Week Three: Molecular Structure and Bonding

The Nickel from Outerspace!



1. Transitional Metal of the Week: Nickel!

Nickel comes from the mineral pentlandite. Most nickel is mined in Ontario, Canada. Many believe the large deposit is from an ancient meteor. Our 5-cent coin, the nickel, contains only about 25% nickel. Nickel is silvery white and can be polished to quite a shine. It is hard, malleable, ductile, and fair conductor of electricity. Its symbol is Ni, and the atomic number is 28. Its atomic weight is 60. It resists corrosion (and therefore things are often “nickel plated”), but is soluble in acids.

Most of the other nickel on earth is locked in its molten core, which is 10% nickel. Nickel can be found in vegetables that come from polluted soil. Chocolate and fats contain a relatively high amount of nickel. Smokers have higher amounts of nickel in their lungs. It is essential to health in small quantities, but in large quantities it can result in lung problems (like asthma and bronchitis), heart disorders, birth defects, and allergic reactions (mainly skin rashes from jewelry made of nickel).

The word comes from the German word kupfernickel which some say means false copper and others say it means “Old Nick” which is a name for the devil. Besides nickels, it is also used in nickel-cadmium batteries and is electroplated onto other metals to form a protective covering.

2. Link Review:

I looked at the Water Concepts link. I was listening to some music as I watched the animation of water's hydrogen bonds breaking and reforming. It looked like the molecules were dancing. I was hoping to truly understand why water is so unusual--why it floats as a solid and has such a high boiling point. The answers were there, I'm sure, I'm just not such a fluent chemist yet. Soon, soon...hopefully I can return to this link at a date not too far in the future and will be able to read and understand it with ease. What I did get was that hydrogen bonds are not as strong as covalent bonds, therefore they are breaking and re-forming, hence the dance.

Week Two: Periodic Tables and Atomic Structures

1. Element(s) of the Week

I picked two elements because they are the only liquids at room temperature on the chart: Mercury and Bromine. This intrigued me. One is a metal, one is not. They are relatively far apart on the periodic table. And why are only two elements liquid? I discovered there are other metals some also consider liquid at room temperature, even though on the periodic table they are not noted as such: caesium, francium, gallium and rubidium. The reason for this is that only mercury and bromine are liquids "at standard conditions for temperature and pressure."

Bromine: the word comes from the Greek and means "stench of he goats." It's symbol is Br and the atomic number is 35. It is reddish brown. The vapors are corrosive and toxic. It is used as a fire retardant and is used in swimming pools in the way chlorine is--as a "water purifier." Bromine is the only liquid non-metallic element, In nature it is found in compounds in sea water, the Dead Sea, and in natural brines and salt lake evaporates . Bromine in the atmosphere leads to depletion of the "good" ozone layer and so the chemical is being phased out of many products that used to take advantage of its properties.

Mercury: Mercury's symbol is Hg and it's atomic number is 80. It is toxic and is shiny and silvery. The symbol Hg comes from the Latinized Greek word hydrargyrum meaning "watery" or "liquid silver." The element is named for the Roman God Mercury, who was known for his speed. It is used, as you probably know, in thermometers and other scientific instruments. Mercury is rare, but when it is found, it is found in high concentrations. Mercury is mostly gotten by reduction from the mineral cinnabar, which resembles quartz and is found, among other places, in California's hot springs. I went to Orr Hot Springs where mercury used to be mined. Some people are concerned about mercury being in the water there. Now I understand why. Cinnabar used to be used in Mayan burial sites because of its known toxicity (to scare away grave robbers). Many ancient cultures used mercury as make up and in concoctions intended to give eternal life; neither of these uses worked out very well.

Cinnabar:


Lots of things are named after Mercury -- from planets to newspapers to cars -- and very few after Bromine (or perhaps none -- there are no cars called Bromine). I guess it is more desirable to be quick and shiny than it is to be brown and stinky. If you want to insult someone in a chemistry nerd sort of way you could say, "Whatever, Bromine!"

Bromine:



2. Ozone discussions

I asked four people about ozone. My husband, a college educated person who loved chemistry in school, tentatively told me the following (he wasn't trusting his memory, though he was mostly correct):

It is three oxygen molecules; it is negatively charged; it is a filter/barrier to radiation/energy from space; it is biologically toxic; it is a pollutant that comes from cars?; there is good and bad ozone; it is lighter than a lot of atmospheric gases; CFCs react with ozone and turn it into something else which creates no ozone in the atmosphere; if we stopped polluting the atmosphere it would come back; we should ban the chemicals that pollute the atmosphere and put a cap on the human population and limit consumption of natural resources.

I also asked three teenaged boys what they knew about ozone. They said, "You mean the head shop in Alameda? I hate that place!" And they went on to discuss the head shop's owner in a most disgraceful way. I said, no, that's not what I mean. Oh, they said. Then one of them said something about the stratosphere and the atmosphere. Then another found a hula hoop in the yard and proceeded to show everyone how talented of a hula hooper he was.

3. Review of links

I might sound like a wimp or a dummy, but I don't think I have the mind of a chemist...yet? The simple information in the links I understand, but then begin to glaze over. Here's what I get:

Protons and neutrons exist within the nucleus of an atom. Electrons swarm about in a cloud outside of the nucleus. The atom has no electrical charge because the protons (which are positive) and electrons (which are negative) cancel each other out (atoms share the same number of protons and electrons). The atomic number will tell you the number of protons (and therefore also the number of electrons, since atoms contain the same amount of protons and electrons), and the atomic mass will tell you the number of neutrons (take the atomic mass and subtract the number of protons and it gives you the number of neutrons). Atoms have a structure. The electons build themselves up in "fields" (my term, I think) around the nucleus. Two electrons can be in the first field, eight in the second, and I think eight in the third. The fields -- oh, yes, they are called oribitals-- are organized as shapes. The first orbital is spherical. The second oribital is spherical. Then they become kind of complicated -- p's and d's and such. I'm a little lost there.

Elements are matter that cannot be paired down any further. One atom of an element can pair with another atom of a different element to make a molecule that is a compound. These compounds can be separated chemically, but not physically -- like water. Sometimes elements combine to make a mixture -- the elements do not actually attach themselves to each other. Mixtures can be separated physically. I'm guessing that in order to form compounds you probably have to add heat. Except in the case of that horrible thing I have heard is happening with regularity in Japan where kids are mixing bleach and ammonia (I think) and creating a deadly gas. Bleach and ammonia I am guessing are rather unstable and will happily intermingle to form a deadly gas compound without adding heat.

The information in the links on bonds kind of made me, well did make me, shut down. I want to wait to hear this information explained to me in class hopefully so that I can approach it with a little prior knowledge. I'm sure I had this in high school, but the information made a mixture in my brain that was easily separated out, instead of a compound that stuck.

Week One: The Cultural Influence of Chemistry

1. Results from the quiz...

Taking the quiz refreshed the ideas of the difference between chemical and physical changes. One point that kind of makes me scratch my head is that if you add heat to water a physical change takes place, but if you add heat (fire) to wood, a chemical change takes place. Why is that? Is it because water is a "pure" substance and wood is not?

The other question I had is why would black coffee become non-homogenous if stirred?

And finally, I want to bring up my thought that the scientific method needs an extra step that places ethics in the mix. I think before a scientific experiment is conducted, and once a "result" is "confirmed" scientists should be required to document in a formalized way what good they hope to achieve through their experiments and conclusions, and what possible harm might come from those experiments and conclusions (and resulting inventions). Possible harm might involve laboratory animals, humans, the environment, etc. The first step would be to document, the second to make an informed decision about whether or not to proceed with the experiment, and maybe, just maybe, it might give everyone pause before they decide what to do with a discovery or an invention. I think we need to be more careful and take more responsibility for our science. We need conscience to begin to outweigh greed.

2. Should there be more effective control of the pharmaceutical industry?



One of the articles in our week one packet documented the troubling statistic that between 1997 and 2005 "the amount of five major painkillers sold at retail establishments rose 90 percent." It listed reasons for this dramatic increase such as the aging of the population (does getting old really hurt that badly? and if so, why? isn't there a "better" way to prevent pain?) and unprecedented marketing campaigns.

I remember a time when there were no ads for prescription drugs. Currently, only the United States and New Zealand allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication. This practice was deemed acceptable in the US in 1997 by the FDA -- the same year that marketing budgets rose sharply. The drug companies call this marketing "educational." It is not educational -- watch any of those ads and it is clear they are trying to sell us something and not educate. The unbelievable list of side effects that is read at lightening speed at the end of such commercials doesn't really do much to offset the image of that happy older couple who now are thankfully able to copulate like teenagers thanks to viagra or some other happy-making miracle drug. The message in all the commercials is that drugs make you happier! What would those commercials look like if they showed images of the real patients taking those drugs?

The website netwellness.org, whose content is created jointly by three Ohio universities, states that every dollar the pharmaceutical industry spent on advertising in 2000 resulted in an additional $4.20 in drug sales. People seeking treatment are being pushed into drug use from all sides -- they get the idea from deceptive TV ads and go to their doctor who has been wined and dined by a "detailer."

The impacts of rampant over-prescription of medication are numerous and unfortunate, meanwhile there are a few people getting very wealthy off of making people sick. How ironic that in an attempt to be healed many people are being made sicker.

I have to mention one other side effect of all of these drugs being ingested -- pharmaceuticals are now a new class of water pollutant. In March 2008 it was reported by the Associated Press that "a vast array of pharmaceuticals - including antibiotics, anti-convulsants, mood stabilizers and sex hormones - have been found in the drinking water supplies of at least 41 million Americans."

I don't think the pharmaceutical companies, whose profit margins are four to five times above that of any other industry, are going to change their ways by themselves. So, yes, I do believe that there should be more effective control of the pharmaceutical industry.

The drinking water report: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/10/health/main3920454.shtml

Amy Goodman reporting on pharmaceuticals in the water: