search results matching tag: inhalant

» channel: learn

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (53)     Sift Talk (0)     Blogs (3)     Comments (276)   

Mash Report: Women Have Told Everyone to Just Fuck Off

00Scud00 says...

News update: Women telling everyone to just fuck off has set off a global firestorm which culminated in everyone in the world telling everyone else to just fuck off. Apparently for the human race, being a judgemental twat is second only to breathing, and that's only because we have to inhale before speaking.

2 Drops Of Spilled Mercury Destroyed This Scientist's Brain

MilkmanDan says...

Another thing to keep in mind is that different forms of elements and chemicals have very different properties.

Pure elemental liquid mercury is pretty cool stuff. Lots of people (myself included) can remember playing with elemental mercury in their bare hands in chemistry classes, etc., and even that sort of cavalier use basically never resulted in cases of mercury poisoning.

In sheer statistical terms, I gather that it is relatively safe to have pure liquid mercury directly on your skin -- cupped in your hands, say -- for short to medium periods of time. Open wounds, even small ones, can make that significantly worse. Even ingesting elemental mercury generally doesn't result in too much absorption into the body, but it remains a terrible idea. Evaporation of elemental mercury even at room temperature can lead to inhalation of mercury vapor, which is drastically more dangerous. So, ventilation and environmental controls are quite important.

This organic mercury sounds like terribly nasty stuff, but fortunately people are very unlikely to be exposed to it outside of a lab or if you are a scientist who is intentionally synthesizing it.

I think it is kind of a shame that those high school chemistry type sessions of messing around with elemental mercury are pretty much gone today. On the other hand, even though the risks are lower with elemental mercury like that, the rewards aren't really all that high either. I have fun memories of messing around with the stuff, but it wasn't by any means necessary or important outside of pure academic curiosity. Better safe that sorry I guess, particularly when the extreme end of "sorry" results in horror stories like this.

Liquid Sand Hot Tub

My_design says...

But that stuff isn't aerated to the point that you can dunk someone under the sand. This stuff would be easily inhaled. I've seen aerated concrete powder kill a guy before. Coroner said his lungs were so hard you could stand on them.

SFOGuy said:

Silicosis.

If you are a truly neurotic parent, they specifically sell sand for playboxes (guilty) that is silica-free.

Liquid Sand Hot Tub

Deep sea crab gets a shock as he mistakes methane bubbles...

Purple Mattress Sues Over These 4 Safety Questions

bamdrew says...

The little microbeads effectively prevent large surface areas of their purple material from fully flattening and sticking to adjacent purple material surfaces. So its a lubricant to keep their bed from sticking to itself. That's my assumption at least.

Probably safe enough unless someone was purposefully sleeping on the disassembled mattress and inhaling a lot of the plastic, in which case they could have some lung irritation.

Their R&D and Marketing teams should be working late nights putting together demos of exactly how much of this plastic micro-bead powder makes it up through their covering. I'm thinking demos of people in pristine black clothes jumping on the bed then laying on it, then getting up to demonstrate no dust on them through the mattress pad. They also should be looking at comping people better mattress pads if they still have concerns. Just my read of the situation.

Purple Mattress Sues Over These 4 Safety Questions

RFlagg says...

Skimming through things there, things start becoming fishy. He's a social media specialist, and certainly mis-represents the lawsuit in his videos, and given he had a ghostbed email address at one point, seems to indicate a rather comfortable relationship with GB (who carefully worded the point on the email issue, leaving it open to admit that the guy did have an email with them, just doesn't presently).

At the same time, I think there is some valid concern over the powder, which I'd guess is to help release it from the mold and aid in keeping it from sticking while rolled. It'll be interesting to see some more independent lab reports than the ones we've seen so far. Also, how much of said powder actually gets out if you, like most people, don't rip off the sock and cover (aside to occasionally wash the cover)? I understand micro-beads can be unsafe to inhale, but in typical use, how much gets from the bed into the air compared to other items used on a daily basis gets in the air?

Also, not sure the Streisand Effect is going on, as Purple was really well known before. Almost every mattress commercial I've seen on the Internet has been for Purple. So I don't think this is spreading their brand... unless this about spreading his brand, in which case it could be.

Okay, so I started going on about the Streisand Effect and jumped subjects to some comments in the Reddit thread about people who've never heard of Purple, then back to the effect. I'll blame that on the fact I was running late for work.

Anyhow, as to said effect, given that Purple isn't suing because he asked about the safety issues, but is instead being sued for not disclosing his relationship with a competitor, I don't know if it applies. Now it probably is bringing far more attention to the plastic beads than otherwise would be there. Now he however is being exposed for his relationships with GhostBed, and lots of questions are being raised about him, which is why I said it might apply to him.

Meanwhile, as I noted in the original paragraph, some people are saying they never heard of Purple, so I was doubting this spreads the brand, nor improves GhostBed's standing.

I had more, but I can't recall all I was going to say as the comment system crashed beyond the point I could come back and edit.

News team drops slick tribute to The Notorious B.I.G.

Videosift Embed not working? (Sift Talk Post)

lucky760 says...

I'll look into it as soon as I have time.

I just barely had any time lately even just to inhale and exhale. Fortunately my lungs can multitask otherwise I'd be in deep doodoo.

What We Know about Pot in 2017

newtboy says...

They should have less risk. They don't have carcinogenic chemicals added to make them stay lit or preserve them, and they aren't inhaled (by those who know how to smoke them).
That doesn't mean they're safe, as you mentioned. I think oral and throat cancers, while still a risk, are more likely with cigarettes because of the extra chemicals.
You are right, there's very little data about cigar risks. It would be silly to pretend they don't have risks, though.

I would note that I've seen people publicly harass cigarette smokers, then come tell me how good my cigar smells. I've also never had someone complain about my cigar smoke, but heard it often back when I smoked cigarettes.

MilkmanDan said:

I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

What We Know about Pot in 2017

MilkmanDan says...

I had never heard it claimed that cigars pose less/different cancer risks than cigarettes.

Google search provides mixed (as you might expect) results.

Cancer.gov, the Mayo Clinic, and WebMD all seem to suggest that cigar smokers in general tend to have lower rates of lung cancer than cigarette smokers (because they generally don't inhale, which I didn't know), but higher than non-smokers. And they have comparable or possibly higher rates of other cancers (oral, esophageal ... pancreatic) as compared to cigarette smokers.

Several results suggest that there is less data about cigars, results aren't statistically significant, etc. etc. and that they believe that cigars are much safer than cigarettes, if not entirely safe. But frankly, the pages I see (in a cursory search that I don't really have a personal stake in) promoting that view don't seem as ... trustworthy to me as the Mayo Clinic, or Healthcare Triage videos like this one (that list references right in the video).


No holier-than-thou attitude intended. ...Although I can say that I'm personally very glad I never acquired a taste for tobacco products of any kind. And a very low interest in alcohol consumption -- I go months on up to a year+ between drinks of booze without ever missing it. I sometimes avoid social situations because of smoke, which I suppose is a downside. But on the other hand, I'm enough of an introvert that avoiding social situations is probably something I'd be doing anyway... So at the very least I have more money to waste on other things since I'm not a smoker or much of a drinker.

newtboy said:

I'm another market, since I smoke cigars, which also have no additives.

What We Know about Pot in 2017

What happens when you're drunk AND stoned at the same time?

Vantablack can make a flat disk of aluminium float on water

ForgedReality says...

Clearcoating this stuff would remove its blacker-than-black properties. It would then start to reflect light. At which point, why would you favor this expensive shit over regular paint? I haven't seen details on how the sprayable Vantablack is applied, but if it were mixed into a liquid for application, it would have the same problem, unless, somehow, the surface of the hardened material were burnt away, evaporated off, or chemically reduced so that the carbon material could protrude from the substrate, that may allow the light absorption properties to persist. But I don't know how they accomplish that, other than they say it's a complex process that requires a specialist. I still wouldn't try brushing up against it, just like I wouldn't try sitting there inhaling paint fumes after painting a car. There's a reason precautions are taken in that process as well. I just know that something small and damaging enough to burst cell membranes sounds like something I wouldn't want in a product I'm handling with direct contact with my skin, or with any remote possibility of it rubbing off and getting into the air.

newtboy said:

OK, as I said, I don't know exactly how Vantablack is applied, but nanotubes could easily be incorporated in powder coatings and be totally sealed in the coating.
If Vantablack is grown on the surface, it should be even more 'attached' at the molecular level to that surface, shouldn't it? Once the loose powder was cleaned off, that seems like it would be much better than paint at sticking permanently, no?
A sprayable paint version would have to be mixed with a liquid that makes it sprayable and makes it stick, so I would expect it to be 'sealed' in that liquid once it cures, just like any pigment in any paint. Also, clear coats could seal it in if that's not the case, at least as good as any other toxic paint.
Most paints use highly toxic chemicals too. Just because there's no lead doesn't mean it's non toxic....in fact, it might be MORE toxic, just not in the same "brain damaging" way.

I have actually personally worked with nanotubes. I had a friend I worked with that had a carbon fiber business that did dozens of experiments with it for multiple projects, including a carbon fiber bullet and machine-able solid carbon blocks. He'll probably be the one to watch to see how dangerous they are, he rarely used any type of protection and I'm sure he inhaled multiple grams worth of nanotubes in his time, and has them imbedded in his skin all over his body. All of his products used resin to liquefy and harden the nanotubes into the shapes he wanted, so in the end products, it was "sealed" into a non-powder form, but not during production.

Vantablack can make a flat disk of aluminium float on water

newtboy says...

OK, as I said, I don't know exactly how Vantablack is applied, but nanotubes could easily be incorporated in powder coatings and be totally sealed in the coating.
If Vantablack is grown on the surface, it should be even more 'attached' at the molecular level to that surface, shouldn't it? Once the loose powder was cleaned off, that seems like it would be much better than paint at sticking permanently, no?
A sprayable paint version would have to be mixed with a liquid that makes it sprayable and makes it stick, so I would expect it to be 'sealed' in that liquid once it cures, just like any pigment in any paint. Also, clear coats could seal it in if that's not the case, at least as good as any other toxic paint. EDIT: Since nanofibers can withstand high temperatures, they could even bake on a clear powder coating that's WAY tougher than clear coat to seal it if needed.
Most paints use highly toxic chemicals too. Just because there's no lead doesn't mean it's non toxic....in fact, it might be MORE toxic, just not in the same "brain damaging" way.

I have actually personally worked with nanotubes. I had a friend I worked with that had a carbon fiber business that did dozens of experiments with it for multiple projects, including a carbon fiber bullet and machine-able solid carbon blocks. He'll probably be the one to watch to see how dangerous they are, he rarely used any type of protection and I'm sure he inhaled multiple grams worth of nanotubes in his time, and has them imbedded in his skin all over his body. All of his products used resin to liquefy and harden the nanotubes into the shapes he wanted, so in the end products, it was "sealed" into a non-powder form, but not during production.

ForgedReality said:

Okay first off, powdercoating is different. It's a powder that is closer to glass than paint, and it's cured in an oven which melts it onto the surface. Vantablack is grown on a surface and they recommend it is never used in an application where skin contact is involved as it would be unsafe. The sprayable paint version uses another form of carbon nanotubes in a different structure, which is considered "safer," but there's not enough data on it for me to trust it. They also make no mention of it being "sealed" as you claim.

You can if you want. Lead paint was once considered safe, as was asbestos, and aspartame, and cigarettes (at least publicly). Go for it. But we won't agree.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon