I don't see any floating. The Tesla is just much heavier and denser than those other cars, and can maintain traction with the ground. And no ICE to ingest water and die.

Definitely don't try this at home. He has a snorkel so his engine won't ingest water and hydrolock, cracking the cylinders and ruining the engine. A normal car would be done in that much water. Some sports cars with a low cold air intake pipe can't even drive through puddles.

@RedSky

here is what i don't get.
how is it the governments business what i ingest in my own body for whatever reason?

may be it is for the relief of pain.
may be it is to alleviate stress or mental anguish,and even,in some cases,mental illnesses.
or maybe i just want to get high.

i realize you have already addressed the hypocrisy and horrible execution of,what basically comes down to a social issue,but how is this the governments business?

the science is in and weed has been proven to be fairly harmless,even in abusive situations.

the biggest problem america faces today,which includes booze and smokes,is prescription pain medication.which is basically heroin addiction,but since pain pills do not hold the stigma of heroin,it is not been addressed in any substantive way.oh..this country is arresting people in droves for selling and carrying but almost nary a PEEP in the form of education.

so why is government stepping into my business?
something i engage in at home,bother nobody and keep to myself.yet i am still deemed a criminal.yet my crime is a victimless crime.

if i drive my car,or operate heavy machinery while high,that is a different story and the law should be applied exactly as it is with booze for the exact same reasons.

the state should get out of my house and stop telling me which intoxicants are "state approved",because,quite frankly..i dont give it a shit.

this archaic and destructive social policy needs to go the way of the do-do.it serves no purpose any longer,and the massive propaganda campaign that was initiated by henry anslinger at the behest of big textile in the fucking 40's should not be given even the remotest credibility by todays standards.

people like their hooch.no matter what form it takes and the government has zero business dictating which "hooch" we choose.

*promote

cuz i truly enjoy watching shag and newt go back and forth on this issue,and in doing so bring up some very real and important points when dealing with psychedelics.

it really is important to know what you are ingesting,no matter what form of drug you may be experimenting with.

that being said,woohoo for tripping balls!

buckle your seatbelt dorothy,
because kansas is going bye bye.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/08/150817-sea-turtles-olive-ridley-marine-debris-ocean-animals-science/

The scientists who helped the poor girl figure she ingested the straw at some point, and due to the layout of an Olive Ridley's internal passages, when she probably vomited it out of her stomach, it went up the wrong way. It's probably been forcing it's way through her nose for a while.

Humanity needs an enema.

Unfortunately...

http://www.joslin.org/info/correcting_internet_myths_about_aspartame.html

The whole "sweet taste tricks your body in to releasing insulin" is complete bunk. A simple glucose tolerance test would show if pancreatic hormone secretion was elevated due to aspartame ingestion...

Oh look!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3522147

A nutritive sweetener, aspartame (L-aspartyl-L-phenylalanine methylester) was administered orally to normal controls and diabetic patients in order to evaluate effects on blood glucose, lipids and pancreatic hormone secretion. An oral glucose tolerance test was also performed in the same subjects as a control study of aspartame administration. In 7 normal controls and 22 untreated diabetics, a single dose of 500 mg aspartame, equivalent to 100 g glucose in sweetness, induced no increase in blood glucose concentration. Rather, a small but significant decrease in blood glucose was noticed 2 or 3 h after administration. The decrease in blood glucose was found to be smallest in the control and became greater as the diabetes increased in severity. No significant change in blood insulin or glucagon concentration during a 3-h period was observed in either the controls or the diabetics. The second study was designed to determine the effects of 2 weeks' continuous administration of 125 mg aspartame, equal in sweetness to the mean daily consumption of sugar (20-30 g) in Japan, to 9 hospitalized diabetics with steady-state glycemic control. The glucose tolerance showed no significant change after 2 weeks' administration. Fasting, 1 h and 2 h postprandial blood glucose, blood cholesterol, triglyceride and HDL-cholesterol were also unaffected. From these and other published results, aspartame would seem to be a useful alternative nutrient sweetener for patients with diabetes mellitus.

Yes, phosphoric acid isn't great for your teeth, and yes, it's better to drink water, but the majority of the blurb against diet type low calorie sweeteners start with conspiracy theorists and nuts who believe you can cure cancer with herbal teas.

Sorry poster, no upvote for blatant misinformation.

Wrong, a 100% bioavailability is when a substance is introduced *intravenously* not intramuscularly or subcutaneously.

>> ocassional inadvertent ingestion and inhalation.
This is the most common rout - the skin is a major part of the immune system to keep pathogens out. we are exposed to thousands of compounds which trigger immune response and antibody creation each day via he respiratory system.

>>These damaging elements have perfect access to the brain
There is something called the blood brain barrier but nevertheless the pathogen is injected locally as mentioned not systemically.

>>Did you know autism is a known neural disruption?
this is a nonsense statement. the truth is we known very little about autism but while there are association, cause is not clear and the association with vaccines were initiated by a dishonest and discredited 'researcher'

I understand your basic premise but this is cargo cult science at its worse. very sad.
If you would like to learn more about bioavailability and how it's measured there are some good basic books on pharmcodynamics which are quite easy to read.

Anti-vaxxers are a funny sort, they're the kind of people who will berate you on how toxic vaccines are with their mercury, chlorine and aluminium while eating their tuna sandwich seasoned with salt and a sprinkle of lemon juice out of an aluminium foil wrapper. Dude, you just ingested more toxins than you'll ever will with a lifetime of vaccinations.

Our bodies are best at responding to pathogens that enter our system normally - over mucus membranes, through skin contact, and via ocassional inadvertent ingestion and inhalation.

Directly injecting pathogens (and a whole host of other known toxins) straight into the bloodstream puts their bioavailability at 100%, instantly. These damaging elements have perfect access to the brain, and all other internal organs, giving the body's almost no chance whatsoever to deal with the invading harmful elements. You can expect to see symptoms manifest in minutes, hours, or days - and this is exactly what you do see in vaccine related injuries.

Aluminum, formaldehyde, cyanide, and other elements we do eat, and are harmless when found embeded in their naturally occurring places. Injecting those refined elements (mixed together with all kinds of other poisons) directly into the bloodstream is no where close to eating un-refind foods that have the same elements bonded to other molecules which render them intert or beneficial.

What is the bioavailability of aluminum found in a banana when eaten?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when the banana is pulverized and injected into the bloodstream?

What is the bioavailability of that same quantity of aluminum when it's refined, and no part of the banana except the aluminum is injected directly into the bloodstream?

Their description of the actual affect of the aluminum in particular is incomplete. Aluminum is a known neural disruptor. If it reaches the brain directly (remember, bioavailability is at 100%) the aluminum will disrupt neurons. This may result in some cases in a neural disruption. Did you know autism is a known neural disruption?

I'm dying to know what kind of "medical care" is given to a child who's ingested pot. Really. The hell are you going to do, other than tell them to lay down, drink something, eat something, go to sleep? What, pump them full of other drugs?!?

Old: Kevlar

New: spider silk reinforced with graphene

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

First, even you said it's normally properly used at up to 10% concentration. Most people use it at the maximum concentration so it works effectively. 1% concentration almost never does the job....often 10% requires repeated applications, I know from experience.

Second, where does the interviewer EVER say it's PURE roundup in the glass? Where does the interviewee ever question the concentration level, or say "it is dangerous at full concentration"?...he doesn't, he said it's not harmful and I'll be glad to drink it. Period. he actually said, talking about PURE glyphosate "You can drink a whole quart of it and it won't hurt you"...and 'I'd be glad to drink it...not really'....Not 'it's not harmful when diluted to 1%', not 'it's not harmful when used correctly with proper safety gear', but blanket 'it's not harmful, you can drink it', which is obviously a lie. At anywhere near full concentration, it's deadly, and even at full maximum dilution, it's harmful to ingest and studies seem to indicate it causes cancer and other problems...which is why he won't drink it like he claimed he would.

You said vinegar, not pure acid. Pure concentrated acetic acid is not the same thing, but diluted to normally found full concentrations it's completely harmless, unlike roundup. Pure water is deadly, but not something you can find, just like pure acetic acid is something you can't find...but pure roundup is how they sell it, and how many (idiots) use it. That makes it a totally FAIR comparison, especially when the spokesman is telling you clearly that the pure chemical is completely harmless and drinkable (only commenters have brought up concentration levels, not the spokesman, he just said "not harmful, drinkable").

Yeah, I do talk about it a lot, I like talking about them - rarely do them. The moment has to be just right and just like Doug Stanhope says about DMT - there's hardly a "right" place/time to do it, it's just that amazing.

You should check out a new study about the topic: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/290461.php

"In fact, on a number of factors, the study found a correlation between use of psychedelic drugs and decreased risk for mental health problems."

Remember, just because you ingested a random drug and had a bad experience doesn't mean that many in the tryptamine family pose any health threats - which has been proven many times that they do not. I mean who knows maybe you smoked a shit load of PCP. No one should ever take something that they haven't tested on low doses, know exactly what it is that they are taking and then follow the set & setting rules. Otherwise, obviously - yeah there is potential that you could be doing something harmful to yourself - so don't do it.