Or maybe to give a better and more accurate view on round-up toxicity, this summary from a scientific journal article prepared by The Department of Pathology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, New York, link to full article follows:

Results from several investigations establish that
the acute toxicity and irritation potential of Roundup
herbicide in humans is low. Specifically, results from
controlled studies with Roundup showed that skin irritation
was similar to that of a baby shampoo and
lower than that observed with a dishwashing detergent
and an all-purpose cleaner; no dermal sensitization,
photoirritation, or photosensitization reactions were
148 WILLIAMS, KROES, AND MUNRO
observed. Furthermore, the incidence of occupationalrelated
cases involving Roundup is low given the widespread
use of the product. Data from these cases indicated
some potential for eye and skin irritation with
the concentrated product, but exposure to dilute spray
solutions rarely resulted in any significant adverse
effect. Most importantly, no lasting dermal or ocular
effects were noted, and significant systemic effects attributable
to contact with Roundup did not occur. Studies
of Roundup ingestion showed that death and other
serious effects occurred only when large amounts were
intentionally ingested for the purpose of committing
suicide. These data confirmed that the acute oral toxicity
in humans is low and consistent with that predicted
by the results of laboratory studies in animals.


http://www.ask-force.org/web/HerbizideTol/Williams-Safety-Evaluation-Risk-Assessment-RR-2000.pdf

Dat's dem a dem seed distribution, mon!

OK.

I gotta see a viddy of this cattail splooge goin' off onna dermal surface!!

>> ^Mcboinkens:

He proposed a problem, but no solution. So he gets nothing. Stopping dispersants will keep the oil on the surface, and then it will just screw up the coastline. Dispersants will keep the coastline slightly more clear, but may harm creatures that live under the slick because it will create a column of oilwater.
Anyone could say dispersants are dangerous. This guy had nothing interesting to say except that one heartbeat a minute still gives an all clear rating by the EPA, and even that could just be big talk. He said he worked on those type of tests and has seen it before. Well, way to speak up before the spill. What other chemicals have been given an all clear when they are really toxic?



While it is always easier to poke holes in the boat rather than make it float, it still is valid concern. Moreover, what if breaking up the oil saves the beaches and kills the entire ocean for the next 200 years instead? These are questions you want the answers to before you start dumping millions of tons of chemical solvents in the ocean. Let it be known that all forms of corexit are not non-toxic. 2-Butoxyethanol, a main component of corexit is known to cause tumors in air breathing mamals after exposure. Heavy exposure via respiratory, dermal or oral routes can lead to hypotension, metabolic acidosis, hemolysis, pulmonary edema and coma. The cure in this case might be worse than the sickness. We might toxify (which isn't a word sadly even though detoxify is) the oceans to the point of causing a breakdown in the phytoplankton's ability to ability to survive in coastal waters for some generations.

The point is we don't know, the studies on corexit are limited, even by the EPAs own admission. This could be the equivalent of dumping cyanide in the base of the food chain for most life on the planet.

This video is unfortunately dead now but there is a copy of it on YouTube. There's big news about the drug melanotan-1 featured in this video.

melanotan-1 (afamelanotide / Scenesse) has gotten approval in Italy as a dermal photoprotective melanin pigmentation inducing drug for those who suffer the painful photosensitivity stemming from the orphan disease erythropoietic protoporphyria. With the drug these folks are able to go out into light more and live more ordinary lives.

Here is the news.

more info: melanotan-1 Scenesse

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Implanon - little sub-dermal tube, lasts for 3 years.

>> ^swampgirl:
Typical teen. No vocabulary, but she gets it. She knew better, but could't wait. Typical kid.
I'm ordering the chastity belt now for mine.

Yeah, it's true the tattoos don't exist yet, sub-dermal displays are getting closer and closer to reality, and the marketing comes with the science. And phillips seems like an obvious big company to push this, and I don't mind at all that they make some slick videos while they investigate the existence of a market for such. Is there a market? I say, hell yes. I want to see the world of Jared Diamond before I die.

I put a question mark at the end of the title as a nod to the speculative nature of the technology.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Hmm, so the spirit I'm hearing from a lot of you is - "how dare these beautiful people complain about anything?" I would say that you suffer from a severe case of "unable to walk a mile in another's moccasins".

When I see a beautiful woman, I like to imagine taking the epidermis off of her, so she's a walking pile of pink sinew and glistening muscle tissue. This helps me get a grip on my own "dermal-level" response to human sexual attraction. Beauty really is skin-deep, but the behavior that is caused by it can probably be a pain in the ass.

We know what turns us on as humans- symmetrical faces, large pupils, white sclera etc. Not to mention all of the secondary sexual stuff that works on another level. large, full lips are just body self-mimicry for a different set of lips ...

As self-aware beings, we need to keep in-check our animal nature and keep a look out for real beauty.

Kind of off-topic, but there's one other bit of body self-mimicry that I read about in The Naked Ape:
So, most primates do it doggie style- and large inflamed buttocks were the indicator that the female was in estrus. When humans started doing it missionary style - that big buttocks sexual indicator was replaced with something on the front of the body. Yep - big boobies. That's why we men are attracted to them - and why they are often large, even though they don't functionally need to be big to deliver milk.

So fellows, just think about engorged monkey arses, the next time you see a good set.