has been enough made for the nuclear industry that one could fill a swimming pool with it – a small one anyway, or who knows, maybe even Olympic. It might be hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars worth of water, though![/quote]

I believe I am worth it.

:slight_smile:

Bill, thank you for opening my mind to new things.
/hijack

P.S. The idea to separate an atomic, high energy molecule with laser sounds like a “blast”. :wink:

89

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Or, it could be that the Dr Evil method of using “lasers” might be employed.

The absorption spectrum of a deuterium-containing molecule will differ slightly from that of its hydrogen-containing counterpart, and conceivably a chemical reaction might be made to occur selectively by triggering it with a precisely tuned laser wavelength.

I really have no idea if that is done: it just occurs to me as a possible and cool method that potentially might work.[/quote]

Laser wavelengths tend to drift depending on the thermal expansion/contraction of the lasing cavity and gain medium. The wavelength can vary by as much as 10%. I’m not sure you’d have the stability of wavelength necessary to do what you’re talking about without finding a way to control wavelength drift.

90

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Or, it could be that the Dr Evil method of using “lasers” might be employed.

The absorption spectrum of a deuterium-containing molecule will differ slightly from that of its hydrogen-containing counterpart, and conceivably a chemical reaction might be made to occur selectively by triggering it with a precisely tuned laser wavelength.

I really have no idea if that is done: it just occurs to me as a possible and cool method that potentially might work.[/quote]

Laser wavelengths tend to drift depending on the thermal expansion/contraction of the lasing cavity and gain medium. The wavelength can vary by as much as 10%. I’m not sure you’d have the stability of wavelength necessary to do what you’re talking about without finding a way to control wavelength drift. [/quote]

Who let the physicist in here? I was following the chemistry just fine. :slight_smile:

91

Yes, I don’t know whether what I suggested is technically possible. It was only an idea that occurred, and I liked the Dr Evil aspect. :slight_smile:

92

[quote]ds1973 wrote:

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Or, it could be that the Dr Evil method of using “lasers” might be employed.

The absorption spectrum of a deuterium-containing molecule will differ slightly from that of its hydrogen-containing counterpart, and conceivably a chemical reaction might be made to occur selectively by triggering it with a precisely tuned laser wavelength.

I really have no idea if that is done: it just occurs to me as a possible and cool method that potentially might work.[/quote]

Laser wavelengths tend to drift depending on the thermal expansion/contraction of the lasing cavity and gain medium. The wavelength can vary by as much as 10%. I’m not sure you’d have the stability of wavelength necessary to do what you’re talking about without finding a way to control wavelength drift. [/quote]

Who let the physicist in here? I was following the chemistry just fine. :)[/quote]

How about a mathematician who was ahead of his time on the dangers of pollution?

93

Chew on this awhile. Seems the good Doctors were more snake oil salesmen then researchers.

94

Oh c’mon. The CRU did prove that the Medieval Warm Period did not exist.

What actually happened is that the Norsemen had found some really good weed, and were so stoned that they THOUGHT that Greenland was green, but it was actually even icier than today.

Sure, as explained in the Iowahawk article, the CRU’s methods are perfectly capable of yielding a wrong result, but hey, they’re saving the planet here! The end justifies the means.

95

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Now as to hydrogens, it can be very interesting.

I never read the original reference, but in an enzymatic mechanisms class, an example was given of a reaction where it was shown not only that quantum tunneling was involved (which is perhaps not so unusual in itself, though not ordinarily demonstrated), but the distance was rather remarkable.
[/quote]

I believe I read that journal article in my own enzyme chemistry class! It is stashed somewhere in my abominably large box of random journal articles I saved from class though. It was really cool; I’m fascinated by quantum tunneling, since it showed up in biochemistry and kind of linked two fields of study which are usually thought to be quite far apart.

96

I liked it a lot as well.