To: smokingfrog; glock rocks; SouthTexas; B4Ranch
My only experience with chemistry came in the spiffy little kit I got one Christmas many many years ago but this statement jumped out at me... the atomic weight of carbon in natural human testosterone is higher than that in pharmaceutical testosterone.
12 posted on
12/15/2010 5:42:12 PM PST by
tubebender
(If you can not read, this thread will tell you how to get help)
To: tubebender
I know just enough about chemistry to be dangerous. Probably moreso to myself than others. :)
It’s like somebody got a new scale for Christmas and is now out to correct the world.
36 posted on
12/15/2010 6:56:28 PM PST by
SouthTexas
(WE are the Wave)
To: tubebender
Well, for starters human testosterone has carbon-14 in it, while that made from petroleum has had millions of years during which it has all decayed. (This is how “carbon dating” works.) Furthermore, there is a natural isotopic abundance of C-13, about 1% of naturally-occurring carbon is this. But the ratios aren’t exactly the same everywhere, and it’s entirely possible that C-13 is more abundant in human bodies than it is in oil. It wouldn’t have to be much more to be detectably more.
43 posted on
12/15/2010 7:25:14 PM PST by
coloradan
(The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
To: tubebender
My only experience with chemistry came in the spiffy little kit I got one Christmas many many years ago but this statement jumped out at me... the atomic weight of carbon in natural human testosterone is higher than that in pharmaceutical testosterone. One wonders what chemical processes can bring that about (although I for one don't wonder too awfully hard).
82 posted on
12/15/2010 9:07:24 PM PST by
Erasmus
(Personal goal: Have a bigger carbon footprint than Tony Robbins.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson