Bill

Up the scale of the Periodic Table, the most stable elements are usually listed according to its atomic number (increasing number of protons), starting with Hydrogen with 1 and Helium with 2 up to Uranium with 92 etc.

And as the atomic number goes up, so does the atomic mass also proportionally increases, say Hydrogen with 1.00784 and Helium with an atomic mass of 4.0026 and Uranium with an Atomic mass of 238.0289 (being the most stable radioactive isotope or element).

Question on atomic mass for Protactinium or 91Pa…?

Protactinium or 91Pa with an Atomic number 91 (or 91 protons), and an Atomic mass of 231.03588 ± 0.00002

Protactinium also comes in other radioactive (isotope) forms:

231Pa 231.035880 (the most stable being 231-Pa and longest half life)

232Pa 232.03858

233Pa 233.04024

234Pa 234.04330 (with the shortest half life)

Without disrespect to Dmitri Mendeleev, a lot had since changed; this question is to the like minds for help.

91Pa would seem to be the only element in our Periodic Table which goes down in atomic mass as we move up the atomic number, can those guys with brains enlighten us as to why or how come!!!

The atomic mass of 90Th is 232.0381 and 92U is 238.0289 but 91Pa is 231.03588.

Up the scale of the Periodic Table, the most stable elements are usually listed according to its atomic number (increasing number of protons), starting with Hydrogen with 1 and Helium with 2 up to Uranium with 92 etc.

And as the atomic number goes up, so does the atomic mass also proportionally increases, say Hydrogen with 1.00784 and Helium with an atomic mass of 4.0026 and Uranium with an Atomic mass of 238.0289 (being the most stable radioactive isotope or element).

Question on atomic mass for Protactinium or 91Pa…?

Protactinium or 91Pa with an Atomic number 91 (or 91 protons), and an Atomic mass of 231.03588 ± 0.00002

Protactinium also comes in other radioactive (isotope) forms:

231Pa 231.035880 (the most stable being 231-Pa and longest half life)

232Pa 232.03858

233Pa 233.04024

234Pa 234.04330 (with the shortest half life)

Without disrespect to Dmitri Mendeleev, a lot had since changed; this question is to the like minds for help.

91Pa would seem to be the only element in our Periodic Table which goes down in atomic mass as we move up the atomic number, can those guys with brains enlighten us as to why or how come!!!

The atomic mass of 90Th is 232.0381 and 92U is 238.0289 but 91Pa is 231.03588.

Today, agriculture only account for 5 percent of the GDP while one-third of the world's workforce is employed in agribusiness, compared with 80 percent of the GDP a century ago while two-third of the world’s workforce was employed in agribusiness.

What does that mean in terms of future employment, GDP and wealth?

From the above calculations, what can we deduces from it? Or what realization we can learn from such comparison.

What are the trends for future food yield, food cost and the percentage of workforce needed in agribusiness by 2050?

Bearing in mind that square kilometre of arable land is very much fixed in a rising population scenario.

Ten points to the brightest ideas or logic in analyzing above or the brightest brain works.

Suppose the oceanic tectonic plates buckled up into a mountain range of 2000 mile long by 1 mile height with a base 5 mile wide, and the bulging took 6 months to complete, no Tsunami effect occurs.

How much water will be displaced by the end of 6-mth, or best answer, sea levels will have to rise by how much? Any danger to existing islands worldwide?

By about 4pm in the afternoon while the sun was still there, there is a large 'moon' up there in the sky the last few days.

Is that the 'Evening Star', also known as the 'Morning Star'.

I had a dream that the oceanic tectonic plates bucked up into a mountain range of 2000 mile long by 1 mile height with a base 5 mile wide soon – now it is still flat on the ocean bed.

How much water will it displace or cause sea level to rise?

What is the difference between resilience and resilient, there were rules in our school days.

Has the rules changed since the internet days, most web articles seem to mixed and matched the usages of resilience and resilient at will.

I tend to use the words 'resilience and resiliency' to describe objects, such as 'Resilience is the property of a material', say to absorb energy.

And I tend to use the word 'resilient' to describe organic life form, such as 'Resilient is to thrive through change'.

But then I like to set myself rules or guidelines. Can anyone shed light on current use of 'resilience' and 'resilient' or even 'resiliency'?

Global climate change is not just man’s fault

The Earth rolate slowed a bit, there are other science been over looked, or covered up. See this first before comment.

http://en.rian.ru/video/20091216/157258712.html

No wonder everybody said that the Protocol is fatally flawed, to start with, a hidden agenda was written in for UK and EU, to encourage 3rd world to join in a carbon trading scheme – meaning buy thin air from EU if you want to industrialized.

The 2nd hidden agenda was transparency, right for EU to verify developing nations to see if they comply with the Protocol.

Effectively a disguise to protect developed nations (EU & UK) for any mess they had made, and a right to continue emissions, and be exempted from transparency.

Almost all 3rd world and developing nations have now turned the table around; let developed nations buy carbon emissions from them and subject to verification by them.

I understand that our body cells – such as skin cells, blood cells and the like are being replaced (fall off such as dead skin cells or absorbed such as aged blood cells) are being replaced by new cells which are generated throughout our life – in other words, they are being replace throughout our life, perhaps not our brain cells.

And from a text, I read that our lens cells (in our eyes) also generated throughout our life, but none are lost.

None are lost? Are there any true in it? I understand that as we age, our lens cells start hardening. But none of the eye lens cells are lost?

In a cataract operation, the lens is removed and usually replaced with an artificial plastic lens.

Can you guys in the known, explain how this growing lens cells a bit, how big the lens will eventually be, before they start hardening at later life.

Petroleum plays a vital role in food, but nitrous oxide is a by product of fossil fuel in combustion engine, which inactivates vitamin B12 (also called cobalamin) by oxidation.

B12 deficiency causes encephalopathy, the inflammation in the brain, let alone sensory neuropathy or myelopathy. These big-headedness affect the normal functioning of the brain and nervous system.

Lonesome George was a case in point when the few big-headedness ventured into Galapagos for food, with snout in their trots, now shed crocodile tears with tortoise.

These parasitic brains are helping themselves again with fossil fuel, a generation from now will label these rarest black stuff potent symbol of past industrialized civilization.

With the dispersion rate per square mile on many part of the world now reached critical points, and the tilting of the biotic potential on human population as a result of advance in medical science.

If the remaining black stuff are not preserved for vital industrial and agricultural usage now, no military power than can assure world security in a generation's time.

Who finance Greenpeace? Where's the resources coming from?

Where they got their funds, who foot them, where can I find out more?

Can anybody explain where Greenpeace funding come from, while almost anything you can search today, but hardy any on Greenpeace funding?

Do bacteria sleep (dormancy or diapause or hibernation), or any of this behaviour?

I know many life forms adopt dormancy, for dormancy triggers different stages of metabolic cessations in both vertebrates and invertebrates.

There's even embryonic diapause (or delayed implantations), what about bacteria, bear in mind that long before higher life forms exists, the world belongs to bacteria.

What's that behaviour really for, recharge or buy time?

The biotic potential on humans had been tilted as a result of advances in medical science, the dispersion rate per square mile on many part of the world had reached critical points, and population growth rate had exceed expected food yield rate for some years now.

Has this tilting shifted our trophic levels (food chains) in the ecosystem, the energy food chain from our primary producers - plants and photosynthetic bacteria which harness carbon (CO2) and sun light into chemical energy for our needs been interrupted?

Can any researchers in this area shade some light on near future expected food costings?

Let me put my question this way, in nature, cell division is by coping (like a deck of cards) the 46 chromosomes.

The 46 blank cards made copy of the original 46 cards (in layman terms).

And then the new cards are put in pairs but in random, not in the order as the original deck of cards.

Nature then shuffle the deck of new cards again, after pairing of 46 new cards into 23 pairs, totally random, so that no body can guess the cards.

Now this is nature's simplicity, thus nature must have a rule for the game, as 2^23 (2 to the power of 23) = more than 8 million variations.

What can nature's rules be, in the most simple/basic form or logic?

We play 52 cards games got simple game rules, nature works by picking what works best in the past to form it's rules.

What do you think nature's simple rules could be, any thoughts helpful, I'm looking for simplicity and yet neat, for some logic works I need to apply.

Any thoughts welcome, 10 points for the best idea.

I am interested in the chemical composition of chromatin, can anybody help?

For example:

The histone has the chemical composition of 3 lysine 4 methyltransferase. But I can't find any articles on the chemical composition of chromatin.

I know from Wiki that chromatin is the complex combination of DNA, RNA, and protein that makes up chromosomes. It is found inside the nuclei of eukaryotic cells, and within the nucleoid in prokaryotic cells.

And it is divided between heterochromatin (condensed) and euchromatin (extended) forms. The major components of chromatin are DNA and histone proteins.

I am only interested in the chemical composition of chromatin, not the DNA functions but the chemical (or trace minerals it contain) types.

Ps: Or if chromatin play a part in the Circadian Rhythm, would appreciate the articles as well. Much appreciated.

Today's news @ http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20090602/tsc-alarm-rai...

Reported by environmental group Greenpeace argues that REDD credits could flood global markets, sending the price of carbon crashing by as much as 75 percent below market price.

Why should they concern about market price of emission trading?

Aren't they pleased that more nations elected to plant more trees - that's what this new agreement about - REDD.

Yet they are concern about carbon price crashing, who are they, city banker?

Insider comments on facts and people behind or financing them, appreciated.

I know that male human being don't have baculum, did we ever had one?

Many organic life forms don't have baculum as well and a lot of them do, such as primates, and so do dogs & cats, as well as bonobos and apes or lemurs - today's main science news of the missing link.

Even pinnipeds (walruses, seals, sea lions) got baculum, what differentiate us with most mammals seem to be a baculum. Ida what scientists named is a female due to lack of baculum.

But have we ever had one, or could we have evolved from the other half of life-form, never had one?

Would appreciate those smart science guys had studied this question throw some light on the subject. Thanks (no speculations please).

61 of the 64 codons for the 20 amino acids, 3 are for Stop codons plus 1 Start codon in the genetic code table of DNA & RNA.

CODE

START STOP1 2 3

ATG TAA TAG TGA

AUG UAA UAG UGA

The Start AUG (ATG) looks like from 5’ to 3’ prime end to me, right or wrong, please explain.

The Stops UAA, UAG, UGA (TAA, TAG, TGA), with the exception of UAG (TAG), they appear to me in a 3’ to 5’ prime end, right or wrong, please help explain?

But UAG (TAG) seems to me both ends are 3’ to 3' prime ends, right or wrong, please help explain, also is this a polar uncharged or a nonpolar residues?

Or am I looking at the wrong/right way up?

I need to have a reasonable basic understanding of them, this is the last part of the jigsaw in my research & study, can you guys help point out my errors if any, and best way to read and understand them.

It has been said that when light encountered extremely fine particles (extremely fine dust or mist or water particles etc that our eyes can't see at that sort of minuteness), and due to the minuteness of the particles compared to the wavelength of the light, then the light is more intensely scattered at the blue end of the spectrum than the red - I don't doubt that!!!

But I can't get it round my head today - light wavelength (or frequency) of the visible spectrum is already very very small and travel at almost same speed, though accept that blue is indeed a fraction faster than red frequency.

Then I would have thought that if they are being intensely scattered at the same time by extremely fine particles, then they should be reflecting by their own speed more intensely, blue wouldn't gain much advantage in speed, all should be more equally and intensely scattered, hence they should still be white light to me.

Unless those minuteness of the particles is so dense and thick that we can see and feel they are indeed, then light would have a bit of problem getting through. Am I being unreasonable or exceptionally stupid or again brain dead today, what do I not see?

PS: I'm going through old ground to make sure what I'm doing.

These magic numbers 70 or 72 as a rule of thumb in relations to growth rate were there any significance in life expectancy or mathematical co-incidence?

This is one of the fundamental maths true to process of compound interest and capital return, somehow the numbers 70 & 72 puzzled me, are there any relevant in real life situations?

Let’s take compound interest for example:

Principal (or capital) x ( 1 + i )n

i = interest rate, n = number of years

Therefore £1000 @ 7% interest rate over 3 years compound interest = £1225.04p.

Or over 10 years @ 7% compound interest = 72 / 7

= 10.28 years (or within 11 yrs) using rule thumb.

Or say @ 5% = 72 / 5

= 14.4 yrs doubled the return to £2000.

----------------------------------------------------------------

And if we take population growth rate say @ 4% = 70 / 4

= 17.5 yrs time the population doubled.

Or population growth rate @ 2% = 70 / 2

= 35 yrs time the population doubled.

How this number 70 (or 72) was created, base on maths, statistics or life expectancy?

Everywhere I turn are within the 70s numbers, were there historical reasons?