#i <3 carcinogens

[fishlung8877]

yayo

+ Random closeups under cut :3c

[mjhartwork]

dumping valley

[deus-ex-mona]

my five surviving braincells when something remotely good happens:

[chaseprice]

,

[kindred-spirit-93]

gremlin hijabi core all the way baby >:3

social media has got twenty year old women thinking they have to be a "clean girl" at university with a morning routine and face masks and expensive water bottles and a 9pm bedtime. I am begging the world to let young women go through a crucial developmental stage of being disgusting messy little rats. for feminism.

[bam-monsterhospital]

ah there we are. problem.

[anythingbyadriannelenker]

(the horrors are multiplying) and i stay silly :3

[alithiasigma]

The research suggests that death is inevitable and that botox (botulinum toxin), a substance often used in anti-aging treatments, is bad for the human body. Biology, particularly regarding endocrinology, neurology, and sensory studies, indicate that even if death weren't inevitable, immortality would not be pleasant for any human.

scrunching my face real hard rn

[hasellia]

Philosopher: "What is 1 + 2 ?"

Mathematician " 2.5. If one more person says that irrational numbers are valid I'm going to drown someone."

Statistician " 4. When in doubt, add plus one."

Engineer: " 3 is the strongest number, but regulations require to double our numbers for safety. So I'm saying 6."

Physicist " 3.5. I'm the smartest person here & I have no idea why the equation outputs that number. Y'all just to cowardly to admit the same."

Atronomer : "It's probably 2.3, give or take a few .3s."

Biologist: " Do you have any idea how complicated the dynamics of 1 interacting with 2 is? I've got no idea."

Geologist: " I'm guessing 2."

Chemist: " we mixed a bunch stuff together for fun. The carcinogen we made could only have happened if the equation equals 3. So I'm saying 3."

Mathematician: "I'm going to drown you."

[dear-ao3]

bucket of facts here. This is one of my favorite f1 things ever, apologies for how long it ended up being:

In the 1980’s, formula one teams, notably BMW, added toluene to their fuel mixtures. If that word sounds like it’s probably dangerous, that’s because it is — most people know it as rocket fuel. It’s extremely poisonous and carcinogenic, but did have some upsides! For one, it was less volatile [citation needed] than what they had been using, making is slightly less dangerous in the event of a crash (by 1970’s-80’s F1 standards that just means in only turned into a small bomb most of the time). It was also denser and burned faster, so the same amount of toluene could give much more power than the standard F1 fuel.

While the new fuel did allow them to run higher turbo pressures, it did it have a tendency to increase turbo pressure as it was run during the race, and everyone ran turbos at this time. They had to dial back the turbo pressure from what it’s max could’ve been, just to compensate for the power of the fuel — this mitigated the admittedly high likelihood that the engine decided to submit its two weeks notice on two seconds of warning (read: it caught on fire and sometimes kinda maybe sorta just exploded).

Modern f1 fuel has an RON octane rating of 95-102. The toluene aided fuel had an RON octane rating of 120+. For context, your car probably runs on about 87 RON. For those unfamiliar, RON octane ratings measure how much compression fuel can be put under before it sparks, which is how engines work: compress fuel, spark, make power (I can explain that better if you want but short version is that). This incredibly high octane level allowed the engines of the time to be run at a much higher compression, which had a myriad of bonuses to the cars.

Current F1 regulations are 1.6 litre V6 engines that rev to 15,000 RPMs (max allowed) and produce a max of 850 BHP (horsepower) when they’re pushing the edge of their abilities without aid of electric components like H/KERS, which is used to boost the cars to around 1,000 BHP.

Brabham-BMW’s 1983 engine took Nelson Pique to his WDC that year. It was a 1.5 litre inline 4 (so smaller than current) and produced 12,000 RPMs, as the restrictions were a bit tighter there back then. Without electronic aid like today and a smaller engine than your standard Toyota Camry, it easily produced 850 BHP at race trim, the version built to last a whole race. When in qualifying trim, with everything tuned to maximum to get the most out of the car without it blowing up, it ran at 1,250 BHP. Original testing put it at producing over 1,400 BHP, but BMWs testing facilities couldn’t measure past that — the car put out more power than they could even register.

The teams also had a sneaky loophole: the amount of fuel allowed to be held at once in the car (refueling was banned at this time) was effectively limited to how large the gas tank could be. The teams realized that they could literally freeze the fuel and store it at cold temperatures. This compacted the fuel, allowing them to put more fuel into the gas tank — more fuel per fuel, really. This allowed drivers to be more aggressive and push harder more often, not having to worry about running out of fuel.

In case this whole toluene thing seems bad, don’t worry! It’s only used in nail polish, rubber, adhesives, and paints :3

hit me up for more facts if you want

oh my

anon bestie i might in fact be in love with you

[manicplank]

Ways The Noise Has Died

I have a headcanon that The Noise can die and respawn. (He's cursed, but sometimes he takes advantage of it.) These are just some of the ways he's died. He does a lot of stupid shit.

Hit by car: 3

Lung cancer: 2

Throat cancer: 1

Fallen from building/height: 2

Shot by police: 7

Drowned: 1

Execution by electric chair: 1

Eaten by alligators: 2

Smashed by piano: 2

Killed by Peppino: 15

Heart attack: 3

Diabetes: 3

Fire/burns: 5

Explosion: 22

Spontaneous combustion: 4

Eaten by shark: 1

Poisoned: 1

Internal bleeding: 2

Septic shock: 2

Execution by guillotine: 2

Bleeding out: 4

Head trauma: 5

Forgot to breathe: 18

Killed by Toppin Monster: 3

Mauled by bear: 1

Ate something inedible: 6

Forgot to eat (starved): 3

Alcohol poisoning: 6

Dehydration: 3

Eaten by tigers: 1

Strangled by Pizzahead: 2

Stung by bees: 1

Run over by boulder: 1

Struck by lightning: 2

Led poisoning: 2

Ate paint: 3

EDIT from replies:

Killed by Noisette: 1

Radiation exposure: 2

Choke on food: 12

Organ failure: 7

Froze to death: 1

Allergies: 3

Land mine testing: 2

Food poisoning: 28

Jetpack failure: 6

Sucked into black hole: 1

Inhaling carcinogenic gaz: 7

Talking back to his mama: 1

Banished into the shadow realm: 2

Dark magic spell failure: 4

Touching electric plug with a fork: 5

Stunt failure: 35

Edit from replies 2:

Got skewered in a magic trick gone wrong: 11

Got caught in a mousetrap: 6

Rat poison: 25

Burned alive: 4

(Feel free to suggest ways he's died. Silly little bastard is always up to no good.)

Hit by a train: 2

EDIT by replies 3:

Washed out to sea: 4

Battle with Doise: 1

Fallen into volcano: 7

Mocked Pepperman’s art: 3

Sucked into tornado: 3

Kicked by cow: 1

Crushed by his crusher: 4

Ate Fake Peppino’s food: 2

Slipped on banana peel: 18

Rabies: 4

Pissed off Dougie Jones: 1

Shot by alien raygun: 3

Crushed by tree: 1

Buried alive: 3

Shot by Vigilante: 2

Knife juggling: 4

challenged God to smite him: 1

Fallen into bottomless pit: 7

Eaten by piranhas: 3

Bitten by zombie: 1

Air balloon crash: 5

Tried to light his fart on fire (gone wrong): 1

[ms-demeanor]

not be suuuuuuper annoying but the concerns raised about aspartame by the WHO are almost entirely regarding its potential carcinogen status and not seizures. specifically, as a "possible" carcinogen, group 2B, which, while very far removed from confirmed carcinogens, becomes a very real concern because some people consume aspartame in very large quantities on a daily basis, like 12 cans of diet coke a day, no problem.

so yes, there's a great deal of ridiculous charlatan-style behavior surrounding aspartame, but that's not really related to the actual research being done. we can't look to rodent studies as the end-all-be-all, and even human observational studies dimly linking cancer to aspartame must be taken with a huge grain of salt, because, again, observational study, but when it comes to super-long-term-consumption of an ingredient and the potential for cancer, it's not unreasonable to evaluate your personal risk tolerance and decide it's not a bad idea to reduce or eliminate aspartame from your diet

tldr (do people still use this term?): the actual concerns about aspartame aren't about sensitivity or seizures and it cannot be conclusively said to be completely safe, but at the same time it's not a huge deal especially if you don't ingest that much of it regularly

sorry for being so annoying about this shit :( <3

So that report came out a year after I had started doing the research so it obviously didn't come up in my original deep dive and the WHO's findings on aspartame as being possibly carcinogenic are pretty much in line with prior recommended limits on aspartame consumption.

I'm not going to deny that there are some people who consume 12 cans of diet sodas a day, but I do want to point out that people who are consuming 12 cans of diet soda are drinking more than a gallon of soda each day. This is a tiny number of consumers (the vast majority of consumers drink 16oz or less a day of *any* kind of soda, diet or otherwise). At that point you don't just need to worry about the aspartame, you need to worry about what that's doing to your sodium intake as a much more proven risk (12 cans of diet coke a day gives you about half a gram more salt than would otherwise be in your diet), or be concerned about the possible connection between artificial sweeteners and metabolic syndrome.

And I really just cannot emphasize enough that the vast, vast majority of people aren't consuming more than 5 cans of diet soda daily, let alone 10 - aspartame consumption among people who use aspartame is in the 5-13mg/kg range, not in the 40-50mg/kg range except for a few very rare cases.

Humans are bad at risk assessment. People look at the IARC reclassification and look at their own (typically very small) aspartame consumption, and will stop drinking diet drinks (and will often tell other people to stop drinking diet drinks).

Drinking somewhere in the neighborhood of a gallon of diet soda each day is possibly carcinogenic, or at the very least *not provably not cancer-causing* and people have been talking about it and writing thinkpieces about it and the anti-aspartame crew has been insufferable about it since July made.

So what has happened here is that a very reasonable organization has made a very reasonable category change to a chemical that switched it from "known not to cause cancer" to "not known to not cause cancer" and the anti-aspartame crew has continued to list cancer, and neurological problems, and seizures, and a whole host of other things as the results of aspartame consumption.

And, like, I'm not calling these people charlatans for this paper but jesus christ:

Actually maybe I am going to call these people charlatans. This all links back to the "aspartame metabolizes as formaldehyde and poisons you" thing (which a lot of the extremely suspect research on aspartame does).

People are *absolutely* still doing research into the more absurd claims of anti-aspartame activists. This paper was published *this month* (and relies on the self-reported memories of mothers of autistic children to recall how much aspartame they consumed during pregnancy, which is not going to be a *great* set of data to analyze)

But anyway, before I go down that rabbit hole, let's get back to cancer and cancer risk. It is, of course, totally okay for you to look at the designation of aspartame as a 2B substance and decide that you don't want to use aspartame anymore, that you think it's too much of a risk.

You know what's in IARC category 2A, or probably carcinogenic to humans?

Drinking hot tea. Or coffee. Or water. Or cocoa.

Drinking liquid over 65 degrees Celsius/ 149 degrees fahrenheit is biologically plausible as a cause of cell damage that may lead to cancer. There is more evidence of this connection than the connection between aspartame and cancer.

You know what we called 150 degrees when I was working at the coffee shop? Kid hot. Because that's how hot you can make hot cocoa for kids so it is warm enough to be hot cocoa but won't burn their tongues. If you serve most adults coffee or tea at 150 degrees they'll consider it cold (or at least not as hot as a hot drink should be). Starbucks doesn't serve hot coffee at under 165F and if you ask for extra hot it'll be closer to 180.

The IARC report listing hot beverages as category 2A means that it's not unreasonable to evaluate your personal risk tolerance and decide it's not a bad idea to reduce or eliminate liquids over 65C from your diet.

But nobody is doing that.

Basically more research needs to be done on everything and you're not being annoying, the way that human brains work and assess risk and set up phantoms to get scared of even when there are much bigger and realer risks (like consuming any amount of alcohol on a regular basis) that people are perfectly willing to overlook.

It's like being afraid of plane crashes but cheerfully getting in your car for a 20 mile daily commute with no concerns or worries because it's something you do every day.

Brains! They're annoying!

[ovaruling]

not sorry but if ur a DERMATOLOGIST and ur wearing a full fkn face of carcinogenic makeup to my appointment then im gonna struggle to take any of your product recommendations seriously

if i then ask u “what are the drawbacks to [this controversial medication being suggested for me]?” and u go “it’s very safe, i’ve used it before myself” i’m going to doubt your credibility very much!

and again im not sorry abt that! because you willingly have! 3+ layers!!!! of shit on your face and eyes and mouth! that is seeping into ur body! to do who knows what! yet surely as a derm u know this! and ur trying to sell me on what’s safe! for my autoimmune-disease-riddled body! ok!!!!!!!

[feministdragon]

"If one looks at the strategies, tactics and technology used in countries like India, Bangladesh, China, Singapore under the guise of ‘family planning’, one cannot help but recognize a virtual trend towards gynocide. Not only have Third World women, particularly in India and Bangladesh, unhesitatingly been used as guinea pigs by the multinational pharmaceutical industries to test dangerous contraceptives and methods, like amniocentesis,2 but contraceptives like Depoprovera, which were banned in the USA because of their carcinogenic qualities, have been massively dumped in many Third World countries.3 The government of Bangladesh was forced not only to allow all kinds of scientific experiments to be carried out on its territory, but also to buy huge amounts of contraceptives from the Western pharmaceutical industry (Minkin, 1979). In all this, some of the scientific lieutenants in the international war against population growth not only advocated compulsory measures, but also the open use and strengthening of patriarchal or sexist attitudes. Already in 1968 William McElroy, in a controversy with Kinglsey Davis who advocated compulsion, said:

‘In most societies male babies are more desirable than females and if the male were the first offspring, the motivation for having additional offspring would be reduced’ (McElroy, 1968, quoted in Mass, 1975: 22).

In 1973, the biologist Postgate goes a step further in deliberately advocating sex selection as a method of population control. Vimal Balasubrahmanyan refers to the Male Utopia thus propagated by people like Postgate:

Postgate argues that birth control ‘does not work’ in the countries that ‘need it most’ and ‘alternative methods of population control such as war, disease, legalised infanticide and euthanasia are rejected as they are not selective, acceptable, quickly effective or permanent enough’. He suggest that ‘breeding male is the only solution which meets all the above criteria’. Countless millions of people would leap at the opportunity to breed male (particularly in the third world) and no compulsion or even propaganda would be needed to encourage its use, only evidence of success by example (Balasubrahmanyan, 1982: 1725).

Meanwhile, with the advance of sex-preselection technology, amniocentesis and the ultrasound scanner, the prospect of ‘breeding male’ has become practice, not only in India but, with even more far-reaching consequences, in China. In India, the practice of aborting female foetuses, after sex determination by amniocentesis, became a public issue only after it became known that some clever doctors in Amritsar had made a flourishing business out of Indian parents’ preference for male offspring. They advertised to do both sex-preselection and abortion of female foetuses. After the protests by many women’s groups in India, the practice will, as Vimal Balasubrahmanyan fears, simply continue in a more discreet way, particularly when ultrasound scanning becomes widely available.

During a visit to India in summer 1984 I learned that sex-preselection and the abortion of female foetuses were already practised by many low caste and poor people in the countryside of Maharashtra.

The case of China is even more horrifying since here the whole mighty state and party apparatus is mobilized to implement the one-child policy which constitutes part of the modernization strategy of China after Mao. ‘Breeding male’ may not be a deliberate strategy of the Chinese government, but is, as Elisabeth Croll and other have shown, the inevitable result of the contradictions between furthering small peasants’ private landownership, the continuation of patrilocal marriage and family patterns, and the one-child policy of the state. Peasants who still largely have to depend on their children for old-age security want sons, since the sons inherit the family plot and remain in the village. Daughters are married to some other family and village, as is the case in India.

Daughters, therefore, are not wanted. This situation is aggravated by the policy of the government to reward those who follow the one-child norm: they get more private land, if they are peasants, and they get more room, more school and health facilities, more modern equipment, if they live in the cities.

Thus, those who get most land have least family labour to work on it. This contradiction combined with the compulsory measures of the government, the interplay of incentives and discentives under the total control of the party, and growing neo-patriarchal attitudes and relations put women under pressure from all sides, so much so that female foeticide has risen to alarming dimensions."

This was published in 1986, by the way. And yet it still describes what's happening now to a large degree.

Patriarchy and Capital Accumulation  Maria Mies p.185

[starlene]

Anne of the Island Book Club: Chapter 7

Pictured: Davy and Dora welcoming Anne home.

[Gif borrowed from this lovely gifset by @seinaet – try as I might, Tumblr's add gif feature only gives me the first gif of the set. I hope this way of crediting the OP is okay.]

Anne is super good with children. Her telling Davy to say his bad word out loud is like a gentler and less carcinogenic version of the old trick where you make a kid smoke an entire pack of cigarettes to teach them a lesson.

Philippa is extremely relatable with her lost coin here. "I concluded I must have put it in my mouth and swallowed it inadvertently" is a sentiment that has a permanent place of residence in my brain.

I don't have much to say about this chapter, just that it's lovely and cozy. Anne's description of the love that’s waiting for her makes me a bit emotional, it's just so... <3

[dried-deep-sea]

My sister and I are watching g venom the last dance. And since she can't remember the last one very well she keeps getting carnage name wrong.

Notable mistakes are

Car carn carney

Cardinal (3 times)

Cartridge

Catastrophe

Carcinogen