/sci/ - Science & Math

>>1059734
im going with body fat,

yes, its a liquid at normal body temperature.

retroanalysis.

>>1058932
er, im quite certain that wouldnt happen.

it was more along the lines of the freezing process being too slow and all the ice floating to the top of the sea and not actually blocking off the area around the oil spill.

This may be a stupid idea, but why not make i dont know...liquid nitrogen bombs, and just freeze the immediate surroundings of the pipe?

of course, i have no idea how deep the pipe is underwater, nor do i have any idea how a liquid nitrogen bomb would work (underwater)

>>1058276
your entire post was basically this

"you are wrong because i say so, you are wrong because i say so, X is this and that (irrelevant), you are wrong because i say so"

you sure love your straw men and red herrings.

but seriously, i have no idea what you're trying to argue anymore, most of the things in your post was irrelevant to my statement "most designed drugs fail"

and mind you, they failed for exactly the reasons you gave; side effects, decomposition, killing things, not doing what its supposed to, etc

these effects were clearly not predicted, it was something observed at the testing stage.

so it is what it is, "close enough" isnt good enough.

>>1058218
you're thinking of chemoselective

regioselective is preference of bond formation with a direction.

http://goldbook.iupac.org/R05243.html

so yeah, i would go LOLOLOLOL but fuck it, we all make mistakes.

>>1058171
okay? it doesnt refute my point though

"close enough" isnt a valid argument, its the empirical data thats valid.

you chose one successful synthetic drug from the midst of thousands of failed drugs that were rationally designed. many people have tried this method of drug making, and its hit and miss, it works sometimes (which is good) but it also fails, and it fails often, ergo "close enough" is not a good argument.

we can think "well, this is pretty similar, it probably has the same effect" and that may be true in some cases, and good oh we have a new drug
but more often than not the reality is "lets test it on this rat, oh shit the rat is dead"

>>1058084
you appear to be agreeing with what im saying?

regioselective chemistry (i should have said steroselective) is merely one approach to having enatiomeric and steromericly pure products.

>>1058020
this is from the IUPAC gold book, feel free to direct me to a different definition by a more reputable/legitimate party

>High molecular weight, linear polymers, composed of nucleotides containing deoxyribose and linked by phosphodiester bonds; DNA contain the genetic information of organisms. The double-stranded form consists of a double helix of two complementary chains that run in opposite directions and are held together by hydrogen bonds between pairs of the complementary nucleotides and Hoogsteen (stacking) forces.

if it meets this definition, its DNA, that simple.

ergo, DNA in a virus is the SAME CLASS OF MOLECULE as the DNA in a human.

>>1057841
>very few drugs have the effect of sterechemistry you described.

also, very untrue, there are hundreds of thousands of drugs, and developing regioselective synthetic routes is the lottery of chemists and drug designers.

its not insignificant, not in the very least.

and my main point was, after a change you cannot accurately predict the difference in effect, we observe effect empirically, we do not deduce the effect, of course we can hypothesize an effect but rarely is it the same.
which is why (to return to the main point) saying "close enough" isnt a valid argument for the reasons stated.

but empirical arguments do work, and one was given, so nuff said.

>>1057961
one of the reasons heroin is illicit is because its nearly 2 (3-4?) x as strong as morphine, the medicinal window is harder to achive, and its much easier to deliver a higher than medicinal dose by accident.

you cant really say the situation is the same when you also include the practical (intended) usage.

of course, heroin is legal in some places, because they dont seem to worry about the whole dose issue.

>>1057841
>to call DNA/RNA from different organisms "the same class of molecule" is just about as retarded as it gets.

>if the WERE IN THE SAME CLASS OF MOLECULE, THEY WOULD HAVE IDENTICAL PRIMARY STRUCTURE, BECAUSE SIMILAR CLASSES OF MOLECULE SHARE A MAIN STRUCTURAL MOTIF.

i hope you're not trying to argue that DNA in a virus is somehow fundamentally different from the DNA in us, theres a difference in that the virus has a protein coat when floating around, but thats about it.

they're both DNA, it cannot get more "same class" than this.

>>1057781
except minor differences do matter? in the past they though "eh close enough" and that lead to birth defects, deaths, etc

differences matter, which is why the argument of "eeeeehhh close enough" is meaningless.

of course, the point about the observed physiological effect being similar stands, and its a good point, but this is something observed empirically for this specific case.

tl;dr, "close enough" is a bad argument, but "we observe the effect to be the same" is a good one.

>>1057750
thats the receptor, not the actual compound.

basically its like im asking you to show me a car, and you show me an empty garage.

>>1057714
for fucks sake man, im saying where is Tetrahydrocannabinol produced in your body, saying "this is KINDA like THC" means jack shit, there are plenty of KINDA LIKE things in this world which do entirely different things.

fuck, even a change in sterochemistry of one carbon can change a drug from a pain reliever to something lethal.

ffs, you said "active chemicals in pot = made in your body"
not "active chemicals in pot are of the same class of some compounds made by your body"
entirely different things

because the latter case can be said about viruses and your own DNA/RNA, same class, but ones gonna fuck you up.

>>1057721
but why point it out if its redundant? theres absolutely no value outside of a red herring in mentioning that its natural

"man, cyanide will kill you...BUT ITS NATURAL!"

absolutely meaningless, a point of distraction and thats it.

>>1057708
not how it works

please, ive seen better trolls in childrens fairy tales.

>>1057656
No, that was the topic in question, the argument was adressing the sentiment.

>>1057679
>Active chemicals present in Marijuana are naturally occurring in your body

oh really now, and where may i ask, does the body produce THC?

>>1057656
No, im saying "natural = good" is a redundant sentiment, plenty of natural things that can kill you, and plenty of unnatural things that can help you.

why make such a distinction if its meaningless?
its along the same lines as "organic food" and "herbal medicine"

>>1057637
>Marijuana is natural and is unlikely to kill you. The "natural argument" works perfectly.

you've basically just said

"ignore all other natural things which can kill you"
"pot does not kill you"
"pot is natural"
"therefore because its natural it is good for you"

makes no sense mahboi.
no sense at all.

>>1057592
see >>1057615

dont need much cyanide or snake venom to kill you.

>>1057574
okay how about snake venom, entirely natural.

or cyanide, also natural (although you can make it synthetically)

also, alcohol is also natural, yeast mahboi.

so the "natural" argument doesnt really mean much

I agree insofar that the weed is eaten in the form of cookies/brownies.