It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Heavy water is not toxic. Some animals can survive with near 100% heavy water intake. Humans would need to consume extremely large quantities for it to be toxic.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Heavy water is not toxic. Some animals can survive with near 100% heavy water intake. Humans would need to consume extremely large quantities for it to be toxic.
A paramecium can tolerate 100% D2O, you cannot. If the bond angles and lengths are different, and they are, and I can toss probably 100 cites at you, then the shapes are altered, if only slightly. If the difference between smell/not-smell is also slight, Bob's your uncle.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Wrong. Smell is determined by the receptor. As long as both of them still fit the same receptor then the point is moot. Do you think you know more than the premier expers in olfactory science? They say the shape is fine. Why are you creating an issue EVERY expert says is not an issue?
Van Hook (9) has shown that when a deuteron is involved in a chemical re- action, consideration oust be given to a slight change in the inductive effect, as deuterium is more electronegative than hydrogen. Hyperconjugative effects are also involved since CD3, for example, is less delocalized than CH3, and, more important, the effective size of a C-D bond is smaller than the effective size of a C-U bond. Thus steric effects have a part to play, reinforcing our conten- tion that any highly stereospecific enzyme molecule containing a deuteron in an important position has a potential for participating in an error reaction.
(...)
This thinking may also be extended to include the process of synthesizing enzymes. Naturally occurring deuterons participating in this process can bring about the formation of mis-constructed enzymes which will subsequently partici- pate in forming error proteins, or if their function is to repair proteins, they
may not be able to perform their normal task, thereby permitting errors to accumulate.
The definition of a defective enzyme under these circumstances is difficult. A molecule containing a deuteron naturally would not normally be regarded as a defective molecule. However, the special properties of deuterons can cause a molecule with precise stereospecific properties to react differently from its protonated analogue.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Show me where them changing hydrogen to deuterium will prevent the olfactory receptor from firing.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Show me where them changing hydrogen to deuterium will prevent the olfactory receptor from firing.
Do you agree that the receptor depends on molecular shape to fire?
And that degree of fit determines the odds of any particular receptor firing?
Or do we have to bang heads on that one?
Originally posted by Bedlam
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
Ok, so you agree that the odds of a receptor firing depends on the degree of conformation to the shape it's designed to detect. Great.
Now, the next point. Do you agree that the bond length, angle and energy level are different for deuteron bonds than for protium bonds? And that by something like 1-4% per bond, depending on what the other element is that you're bonding to?
edit to add - I'm not trying to browbeat you here, I'm trying to lay out the reason why I read this study and yawn. And yes, I've seen published refereed studies that just suck experimentally. This may be one. I'm a science professional, I do this stuff for a living. Part of that is reading other peoples' papers and looking for the holes.edit on 27-1-2013 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
No I do not agree on any percentages. Why would I agree?
First, the scientists found that H2O has a longer intramolecular OH bond than D2O’s corresponding OD bond length. Specifically, the OH bond is longer by about 0.03 angstroms, or 3%. Second, the intermolecular hydrogen bond (which connects two separate molecules) is shorter in H2O than in D2O. Here, the difference is about 0.07 angstroms, or 4%. Neither of these differences in bond length had been predicted in previous studies. Further, because the OH/OD bond length difference and the hydrogen bond length difference are not equivalent (3% and 4%), there also exist geometrical differences between the structures of light and heavy water. While previous research had predicted an overall broadening of the H2O structure compared to the D2O structure, Soper and Benmore have pinpointed three specific differences, some of which are in opposition to earlier predictions. For one thing, the intermolecular OH peak is more asymmetric in H2O than D2O. Also, the distance between the hydrogen atoms on neighboring molecules is about 2% larger for H2O than in D2O. Finally, the number of hydrogen bonds per water molecule is less in H2O than in D2O (3.62 vs. 3.76).
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Bedlam
Write a rebuttal and get it published. Then link it to me.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Bedlam
That's what I thought. Big ego, very self important, but can't answer questions.
Originally posted by Bedlam
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
reply to post by Bedlam
That's what I thought. Big ego, very self important, but can't answer questions.
I am answering them. You don't want to listen - that's ok.
BTW, while you seem to have a big emotional investment in Turin, as your op said, it's unicorns to most of the field, apparently.
Tim Jacob, a smell researcher at the University of Cardiff, said the work was "supportive but not conclusive".
"But the fact is that nobody has been able to unequivocally contradict [Dr Turin]," he told BBC News.
"There are many, many problems with the shape theory of smell - many things it doesn't explain that the vibrational theory does."
Columbia University's Richard Axel, whose work on mapping the genes and receptors of our sense of smell garnered the 2004 Nobel prize for physiology, said the kinds of experiments revealed this week would not resolve the debate - only a microscopic look at the receptors in the nose would finally show what is at work.
"Until somebody really sits down and seriously addresses the mechanism and not inferences from the mechanism... it doesn't seem a useful endeavour to use behavioural responses as an argument," he told BBC News.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing off this theory, but I need data and it hasn't been presented."
I don't have a dog in the hunt, here. But it seems odd, as I say, to try to say that deuteration does not cause steric distortion of molecules - it does.
J. Chem. Phys. 137, 22A551 (2012); dx.doi.org... (6 pages)
Quantum origins of molecular recognition and olfaction in drosophila
Eric R. Bittner 1, Adrian Madalan 2, Arkadiusz Czader 3, and Gregg Roman 2
1 Departments of Chemistry and Physics, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA
2 Department of Biology and Biochemistry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA
3 Department of Chemistry, University of Houston, Houston, Texas 77204, USA
The standard model for molecular recognition of an odorant is that receptor sites discriminate by molecular geometry as evidenced that two chiral molecules may smell very differently. However, recent studies of isotopically labeled olfactants indicate that there may be a molecular vibration-sensing component to olfactory reception, specifically in the spectral region around 2300 cm−1. Here, we present a donor-bridge-acceptor model for olfaction which attempts to explain this effect. Our model, based upon accurate quantum chemical calculations of the olfactant (bridge) in its neutral and ionized states, posits that internal modes of the olfactant are excited impulsively during hole transfer from a donor to acceptor site on the receptor, specifically those modes that are resonant with the tunneling gap. By projecting the impulsive force onto the internal modes, we can determine which modes are excited at a given value of the donor-acceptor tunneling gap. Only those modes resonant with the tunneling gap and are impulsively excited will give a significant contribution to the inelastic transfer rate. Using acetophenone as a test case, our model and experiments on D. melanogaster suggest that isotopomers of a given olfactant give rise to different odorant qualities. These results support the notion that inelastic scattering effects may play a role in discriminating between isotopomers but that this is not a general spectroscopic effect.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
No, you aren't. You are acting self important giving me information that has nothing to do with my questions.
Now who is emotional? I had never heard of Turin before today. Zero emotional investment. One person said unicorns, I guess due to your emotional investment that becomes the rest of the field. Here is what others have to say.
Tim Jacob, a smell researcher at the University of Cardiff, said the work was "supportive but not conclusive".
"But the fact is that nobody has been able to unequivocally contradict [Dr Turin]," he told BBC News.
Columbia University's Richard Axel, whose work on mapping the genes and receptors of our sense of smell garnered the 2004 Nobel prize for physiology, said the kinds of experiments revealed this week would not resolve the debate - only a microscopic look at the receptors in the nose would finally show what is at work.
"Until somebody really sits down and seriously addresses the mechanism and not inferences from the mechanism... it doesn't seem a useful endeavour to use behavioural responses as an argument," he told BBC News.
"Don't get me wrong, I'm not writing off this theory, but I need data and it hasn't been presented."
Another who sees no problem with the research, but doesn't think any behavioral response is enough to say either way.
But, you know better than the experts, including a Nobel prize for physiology winner, who find no flaw with the study.
Apparently you do since you liken the research that has been peer reviewed and has interested serious people who are well known in the field to a fringe non-scientific website. Either you do have a dog you are invested in, or you are just being a complete tool.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by darkbake
In science, unicorns often turn out to be real. Like pretty much every time.
I wouldn't go that far. In fact, I would say that's not very true. I would love some instances though. In this case, there is no unicorn. We have verifiable, repeatable, scientific experiments. One of two things must be done. The science must be shown to be faulty (which has not been done), or an explanation must be given. The traditional view has no explanation for this. This isn't a unicorn, just a new breed of horse that answers a lot of questions we had about horses.