becausechemistry

joined 1 year ago
[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 2 points 5 days ago

The industry standard is HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography). Those things go for tens of thousands of dollars up front, plus maintenance and consumables.

If there was a less costly way of doing it, you bet companies would have settled on that by now.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 3 points 5 days ago

make the best decisions they can

I would recommend an HPLC and a competent analytical chemist to gather data and decide whether or not a batch is safe to consume.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 24 points 6 days ago (7 children)

This has been posted to a bunch of different communities, and I’m gonna be a stick in the mud each time.

I’m a process chemist. I do this for a living. I’ve made kilo-scale batches of pharmaceuticals at work that have gone through the regulatory process and made it into people. I went to school for ten years to do this.

This is a colossally dangerous thing.

Every time you run a chemical synthesis, you generate impurities. Slightly different temperatures, concentrations, reagent quality, and a million other things will vary the identities and concentrations of those impurities in your product.

The nature of biochemistry is that most compounds, even at very small concentrations, can have effects. Usually bad ones. So drugs have tight specs on how much of each potential impurity can be present. Usually it’s in the 0.1% range, but sometimes a lot lower.

Detection of impurities at that level cannot be done with ‘hacker’ gear in your garage. So if you do this, you’re going to be taking unknown quantities of unknown impurities.

There are trade-offs. If you’re definitely gonna die without the medicine, then the worst that can happen is you die faster, or more painfully. If it’s medicine to maintain quality of life, then you might die fast and painfully.

I’m not saying the current system is good at all. Medicine is too expensive. It shouldn’t be limited by right wing nutjobs. Those things are true. Those things require a solution.

This is not a good solution.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 5 points 6 days ago

No. Never. It takes whole teams of people to get it right. (Even then, they sometimes get it wrong.)

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I’d love to see cops start enforcing the no-right-on-red signs, especially when drivers cut off pedestrians to do it. But half the time they’ve got blue line or other pseudo fascist stickers all over their gigantic trucks when they do it, so I’m not holding my breath.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee -4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

That’s a false dichotomy if I’ve ever heard one, dude.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 5 points 1 week ago

There is exactly one easiest option: be like the rest of the civilized world and ban consumer marketing of medicine. HUGE amounts of the prices of drugs are just down to TV ads. “Ask your doctor about…” is horse shit, let your doctor decide what prescription drugs you need. And fire the cocaine-riddled, law-breaking marketing departments that soak up so much money.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago (4 children)

“Our recipes are consistent, like a good espresso maker.”

“Okay cool, how do you know that?”

“So many questions! We’re hackers! We are very smart.”

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 3 points 1 week ago

That’s the thing. They have no way of even knowing if they messed up! I’m not even sure the way they could be messing up is a thing they know they should be worried about.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 4 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I’m not disputing the reasoning behind why this is important. But “it is important” does not imply that their solution is the right one.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 18 points 1 week ago (6 children)

People make illicit drugs chock full of impurities all the time too, and it fucks people up.

There are standards for purity on pharmaceuticals. Impurities have to be ridiculously low. Lower than you can measure in your garage.

These dudes either don’t know you need to even measure purity or have decided that it’s inconvenient and are ignoring it.

[–] becausechemistry@lemm.ee 37 points 1 week ago (37 children)

I’m a process chemist. I do this sort of thing for a living.

These guys don’t even know why what they’re suggesting is so dangerous. Do not do any of this.

 

Famously, Oppenheimer and co worked out how close a nuclear bomb test would be to causing a chain reaction of nitrogen fusion in the atmosphere. They made a lot of worst-case-scenario assumptions and still came to the conclusion that no, a nuclear bomb test wouldn’t scour the surface of the world.

But let’s say the atmosphere was twice as dense as it is. Or ten times as dense. At what point would that calculation turn very, very scary?

Obligatory xkcd

Edit: man, seriously, most of the people ‘answering’ this question didn’t even read it.

 

Clearly, AR is the way forward. And Minshew played as well as he could last year and has been rewarded with a likely starting role.

But man, I’m gonna miss that guy. And if AR gets hurt again it’s hard to imagine a backup who will step up like Minshew did.

view more: next ›