You must log in or register to comment.
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?
Just siphon direct, your free health care will keep you safe.
Start booking flights to Canada
German tire?
Deutsche Wheelen??? … (or something like that, I don’t speak German)
Germans put their words together
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.
-
Thanks. This will come in useful when I finally have enough.
Did you know? There is much more water in the tap than you’d have thought!
Typical deathworlder win. Crazy earthlings who drink the solvent known as dihydrogen monoxide
I’ve heard it has a higher pH than any natural acid.
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!
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. To edit: that’s not to say that the lethal dose in this picture is wholly accurate. Caffeine has been known to cause cardiac arrest even in lower doses.
Good point, I hadn’t considered it was based on body weight, and rather thought it was just median population
LD50 is specifically a dose that kills 50% of the subjects.
Lower doses can kill, just less than 50% of people.
They don’t specify the route of administration, so none of these numbers are worth anything.
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.
So that means 7.2 litres of water to kill an 80 kg human
well, not exactly. since this is the LD50, drinking 7.2 liters of water would kill about half of the population that try. the other half would survive
That’s correct
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”
Dangit, metric system. I cannot functionally comprehend this.
It’s easy if you do drugs since nobody uses imperial to measure out drugs.
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.
Very “cool”
🍆
0.59 g/kg
Looks like I can barely survive mine
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.
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.
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.
Challenge accepted
Where’s the 55th substance?
It really should have been theobromine, from chocolate. It’s 1000mg/kg via oral ingestion.
This is what kills dogs, as they’re more susceptible at 200mg/kg. They’ve gotta really pack in the chocolate first to reach that, though. And it had better be dark chocolate for its higher levels of theobromine. Pure cocoa has about 2.1% theobromine by weight.
Behind you. Look out!
…the friends we made along the way?
No love for the Puffer fish. 🐡
I don’t know if anyone has ever measured the LD₅₀ of OpenBSD
Technically speaking, if the water is pure enough it can demineralize you and kill you over the course of about a week. UPW or HPW are often used to describe these substances, created in specialized labs or equipment for industry use.
When I worked in a lab, I’d always fill my water bottle from the nanopure machine because it was tasty and made me feel fancy.
Who needs all those nasty salts in their blood anyway. Bloody sodium channels.
You will get enough sodium in your food anyway. If you’re literally not eating, then yes you will need it in water or tablets.
Is that actually true? I’ve looked this up a while and it said it’s basically overblown or urban myth (wiki). Basically we’ve been drinking rainwater forever (I know it’s not pure) and you get so much stuff through food that it might lead to deficiency but not quickly.
Wikipedia isn’t a source you concaveman. Even just clicking the citation numbers and finding the actual source at the bottom would be fine, instead you chose the stupid route. I’ll admit the risk was overblown by sensationalism journalists, but it’s not a myth in the slightest.
That is what I was asking because of your outrageous claim (death within a week). But of course you’re just a loudmouth.
The first sentence was a rhetorical question and the second two were arguing with Wikipedia as your citation. You never asked anything in good faith.
