this post was submitted on 25 Feb 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Cool Guides

4561 readers
24 users here now

Rules for Posting Guides on Our Community

1. Defining a Guide Guides are comprehensive reference materials, how-tos, or comparison tables. A guide must be well-organized both in content and layout. Information should be easily accessible without unnecessary navigation. Guides can include flowcharts, step-by-step instructions, or visual references that compare different elements side by side.

2. Infographic Guidelines Infographics are permitted if they are educational and informative. They should aim to convey complex information visually and clearly. However, infographics that primarily serve as visual essays without structured guidance will be subject to removal.

3. Grey Area Moderators may use discretion when deciding to remove posts. If in doubt, message us or use downvotes for content you find inappropriate.

4. Source Attribution If you know the original source of a guide, share it in the comments to credit the creators.

5. Diverse Content To keep our community engaging, avoid saturating the feed with similar topics. Excessive posts on a single topic may be moderated to maintain diversity.

6. Verify in Comments Always check the comments for additional insights or corrections. Moderators rely on community expertise for accuracy.

Community Guidelines

By following these rules, we can maintain a diverse and informative community. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to reach out to the moderators. Thank you for contributing responsibly!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (3 children)

This is hilariously bad.

It doesn't take into account so many things, and it's extremely misleading.

Most of these chemicals don't ever appear in products in their pure form, so there's so much here that simply isn't relevant.

There's also consideration here that everything is by weight, and it makes sense to create that as a standard, but many of the pure forms of these items are far more dense than you would expect. One that stands out is uranium. A gram of it would be incredibly small, approximately 0.05 cm cubed. 1 lb is around 1.45" cubed (for my American friends).

So it would be an insanely small amount. Meanwhile water is insanely light by comparison. While also safer per gram, so it's an insanely large amount of water before any damage can be done while a relatively small rock of uranium can tear your DNA apart.

The whole chart is wildly misleading. It might be accurate, though, I have no idea if it is, but the fact is that it makes it seem like normal every day compounds like vitamin B will kill you at lower doses than uranium. While technically true based on weight, it makes uranium seem relatively safe by comparison and bluntly it's not. Even the smallest amount of pure uranium, which this chart would regard as "safe", would cause you to become incredibly sick for a very long time.

I hope nobody gathers "new" information from this chart and decides to do something stupid; but honestly, there's a lot of idiots in the world, and if anyone is that dumb, I wonder if the average intelligence of the planet might increase a bit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I mean, as an ex smoker i had a "I could try coke maybe?" intrusive thought when I saw nicotine's level compared to cocaine. Lmao

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I look at that and I'm not sure that's right either. Maybe if you took concentrated nicotine extract (pure) and drank it, then yeah, it could become lethal.

I don't think anyone can smoke enough cigarettes or vape enough to reach a dangerous toxicity level. I'm pretty sure you'd pass out long before reaching a fatal dose. So the only way you could get to that point is to either inject, ingest or otherwise absorb a lot of nicotine all at once. The usual delivery methods (via the lungs) would probably not work for this. I suppose if you rigged up a continual tobacco burner and hot boxed an area with smoke containing nicotine (either vapor or smoke from burning it), maybe? Or if you slapped on a few dozen nicotine patches after smoking a few packs and went to bed?

The only other way I can think of to get that much nicotine in you is to buy high concentration vape liquid and drink it; but I'm pretty sure your body would simply vomit it back out and you'd survive. I'm sure it wouldn't be pleasant, but it wouldn't be fatal.

Cocaine on the other hand.... I don't know enough about, but I'm sure people have OD'd on it, so I'm sure there are ways.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Shut up nerd! Come on everybody we're going to drink gasoline!

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I was wondering if the radioactive materials toxicity was measured by chemical toxicity only, ignoring the radiation.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

It's very likely.

Everything radioactive is incredibly dangerous.

I work with WiFi professionally, so I have a pretty good understanding of radio waves from that. On top of that, I'm a radio hobbyist, so I gathered a pretty good understanding of electromagnetic waves and how they operate... Mainly in the context of getting them from A to B successfully, but the physics behind it does not change regardless of frequency.

While all radio waves can dissipate as heat when absorbed by an object, the wavelength of that signal affects how small of an object it will interact with. Lead is a good example, since it's a dense lattice of atoms and can interact with most electrical and magnetic fields. Radio waves have a hard time penetrating even a small layer of lead because they're usually too large of a wave to fit between the atoms. At a certain, very high, frequency, lead gets less effective, and only by making that lead layer thicker and thicker, basically putting the randomness of atom arrangement in the path of the wave, can the signal be stopped.

When a high frequency wave interacts with flesh, like a person, it will usually penetrate a distance then be absorbed into the material, this is the basic principle that allows x-ray imaging to work. The more dense the material (bones vs muscle and organs and such), the more is absorbed, and you get a dark spot on the resulting image. I won't get into the development of the images, because they're usually inverted, that's a function of photography and how pictures work.

Taken to the extreme, higher and higher frequency signals, like uranium produces, goes even further, interacting with the atoms that make up your DNA, and destroying them. It's a gruesome process and it takes a long time before the symptoms of radiation appear, and a very long recovery (or death) in most cases. With uranium, you'd die from radiation long before the toxicity of the uranium can kill you, even if you're "only" taking .

Knowing as much as I do, radiation at this level is scary. It's silent, with no visible indication that it's happening, and it will kill you dead without any indication it ever existed. It always humors me when people take up arms against some new wireless technology where the principle frequency is under 100Ghz, and people are so afraid of it giving them cancer. The lightbulbs in your house are more apt to give you cancer than 5G or whatever. Light is an electromagnetic wave, the same as the radios in the 5G towers, but light is in the terahertz range, over 500x higher frequency than your wifi. Above that, in terms of frequency is UV-A, UV-B, etc, up to x-rays, and on. Above x-ray, is all the radioactive emissions from uranium, plutonium, etc. Literally thousands of times higher frequency than the evil 5G. EM only becomes ionizing (aka, dangerous) around UV-B, which is why you should always wear sunscreen.

We (humans) only use higher frequency EM in the context of medical use (cancer treatments, x-rays, etc) in highly controlled environments, and for use in power plants and bombs. I'm sure some industrial uses exist too, but I'll just skip over that since it usually has the same controls as medical uses. The only other place I know of that we use radioactive material at all is in smoke detectors. We limit it, we regulate it, we keep the stupid public away from it, because they don't know the danger of such substances.

Sorry for the rant, but yeah. Holy shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

It really takes that much gasoline to be lethal? You mean to tell me less THC is needed to kill you than drinking gasoline? It's almost 10 times as much!

I am incredulous.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Yeah, the studies that have been done to find the ld50 of thc ah... haven't.

There's a guestimate, but there's actually no biological reason that you even could.

This whole chart is bullshit

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

I'm pretty sure the figure for heroin is on the high side too. Most people won't have a tolerance, and a lethal dose would be quite a bit lower than this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I assume this is talking about pure gasoline. The stuff that you get out of the pump is anything but pure. It contains benzene, hexanes, and other really nasty chemicals that will kill you quickly and slowly (e.g. cancer)

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Fuckin A, I only drink the good shit.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

This looks like a quite useless guide. All these substances appear in vastly different doses in the environment, so it in no way shows what is more likely to kill you or accurately shows what you are supposed to be careful with.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Not sure this is supposed to be a "guide". At least I hope it isn't.

More of a general info sheet, maybe.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Dangit, metric system. I cannot functionally comprehend this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

It's easy if you do drugs since nobody uses imperial to measure out drugs.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

They don't specify the route of administration, so none of these numbers are worth anything.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Looking at the wikipedia page for some of those, it seems to be intravenously. For example, Botox (the last one): “A toxin is 1.3–2.1 ng/kg intravenously or intramuscularly, 10–13 ng/kg when inhaled, or 1000 ng/kg when taken by mouth”

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I was going to say I smoke/eat more than 1200mg of THC a day and I'm not dead yet (yes I have a problem and yes it's expensive).

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

More than 1200 mg of pure THC, or 1200mg of cannabis leaves?

Those aren't even remotely the same thing, in the same way that 12oz of beer and 12oz of everclear are very different, or 1g of pure nicotine is very different than 1g of tobacco leaves.

Not to mention, LD50 is about a single dose. There's a big difference between taking one shot an hour for 16 hours straight, and chugging 16 shots in one go.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (2 children)

This is per kilogram of your mass. So if your weight is 80kg then the lethal dose would be 96000mg not 1200. At least that's how I understand this.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

So that means 7.2 litres of water to kill an 80 kg human. That's a lot of water to down in one short sitting.

Not easy to do. Fortunately.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Back in college, there was this thing called the "4, 4, 40 challenge" where one would have to drink 4 liters of water, in 4 minutes and hold it down for 40 secs. Lots of vomiting would ensue.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

That's correct

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The caffeine thing is totally wrong. A healthy adult can safely consume up to 400mg of caffeine a day.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

I think the per kg is important there. 192mg/kg of body weight is the lethal dose. So for example a 100kg person would need 19,200mg of caffeine to be a lethal dose.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

LD50 is specifically a dose that kills 50% of the subjects.

Lower doses can kill, just less than 50% of people.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 months ago

Good point, I hadn’t considered it was based on body weight, and rather thought it was just median population

load more comments
view more: next ›