You must log in or register to comment.
Huh, so a nuke is more poisonous than arsenic.
Uranium is pretty toxic, just like a large part of the periodic table. As long as we’re talking about the usual isotopes, the toxicity will get you long before the radiation does.
Now i remember, wasn’t there a study that in case of a nuclear war, poisoned environment would be the main problem? Due to aerosoled stuff.
Ingesting gasoline is deadly in far smaller doses due to something called hydrocarbon pneumonia. My dad very nearly died as a result of having a tiny amount get past his throat while siphoning gas to a small engine’s tank.
If you must siphon gas, go buy a cheap “pump siphon” from Canadian Tire.
I dont have any canadian tire near me as I live in europe. What do you advice?
German tire?
Deutsche Wheelen??? … (or something like that, I don’t speak German)
Start booking flights to Canada
This is what I was referring to. There are a number of variations on the theme.
If you are really in a pinch:
-
Feed a length of hose into the source until only a small amount is left clear of the liquid.
-
Put your thumb over the exposed end, or otherwise make the end as close to airtight as possible.
-
Rapidly pull the hose out of the liquid, moving the end down to the destination container. The end must be below the top surface of the source, the further the better.
-
Release your thumb/seal. If you’ve done it all correctly, the hose will be nearly filled with liquid and enough of it will be below the surface of the source to start the siphoning process.
If the source liquid is too far below the opening for this to work with the length of hose you have, you can manually pump it far enough to start a siphon, by rapidly submerging and lifting the hose while alternating the closing of the top. Open top while submerging, closed top while lifting. You have to push down faster than what gravity pulls the liquid back down. Ideally, you’re lifting fast enough to get some help from the liquid’s own inertia when you reverse course.
-
Just siphon direct, your free health care will keep you safe.
Challenge accepted
🍆
0.59 g/kg
Looks like I can barely survive mine
So drinking gasoline is pretty safe
Fuckin right? If you’re 300lbs, you could apparently drink almost 4kg of gasoline and have a 50/50 shot of survival? Yeah right
Even if you survive, your liver and kidneys usually take a hit when dancing thise close to the fire.
Especially if you spill some of your gasoline cocktail on the fire.
Gasoline is better for your health than vitamin C.
If not for the additive to make it inedible.
Ingesting gasoline is deadly in far smaller doses due to something called hydrocarbon pneumonia. My dad very nearly died as a result of having a tiny amount get past his throat while siphoning gas to a small engine’s tank.
If you must siphon gas, go buy a cheap “pump siphon” from Canadian Tire.
So as long as I swallow I’m ok /s
This only compares the risk of death, not other health problems. Also, gasoline is way more readily available in pure form than most other substances, and nobody would drink it voluntarily.
I remember a couple people on My Strange Addiction that drank it voluntarily though
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.
I was wondering if the radioactive materials toxicity was measured by chemical toxicity only, ignoring the radiation.
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 <something less than a lethal quantity>.
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.
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
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.
Shut up nerd! Come on everybody we’re going to drink gasoline!
Tylenol is easier to overdose on than NSAIDs. I really don’t think this guide is accurate. I’m really questioning the placement of cocaine and especially ketamine. Vitamin D from the sun? Lethal? I don’t believe black widows are that venomous, either. How are they even measuring this? Cocaine will give you a heart attack, Tylenol will shut down your liver, venom acts like an infection… are they basing lethal dose on how much it takes to cause some kind of fatal reaction, or under a controlled administration with a defined “fatal dose” based on a specific measurement, like damage to a human cell?
Also: notice the LD50 for vitamin D is 37mg/kg.
Based on https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8709011/, a therapeutic regime for very low vitamin D levels is taking 6k IU per day for 3 months, or 50k IU once a week for 2 months.
1 IU is 0.025 μg, or 0.000025 mg. 50k IU is 1.25 mg.
I buy bottles of 5k IU vitamin D pills. Each bottle has 90 pills. That’s 11.25 mg of vitamin D per bottle. I’d need to take well over 200 bottles of these pills to have a 50% chance of dying.
Yes, an objectively small amount of purified vitamin D will kill you. But it’s quite safe in practice because the environment only has objectively tiny amounts of the stuff. Even high dose pills contain a tiny amount of the stuff.
LD50 is usually determined using rodent studies. How much Vitamin D causes an overdose in half of a population of mice?
The dose makes the poison.
And with drug safety, in practice LD50 is less important than how close a therapeutic dose is to a lethal one. If a drug takes 2g/kg to kill you but you need 1g/kg to work, that’s way more dangerous than one that takes .02g/kg to kill you but only needs .0002g/kg to work.
Yes, that’s basically how it works, see my other comment
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.
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)
Fuckin A, I only drink the good shit.
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
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.
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.
Not sure this is supposed to be a “guide”. At least I hope it isn’t.
More of a general info sheet, maybe.
Dangit, metric system. I cannot functionally comprehend this.
It’s easy if you do drugs since nobody uses imperial to measure out drugs.
They don’t specify the route of administration, so none of these numbers are worth anything.
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”
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
That’s correct
No love for the Puffer fish. 🐡
The caffeine thing is totally wrong. A healthy adult can safely consume up to 400mg of caffeine a day.
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.
LD50 is specifically a dose that kills 50% of the subjects.
Lower doses can kill, just less than 50% of people.
Good point, I hadn’t considered it was based on body weight, and rather thought it was just median population
Why omit fentanyl? It should be pretty high in the rankings. Also curious about puffer fish.
This “cool guide” is trash and shouldn’t be taken seriously.
- It is not a guide, I agree
- It is not trash: there are flaws in the presentation but all data is accurate. You need to read and understand the top text to interpret it correctly.
There’s no method of administration listed, so it is trash.
Yeah, they should tell you how to administer each to maximize toxicity in humans. And the ingredients. And what equipmemt you need. And the preparation steps. And how to conceal the dose. And how to pin it on someone.
Come to think of it, that also solves the “not a guide” problem.
Jesus, did you make it? Is it your baby?
It’s fucking garbage and not at all accurate at best, complete disinformation.
Go drink some gasoline
Most of it is for rats because experiments on humans would be illegal. The acute oral LD₅₀ for gasoline in rats has been reported to be 14063 mg/kg in this paper: Beck LS, Hepler DI, Hansen KL. 1983. The acute toxicology of selected petroleum hydrocarbons. In: MacFarland HN, Holdsworth LE, MacGregor JA, et al., eds. Proceedings on the 1st Symposium on the toxicology of petroleum hydrocarbons, Washington, DC: American Petroleum Institute. May 1982. 1-12.
Is there an LD₅₀ for OpenBSD?
1mg / NetBSD
I think I have enough capsaicin to kill a person. I don’t know how to feel about that.
I have enough water to kill a person 6 times over… INSIDE ME
H20 in your body: “Phenomenal cosmic power! Itty bitty living space.”
