Non-celiac gluten sensitivity - Yes. Allergen specific immunotherapy. You wait 1-2 years on a gluten-free (or close enough) diet then slowly start to re-introduce low amounts of gluten.

Celiac - no. Studies trying antigen-specific immunotheraphy have all failed. Those people are usually missing an important gene in their DNA - difference from above is it was never working, not that it went bad over time and needs help recovering. Most future therapies are targeting the immune system response itself and silencing or inhibiting some part of the process.

> able atrificially recreate something that happens naturall

This has been done.

Take some biomaterial like wood, feed it to bacteria, then compress+heat with some time. The result is a bunch of hydrocarbons that look like some type of crude oil.

We can change the feedstock (trees, leaves, animals), change the bacteria, fungi, etc, change the pressure and temperature, easily manipulate the time.

Mostly, we don't want crude oil. That fingerprint is good at identifying the source, but it's not very useful for the effort we put it. We want to make valuable hydrocarbons. Modern examples of this are anaerobic digestions. For instance, all your household waste that goes to landfill. We can bury that and put an exhaust pipe inside. Eventually, all the microbes in the landfill start to make methane gas + a heavy crude sludge that sinks to the bottom.

The German chemical company Brabag was able to successfully make oil from coal in WW2 on the scale of a factory. Downside is it cost about 4x as much as simply extracting oil and refining it. Doesn't sound like much, but you could build 4 refineries for the price of that single one. Only makes sense when your nation has so much coal it's almost free and you are isolated from oil producing countries.

Then it depends on how close we need it to look to crude oil and what you need it to do.

To make a forgery to pass some legal case could be done, but it would be expensive to the price of maybe $10k - you would probably take an existing oil and add a few extra things to it.

To make a synthetic oil for lubrication is easy. We can even turn biomaterial into synthetic oils.

However, all of this is usually negated by the cost to be practical. You end up in silly situations where you have to burn half your oil to make the next batch.

\1. No, we know the the green revolution happened and there was lots more stable food, so population grew.

Climate change is due to increased use of fossil fuels. There are parts of the world that have low density population / high fuel use, such as the United States. Opposite, there are parts of the world with high population density / low fuel use, such as any poor country you can name. Overall: statement is both incorrect and too simple.

Why did the green revolution happen? Going deeper, higher population means local areas start to run out of available renewable fuels (e.g. you chop down your forest faster than it can grow.) The industrial revolution was mostly a search for more fuels. Then someone works out how to turn natural gas into fertilizer and all of a sudden anyone can grow more crops in a given area. More people = more fuel = more food = more people.

Quadruple C2 has two pi-bonds, a strong sigma-bond and a second weak sigma-bond.

The electron in the s orbital comes out to play. It's weird.

Better image of C2 quadruple bond. The molecular orbitals look impossible to a chemist, but that's more a function of how we represent images.

> C2 alone isn’t possible

Sure it is, in the gas phase! Diatomic carbon is represented as :C=C:. To get deeper into MO, it exists in both singlet and triple forms.

What is a little bit more complicated is quadruple bonded carbon. It does appear it can have a forth order bond to another carbon atom (tetravalent), but it is in the form of a pi-bond and two sigma-bonds.

Not only anaerobic, the empty spaces should be sterile!

You have two major cavities in your body: your gut area on the front and the area on your back from your butt up to your brain.

There is no circulation, everything moves by diffusion.

Your organs are lined in a membrane called "peritoneum". It sweats out a special liquid called "peritoneal fluid." You can think of it as fancy lubrication for inside human bodies.

The peritoneal liquid in the spaces between organs is really small volume, maybe 50 ml in a human. It contains neutrophils, mononuclear cells, eosinophils, macrophages, lymphocytes, desquamated mesothelial cells, and an average of 3.0 g/mL of protein. -> blah blah blah that is mostly immune system stuff and dead outer skin cells from your organs.

Electrolytes and small molecules can diffuse into/out of your blood, so composition of those is similar enough.

Overall: it's mostly blood liquid minus the blood cells, plus some immune system stuff.

> would an object in the right conditions decompose into gaseous molecules?

Eample: a candle.

Most smell molecules are very light. LEGO analogy, it's mostly 1 piece blocks and not 2x4's.

If you take a piece of wood, you can set it on fire and break those big pieces into smaller. You then lose most of the mass into the form of a gas.

Most likely a difference in hair or shoes.

Static shocks are caused when someone accumulates excess electrical charge and is insulated from the environment. When that insulating material touches something conductive, the transfer of charge happens.

Thick soled shoes and synthetic fabrics such as nylon and polyester are insulating, allowing for larger buildup of charge.

If you have long hair and use a brush, or brushing-like activity, that can cause a buildup.

Your moisturizer may be in play, but not much. The moisturizer does trap water and sweat/salt which acts as a conductor. A person with dry skin would have worse static shocks.

Behaviour may be a factor. Someone regularly grounding themselves on metal structures will reduce their static buildup, think of someone working at a desk with a metal frame and brushing their leg against it. Some teen with shuffling gait scuffing their shoes on the carpet will have a higher static buildup.

Guess what, there is an entire wikipedia page devoted to your questions. A history of malaria vaccines.

> do what we have always done with bacteria: target cell membrane, burst the cell and rinse and repeat?

Not quite correct. Majority of antibacterial drugs leave the bacteria intact. Instead they interefere with the reproduction rate. Either slowling it enough for the immune system to clear, or metaphorically putting a condom on to stop reproduction.

Those routes don't work for plasmodium. Unlike bactera which are very uniform, plasmodium are very diverse within their own culture. You can spot bacteria onto a plate and it usually grows one big blob; do that for plasmodium and you find lots of little and big blobs. Any route that targets plasmodium reproduction will fail because there is a huge evolutionary pressure to develop drug resistance. All those mixed genetics clusters in the same infection will compete and at least one will be drug resistant.

A human who is infected with malaria and recovers will be immune to the disease. However, they aren't immune to the parasite. They can be reinfected and asymptomatic, spreading it to other people. A person can even be permanently infected.

Your body has only a few emergency levers it can pull. It also only has a few detection systems.

It takes time for the immune system to respond. It has to recognize a problem, communicate to the immune system generals, mobilize the early troops and then start producing the rest of the defense warriors.

Mucus production is really quick to start. The detectors are nearby and all that needs to be done is open up a tap and the mucus starts flowing. It provides a protective barrier between the environment and body tissue, plus it also has a flushing effect as it moves out and down.

Nasal congestion not only is just for viruses, it is also for bacteria, pollen and foreign objects. Sometimes a good flushing is all that is required.

An example of this in practice is the Zanclean flood that formed the Mediterranean 5.3MM years ago, and the current day Salton Sea in California.

> noninferior to another similar drug(which is to say, it's not less afe and efficient).

A new drug can be inferior in some ways, provided it is better in others. For instance, if it is a lot cheaper, has fewer side effects, targets a sub-group not covered by the comparison or more easily made available.

For instance, medications suitable for pregnant women are often inferior (less effective) that comparisons.

Anyway, words are fun. You can make them mean whatever you want.

Mass euthanization is coordinated by a government agency. Lots of people will be involved.

Where mass euthanasia is required, the chosen euthanasia methods must consider the animal welfare implications while meeting biosecurity requirements and minimising the risk of disease transmission.

It requires someone trained to handle the materials and equipment. Another person to confirm each animal has been euthanized. That can be veterinarians, but it can also be slaughterhouse workers or others skilled in the trade.

During a mass outbreak there is often a labour shortage of skilled experts. Third party non-government experts may be called in.

Recommend methods for mass chicken euthanization is filling an entire shed with carbon dioxide gas, then any survivors are hit with a non-penetrative captive bolt gun.

Everyday you consume about 100,000 pieces of microplastic. However, when you die if you open up your body, only about 1000 pieces will be inside.

Overall: microplastics mostly pass harmlessly through any filter we can design. It doesn't stick to anything and it just keeps on moving around. It's a difficult problem.

The first step is capturing microplastics. There isn't a good way to do this. We can capture macro-plastics easier using simple size filters, that's the rescue mission you see where people are pulling out fishing lines, raincoats, plastic bottles, etc. We don't have any good techniques to pull out microplastics. We can use centrifuges, reverse osmosis or solvent extraction - but none of those can scale up to the size of a river or ocean. There are chemical gelling products that sponge up the microplastics almost like running a ball of plasticene over carpet to pick up dirt, but again, really niche stuff that doesn't scale up well.

The second step is sequestration or destruction of the capture material. It's always going to be mixed plastic waste of little recycling value - we don't even recycle easy post-consumer plastics so nobody is going to put energy into environmental plastics. One option is to burn it. Destroys the plastic and converts it to carbon dioxide. Another is landfill, which is really good at trapping solids to deal with later. A more advanced option is anaerobic digestion - where we break the plastic back to it's starting materials or convert it to biogas which can be used as fuel.

The accounting (money, energy, emissions) for this is messy. Maybe you need to fuel up boats and trucks to move all the plastic around, so overall emissions go up. Someone also needs to pay for this work, and maybe that money is better spent elsewhere on bigger problems.

Right now, best targets are reducing the sources. You get significantly higher bang-for-buck.

Sodium acetate is the chemical in the reusable handwarmers.

You can coat a reactive chemical in a protective coating, then like popping a balloon, the pressure breaks the coating and triggers the reaction. The easiest example of this is putting an oxidizer and a reductant in the same bag.

There are lots of exothermic crystallization reactions where the pressure nucleates a crystal in supersaturated solution. You can control that pressure using engineering of the container, but it's not unique to the actual chemical.

Rubber "corrosion" is similar to iron rust. More corrosion makes even more corrosion. You need to keep removing any hard or corroded segments to keep the underlying material good.

Storage environment is one of the biggest factors for lifetime of rubber seals. Some will fail via getting harder and others fail by getting softer.

Some of the types of rubber are degrading from the day they are manufactured. It can be trace amount of metal catalysts, free radicals or simply environmental oxygen, moisture, stress.

Failing soft. The way elastomers are made involves a chemical method called polymerisation. It's kind of a special type of zipper - it zips closed to make the elastomer but it can be triggered to unzip back to starting materials. That's where rubbers can fail soft.

Failing hard: A rubber when looked at under a microscope is like lots of little hairs all aligned. When it is sitting there static, some of those hairs will start to cross-link (e.g. you get a knot in your hair or some loose cables in your junk drawer form a knot). This can be residual free radicals (or oxygen induced radicals) that grab hold of the nearest neighbouring strand to make themselves stable. But similar to a relay race, that free radical never goes away, it just gets passed along the chain to the next open spot - then that crosslinks to another strand. Once you have too many knots in your hair or your Christmas lights are tangled up, it turns into a hard non-elastomeric mess.

Using the rubber gasket does involve mechanical/thermal stresses. It will be getting pushed or pulled. Any tiny hard sections will be ground away like a sacrificial layer. It keeps the majority of the seal elastomeric. Unfortunately, leave it static too long and those hard sections will get large.

Other places you see rubber degrading: knife handles getting sticky, plastic toys yellowing with age, shoe soles cracking when not worn, rubber car tyres softening in storage sheds, latex / synthetic clothing turning brittle in the back of your cupboard unworn. A gasket is no different.

> What's the point of submerging in water if we're just going to let it dry? What's happening there?

You really want to avoid sudden temperature shocks that can cause cracking, which is why you first soak the earthenware in water. The water acts like a buffer for the temperature changes as the water in the clay will never exceed boiling point of 100°C. The thin layer of oil on the surface will get hotter, then polymerise and make the pot more hydrophobic, less likely to stain, prevent the unpleasant taste of raw clay, etc.

> When seasoning cast iron,

The metal expands when it's hot. Oil can diffuse into the gaps. When the pan cools the metal will shrink and grab onto the polymerized layer. Overall the heating/cooling is like scrunching up / unfolding paper.

You want the metal pan to be as hot as possible for the maximum amount of expansion, which is going to result in at least smoky oil, if not burnt carbon. Domestic oven / burner can't really get hot enough (it's fine, but people still have problems with the seasoning cracking or failing to adhere), however, a gas BBQ outside is much hotter. You can get a much better seasoning by really getting the pan hot before adding the seasoning oil.

Earthenware has a very different expansion/contraction issue compared to metal. Earthenware is already porous, so lots of little handhold grips for the seasoning to adhere into, no need for expansion/heating. The temperature only needs to be hot enough for the oil to polymerise, but not too hot or too long otherwise the earthenware will dry out and crack.

> Is there any logic behind using olive oil besides "authenticity"?

No logic. Other people use animal fats or other vegetable oils.

You can play around with using a drying oil such as linseed to form a hard, tough polymer film. Or you can use a non-drying oil such as olive and it's just fine.

Extra virgin olive oil isn't the best. It contains lots of non-oil stuff like proteins that make it tasty, but will also prevent it forming a nice tough barrier. You want to use "refined olive oil" or any other refined food oil.

> why the manufacturer would ship this tagine uncured and unseasoned?

Cost and time. It's tradition to season it yourself so you get that local family flavour, so manufacturer will allow for that and save money on an additional step.

Mold and rancid oils. The manufacturer has no idea how long the product will sit unsold on the shelf. Any residual water + oil = microbe food.

The self-diffusion coefficient of neat water is:

• 2.3·10−9 m2·s−1 at 25 °C (room temperature, or close enough), and

• 1.3·10−9 m2·s−1 at 4 °C (inside the fridge).

You can play around with equations for diffusion towards a target (on average a straight line velocity), diffusion over a certain distance (e.g. how long to randomly move from one wall to the opposite side), or collision frequency.

The properties of tar will not change in a vacuum (depending on how strong is the vacuum).

Some glues are air drying, but pine tar is not. The adhesion and cohesion properties do not change with oxygen or gravity.

However, pine tar is a mixture of hydrocarbons, acids and bases. At low vapour pressure some of those will evaporate / outgas. All the volatile stuff is acting as a solvent for the non-volatile stuff. Too strong a vacuum or too long in vacuum and the pine tar will become hard and brittle.

Problems exist in space because of the vacuum but also it's really cold. Many adhesives are only active above the glass transition temperature or melting point.

There are test standards for minimal outgassing required for adhesives used in space craft. It must not lose too much mass, and that lost mass should not recondense in a harmful way.

> what makes it adhere and resist pulling your fingers apart?

We call that effect "tackiness". In the link a bunch of scientists (including one from 3M) discuss it better than I can.

> Also, is the pitch molecularly homogenous?

Not quite.

It is a mixture of different molecules of varying length. It's roughly the equivalent of your junk drawer full of loose cables. Yes, they are all cables, but different connectors, sometimes more than two ends, different lengths, etc.

Not going to work.

Air is already 80% nitrogen gas and ~20% oxygen. You won't get any appreciable change in the gas composition by inputting more nitrogen.

Not yet mentioned, we can make gas and oil from coal reserves or even from biomass. It does make the pool of resources bigger than you think it is.

Those processes cost more than oil/gas extraction does right now. However, if demand was ever high enough, those can be tapped into.

For instance, during WW2 Germany was cut off from oil supplies. But Germany has lots of cheap brown coal, just massive reserves. They built a factory to convert coal -> fuel that was only economical in their wartime economy. That factory was of such important that is was protected by more defenses than Berlin. It has it's own army and airforce just to protect the fuel production.

No change.

Lemon juice does nothing for tannins or caffeine. It won't affect the amount extracted, it won't change the extraction time. No change.

Lemon juice is mostly water. That's obviously doing nothing other than slightly diluting your brew.

Next is sugar. Lemons really contain quite a lot of sugar, despite the sour taste. That's also doing nothing to change the chemistry of your brew.

Increased acidity? Also nothing. Tannins are already weak acid molecules. They aren't changing due to adding in another weak acid. Caffeine? Also not really affected by mild changes in pH.

Surprising change? Calcium and taste perception. Tea and coffee actually kind of taste really bad when made in ultra-pure water. Same goes with beer and soda too. That's why claims of such and such drink comes from the purest natural mountain stream etc are true, the water quality has an effect on taste perception. Everyone really does enjoy the taste of mineral water as well as artificial mineral water (tap water with minerals added). The optimum concentration of calcium for improved taste is somewhere around 100-200 mg/L. That's kind of a lot and would normally be considered "hard water" that forms scale to block your pipes, requiring cleaning.

What's unique about adding lemon (and citrus juices) is they contain citric acid. Citric acid just magically happens to love calcium, same way two magnets of opposite attraction stick to each other. By adding lemon juice to tea/coffee brew, you not only modify the overall taste by adding citrus oils and sugar, you also pull out some of the calcium goodness from the water. Overall: it makes the tea/coffee taste a little bit weaker, despite containing all the same quantities of food chemistry.