Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
kind" in the conference areas.
That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice, an >occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
https://philcon.org/policies/
In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
kind" in the conference areas.
That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice, an
occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
https://philcon.org/policies/
(Hal Heydt)
Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically
prescribed nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't even
blink at them.)
On 9/20/22 1:03 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
kind" in the conference areas.
That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice,
an occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
https://philcon.org/policies/
(Hal Heydt)
Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically prescribed
nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't even blink at them.)
Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item
5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
In Message-ID:<XnsAF18AAA2CDE33taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in<snip>
news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item
5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
"Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
occasional hydrogen atom.
I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of the
terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's so, they
probably should have included that fact in the policy document.
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in >news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:<snip>
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item
5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
"Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
occasional hydrogen atom.
I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of the
terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's so, they
probably should have included that fact in the policy document.
Does explosives include methane gas? Do attendees have to purge their >intestinal tract before attending to ensure there will be no farts?
(Do committee members?)
On 9/20/22 1:03 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's Item 5 of
the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or chemicals of any
kind" in the conference areas.
That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the conference areas,
they'll have to be pumped out to hard vacuum. Even then, in practice, an >>> occasional hydrogen molecule will violate the policy.
https://philcon.org/policies/
(Hal Heydt)
Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically
prescribed nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't even
blink at them.)
Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
In Message-ID:<XnsAF18AAA2CDE33taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in >>news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:<snip>
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's
Item 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
"Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
occasional hydrogen atom.
I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of
the terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's
so, they probably should have included that fact in the policy
document.
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than
the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a
loose, if badly-worded, rule.
On 9/20/22 8:51 PM, Someone Else wrote:
In Message-ID:<XnsAF18AAA2CDE33taustingmail@85.12.62.232>,
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote in<snip>
news:tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me:
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's
Item 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
"Chemicals of any kind" would include, literally, everything,
everywhere, since even the deepest interstellar void has the
occasional hydrogen atom.
I suspect they're going with some obscure legal definition of
the terms, or at least believe they are. Of ocurse, if that's
so, they probably should have included that fact in the policy
document.
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than
the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also
a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know
that everything is made of chemicals.
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that everything is made of chemicals.
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a >chemical?
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of(Hal Heydt)
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a >chemical?
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a >>chemical?
(Hal Heydt)
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a >chemical?
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the thought
has crossed my mind to try it...
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of(Hal Heydt)
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a >chemical?
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote: >> In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:(Hal Heydt)
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
chemical?
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than
some legal definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than
the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also
a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know
that everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition"
of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that
make it a chemical?
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
Heydt wrote:
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:(Hal Heydt)
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than
some legal definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser
than the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one
is also a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to
know that everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition"
of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that
make it a chemical?
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
In article <tgdc48$1jr1i$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 1:03 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tgcnu9$1hv1v$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
Philcon's behavior policy is mostly reasonable, but there's
Item 5 of the Weapons policy, which prohibits "explosives or
chemicals of any kind" in the conference areas.
That implies that not only is nobody allowed in the
conference areas, they'll have to be pumped out to hard
vacuum. Even then, in practice, an occasional hydrogen
molecule will violate the policy.
https://philcon.org/policies/
(Hal Heydt)
Hmmm.... Then there are those of us who carry medically
prescribed nitroglycerin pills... (And--FYI--the TSA doesn't
even blink at them.)
Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the thought
has crossed my mind to try it...
If it could be made to go off, it wouldn't be much of a bang.
The dosage (per pill) is--going by the label--0.4mg.
It's really one of those "principle of the thing" points. If
you ban "all explosives", you have just banned medically
prescribed nitro tablets. Anyone with a history of a heart
condition might be carrying some. It's where "zero tolerance"
becomes stupid. It also shows why simplistic rules are bad, but
good rules probably aren't going to be simple.
Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in >>news:917ae990-2774-4a44-85c1-9ffc670236b2n@googlegroups.com:
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, DorothyThere's a carb-substitute filler material that is guaranteed to
J Heydt wrote:
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:(Hal Heydt)
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather
than some legal definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser
than the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this
one is also a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to
know that everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense
definition" of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen
monoxide, does that make it a chemical?
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be
able to point out any INorganic food.
NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
have zero nutritional value. It is 100% artifical.
Does it cause anal leakage?
Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote in >news:917ae990-2774-4a44-85c1-9ffc670236b2n@googlegroups.com:
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy JThere's a carb-substitute filler material that is guaranteed to have
Heydt wrote:
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:(Hal Heydt)
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather than
some legal definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser
than the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one
is also a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to
know that everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition"
of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that
make it a chemical?
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
zero nutritional value. It is 100% artifical.
In article
<917ae990-2774-4a44-85c1-9ffc670236b2n@googlegroups.com>, Kevrob
<kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 12:26:30 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J
Heydt wrote:
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1...@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <ga...@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:(Hal Heydt)
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect
they're "going with" a common-sense definition, rather
than some legal definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser
than the ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this
one is also a loose, if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to
know that everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense
definition" of chemical. If you call water dihydrogen
monoxide, does that make it a chemical?
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be
able to point out any INorganic food.
NaCl? Other necessary minerals?
Making a meal of enough table salt for it to be the principle
ingredient really wouldn't be good for you, so while it can be
classed as a condiment, food would be a real stretch.
There's a carb-substitute filler material that is guaranteed to have
zero nutritional value. It is 100% artifical.
Does it cause anal leakage?
--scott
On 9/21/22 6:17 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
There's a carb-substitute filler material that is guaranteed to have
zero nutritional value. It is 100% artifical.
Does it cause anal leakage?
Back in ancient times a story of mine, "The Unfood," was published in
Analog. Very quick summary: A company offers "Nothing Munchies" as a
diet food. It's tasty but has no nutritional value. The FDA bans it
because rats will starve to death eating it, even preferring it to real
food. The manufacturer re-brands it as rat poison.
Good Omens by Pratchett and Gaiman describes a similar product, called
MEALS, and refers to it as "unfood." I'd like to think one of them had
read my story.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
chemical?
(Hal Heydt)
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
The problem with fiction that exaggerates reality is that reality is already so extreme. This sounds VERY close to the story of Olestra, except that after it was banned, people picketed the FDA demanding to be allowed it. --scott
On 9/21/22 7:43 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
The problem with fiction that exaggerates reality is that
reality is already so extreme. This sounds VERY close to the
story of Olestra, except that after it was banned, people
picketed the FDA demanding to be allowed it. --scott
The Wikipedia article doesn't say that Olestra was ever banned
in the US, though it was in Canada and the EU.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
chemical?
(Hal Heydt)
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
On 9/21/2022 11:08 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
On 9/20/22 8:58 PM, Gary McGath wrote:
Since this is in the "weapons" section, I rather expect they're
"going with" a common-sense definition, rather than some legal
definition.
I could be wrong. But the Philcon rules are a lot looser than the
ones Gary generally rails at, so I expect this one is also a loose,
if badly-worded, rule.
Exactly. But I would have expected people running a con to know that
everything is made of chemicals.
Now I'm wondering if there even is a "common-sense definition" of
chemical. If you call water dihydrogen monoxide, does that make it a
chemical?
(Hal Heydt)
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
It is fun though to ask where the inorganic bananas are, just to see how
many employees get involved until someone calls you on it. Although the
last couple times I tried they just laughed. They either knew or had
been warned. My best was four.
That does appear to be the case. Most of the side effects that
tarnished its reputation are either the result of serious
overconsumption, or just not supported by the evidence.
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 3:02:30 PM UTC-4, merri...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
BTW water (for instance), properly, shouldn't contain any carbon.
Mighty fine filtration needed to avoid trace elements, if it
comes from a river or lake. Heck, even ground water will have
some microscopic organisms.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Microbes-in-Groundwater.html
BTW water (for instance), properly, shouldn't contain any carbon.
On 9/21/2022 11:08 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me>,
(Hal Heydt)
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be able
to point out any INorganic food.
It is fun though to ask where the inorganic bananas are, just to see how
many employees get involved until someone calls you on it. Although the
last couple times I tried they just laughed. They either knew or had
been warned. My best was four.
On Thu, 22 Sep 2022 21:09:14 -0700 (PDT), Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com>
wrote:
On Wednesday, September 21, 2022 at 3:02:30 PM UTC-4, merri...@gmail.com wrote:
[snip]
BTW water (for instance), properly, shouldn't contain any carbon.
Mighty fine filtration needed to avoid trace elements, if it
comes from a river or lake. Heck, even ground water will have
some microscopic organisms.
http://www.waterencyclopedia.com/La-Mi/Microbes-in-Groundwater.html
Not to mention any mineral carbon dissolved in the universal solvent.
On 9/22/22 3:47 PM, Jay E. Morris wrote:
On 9/21/2022 11:08 AM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
In article <tgf9cq$1rfoi$1@dont-email.me>,
(Hal Heydt)
One rather suspects that the "common sense" definition is
something like a "name I'm not familiar with".
It's rather like "organic food". I've yet to see anyone be
able to point out any INorganic food.
It is fun though to ask where the inorganic bananas are, just
to see how many employees get involved until someone calls you
on it. Although the last couple times I tried they just
laughed. They either knew or had been warned. My best was four.
In Europe they tend to call them "bio" foods. Same problem.
There isn't much food that isn't make from formerly (or in a few
cases, currently) living things.
Back in ancient times a story of mine, "The Unfood," was published in
Analog. Very quick summary: A company offers "Nothing Munchies" as a
diet food. It's tasty but has no nutritional value. The FDA bans it
because rats will starve to death eating it, even preferring it to real
food. The manufacturer re-brands it as rat poison.
In article <tgg2vb$1u0lt$1@dont-email.me>,
Gary McGath <garym@REMOVEmcgathREMOVE.com> wrote:
Back in ancient times a story of mine, "The Unfood," was published in >>Analog. Very quick summary: A company offers "Nothing Munchies" as a
diet food. It's tasty but has no nutritional value. The FDA bans it
because rats will starve to death eating it, even preferring it to real >>food. The manufacturer re-brands it as rat poison.
This reminds me of a William F. Buckley column back when cyclamates
were banned because when you surgically implant a pellet of
cyclamate in a rat's bladder, it has an increased risk of cancer.
He suggested they simply re-lable cyclamate as rat poison, so
"... us brave souls can put it in our tea, and those who want
to poison rats can make the bastards die *real* *slow*."
This reminds me of a William F. Buckley column back when cyclamates
were banned because when you surgically implant a pellet of
cyclamate in a rat's bladder, it has an increased risk of cancer.
He suggested they simply re-lable cyclamate as rat poison, so
"... us brave souls can put it in our tea, and those who want to
poison rats can make the bastards die *real* *slow*."
The most common rat poison, warfarin (aka Coumadin, aka Jantoven),
is also sold, for a much higher price, as a medicine for people with
clotting disorders.
My father was on that, I recall. Following my operation last year they
put me instead on Clopidogrel.
Clopidogrel sounds like the name of a centaur in a bad fantasy novel.
--scott
In article <ti6m4g$6qn$1@panix2.panix.com>, kludge@panix.com
(Scott Dorsey) wrote:
Clopidogrel sounds like the name of a centaur in a bad fantasy
novel. --scott
Indeed. Other drugs I'm on include Lansoprazole, which is, I
think, in the Canary Islands, and Amiodarone, which I think I've
had in an Italian restaurant.
In article <ti59t1$b3e$1@reader2.panix.com>, kfl@KeithLynch.net (Keith F. >Lynch) wrote:
The most common rat poison, warfarin (aka Coumadin, aka Jantoven),
is also sold, for a much higher price, as a medicine for people with
clotting disorders.
My father was on that, I recall. Following my operation last year they
put me instead on Clopidogrel.
Paul Dormer <prd@pauldormer.cix.co.uk> wrote:
My father was on that, I recall. Following my operation last year they
put me instead on Clopidogrel.
Clopidogrel sounds like the name of a centaur in a bad fantasy novel.
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the thought
has crossed my mind to try it...
My ex's brother tried it with his father's heart pills. Also tried
heating them. There's not enough in there to be fun.
On 2022-09-21 3:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the thought
has crossed my mind to try it...
My ex's brother tried it with his father's heart pills. Also tried
heating them. There's not enough in there to be fun.
I haven't done any research, but I assume that the nitroglycerine is too >dilute for a chain reaction to occur -- decomposing molecules releasing >enough energy to trigger more molecules to decompose.
In the last chemistry lab I worked in, a couple of decades ago now, we
had one refrigerator for the really toxic chemicals, and another for the
ones that were relatively safe. The latter wasn't "spark proof", i.e.
safe to store flammable solvents in. Therefore, by workplace safety >regulations, we weren't allowed to store solutions containing any >non-negligible amount of flammable solvents, even in well-sealed
containers. And therefore, we weren't allowed to chill the bottles of >champagne or other alcoholic beverages that we used to celebrate
successful thesis defenses. If it contained alcohol, it was deemed to
be a fire/explosion hazard.
Joel
On Wed, 14 Dec 2022 15:46:26 -0500, Joel Polowin
<jpolowin@sympatico.ca> wrote:
On 2022-09-21 3:49 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
Can a nitroglycerin pill explode?
None of mine ever have. On the other hand, I haven't tried
taking one out and hitting it with a hammer. Though the
thought has crossed my mind to try it...
My ex's brother tried it with his father's heart pills. Also
tried heating them. There's not enough in there to be fun.
I haven't done any research, but I assume that the
nitroglycerine is too dilute for a chain reaction to occur --
decomposing molecules releasing enough energy to trigger more
molecules to decompose.
In the last chemistry lab I worked in, a couple of decades ago
now, we had one refrigerator for the really toxic chemicals, and
another for the ones that were relatively safe. The latter
wasn't "spark proof", i.e. safe to store flammable solvents in.
Therefore, by workplace safety regulations, we weren't allowed
to store solutions containing any non-negligible amount of
flammable solvents, even in well-sealed containers. And
therefore, we weren't allowed to chill the bottles of champagne
or other alcoholic beverages that we used to celebrate
successful thesis defenses. If it contained alcohol, it was
deemed to be a fire/explosion hazard.
Joel
I would think that the pressurized CO2 would be more likely to
make the Champaign "explosive" than the alcohol in the
concentrations it is in anything not distilled.
I would think that the pressurized CO2 would be more likely to make
the Champaign "explosive" than the alcohol in the concentrations it is
in anything not distilled.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 399 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 70:16:08 |
| Calls: | 8,356 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 13,159 |
| Messages: | 5,895,047 |