DNA EVIDENCE

[A2L5C19F]

How LONG will bleach take to destroy DNA evidence, is it like in minutes, seconds or hours? Will hydrogen peroxide do a better job and if so how long would that take. I asked this before and referred to methylated spirit, I have recently found that alcohol DOES NOT kill DNA infact it's used to retrieve it.

[Mudokon Farmer]

PEROXIDE MOTHERFUCKER

...and you shouldn'tve left DNA behind in the first place if you didn't want someone to find it.

[Misguided Russian]

Police find semen sample on rusty murder weapon.

[The Cheshire Cat]

Fucking...

Bleach kills DNA instantly and also covers up blood stains as it reacts with the Luminol the same way it does with the iron in your blood. Luminol is usualy used to find such things as blood in a crime scene. Though, if you plan on doing this, you should bleach EVERYWHERE and not just in one certain spot. Make sure you use actual bleach though. Or, if you really want to throw them off you could shit everywhere as Luminol reacts the same with fecal matter as it does with blood.

[underOATH]

Originally Posted by Mudokon Farmer

...and you shouldn'tve left DNA behind in the first place if you didn't want someone to find it.

This to this guy, he's a forensic scientist and international spy

[brutus]

Real life isn't CSI.

[sledgehammer]

Originally Posted by The Cheshire Cat

Fucking...

Bleach kills DNA instantly and also covers up blood stains as it reacts with the Luminol the same way it does with the iron in your blood. Luminol is usualy used to find such things as blood in a crime scene. Though, if you plan on doing this, you should bleach EVERYWHERE and not just in one certain spot. Make sure you use actual bleach though. Or, if you really want to throw them off you could shit everywhere as Luminol reacts the same with fecal matter as it does with blood.

"Mature human red blood cells do not have nucleii, and therefore no DNA. From a bloodsplatter, the amount of available DNA would be locked up in phages and tissues that got torn loose.
While complete and utter destruction of DNA would be rather difficult to perform (especially in a shootout), you could use a PCR inhibitor, (though I'm uncertain of using straight ammonia, NH3). BY inhibiting PCR, you could make it extremely difficult to replicate DNA.
PCR stand for polyermerase chain reaction, which basiacally amplifies DNA, or replicates it a gazillion times.
I run lots of PCRs, and one of the chemicals we use as an inhibitor is BSA, or benzyl sulfonamide. BSA contains an ammonia group in it, and too much BSA will prevent the PCR.

So it is entirely plausible that NH3 would goof up a CSI's attempted PCR, especially if the NH3 concentration was high enough.
There are methods that you can use though to extract DNA, or remove PCR inhibitors, so by using ammonia you would only slow down the cops' investigation.

Despite what Nasor says, DNA is a surprisingly robust chemical. If you were to damage the DNA, which would be easy, you could prevent entire genomic sequencing. However, the type of genetic analysis that CSI does is on very small, well known regions of DNA, so partially fragmented DNA may not be a problem.

Sodium hydroxide would screw over CSI's efforts. "

from http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=45471.

"In summary, they found that treatment with 2.5% v/v clorox caused extensive
nicking of DNA.10% Clorox was found to prevent PCR amplification of a 600-bp
segment within one minute of template treatment. And 2N HCl did not destroy
DNA detectable by PCR even after a five minute exposure."
from http://www.bio.net/bionet/hypermail/...ne/067669.html

So it seems bleach and the like might not totally destroy DNA, but rather, mess with the inhibitor used to run the PCR, thus rendering the results obsolete. However if an inhibitor was used that is not effected by bleach, then the DNA would not be "destroyed".

[A2L5C19F]

But come on bleach would damage it to the point were if DNA is the only thing they have it would be inconclusive.

[DemonEyes]

People real life is not CSI. Or the movies and in TV shows.

Let's live in the real world.

Human mature red blood cells do not have nucleii there for dose not contain DNA. ================================================== ==================
Reticulocytes (immature red blood cells) contain DNA which programs the cell
to make hemoglobin (the oxygen carrying protein). When the reticulocye matures,
its DNA is degraded but the hemoglobin lasts for about 90 days.

DemonEyes Phd
================================================== ==================
Red blood cells come from cells in the bone marrow. While the cells are still
in the bone marrow they do have a nucleus. The DNA "tells them what to do".
It isn't until just before they are released into the general circulation that
they lose the nucleus. So, they can't divide. Each red blood cell has a lifespan
of about 3 months. They are removed by the liver and replaced by cells coming from
the bone marrow again.

DemonEyes Phd
================================================== ==================


These fluids do contain DNA
Semen (DNA)
• Vaginal secretion (DNA)
• Urine (DNA if it contains blood or other body fluid)
• Sweat (DNA)
• Saliva (DNA)
and hair (DNA)
Bone marrow has (DNA)

Read this.
http://www.labino.com/pdf/Crime%20-%...y%20fluids.pdf http://www.orchidcellmark.com/forens...rensicfaq.html



Bleach will not cover up Blood totally. There will always be traces in the surrounding area. somewhere.Unless you remove every surface area at the crime scene.. Unless you're NSA or CIA.

Luminol
http://science.howstuffworks.com/luminol.htm

Very small amounts of DNA are required now for extraction, with PCR (polymerase chain reaction), small volumes can be amplified to a sensible concentration for lab work.

Bleach spray on DNA ,is not going to destrory it. Acid can't destory DNA.

Now Clorox was found to prevent PCR amplification in lab testing. But dose not destroy the DNA.

I would think fire would do a good job. DNA is more delicate than a lot of compounds in our body (although it does a good job of looking after itself while we're still alive and when were dead, and can put up with quite a lot in the lab), and would be no match for (extreme heat) like in cremation which is enough to reduce even our flesh and bones to ash. The first things to go would be the hydrogen bonds holding the double helix together and then the covalent bones would also be broken and a mess of atoms and smaller compounds will be released.

DNA is destroyed by high temperature.
No, the ash from a properly conducted cremation will not contain any DNA. It can't. The heat of cremation is far too high to permit any living material that is exposed to it to survive. When remains are fully cremated, only the ash is left. This may not be entirely true of a body burned on a pyre, unless sufficient fuel is added to permit the long bones and joints to be completely burned, though not necessarily to ash.

The problem with incomplete cremation can be looked at like a problem in sterilization, a process wherein germs and such are killed on things like band-aids, surgical instruments, etc. Heating the materials to boiling plus a bit more and holding them there for a short period allows the heat to dissociate proteins, and that's what kills "bugs" during sterilization.


And Cremation is not a cure all.

http://www.cressfuneralservice.com/know/faq-cremation/

http://www.exploredna.co.uk/dna-test-after-death.html

[Bakayar]

As has been stated already DNA is rather inert, but there are ways to get around any investigation.

Firstly I would like to address a brute force method of corrupting DNA which is to shine uvb light onto it. The uvb causes a photoelectric effect on the hydrogen bonds that hold the "rungs" of the DNA together, and once broken the DNA can reform in messy ways effectively obstructing identification. However this method isn't a sure fire way of hiding evidence as one cannot know it the areas of DNA checked by police will be corrupted.

The and most effective way to render a genetic investigation redundant is to wash down the area containing DNA with liquid phenol. Phenol causes oxidation of guanine during replication, and since police try to replicate DNA as much as possible to get a useful result one can see how phenol contamination will harm the investigation. Even if phenol doesn't corrupte the DNA its presence can render the evidence as void in court.

[Slave of the Beast]

Originally Posted by DemonEyes

People real life is not CSI. Or the movies and in TV shows.

Let's live in the real world.

Human mature red blood cells do not have nucleii there for dose not contain DNA. ================================================== ==================
Reticulocytes (immature red blood cells) contain DNA which programs the cell
to make hemoglobin (the oxygen carrying protein). When the reticulocye matures,
its DNA is degraded but the hemoglobin lasts for about 90 days.

DemonEyes Phd
================================================== ==================
Red blood cells come from cells in the bone marrow. While the cells are still
in the bone marrow they do have a nucleus. The DNA "tells them what to do".
It isn't until just before they are released into the general circulation that
they lose the nucleus. So, they can't divide. Each red blood cell has a lifespan
of about 3 months. They are removed by the liver and replaced by cells coming from
the bone marrow again.

DemonEyes Phd
================================================== ==================


These fluids do contain DNA
Semen (DNA)
• Vaginal secretion (DNA)
• Urine (DNA if it contains blood or other body fluid)
• Sweat (DNA)
• Saliva (DNA)
and hair (DNA)
Bone marrow has (DNA)

Blood isn't just comprised of red blood cells, blood also contains leukocytes (nucleated white blood cells) and is therefore a good source of DNA as you contradictorily point out.

Sounds like some people are nitpicking for the sake of trying to sound clever.

[DemonEyes]

Originally Posted by Slave of the Beast

Blood isn't just comprised of red blood cells, blood also contains leukocytes (nucleated white blood cells) and is therefore a good source of DNA as you contradictorily point out.

Sounds like some people are nitpicking for the sake of trying to sound clever.

My Ph.d speaks for its self.

I didn't think this was going to be Biology class 101.

Aren't you? Now nitpicking for the sake of trying to be clever.

And yes white blood cells do have a good soure of DNA? Which you pointed out. So well!

The main topic was? That red blood cells (erythrocytes) dose not have a nucleii.Which it dosen't. And yes all parts of the blood consists of Red Blood cells, white blood cells and platelets,and don't forgot plasma (Which all is produced in the marrow).The yellowish liquid that carries hormones, proteins throughout the body. Plasma is mostly water, which is absorbed from the intestines from what you drink and eat, with the liver supplying important proteins. If you want to nitpick. Leukocytes just another word for white blood cells...Separating white cells from red cells is an expensive way to test for DNA.

Its been a pleasure meeting you. Mr Mod?

[The Explanation]

Originally Posted by DemonEyes

My Ph.d speaks for its self.

I didn't think this was going to be Biology class 101.

Aren't you? Now nitpicking for the sake of trying to be clever.

And yes white blood cells do have a good soure of DNA? Which you pointed out. So well!

The main topic was? That red blood cells (erythrocytes) dose not have a nucleii.Which it dosen't. And yes all parts of the blood consists of Red Blood cells, white blood cells and platelets,and don't forgot plasma (Which all is produced in the marrow).The yellowish liquid that carries hormones, proteins throughout the body. Plasma is mostly water, which is absorbed from the intestines from what you drink and eat, with the liver supplying important proteins. If you want to nitpick. Leukocytes just another word for white blood cells...Separating white cells from red cells is an expensive way to test for DNA.

Its been a pleasure meeting you. Mr Mod?

One would expect a person with a Ph.D. to have a decent command of the English language...

[Slave of the Beast]

Originally Posted by DemonEyes

My Ph.d speaks for its self.

I didn't think this was going to be Biology class 101.

Aren't you? Now nitpicking for the sake of trying to be clever.

And yes white blood cells do have a good soure of DNA? Which you pointed out. So well!

The main topic was? That red blood cells (erythrocytes) dose not have a nucleii.Which it dosen't. And yes all parts of the blood consists of Red Blood cells, white blood cells and platelets,and don't forgot plasma (Which all is produced in the marrow).The yellowish liquid that carries hormones, proteins throughout the body. Plasma is mostly water, which is absorbed from the intestines from what you drink and eat, with the liver supplying important proteins. If you want to nitpick. Leukocytes just another word for white blood cells...Separating white cells from red cells is an expensive way to test for DNA.

Its been a pleasure meeting you. Mr Mod?

Would someone only bleed mature red blood cells at a crime scene Mr Dyslexic e-PhD?

No, I don't think so, thus your main topic is fucking stupid.

[spiralds123]

Originally Posted by Slave of the Beast

Would someone only bleed mature red blood cells at a crime scene Mr Dyslexic e-PhD?

No, I don't think so, thus your main topic is fucking stupid.

The point your presented is correct, and so is the one presented by DemonEyes. Both of you are correct in saying that, yes it would contain DNA in those circumstances, and yes those circumstances are not very likely.

There is a chance of it happening, so it is important to add all possible information so that there are no chances of failure, although the way he presented it may have been a little bit of show-boating it was still valid information.

You're both right, so stop arguing so I don't have to feel like a mod.

[Slave of the Beast]

Heh, fair enough.

[DemonEyes]

Originally Posted by Slave of the Beast

Would someone only bleed mature red blood cells at a crime scene Mr Dyslexic e-PhD?

No, I don't think so, thus your main topic is fucking stupid.

Originally Posted by Slave of the Beast

Would someone only bleed mature red blood cells at a crime scene Mr Dyslexic e-PhD?

No, I don't think so, thus your main topic is fucking stupid.

Yes! I do know So. And No. I did not say you will bleed mature just red blood cells? You did!

I said red blood cells as they grow and muture the nucleii will degrade in appox 90 days. When the nucleii is in the marrow its still immature and still growing. When its in the vausalar system they wiil die off and filters through the liver.Your red Blood cells are always reproduce new cells.

You really need to learn the basics of Biology before you can "Ouote" on a topic you absolutely know nothing about. And disecting someone elses words is not going to make you look clever.

Not my thead or my topic. You're veryWho's the OP is.

The only thing thats stupid are your remarks and your profanity.But i can see why this is> ?


So what, if anything is wrong with some meanless occasional ues of vulgar
language?
Well!, for starters people who curse are often considered less intelligent and less credible than those who don't. Further Swearing lacks any verbal intelligence and a intellectual mind with lack of a verbal credible reponse,Also it.
.Reduces the repect people have of you
.Show you don't have any control.
.Set a bad example
Has lost its effectiveness
.Lacks imagination, with content
.Contrbutes to the deline of civility
.Represents the dumbing down of america
.Offend most people than you think But not most?
Is abrasive, lazy verbal language
.made you sound repulsive

You probably swear because it is easy,fun,candid, emphatic,expressive,breaks all rules and some how reduces your anger and your pain.
but the negatives outweigh the positives. You really don't and can't win an argument by swearing this makes you look like an adolesent makes you verbrate like a total idiot it dosen't prove you are clever,smart or articulated to know what you are talking about. You don't motivate and will never earn repect or admiration and adminatrate in your position in anyway on this forum.Mr Mod? Thinkging anything diffenetly is beyond being pathetic.

[spiralds123]

Originally Posted by DemonEyes

Yes! I do know So. And No. I did not say you will bleed mature just red blood cells? You did!

I said red blood cells as they grow and muture the nucleii will degrade in appox 90 days. When the nucleii is in the marrow its still immature and still growing. When its in the vausalar system they wiil die off and filters through the liver.Your red Blood cells are always reproduce new cells.

You really need to learn the basics of Biology before you can "Ouote" on a topic you absolutely know nothing about. And disecting someone elses words is not going to make you look clever.

Not my thead or my topic. You're veryWho's the OP is.

The only thing thats stupid are your remarks and your profanity.But i can see why this is> ?


So what, if anything is wrong with some meanless occasional ues aof vulgar
language?
Well!, for starters people who curse are often considered less intelligent and less credible than those who don't. Further Swearing lacks any verbal intelligence and a intellectual mind with lack of a verbal credible reponse,Also it.
.Reduces the repect people have of you
.Show you don't have any control.
.Set a bad example
Has lost its effectiveness
.Lacks imagination, with content
.Contrbutes to the deline of civility
.Represents the dumbing down of america
.Offend most people than you think But not most?
Is abrasive, lazy verbal language
.made you sound repulsive

You probably swear because it is easy,fun,candid, emphatic,expressive,breaks all rules and some how reduces your anger and your pain.
but the negatives outweigh the positives. You really don't and can't win an argument by swearing this makes you look like an adolesent makes you verbrate like a total idiot it dosen't prove you are clever,smart or articulated to know what you are talking about. You don't motivate and will never earn repect or admiration and adminatrate in your position in anyway on this forum.Mr Mod? thing anyon thinks diffenetly is beyond being pathetic.

The argument was over. You re-hashed this and showed a new level of immaturity that is not needed on Zoklet. Please next time just let it die, and if that is not enough then send a PM. We don't need to see arguments between two people that is an exchange of third grader insults.

[DemonEyes]

Originally Posted by spiralds123

The argument was over. You re-hashed this and showed a new level of immaturity that is not needed on Zoklet. Please next time just let it die, and if that is not enough then send a PM. We don't need to see arguments between two people that is an exchange of third grader insults.

I just notice the posters reply, Did not see your's.

I see your point absolutely. No re-hashing By me. No intention to start any thing. Never was any level of immaturity on my part.As you so grader. Just making a mature statement that needs to be recognize on this forum for what its worth. Do to the vulgar profanity directed my way form poster.Which is not needed on Zoklet. Monitor that why don't you.

[Earthbound01]

Lye is what you need. Or fire.

[GreatToKnow]

Originally Posted by A2L5C19F

How LONG will bleach take to destroy DNA evidence, is it like in minutes, seconds or hours? Will hydrogen peroxide do a better job and if so how long would that take. I asked this before and referred to methylated spirit, I have recently found that alcohol DOES NOT kill DNA infact it's used to retrieve it.

paint stripper "works wonders"

[A2L5C19F]

No way why does it work?

[GreatToKnow]

Originally Posted by A2L5C19F

No way why does it work?

Think about it what happens to the paint when you apply it? it eats way/dissolves it just like it would harm your skin if you had it on there long enough.

Think of what it does to dna? it has Sodium xylene sulfonate which is acidic and eats away at the dna.

Just put it this way if you breathe to much of this shit in ,it will do your lungs in and if you ingested it well lets say you would need to get the medical room and fast because it would burn you from the inside out

Its nasty stuff but good for removing dna. That is what my friend had to use when to remove the dna from a knife he used to take out his foe's dog