While I don't disagree with Maher's point, I'm getting really sick of people screaming about the ammonia used to treat the pink goo that is turned into chicken nuggets. As I said regarding another video:

"ammonia is a natural chemical that is necessary for human life. The amount of ammonia one would have to ingest to be harmful to a human is huge, and actually ingesting that much would be unthinkable because of the horrendous taste it would impart to the food."


This is like seeing someone sprinkle some sodium-free salt on their food and saying, "OMG that's potassium chloride! That's the lethal chemical in a lethal injection! That's going to kill you!!"

People just don't seem to care that a lot of chemicals that are popularly considered "toxic" are necessary for life or require unfathomably large doses to be harmful.

>> ^jmd:

Frax, youmusta been a peach at school. "ZOMG! YOUR ALL USING STICKS OF DEATH!" "No of course I didn't do my homework... does it look like I wan't lead poisoning?" "Test that require number 2 pencils is the gov trying to kill off the 99%!!"


Please tell me this is a bad attempt at a troll...

re: Frax's comment, oh come off it, the amount of leaching would be minimal, and then people (or animals) would need to ingest a large volume of the sand to get the lead in to them. You'd get more direct exposure handling lead sinkers for fishing lines.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^ghark:
It's not made that clear in the video, but the reason he says that the plate is safe to store and handle, but not eat off is because Uranium 238 is usually an alpha emitter. Alpha radiation doesn't penetrate skin that well, but it is very dangerous when ingested and the soft tissues become exposed to it. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.

Depends on if you believe in radiation hormesis or linear no-threshold model . Most likely the truth is somewhere in-between (which by default makes hormesis "more" accurate). In the end, though, it is always best to avoid ingesting heavy metals, radioactive or not.
Learning lots about radiation as of late. There is a lot of fear factor behind it, even though our daily lives are pretty much consumed with radiation...NEATO! Bones full of radioactive carbon, potassium, you name it, you most likely have lots of radioactive isotopes of it Once again, truth stranger than fiction


I find the argument between those two models quite fascinating, they both make sense TBH. One interesting thing I found out recently was the enormous difference in radiation exposure between regular x-ray's and CT scans when visiting the doctor. It makes sense that CT scans expose you to more radiation because they make multiple passes to get a better image - however the difference astonished me - a regular chest xray would expose you to 0.06 mSv while a helical CT scan of the chest would expose you to 8 mSV - thirten hundred and thirty three times as much radiation (although the effective dose only ends up being about one hundred times as much). As a comparison point, the typical human is exposed to 2-3 mSv per year, so with a helical chest CT you're getting 3 years worth of radiation in a few seconds.

>> ^ghark:

It's not made that clear in the video, but the reason he says that the plate is safe to store and handle, but not eat off is because Uranium 238 is usually an alpha emitter. Alpha radiation doesn't penetrate skin that well, but it is very dangerous when ingested and the soft tissues become exposed to it. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.


Depends on if you believe in radiation hormesis or linear no-threshold model . Most likely the truth is somewhere in-between (which by default makes hormesis "more" accurate). In the end, though, it is always best to avoid ingesting heavy metals, radioactive or not.

Learning lots about radiation as of late. There is a lot of fear factor behind it, even though our daily lives are pretty much consumed with radiation...NEATO! Bones full of radioactive carbon, potassium, you name it, you most likely have lots of radioactive isotopes of it Once again, truth stranger than fiction

It's not made that clear in the video, but the reason he says that the plate is safe to store and handle, but not eat off is because Uranium 238 is usually an alpha emitter. Alpha radiation doesn't penetrate skin that well, but it is very dangerous when ingested and the soft tissues become exposed to it. Please correct me if I'm wrong there.

Really? See its crap like this why I can't buy wind-shield wiper fluid without getting carded >_<. Just make weed legal already so the kids can stop trying to smoke, snort, huff, shoot-up or otherwise ingest industrially created chemicals for a cheap thrill. /oldmanrant

@bcglorf I think you're still not responding to the basic point I'm making. It's not really even about science or climate change, but about game theory, and how to make decisions in the absence of certainty.

I've never ingested cyanide, but every scientist, herbalist, toxicologist, and work of fiction has told me it's lethal. For me, that's good enough. I'm not going to eat it, and I'm perfectly comfortable with the government restricting companies from putting it in my food, my water, or the air.

For you, I'm guessing that instead you'd want to dig into the scientific studies on cyanide's toxicity first. Yes, the scientists themselves say the evidence is overwhelming, but you have doubts. You think they're missing something. After all, every time you go looking for problems, you're able to find some detail that sounds fishy to you.

They could just be overlooking some other potential cause of death that just seemed to be cyanide, because obviously cyanide isn't the only thing that can kill people. Maybe the natural mortality rate back then was that high. Who knows? I mean, there's tons of research into that, but you don't accept that work either. So until someone satisfies you that it definitely, beyond a shadow of a doubt that it wasn't just natural causes, you're going with the assumption it was that, every time, because after all we don't fully understand the human body.

In other words, you dismiss the science. You don't think it's necessarily wrong, but don't think people should give it any weight when making decisions about how we live our lives. So, you start calling out authors for talking about cyanide as if it's a poison; they're just perpetuating an unsubstantiated rumor, you say. You do argue that congress should put restrictions on cyanide being put in our food, our water, and our air -- but later. You accept maybe there's enough to the science to think it might be harmful if people ingest it over a long enough span of time, but you do argue against the people who say it's a poison that needs to be dealt with right away, because you don't think anyone has a right to be so alarmist about it. After all, the science doesn't say it's important, just, you know, the scientists.

Then one day you run out of amaretto creamer for your coffee, and figure maybe cyanide will be a good substitute, since it does smell like almonds...

My guess is that you probably don't actually do that. My guess is that you trust the scientists and just consider cyanide a poison. My guess is you'd want overwhelming proof that cyanide is safe before you would swallow a cyanide pill. I don't think raising a few doubts about the studies would be enough to convince you -- you'd rather be safe than sorry.

Why the double standard with climate change? What's special about this topic that makes your default assumptions go the other way? Are you sure it isn't something completely unrelated to the science?

This doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Firstly, you know when you eat something like that that it isn't going to be the healthiest thing in the world, so you can't complain that it's bad for you.

Secondly, ammonia is a natural chemical that is necessary for human life. The amount of ammonia one would have to ingest to be harmful to a human is huge, and actually ingesting that much would be unthinkable because of the horrendous taste it would impart to the food.

Thirdly, with regards to tendons, blood, eyeballs, etc., the only reason that bothers people is because of social conditioning. Billions of people all over the world would be happy to eat those parts of an animal.

I find it so silly that people will eat something, think it tastes really good, then will stop eating it once they find out what it is. If it tasted good before you knew what it was, it tastes good after and knowing it's testicle, or horse meat, or snails, doesn't change that.

>> ^dannym3141:

>> ^Confucius:
Lol...kinda was but still cool.
Im no poison/snake/giant gecko expert here but ifn that is a long-oh-so-long POISONOUS viper arent both geckos dead? Unless geckos have some kind of immunity, or its some variety on non-poisonous.....In which case shouldnt this be under some sort of romantic gesture channel?
>> ^sillma:
that was really, really, REALLY slow-paced. I slept for an hour after starting the clip and still woke up in time for the first gecko attack.


I agree, but i was confused by the snake because it looked like it was trying to constrict. In which case, it wouldn't be poisonous? I'm no expert, someone help, i want to know if this was epic success or not!


The fact that the snake is holding the gecko in it's coils does not mean it's a constrictor. Most snakes, both venomous and nonvenomous, that consume large prey do this. It keeps the prey from escaping and is necessary so that the snake can position the prey in order to ingest it. Ingesting a prey item bigger than your head is a tricky process, especially if you don't have any hands, and once the process has begun, the snake would become extremely vulnerable.

Many lizards show some resistance to snake venoms. Several skink species, for instance, are highly resistant to elapid (cobras, kraits, adders) venom. Some geckos too show a degree of resistance.

I could be wrong about the following, but the snake in the video does not look like a pit viper to me. The neck is thin, the head shape isn't quite right, and it doesn't appear to strike like a viper. I think it is more likely to be a colubrid, perhaps a golden tree snake (Chrysopelea ornata). If so, that would mean that the snake is rear fanged, the snake would really have to bite down to inject it's relatively weak venom, and the attacking gecko is far less likely to be envenomed during a strike.

It is also probably relevant to point out that the gecko is most likely not trying to 'save his friend', but is instead reacting aggressively to the presence of a predator because of the direct benefits the gecko will receive from his actions (the harassed snake, an ambush predator who has lost the element of surprise, will leave and forage elsewhere).

He's doing it wrong, you take a mouthfull of milk and swish it around your mouth to let the fat in the milk soak up the oil from the chilli which contains the capsaicin (ie. the bit that burns).

Side note, chilli will not do actual dmg on ingestion unless you have bad ulcers which it can exacerbate. The capsaicin seems to only effect mammals who's digestive tract makes chilli seeds non viable when they come out the far end. Birds, who's digestive tracts don't destroy the seeds can happily snack on chilli to their hearts content.

For the Butch T experience (and other chilli fun) I recommend Beaglestorms videos (always entertaining)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPSSoZtBRU0

or look up The Hippy Seed company channel on Youtube. Chilli masochism, just another thing that makes the human race awesome... =)

What vaccines are given through I.V.?

For the non-medical, 'intramuscular injection' is where you just stick it in your arm, while 'subcutaneous' is under the skin; those two or a nasal sprays are the routes I'm familiar with. The choice of route is important (slower release, etc.). Having to give something via I.V. is kinda serious business.
>> ^marbles:

>> ^spoco2:


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?

>> ^marinara:

non-correlation (in that japan study) is not a fact in your favor. We're determining if vaccines are a cause of autism, not if vaccines cause all autism.
delivery methods or "drug absorption" does affect toxicity. There are exceptions to the rule, some drugs are absorbed well through ingestion, but they are the exception.
I guess it's easier to call marbles names than to do real science. I think marbles would be happy for science to speak for itself.


Huh?

As the article I linked to a few comments above stated, the medical community took the claims that autism could be caused by vaccines very seriously... and so many studies have been undertaken, and none of them have found any link.

They might in the future, who knows. The HUGE bloody issue is that all of this was kicked off by one crooked doctor who scammed people into giving him money based on bogus research and a false link between the MMR vaccine and Autism. Suddenly, all these parents who have kids who developed Autism started blaming the vaccines with NO PROOF AT ALL... NONE, other than the two things happened at vaguely the same time... vaguely. And they just DO happen at the same time, so it's not causation.

So all these unknowing parents who are scrambling for someone/thing to blame for their apparently normal child becoming autistic latch onto vaccines. This makes thousands of people become unnecessarily fearful of vaccines and stop immunising their children, based on NO EVIDENCE. This leads to children dying due to the diseases the vaccines were preventing coming back.

So, the Japanese splitting the vaccine into three different ones (which is what the bogus doctor was saying people should do because, surprise, surprise, he had developed vaccines for that and so would profit hugely) has made no impact on the rise of Autism.

Absolutely there should always be people looking into the validity of claims made against medicines.

But if the science is done, done correctly, done multiple times and STILL shows things to be safe then people need to STOP SPOUTING SHIT. People like marbles are harmful individuals for just the reason @ChaosEngine states. There is critical thinking, and judging validity of sources, and not just accepting things with blind faith.

And then there is this insane 'anything to do with anyone other than my fellow conspiracy nuts is all just 'big business' and 'government conspiracy''. All this does is to make people either:

a) Mistrust absolutely everything, no matter how valid, and therefore end up 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' and rejecting all the good things that are done by large business and the government and society at large.

OR

b) Regard every single thing going against authority as a raving loon notion and so just accept EVERYTHING they are told, which is the opposite mindless sheep approach to life.

There is a happy medium where you critically take that things that make sense and are for the betterment of us all, and sometimes reject things which you can see through REASON and logic and critical thinking to be perhaps created with someone elses betterment in mind rather than yours.

non-correlation (in that japan study) is not a fact in your favor. We're determining if vaccines are a cause of autism, not if vaccines cause all autism.

delivery methods or "drug absorption" does affect toxicity. There are exceptions to the rule, some drugs are absorbed well through ingestion, but they are the exception.

I guess it's easier to call marbles names than to do real science. I think marbles would be happy for science to speak for itself.

>> ^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.

Nice job. Marbles reminds me of my Aunt Edna. Paranoid and conspiracy spinner. She gets her facts from out of print copies of Reader's Digest, cobbles them together and scares the shit out of her grand nieces and nephews with stories of government cover-ups leading to death. We don't visit much anymore. The last straw was the "mercury in tooth fillings" debacle. Told us to get all of our teeth pulled or we would die hideous deaths. We reminded her that she had such fillings, and she's 97. She threw pie at us.
>> ^spoco2:

>> ^marbles:
>> ^spoco2:
@marbles... shit then, better keep kids away from Parmesan cheese, or Mussels or Spinach you don't want them to die from Aluminium poisoning do you?
Also, don't let them ever eat Ice Cream, fuck no! They'll die from the polysorbate 80.
And come on... sodium borate, it's used as a food preservative in many countries, and is ONLY dangerous when ingested in high quantities for long periods of time... like, 5-10 years long.
Sorry, but your bullshit scaremongering, ill thought out crap doesn't cut it, it makes no sense, it does not gel with reality. You can find dangerous substances in pretty much anything you eat or drink. It's all about quantities and timeframes. Also, things that CAN be dangerous in situation A can be beneficial in situation B.
But hey... continue siding with idiots like Jenny McCarthy who have contributed to the deaths of kids... you keep on with that.

I'm sorry. Am I scaring you with facts? Aren't you the one that keeps claiming people that question the safety of vaccines are going to cause health pandemics and contribute "to the deaths of kids"???
First you say there's zero evidence, but now you say it's all about "quantities and timeframes". I say 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.

You have no facts, you have bits and bobs pulled from all over the place and yet NO scientific basis for any of your claims.
Sorry, but again... People like Jenny McCarthy HAVE already contributed to the death of children. Thanks to Wakefield's bogus findings, and the bleating of McCarthy: "... the inoculation rate for MMR in the UK was 92%; after publication, the rate dropped to below 80%. In 1998, there were 56 measles cases in the UK; by 2008, there were 1348 cases, with 2 confirmed deaths.[43]" That's 2 100% preventable deaths right there.
And guess what?
"In Japan, the MMR vaccination has been discontinued, with single vaccines being used for each disease. Rates of autism diagnosis have continued to increase, showing no correlation with the change."
Sorry, am I fucking up your bullshit with facts?