• jadero@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

      • jadero@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is what I was referring to. There are a number of variations on the theme.

        If you are really in a pinch:

        1. Feed a length of hose into the source until only a small amount is left clear of the liquid.

        2. Put your thumb over the exposed end, or otherwise make the end as close to airtight as possible.

        3. 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.

        4. 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.

  • Dieinahole@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, I don’t buy this shit at all.

    How many people die each year from acetaminophen overdoses? Versus how many die from THC?

    This whole infographic is a crock of shit

      • excitingburp@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        This is why grapefruit is so dangerous for so many medicines. Those medicines take bioavailability into account and can be a massive dose in some cases. Grapefruit keeps the same mechanism that lowers effective dosage busy, substantially increasing the effective dose - straight into overdose territory in some cases.

    • orphiebaby@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      The fact that your completely misunderstanding ass got upvoted so hard really shows that people are pretty fast to be pretty stupid.

    • BearOfaTime@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      You should work on reading comprehension.

      Where does it say anything about mortality rates?

      It shows lethal doses.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Death rate is society-dependent. If we only paid with lead coins and never washed our hands, cases of lead poisoning would skyrocket even if the element and our bodies remained the same (and so would LD₅₀).

    • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s probably all correct, but super misleading. There’s probably no way to overdose on THC other than drinking loads of highly concentrated oil. Just like there’s no way to overdose on LSD, since it gets taken smaller doses.

      You consume grams of salt, milligrams of meth, vitamin D, …, and micrograms of acid.

      So the important part is “how close is the usual dose people take to the lethal dose, and will your body rebel before you get there (e.g. it’s hard to eat that much salt or drink much water)” or in other words “how likely is it to accidentally overdose”.

      • scottywh@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Most of the numbers used in this data are also extrapolated from studies using rats and mice so the direct applicability to humans is uncertain at best.

      • SirSamuel@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        It’s not “super misleading”. It’s just very simplified. It’s an infographic, and inherently lacks nuance. The creator tried with loads of fine print both before and after the pictures, but who reads fine print, right?

        The rest of your points are correct, especially the likelihood of accidental overdose. And the OP of this thread is… I’m gonna be generous and stay they are childish. Hopefully they learned something from all of the responses here

    • Pipoca@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Keep in mind: a single extra strength Tylenol is 500mg. A standard dose for a headache is 2 pills, or 1000mg.

      Weed gummies come in doses of 1mg to 100mg. 1mg is a microdose people might take for mild pain or stress, while 50+mg is a dose for cancer patients often take. A standard dose for occasional recreational highs is 5mg; they recommend first timers start at 2.5mg.

      LD50 compares things by weight, rather than dose. By weight, THC is slightly more toxic than acetaminophen. But in terms of the number of therapeutic doses it takes to kill you, it’s way, way safer.

      • Taniwha420@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yes, I came here for this conversation. What’s the ratio of effective dose to LD50 again, because that’s typically what matters. That’s where cannabis and ethanol are in totally different categories. And how high do you need to get before dying from LSD?

        • sicarius@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That dose of 16.5mg/kg ld50 is for rats.
          Mice is lower at 0.3mg/kg.
          There have been no know deaths from humans overdosing on lsd, even when people have taken ridiculously high amounts by mistaking it for cocaine and railing lines of it up their nose.
          Sure, a little coma, hypERthermia and light gastric bleeding but nothing a short stint in the hospital didn’t sort em out with no lasting effects.

        • Pipoca@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          16.5 mg is 16500 μg. So a 70kg person would need over 1 million μg.

          According to https://www.trippingly.net/lsd/the-lsd-dosage-guide, 25 μg is where visual effects start.

          700 to 1000 μg. Full out-of-body experiences. Synesthesia more likely. Religious imagery often strong. Entire loss of rationality, lack of ability to walk or interact in any meaningful way.

          1500 μgs+ Experiences may be similar to DMT but extended. Basic body functions are challenging. Vision is consumed by hallucinations. No sense of self remains. Audio hallucinations may be strong. Standard reality no longer applies. Merging with objects likely. No type of rational thought left.

          A deadly dose is around 800x higher than that. You wouldn’t be as high as a kite. You’d be as high as Voyager one.

    • BCsven@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      For the THC though it would be grams of pure THC, not grams of weed

      • morbidcactus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I legit cannot imagine consuming 1g of THC let alone 1g/kg, you’d literally be eating thousands of gummies if you’re doing edibles (10mg seems to be the strongest edibles I can get) which would be really expensive, rough for a 70kg person would be nearly 9000 10mg gummies which are like $4 cad each, would cost $36,000.

        I guess you could do it, but practically, no one is going to do that much

        • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          At that point just get a crack spoon, warm up some resin, and go to town on your veins. It’ll be easier, quicker, cheaper, and probably won’t make you want to die from consuming all that food… You’ll still die, just not because you stabbed yourself to relieve the bloating.

        • BCsven@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly. just listened to something about the EU allowing a chemical during growing that stunts stalk length so plants are stiffer and lower to grouns for agriculture. US doeant allow it for agriculture but allows import of EU grain. Some articles trying to be alarmist state that urine analyais is ahowing increase in this chemical of people eating breakfast cereal. What the article left out (and podcaster calculated) was you would need to eat 85000kg of oats daily, to sustain a lethal dose.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      You’re confusing 50% lethal dose (medical property of a substance in relation to the body) with death rate (property of a death cause, obtained statistically from a population at a specific time). This is pure medical data which still may be slightly inaccurate, but you can easily check relevant scientific papers for their estimate of the LD₅₀. I think all values presented here are correct within a factor of 2, unless you find a reputable journal stating a very different result. Each substance is available in different concentrations and humans’ exposure to them also varies. You can get lots of pure water, sugar or gasoline easily but not a gram of viruses. Nobody would voluntarily consume a substantial amount of gasoline but nanograms of viruses come and go in the air all the time.

      It is somewhat misleading to group poisons, radioactive isotopes and viruses as they work in very different ways, but the gist is correct. And yes, the LD₅₀ is still a statistical estimate dependent on the humans studied, but not on society etc. like the death rate.

      • hydroptic@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        It is somewhat misleading to group poisons, radioactive isotopes and viruses

        Far as I can tell there aren’t any viruses in there? There’s a few bacterial toxins, but they’re… well, toxins.

        Also, the grouping isn’t misleading. Not only is eg. plutonium fairly toxic in addition to giving off ionizing radiation (because it’s a heavy metal), but calculating an LD50 for something doesn’t require it to be toxic, just that some dose of it kills. There’s some µg/kg ingested (or inhaled or whatever) dose of polonium that will kill 50% of a study animal population dead, regardless of what the mechanism that kills them actually is

        • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You are right, those aren’t viruses. But you can imagine that a virus or prion might have a very small LD₅₀. I discussed the radioactivity/toxicity in another comment, you are correct - but a tiny amount of any element can quickly kill you from decay radiation if it’s a very unstable isotope.

          And yes, if you understand what LD₅₀ means, the mechanism is the confusing part. Ingesting naturally occuring uranium will not kill you primarily from radiation despite the ☢️ symbol on the infographic, and vitamin D won’t kill you if you only get it from the Sun. And I was primarily correcting the misunderstanding in the above critique, not defending everything about the picture.

    • Hamartiogonic@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • MonkderZweite@feddit.ch
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

  • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Flumpkin@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          That is what I was asking because of your outrageous claim (death within a week). But of course you’re just a loudmouth.

          • doctorcrimson@lemmy.today
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

    • AtmaJnana@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • Lev_Astov@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • rmi@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    I can ingest nearly 10g of uranium and not die?

    Interesting.

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Depends on the isotope, of course. There are different ways it can hurt you.

      • If you put together a critical mass of ²³⁵U, it undergoes fission and you die in seconds without needing to ingest it.
      • Naturally ocurring uranium (²³³U-²³⁸U, mostly ²³⁸U) has a half-life of billions of years, so it’s very weakly radioactive. It would take a lot of it to harm you from decay radiation. Or very little if you pick a very unstable synthetic isotope outside the 233-238 range (but every element “has” such radioactive isotopes, though not in nature).
      • Uranium is chemically toxic, which is whal will kill you if you ingest a small amount of a common isotope.
    • user134450@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think they are referring to Uranium with natural isotopic abundance. Which is complete bullshit when you put a picture of a nuclear power plant behind it – which in most cases can not function with the natural isotopic abundance (heavy water reactors being the exception, not the rule).

  • SoonaPaana@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a very very cool graphic. Really highlights that MSG is needlessly antagonized. Also so weird to see sarin and nicotine next to each other.

    Marketing is a bitch.

      • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Exactly. Gasoline, for example, is remarkably non-toxic, but it will cause instant chemical burns to your throat and lungs, possibly killing you far below the (chemically) lethal dose.

        Methanol will turn you blind at a quarter of the listed dose, and those two are just from the top of my head.

      • neo@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wonder how they came up with the LD50 of all those materials, like THC and LSD. Is this based on theoretical calculation, in vitro tests, or on a (assumably) very small sample of known deaths?

        • yetAnotherUser@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Step 1: Feed/Inject mutliple rat populations with different concentrations
          Step 2: See how many die.
          Step 3: The concentration which causes 50% of the population to die is the LD50

          • neo@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            While I was thinking you were yet another user, you were a rat the whole time! Wait, we are all rats!

            Jokes aside, animal testing as a data source seems reasonable to me. Thanks

      • flying_sheep@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Or aspects like arsenic staying in your body a very long time, or the fact that LSD is psychoactive in microgram doses, so you’d need thousands of tabs to die.

    • Dale@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the ld50 for gasoline is 5000 mg/kg, not 14,000 which is the limit for acute toxicity. This whole chart is shit.

    • ugh@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Specifically from the sun, too. I have never heard of anyone dying from too much sun exposure that’s not related to the temperature or skin damage.

      • sep@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Not possible to get 3-3.5 grams (based on bodey weigth) of d vitamin from the sun. Since the body produce about 25 micrograms in 10-15 minutes during peak summer. And would just flush the excess. To be leathal it would need to be in one single dose.

    • stevestevesteve@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fuckin right? If you’re 300lbs, you could apparently drink almost 4kg of gasoline and have a 50/50 shot of survival? Yeah right

    • ChaoticNeutralCzech@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • jadero@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

  • sndmn@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Since the math is wrong with the MDMA entry, I’m sceptical of the accuracy of the rest.