On 07/03/2008, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
geni wrote:
On 07/03/2008, Kurt Maxwell Weber
<kmw(a)armory.com> wrote:
> *"31 million CAS registry numbers have been
allocated for chemical
> compounds."
We could do with some lists, but an article on every compound is
probably too much, when so little can be said for so many of them.
No, it's not. If it exists, it's a legitimate subject for an article.
How much do you know about modern organic synthesis?
A person interested in astronomy would probably have limited knowledge
about organic synthesis. He would go ahead with adding stellar objects
without spending much time on organic chemicals. He is able to admit
that he knows nothing about organic chemicals, trusts that others are
better versed in that subject, and lets them work in their own chosen
field. He does not limit his world view to what he can see from his
closed box.
He peers out of his telescope and sees stellar objects named organic
chemistry, pottery shards, and pop culture and does not pretend that he
can reach out and affect the motion of those stellar objects.
Ec
The problem is that due to modern organic techniques it is quite
possible to create very large numbers of chemicals in a very short
length of time. This is generaly used in combination with very narrow
screening so unless you think "Chemical X does not inhibit cell
function y" is a valid article you can't write articles on every
single chemical. What you instead do is white about chemical families.
You start with say bycyclo[2,2,2]octane then you have an article about
the bycyclo[2,2,2]octane derivatives that contain biphenyls and then
if there is enough info derivative of those. What you don't attempt is
to write an separate article for every single chemical.
--
geni