And here's more info on him. It sounds like he's a really bright individual who society completely failed to position for success.

After dropping out of community college, Hahn joined the Navy, assigned to the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise as an undesignated seaman.

Hahn had hoped to pursue a nuclear specialist career. EPA scientists believe that Hahn may have exceeded the lifetime dosage for thorium exposure, but he refused their recommendation that he be examined at the Enrico Fermi Nuclear Generating Station.

And then a sad bit:
On August 1, 2007, Hahn was arrested in Clinton Township, Michigan for larceny, in relation to a matter involving several smoke detectors, allegedly removed from the halls of his apartment building. His intention was to obtain americium, a radioactive substance, from the detectors. In his mug shot, his face is covered with sores which investigators claim are possibly from exposure to radioactive materials

Finally: fer christ's sake, son! what the hell happened to you!
http://blogs.kansascity.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/08/03/boyscout.jpg

Problem is this...

Every drug, used IN MODERATION so as to not be harmful, is [by definition] harmless.

You can't answer a "more/less harmful" question in absolute terms, because individual usage patterns will determine the specific 'harm/danger' posed by each substance.

There is no "standard dosage and regiment + standard metabolism + standard body weight" that you can use to compare substances.
You can pick such numbers, but you'd be pulling them out of your butt.

It's obvious she's giving the stock answer that aligns with her agency's official stance. But even if she were to give a "scientific" response, it would not be black and white.

The answer would be "it depends".
"How much Heroine? How much Coke? How regularly used? etc".

This isn't TV. Just like IRL car crashes rarely result in explosions, IRL drug use rarely results in tragedy.

The simplest example is prescription pain killers. Literally variations on heroine. People are given them for broken ribs, etc. They take them for a while, and then they're done. No harm done.
They could have taken heroine in stead, in the same effective dosage and frequency, and had literally the same experience.

-scheherazade

Just read through this whole damn thread. And damn was that tiring. It's been a while since I've spoken up about anything on ye olde 'Sift, and now seems like a good time to do so.

Hi there, I'm a Type 1 Diabetic, and completely dependant on a regular dosage of insulin via a pump. I've been Diabetic for the last 15 years (diagnosed at age 15 during March Break of Grade 9). Thirteen years ago I was put on a pump because I was taking 9 shots a day to try and manage my wildly out of control "beetus". I was on a good diet as well, with few heavy carbs, but my body has a hard time maintaining a good balance of insulin sensitivity.

Now, on to the idea that Type 1 Diabetes can be "cured" or "treated" without insulin... Bollocks. Plain and simple.

Almost two years ago I set it upon myself to get fitter and healthier. I have never been overweight, just the less-than-average amount of fat I would say, but I was bored with how things were going and decided to try something new for my fitness routines; I went 100% Paleo.

Yeah, for almost two years I have rarely (and I mean rarely) eaten anything aside from fruits (one serving a day, two if I'm deserving of it) veggies, nuts and protein. Nothing processed, as little preservatives and chemicals as I can manage (I read *a lot* of nutritional labels when shopping for new foods) and I buy most of my meat and veggies from local farms and farmer's markets.

Has this helped my Diabetes? Extremely marginally. My insulin sensitivity has increased by a fraction... But that's it. Has my pancreas started creating its own insulin? Not a chance in hell.

While doing this whole paleo eating lifestyle I've also been doing a lot of intervals and weight training, and I've made some great strides. But back to the original idea of getting back to "natural" ways of living/eating and "curing" my diabetes? Yeah, no dice there, ladies and gentlemen.

I cannot be without my pump hooked up to my body for more than two hours before I would need to be sent to the hospital. Nothing I have done, with all my dedication, determination, and strong will, has made my Diabetes any "better" than it was when I was first diagnosed. If anything, it has taken more of my time and money and energy to get where I am now, with nothing to show for it from my condition's perspective.

If anyone, anyone at all, thinks they can cure Diabetes Mellitus by eating better and taking better care of themselves I'll suggest this: remove your pancreas and see if your body builds you a new one while you're testing out your hypothesis, because in all seriousness and fairness, that's what it's like to be Type 1. My body killed my pancreas making it a useless, lifeless organ. It will *never* awaken again to produce my own insulin without the help of true science and excellent doctors.

So, you know what I've done, and can take it from me that it will not cure you of your Type 1 Diabetes. Now I want you to tell me what I'm not doing to help "cure myself".

I'm an open-minded skeptic.

... But I'm not so open-minded that my brain will fall out.

Yeah. I heard that part.

He makes it seem as if there is something that the medical community could have done to relieve his pain and that the VA docs purposely and sadistically withheld it. I think it was a lack of communication between him and his doctors which is failure enough, but there is probably nothing that could be done to make him pain free. I mean, putting him on strong pain meds will only make him constipated. Chronically, his pain tolerance will reset and he will require higher and higher dosages to obtain relief to the point that it is unsafe to increase the dose because of respiratory depression. I'm not saying his pain isn't real; I'm saying there were no good solutions to solving his problem.

I'm pretty sure dosages measured in milligrams will suffice. Pounds seem a bit excessive. Also, it's easier to be taken seriously if you seem slightly less enthusiastic about drugs. They're fun and all, but once you start talking about "real realities" it's tough not to laugh you off. If there are indeed "real realities" that we are unaware of, the necessary research is probably in physics, not neuroscience or biochemistry or whatever.

We already have some ideas about what happens in your brain during ego-loss that seem to be much less of a stretch than "real realities."

Sorry, but I take the claims here with a huge grain of salt. I'm not saying they're wrong, but I do have questions:

1. Were the tests conducting in vivo or in vitro? It makes a big difference whether you're testing substances in animals or in petri dishes.

2. What dosages are necessary to have the desired effects? If it requires one to eat three raw heads of garlic and five pounds of broccoli a day, then it ain't gonna happen.

3. What effects do the different kinds of cooking have? Boiling? Baking? Frying?

I don't buy the claims here.

I wasn't sure if you were serious or not, but I'll bite -

Everyone was a slacker at some point. When you were a young child you did very little to help the family. When you did start to have responsibility you didn't understand why at first and only did the things because you were told to.
Its a gradual change into a person who understands that certain things have to be taken care of for, your own sake and, the sake of your family. To think someones life is automatically fucked up because they are a slacker is disgenuine.

Are you implying that between say 13-23 you didn't too stupid irresponsible things that would make others worry about you for your own selfish pleasure? I doubt anyone could deny they were more selfish than not during part of their life.

I am not saying drugs are required to make drastic realizations. If your daily routine has little or no changes you will always think in the same basic pattern and it takes some external event to change this. It could be a new job, a new love, a death etc. Taking certain drugs lets you control when these changes in perception occur rather than being a slave to fate.

No where in my original reply did I say anyone (myself or others) had to depend on drugs to make decisions. I stated two basic ideas - drugs can help you to make changes and that everyone should experience them at least once in their life. I also didn't say that the single time the person did them would create some epic change.

Something happened to you that caused a strong sensitivity to what I said. Maybe it was me telling you what to do, maybe someone you knew used drugs and became a loser, maybe my speech pattern reminds you of someone bad. I can't say what it is but if your strong reaction is genuine then I am sorry to dig up such anger.

Not all drugs are created equally. I would like you to view this chart http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Drug_danger_and_dependence.svg Notice that LSD has a lower dependency than pretty much everything, including nicotine and caffeine.
Secondly the average dosage is between 60 and 180 MICROgrams. Do you understand how small that is? It is essentially impossible for it to be adulterated. You could mix it with drain cleaner and and the amount you are ingesting would not cause damage.
The industry accepted lethal dose is 15,000 micrograms, which would be FIFTEEN PAGES of paper you would have to ingest. I don't think you could fit that all in your mouth

I am not convincing you personally to take it but be aware that a significant scientific breakthroughs in business/technology/science have taken place while the person was on some form of drugs. You should also be aware that most artists (both audio and physical) use drugs to create the inspiration for the works you enjoy.
One time I figured out why fire on the head of a match is the shape that it is and how the flame is constructed. Months later I explained how I perceived it to someone qualified and they said even though I lacked the proper technical terms I had gotten it right. I was very happy about that.

Like I said previously, not all drugs are created equally. LSD does not make you feel anything extra, it only enhances what you are already seeing or feeling. It gives you the ability to super focus on details you overlooked previously or zoom out and take a large amount of data in at once then process it.

I think my reply will be lost on you but hopefully someone else is reading this and will gain something from it. If it means anything to you I have taken acid only twice in the last two years.


>> ^schlub:

Since when is not deciding to being a slacker a revelation? Your life/lives must be pretty fucked up if you depend on hallucinogenics to make your life decisions for you. This notion that drugs expand your mind or make you see things more clearly is complete and utter bullshit.
>> ^braschlosan:
Because of LSD my little brother had the revelation to start doing well in his final year of high school and try to make his parents life easier.
Then while in his first year of college he had the revelation about many parts of life and decided to study hard and play hard too. Now he has fun on the weekends and is getting great grades. The combination of the two has given him infinite self esteem.
During the summer break after his first year of college he had another LSD revelation about taking drugs. Now he rarely takes them (in high school he was a big pothead and E-Tard), when he does take them its planned out ahead of time for a special event. He's not even 20 yet and has a "wise" outlook on just about everything.
I have had similar life altering changes because of LSD that I'd rather not share here,
I agree with Enoch.
>> ^enoch:
for those who may be a tad uptight hallucinagenics should be mandatory.
if only once in your lifetime.

It is generally understood that acetaminophen/paracetemol binds and reduces oxidized, 'highly active' COX-2 enzymes... this chills out the COX-2 activity until it is oxidized again and cranks back up. So imagine in this animation acetaminophen kind-of causing that active COX binding site to close up a little for a while, and preventing it from working in that way.

Acetaminophen also doesn't appear to have a lot of anti-inflammatory action near the actual site of inflammation, but rather more globally throughout the body; folks hypothesize a lot about the reason for this, but I like the simple answer that acetaminophen itself can't reduce oxidized COX enzymes in an injured area surrounded by high levels of oxidative species.

(nerd fist-bump)

>> ^MilkmanDan:

>> ^spoco2:
But what about paracetamol? That's different, because you can take the allowed dosage of that and the allowed dosage of ibuprofen at the same time without interaction... but how does it work?

Paracetemol is the major painkiller here in Thailand, which annoys me because I believe that I am essentially immune to it. I took paracetemol (tylenol) often when I was in my pre and early teens for migraines. At some point, I found that it just wouldn't do anything for me anymore. Ibuprofen and Aspirin both work great, so I always use those when I have a choice -- but the default is always Paracetemol here.

>> ^spoco2:

But what about paracetamol? That's different, because you can take the allowed dosage of that and the allowed dosage of ibuprofen at the same time without interaction... but how does it work?


Paracetemol is the major painkiller here in Thailand, which annoys me because I believe that I am essentially immune to it. I took paracetemol (tylenol) often when I was in my pre and early teens for migraines. At some point, I found that it just wouldn't do anything for me anymore. Ibuprofen and Aspirin both work great, so I always use those when I have a choice -- but the default is always Paracetemol here.

But what about paracetamol? That's different, because you can take the allowed dosage of that and the allowed dosage of ibuprofen at the same time without interaction... but how does it work?

Geez, stick to the dosage recommendations. Don't exceed said dosage within the stated time on the packaging, bro.

>> ^BoneRemake:

>> ^Issykitty:
Title should be, "UP FINDS her cough syrup."

Or " UP the dextromethorphan hydrobromide junky "
I got fucked up hardcore once on cough medicine without even wanting too. it sucked. makes your brain feel like its a fuzz ball, like literally have a Popple in your head. Dont know what a popple is ?

I had a turtle that used to do the same thing and nobody believed me. Until one day I was showing a friend and they pointed out that it wasn't a turtle....it was a rock...and it wasn't talking...even a little bit.

Oh well.

Dosage increase for me.

Either I need to up the dosage or I heard the dog say "I don't want to".

>> ^marbles:


First you say there's zero evidence, but now you say it's all about "quantities and timeframes". GOOD POINT! When you administer a substance intravenously, the entire quantity is delivered into the bloodstream instantaneous. So why are comparing it to ingesting where the process is slow and little is even absorbed?


Dosage, whether intravenus or oral, is the important factor, not the delivery method.

Chemotherapy drugs, using cytotoxic chemicals, can easily kill you. People still get treated with them. Digitalis for heart conditions. Ffs, alcohol is toxic in large doses. So is salt, and you can even suffer water poisoning... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication)

And the list of conditions suffered by number of cases? Wow, so compelling... Do you perchance have the population norms to compare against to see if the numbers are higher for those treated with the vaccine? Any other qualifying factors that demonstrate a significant deviation from the norm? Nada.

What you are doing is not scientific, and it's not presenting evidence. You've attempted to handpick the pieces of evidence you think support your position then tack them together in a casual correlation with zero underpinning. Even if you were right (and nothing you've presented actually says you are), your haphazard cherrypicking approach and unsubstantiated conclusions discredit your own position.

Rules for the Zombie Apocalypse.

1 - You are not safe. EVER.

2- Cardio- Be able to run for an extended period of time
.
3- Always carry a minimum of 2 reliable, lethal weapons (I can not stress "ALWAYS" enough)

4- Better safe than stupid (example- use your head; cut off theirs!)

5- Know where you will be sleeping before the sun sets. Be prepared to move out before daybreak.

6- Travel light- No dead weight (this goes for both objects you carry and people you're with. If someone can't pull their own, ditch them)

7- Save one bullet (do I need to elaborate?)

8- Dress smart (Tight-fitting, comfortable clothing, with large, accessible pockets, and preferably velcro-sneakers)

9- Do(n't) be a hero

10- Only pull the trigger if you're ok with every ghoul within hearing-distance knowing exactly where dinner is.

11- Stay nourished and healthy (if you're living off canned food, make sure to take multi-vitamins! And remember, if you get sick, there's no hospital to treat you)(and remember, always use a condom! You really don't want herpes during a zombie apocalypse)

12- Drive safe! (And by that of course I mean drive in a hummer or a large SUV with bars welded to all the windows, and if possible an escape hatch in the roof) Also remember the larger the vehicle the more gas it uses. Try to balance, Protection, range and reliability.

13- If you can avoid it, then do.

14- Never, ever, ever, under any circumstances shall you EVER go anywhere alone (yes, this includes the bathroom)(void if everyone you've ever known/loved is a zombie)

15- Enjoy the little things.

16- Your mind is your most powerful weapon. Think, preferably outside the box (ex- need meds but the hospitals are all filled with Zack? Go to the vet/a pet store!)

17- Leave no doubt- know your way out!

18- Know your environment, use it to your advantage.

19- Tread carefully (watch where you're going and NEVER walk backwards)

20- never give up

21- Calculus (Example- it takes you .75 seconds to hit a zombie in the head with a baseball bat and then prepare to strike again. If a zombie is withing 3 feet of you you can't wind up for a successful kiss-swing. It takes a zombie 3 seconds to walk 2 feet. The situation: you have 5 zombies walking towards you. Before you even prepare your first strike, look at the distance between each of them and determine if it will be possible for one of them to get within 3 feet of you while you dispatch the others. Plan out your kill order and know when you're going to need to back up (but remember rule 19!))

22- Double tap

23. Think outside the box. Example; fleeing survivors have raided the drug stores, hospitals, and doctor's offices and left you behind with no medicine. Solution, go to the pet store. A big chain pet store has everything from vitamins to sedatives (be VERY careful converting dosages).


I know there are more I'm just currently to lazy to find them.