I had an impoverished childhood and resultant formation, and tried to 'catch up' in '86 when I decided to do three science 'A' levels.
At that time the term shells was used.
Mulling over this as I went to sleep, it seems that it should have been 1s2, 2s2, 2p6, 3s2, 3d10, and the numbers 2, 8, and 18, and maybe 32, come to mind as the completely filled shells.
I do have a nagging feeling that oxygen can exist as a free radical, by having gained an extra electron due to its electronegativity, and hnce it would be unbalanced proton/electron wise.
At that time the term shells was used.
Mulling over this as I went to sleep, it seems that it should have been 1s2, 2s2, 2p6, 3s2, 3d10, and the numbers 2, 8, and 18, and maybe 32, come to mind as the completely filled shells.
I do have a nagging feeling that oxygen can exist as a free radical, by having gained an extra electron due to its electronegativity, and hnce it would be unbalanced proton/electron wise.
Last edited:
Once an oxygen atom grabs that extra electron, it's a negative ion. So the question comes down to this: is a negative ion also called a free radical?
I don't know the answer ("free radical" not being a term I saw in any textbook), but I did a 'Web search for something like "Are free radicals ions", and at least the one reference I posted earlier stated emphatically that free radicals are not ions, but neutral atoms.
I suspect "free radicals" is not really a hard-science term, and as a result, is poorly defined. This is quite common in the soft sciences, some of which are so "soft" that they are barely science at all.
Lots of of diet and nutrition "science" seems to fall into this category, with new research constantly overturning old research, and simultaneous studies constantly contradicting each other's results. But I think you and I agree on all the actual hard scientific facts: One, an oxygen atom itself is inherently neutral; Two, a neutral oxygen atom has a strong affinity for electrons, and will tear two of them off any convenient nearby atom; Three, once it's done this, it is now a negative ion, with only 8 protons, but ten electrons; Four, the extra two electrons can be "time shared", eg. by two oxygen atoms sharing two of their electrons between themselves, forming O2, which is more stable than a single oxygen atom, but is electrically neutral, with 16 total protons and 16 total electrons.
It seems clear that a neutral oxygen atom in the body can cause damage to surrounding molecules by tearing an electron or two off (becoming a negative ion in the process), then spitting those electrons back onto some other molecule later, thus damaging the structure of two molecules. And then it's ready to go on and do the same thing again, endlessly. So is it really no longer a free radical once it's in the ionised state? That seems like an oddly weird requirement to impose; it's a free radical when neutral, but no longer once it's grabbed an electron? Silly, but the little bit of 'Web research I did suggests that this is in fact the case.
In middle-school chemistry class, it fascinated me that chlorine (with 7 outermost electrons) is so ferociously reactive that it is very poisonous and will destroy human tissues exposed to it, but if combined with sodium (also ferociously reactive), the combination was not only stable, but essential for life...good old sodium chloride!
-Gnobuddy
The grabbing producing a -ve ion was my original thinking, in disagreement with tubelab.
From what you are saying it looks like a matter of definition, and probably dependant on the effect that transfer has on behaviour.
The term is in my reference 'A' level book from '86 which depicts reactions.
Yes it is part of 'buzz' nutrition terms ATM.
It's looking like the limits of provable science, for now.
From what you are saying it looks like a matter of definition, and probably dependant on the effect that transfer has on behaviour.
The term is in my reference 'A' level book from '86 which depicts reactions.
Yes it is part of 'buzz' nutrition terms ATM.
It's looking like the limits of provable science, for now.
Due to recent events here at diyAudio we are in the process of closing all threads concerning medical issues and are not permitting new ones. This is due to certain members inability to conform with the rules as put forth by the owner of this private forum.
On behalf of the Moderation team, thank you for your understanding.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.