You must log in or # 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.
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.
-
German tire?
Deutsche Wheelen??? … (or something like that, I don’t speak German)
Germans put their words together
Start booking flights to Canada
So drinking gasoline is pretty safe
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
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.
deleted by creator
Gasoline is better for your health than vitamin C.
If not for the additive to make it inedible.
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
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.
Edit: some substances will be ejected by the body relatively fast (water), some bioaccumulate (heavy metals) and some “biomutiply” (viruses). This is why you haven’t died despite having drunk lots of water.
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 (because it’s a heavy metal) in addition to giving off ionizing radiation, 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
You are right, those aren’t viruses. But you can imagine that a virus or prion (like botulinum) 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.
For the THC though it would be grams of pure THC, not grams of weed
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
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.
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.
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”.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
The data about LSD lethality in humans is sparse at best it seems: https://www.healthline.com/health/substance-use/can-you-overdose-on-lsd#risk-of-death
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.
You should work on reading comprehension.
Where does it say anything about mortality rates?
It shows lethal doses.
I think the reason this chart doesn’t feel right is because for substances we regularly ingest, a more useful scale would be the ratio of the lethal dose to the effective dose, since we use a different mg amount to get high on THC than we use to lower pain on acetaminophen
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.
Aye, I’ve always liked the ratio better. It really puts into perspective how fast and loose some of our entertainments are. Compare the health warnings on OTC drugs like tylenol/acetaminophen/paracetamol to the bare minimum labeling of alcohol, yet alcohol’s equivalent (or much less, in some estimations) to the painkiller.
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). Thankfully, our society knows about the danger and limits the intake of lead to small amounts and/or small concentrations.
This list is about lethality, not death counts.
You need to consider that a typical dose of acetaminophen is much higher than a typical dose of thc.
The fact that your completely misunderstanding ass got upvoted so hard really shows that people are pretty fast to be pretty stupid.
Damn, I can drink a lot more gasoline than I thought
I mean, it won’t kill you right away, but don’t fart near an open flame
A great way to help people understand how “What doesn’t kill you makes you stronger” is almost always untrue.
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).
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.
That’s correct
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
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.
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”
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 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!
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.
Where’s the 55th substance?
…the friends we made along the way?
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!
deleted by creator
That’s nine liters for a 100kg person…
It’s 9 litters of water ingested at once for a 100kg person.
That’s 4.5 large bottles of pop filled with water, chugged down as fast as possible, has a roughly 50% chance to kill a person.
That makes sense.
90g * 100 = 9kg so 9L of water (2 gallons)
Since the maths is wrong with the water sentence, I’m sceptical of the accuracy of the rest.
Would you mind providing a source correcting the graph?
Since the graph has a source listed and you don’t…
The graph also suggests hydrochloric acid is some kind of organic molecule, so…
Yeah, this thing’s a bag of crap
Did you take a look at the picture associated with HCl? Looks like this belongs to cursedChemistry@lemmy.world if you ask me.
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
🍆
0.59 g/kg
Looks like I can barely survive mine
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.
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!
Vitamin C more harmful than gasoline is an interesting one.
Yeah, very confusing if you don’t understand how the data works.
Even water is lethal!
Yeah, the ld50 for gasoline is 5000 mg/kg, not 14,000 which is the limit for acute toxicity. This whole chart is shit.
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.
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.
So we need a sun laser beam. Got it.
Or just ingest a lot of D vitamin pills.
deleted by creator
It is the obvious conclusion ;)
That’s exactly what I assumed. It makes no sense. I guess I wasn’t clear considering the downvotes.
1000 IU of Vitamin D is 25 mcg. So the LD50 for an 80 kg adult is 37×80×1000÷25 ≈ 120 000 vitamin D pills.
I think you’ll be fine.
deleted by creator
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.
Let’s not forget this only refers to LD50 not permanent organ damage.
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.
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.
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?
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 LD50While 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
All the above, most likely
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?
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
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.
I think that you’re missing the dosages. Most of these are orders of magnitude higher than the most someone would consume. Like, the caffeine value per kg of bodyweight is as much as most caffeine addicts likely have in a day. So approximately 2 orders of magnitude higher than how much we consume.
MDMA is similar. An ecstasy pill is up to 100mg (apparently; I just looked it up), so an adult would need to pop something like 130 pills to hit the LD50.
Acetaminophen is 500mg/pill, so that’s like a Costco-sized bottle to kill an adult.
Vitamin D is crazy low. 1000 IU is 25 mcg, so 1000 pills is less than the LD50 for 1 kg of body weight. It’s hardly toxic at all, in the dosages we consume. You’d need to pop multiple cases of bottles of Vitamin D to overdose. All
