Slashdot Mirror


The Medical Benefits of Carbon Monoxide

tugfoigel writes with this excerpt from the Boston Globe: "For more than a century, carbon monoxide has been known as a deadly toxin. In an 1839 story, Edgar Allan Poe wrote of 'miraculous lustre of the eye' and 'nervous agitation' in what some believe are descriptions of carbon monoxide poisoning, and today, cigarette cartons warn of its health dangers. But a growing body of research, much of it by local scientists, is revealing a paradox: the gas often called a silent killer could also be a medical treatment. It seems like a radical contradiction, but animal studies show that in small, extremely controlled doses the gas has benefits in everything from infections to organ transplantation."

177 comments

  1. I've seen this story before! by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    NO!

    1. Re:I've seen this story before! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      NO is nitric oxide, not carbon monoxide.

    2. Re:I've seen this story before! by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      </WHOOSH>

      (pls mod GP funny, kthx)

    3. Re:I've seen this story before! by BikeHelmet · · Score: 1
    4. Re:I've seen this story before! by davester666 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This story describes part of the Democrat's government health insurance plan, which includes mandatory euthanasia for all people over 65.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    5. Re:I've seen this story before! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      N2O is what makes things funny, not NO.

    6. Re:I've seen this story before! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      The pansies. I was hoping for 45.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    7. Re:I've seen this story before! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its hilarious that your "whoosh" post was in fact the "whoosh."

      Is that irony? I'm not sure if I know what it means anymore.

    8. Re:I've seen this story before! by x2A · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Cuz only idiots make "whoosh!" posts, so you can bet that a fair % of the time the "whoosh!" is going to be idiotic as what they think they are "whoosh!"ing.

      Yep that's right, saying "whoosh!" is not inventive, imaginative, funny, insightful, helpful, and just makes you look like a dick saying "hey everyone else, look, I got something that this person didn't, haha look I'm not stupid because he didn't read something the way I did, please look, mommy please look at how high I can swing, please mommy, why won't you look?".

      Your Mommy needed a break from having to deal with you constantly, she's seen people on swings before, get over it.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    9. Re:I've seen this story before! by x2A · · Score: 1

      *lol* stop it, some people are actually stupid enough to believe that! At least put a '*lol*' at the end or something or ;-) or something, like every single fox news item should have :-)

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
  2. Gee whiz! by mcsnee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Something that is bad for us in high doses may be beneficial in low doses?! Next they'll be telling us that exposure to radiation and toxins can help cure cancer, or that the same stuff that rusts away unprotected steel and iron is actually necessary for animal life!

    1. Re:Gee whiz! by wjh31 · · Score: 3, Funny

      See, homeopathy works.

    2. Re:Gee whiz! by imsabbel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      expicitely no.
      Homeopathy means not low dosage, but NO dosage.

      --
      HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
    3. Re:Gee whiz! by xTantrum · · Score: 5, Insightful
      seriously people this isn't that "paradoxical". Chem 101. As (arsenic) is also deadly but its also an essential biological trace element. Its about moderation.

      Sometimes i can't believe i still surf this place.

      --
      $action = empty(PHP) ? backToC() : unset(PHP) ; "when the concrete cases are understood, the abstractions are readily
    4. Re:Gee whiz! by Eudial · · Score: 1

      It isn't really homeopathy. The doses are larger than that.

      Like, you have a headache and take a painkiller and it goes away. If you on the other hand take 17 bottles of painkiller, you die. In this case, 1 pill was good, and 17 bottles was bad. .01% of a pill wouldn't do anything.

      --
      GAAH! MY PRINTER IS ON FIRE!!! PUT IT OUT! PUT IT OUT!
    5. Re:Gee whiz! by lxs · · Score: 1

      Modern homeopathy works with doses of nitrogen monoxide? In my youth we just used plain water!

    6. Re:Gee whiz! by mbone · · Score: 1

      "You mean there was no deep fat? No steak or cream pies or... hot fudge?
      Those were thought to be unhealthy... precisely the opposite of what we now know to be true.
      Incredible.
      "

      (Woody Allen, Sleeper, 1973)

    7. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excuse me...
      Your sarcasm-o-meter seems to be broken.

      Or are you responding to the article and not your parent poster?

    8. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      I can't believe you still use the word 'surf'.

    9. Re:Gee whiz! by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mod parent down to the depths of Hell.

      Homeopathy DOES NOT WORK. And this is not homeopathy. Homeopathy is wrong for two reasons--one, it postulates that chemicals/herbs/medicines that cause a symptom will cure that symptom, and second, it postulates that water or whatever solvent they use will retain the "memory" of that chemical/herb/medicine, even if it is diluted to the point of receiving even one molecule of solute is statistically improbable. And they think the greater the dilution, the greater the effect! I wonder what all the homeopathic dinosaur urine we're drinking is doing to us!

      Homeopathy is bizarre quackery. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

    10. Re:Gee whiz! by wjh31 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I know homeopathy is bull-crap, i was going for funny based on the parent of the post in question, not flamebait

    11. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the very definition of homeopathy is low dosage.
      Though, in today's world, it's often used to mean using natural and medicine together and addressing all avenues.. AND misunderstood by most to mean another word for natural-only.

    12. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Studies have found that low level exposure to ionizing radiation helps prevent cancer (that is people who work around stuff that nukes them a bit suffer from less cancer statistically). However those who breathe in radioactive materials have higher rates of cancer.

      The theory is that the radiation stimulates our immune system to identify and destroy damaged cells.

    13. Re:Gee whiz! by StellarFury · · Score: 1

      The definition of homeopathy is that the harm of a given compound is inversely related to its concentration, and once you reduce the concentration far enough, it starts having therapeutic effects. So, most homeopathic "drugs" are something like 1 ppm of a compound in water. This does not count as a "dose" by any stretch of the imagination, as 1 ppm is probably less than what's already present in your body as trace compounds.

    14. Re:Gee whiz! by Artraze · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, homeopathic remedies are surprisingly effective, and compete strongly with even the newest drugs. The story was posted here just recently:
      Slashdot: Placebos Are Getting More Effective

      Just because they're bogus science, not real medicine, etc. doesn't mean they don't work. The placebo effect can be very strong, and homeopathy causes in quite a lot of people. Take doesn't make it a replacement for real medicine, of course, but that doesn't mean it does not work.

    15. Re:Gee whiz! by Thinboy00 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, Homeopathy often dilutes the "dose" until it is improbable that there is a single molecule of the original substance remaining

      --
      $ make available
    16. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do you have to also be ignorant and believe that homeopathy works to get the placebo effect or does it also work on those that think it's a scam?

    17. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Too true. Even DHMO has many benefits if used responsibly.

      (Not an industry shill, just a pragmatist posting anonymously to avoid harassment from anti-DHMO zealots).

    18. Re:Gee whiz! by nog_lorp · · Score: 1

      Actually, I'd say it does mean it doesn't work.

      If the sugar pill with 0.00001% of some drug has the same effect as a plain old sugar pill, clearly you should just buy some damn sugar pills.

      Or drink water upside down, or have someone scare you. Anything good for hiccups tends to be equally good at anything else with which placebo's are effective.

    19. Re:Gee whiz! by Metasquares · · Score: 1
    20. Re:Gee whiz! by clandonald · · Score: 0

      I personally think homeopathy is bull. But why is the above post modded troll? How is it a troll? It's an opinion. Modding someone down because of a difference of opinion means you are either intolerant or have a hidden agenda to push. Why is any post not pro pharma is always modded down?

      --
      The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
    21. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      As (arsenic) is also deadly but its also an essential biological trace element. Its about moderation.

      That may be true, but there are clearly some very dangerous chemicals like nitroglycerin that couldn't possibly have any medical uses.

    22. Re:Gee whiz! by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 0

      It doesn't work, as it's not the actual chemical compounds that have efficacy. Medicinal and surgical treatments are usually compared to placebo to determine efficacy, and homeopathy having the efficacy of placebo indicates it, in fact, is not working.

    23. Re:Gee whiz! by selven · · Score: 1

      Indeed, while we weren't looking they built a bridge over the water. It's called trolling now.

    24. Re:Gee whiz! by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      No it doesn't. There is no detectable trace of whatever it is supposed to be in their potions, and they are no better than placebos in proper double blind trials.

    25. Re:Gee whiz! by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If the sugar pill with 0.00001% of some drug has the same effect as a plain old sugar pill, clearly you should just buy some damn sugar pills.

      The problem is that the effectiveness of placebos actually goes up when you increase their price: "Commercial Features of Placebo and Therapeutic Efficacy".

      Oddly enough, the expensive sugar pills do work bette -- as long as the patients know the price.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    26. Re:Gee whiz! by Biff+Stu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      With the trace amounts of all the disposed medicines in our water supply, how sure can we be that the water that we're using to dilute the homeopathic remedies is entirely free of medicines? After all, just one molecule out of ~10^21 is all it takes to completely screw up the remedy.

    27. Re:Gee whiz! by jbengt · · Score: 5, Funny

      Homeopathy is wrong for two reasons--one, it postulates that chemicals/herbs/medicines that cause a symptom will cure that symptom, . . .

      Well, the same ethanol that caused my morning headache seems to have cured it.

    28. Re:Gee whiz! by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      (Not an industry shill, just a pragmatist posting anonymously to avoid harassment from anti-DHMO zealots).

      You'd better post anonymously. Crazies like you just love it when people can get DHMO without any sort of oversight. You want them to think they can't live without it! It's bloody dangerous! That crap gets in your lungs and you DIE!

    29. Re:Gee whiz! by DiegoBravo · · Score: 1

      Water in small doses is absolutely needed for humans. Water in high doses get them drowned.

      The same apply to cholesterol and most substances.

      What's new here?

    30. Re:Gee whiz! by perlchild · · Score: 1

      I was just thinking you were right... Anyone notice this is exactly the case with botox?

    31. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on! Next thing you will be telling us that drinking a certain liquid is beneficial (necessary even) for life. Example: you are in the desert, and start crying out "liquid, liquid" and then suddenly find yourself in an ocean, full of this liquid, and the waves of the liquid are too much for you and you die because of it. A little is vital, too much is no good? What kind of nonsense is that?

    32. Re:Gee whiz! by oldsaint · · Score: 1

      The concept is called hermesis, and there are a significant number of examples, proven in rigorous tests. Toxicity starts at a threshold above zero, but there are beneficial effects at doses below that threshold.

    33. Re:Gee whiz! by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I wonder how the effects compare to patients in countries which reject draconian IP law and the idea that big pharma's interests should trump those of mankind, where people think they're getting an "expensive" sugar pill cheaper because they're special.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:Gee whiz! by FooAtWFU · · Score: 1

      Should have included a few more !!!1111eleven's.

      --
      The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
    35. Re:Gee whiz! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      No, it's no big surprise. Literally everything is lethal in high enough dosages, including water (it dilutes the electrolytes in the bloodstream and causes death.) I was somewhat puzzled that arsenic is both a known carcinogen and a treatment for some forms of cancer, but at this point it is not difficult to believe the CO can be a double-edged sword.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    36. Re:Gee whiz! by JamesP · · Score: 2, Funny

      Mod parent down to the depths of Hell.

      Homeopathy DOES NOT WORK

      Yeah, but Hell doesn't exist as well, so...

      --
      how long until /. fixes commenting on Chrome?
    37. Re:Gee whiz! by Mitchell314 · · Score: 1

      Untrue. It's extremely effective at getting rid of tumors. But side effects may include trauma and severe burns to the rest of the body.

      --
      I read TFA and all I got was this lousy cookie
    38. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Leave. Seriously, you're above this place, obviously much too intelligent to be slumming it here, and nobody wants to hear your little pissy complaints about how you can't believe you still 'surf' here. So everyone wins.

      So please, leave.

    39. Re:Gee whiz! by Gabrill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because multicellular organisms like homo sapiens can survive a poison that virii or bacteria cannot. Hasn't that been the basis of a great deal of medicine for over a century now?

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    40. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or how about "minimizing oxidation is sometimes useful". In other news...

    41. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Wtf is virii? Are just trying to broadcast your ignorance? If virus had a Latin-like plural, it would be viri. So not only do you choose the wrong way to pluralize virus, you even screw that up.

    42. Re:Gee whiz! by Bigos · · Score: 1

      not true!

      see: http://www.medilexicon.com/drugs/nitrostat.php/>

    43. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you'll find it's actually "viruses".

    44. Re:Gee whiz! by CubicleView · · Score: 1

      You had already surmised that carbon monoxide had beneficial uses in medicine, before reading the summary? I hope to fuck you're not a doctor.

    45. Re:Gee whiz! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Next they'll be telling us that exposure to radiation and toxins can help cure cancer"

      Imagine what it must've been like back in the 30s when irradiated water was the big health craze.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    46. Re:Gee whiz! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      "Homeopathy means not low dosage, but NO dosage."

      Bullshit.

      Homeopathy is the usage of (usually) plants in diluted doses that cause the symptoms you experience.

      It's like treating a HUGE forest fire with a smaller fire.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeopathy

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    47. Re:Gee whiz! by rcolbert · · Score: 1

      Perfect! Sleeper was the first thing that came to mind. "Take a drag. It's nicotine. It's good for you."

    48. Re:Gee whiz! by pyro_peter_911 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe you still use the word 'surf'.

      You can still use it, but only in moderation.

      Pyro

    49. Re:Gee whiz! by x2A · · Score: 1

      The effect is based more on the value you give it than the value that it is given... eg, if something costs 1 money to buy, then you're only losing 1 money if it doesn't work... but you wouldn't throw 200 monies away on something unless you were a lot more certain it would work. It's that certainty that translates into the placebo effect (except for me, as I'm placebo resistant).

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    50. Re:Gee whiz! by x2A · · Score: 1

      Whether something is pretty, or tastes great, is opinion. Whether something works or not is fact. Statements based on ignoring (or simply, having not yet been exposed to) facts should be shown as being such, so that others are less likely to believe the false statements.

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    51. Re:Gee whiz! by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      No, it really does mean no dosage.

      From the article you link to, in the first paragraph: Dilution often continues until none of the original substance remains.

      If disease were a forest fire, that would be putting water on it. Unfortunately, disease isn't a fire, and putting water on it won't work, thus homeopathy is quackery, not medicine.

    52. Re:Gee whiz! by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      Of course you have to believe it. Placebo is incredible stuff, it works for all kinds of conditions, but you have to believe it.

      My hypotheses is that it tricks the brain into triggering production of chemicals that actually act on the condition in question, but that's entirely unproven as far as I know. Someone should really do a study on the mechanism of effectiveness of placebo.

      I'll mention it to my friend who is a research scientist working for big pharma. I'm sure he'll get a laugh out of it, since there's no profit in placebo.

    53. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't screw up the remedy, it makes it better !
      In fact tap water is an universal remedy against all illness.

    54. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that nitroglycerine is used as a heart medicine.

    55. Re:Gee whiz! by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 1
      (Looks at moderations.)

      (Grateful for the +1 funny.)

      (The +1 informative confuses and frightens me.)

    56. Re:Gee whiz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh.. Go back to bed.

    57. Re:Gee whiz! by GlenRaphael · · Score: 1

      Or, say, botulism toxin.

      --
      I play Nerd-Folk!
    58. Re:Gee whiz! by Gabrill · · Score: 1

      My bad. Take a chill pill.

      --
      Always going forward, 'cause we can't find reverse.
    59. Re:Gee whiz! by Khyber · · Score: 1

      THE KEY WORD IS "OFTEN."

      If it were *ALWAYS* then your statement would be correct.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    60. Re:Gee whiz! by DarkVader · · Score: 1

      OK, so you at least concede that homeopathy is "often" so far beyond any reasonable concept of an actual treatment that it cannot possibly have any effect other than placebo.

      I assert that even in the cases where some of the initial substance remains that it's still quackery, in that in cases where it has been subjected to clinical trials it fails to have any measurable effect beyond placebo, except in the few cases where some high concentrations have been shown to cause harm, such as the Zicam loss of ability to smell incidents.

  3. Consider this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    In Soviet Russia, carbon monoxidizes you....

  4. In other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... local scientists discover another paradox - although large doses of aspirin can kill, in small doses it can actually be used as a medicine.

    (Replace aspirin with other drug for preference)

  5. Digitalis, eh? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

    So, basically, CO is a bit like digitalis, in that it's a deadly poison that has medical uses?

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Digitalis, eh? by wizardforce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      or tylenol, botulinum toxin, carboplatin, warfarin and many others. Just because a chemical is deadly toxic at some level doesn't mean it can't be useful at lower concentrations.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Digitalis, eh? by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 5, Funny

      Take iron, for instance. It's an essential trace mineral but drop an anvil on your foot and you're in a world of hurt...

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
  6. not a paradox by fermion · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Almost anything is lethal in large doses, and many things are fatal in even small doses. Those same things are often of some benefit in very small doses. For instance, Botulinum toxin. We use small and weakened versions of virus to immunize ourselves. Most medicines can kill children who ingest a moderate overdose. A little alcohol can be antiseptic, which is why many places in the world used to drink with their food, but too much alcohol is lethal.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:not a paradox by HasHPIT · · Score: 1

      Indeed this is true for almost any substance.
      Theres almost always a window between "no effect" and "toxic effect" in which "benefitial" would be the word used to describe the effect.

    2. Re:not a paradox by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Even things that are harmful in small doses can be good overall. That's the basic idea behind antiseptics. They're basically poisons; they'll kill off a few of your cells and all of the bacteria in an area. You can afford the loss of a few cells because you can grow new ones, but bacteria can't, and if they grew they'd do more damage to you than the loss of a few cells on the surface of an injury.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    3. Re:not a paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Almost anything is lethal in large doses

      Very true, even for substances you wouldn't normally think of. See Water Intoxication

    4. Re:not a paradox by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "benefitial" would be the word

      I don't think "benefitial" will ever be a word.

    5. Re:not a paradox by mqduck · · Score: 1

      I was about to remind you that the summary only said it *sounds* like a paradox, until I re-read it. Apparently my brain refused to process the line as written the first time. In Soulskill's defense, this is clearly the first advance in medicine he/she has ever heard of in his/her life.

      --
      Property is theft.
  7. Radical! by Daetrin · · Score: 0

    SRSLY?? What a totally radical contradiction!

    --
    This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  8. Spooky! by BigBadBus · · Score: 1

    There seems to be some anecdotal evidence that CO exposure may affect the senses to such an extent that people experience "spooky" or ghostly behaviour. Certainly, this occurred when one family was exposed, and their spooky hallucinations ceased when CO poisoning was diagnosed, and the source removed. There a little more here

  9. All things are poison... by notdotcom.com · · Score: 5, Informative

    Paracelsus, sometimes called the father of toxicology, wrote:

            German: Alle Ding' sind Gift, und nichts ohn' Gift; allein die Dosis macht, daß ein Ding kein Gift ist.
            "All things are poison and nothing is without poison, only the dose permits something not to be poisonous."

    That is to say, substances often considered toxic can be benign or beneficial in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily benign substance can be deadly if over-consumed. Even water can be deadly if overconsumed.

    (Ripped right from Wikipedia [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracelsus ] )

    So, 500 years ago, this would have been news?

    --
    Grandpa: My Homer is not a communist. He may be a liar, a pig, an idiot, a communist, but he is not a porn star.
    1. Re:All things are poison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That quote was the first thing that came to my mind when I read the article ;)

    2. Re:All things are poison... by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      It wasn't news to us that poisons can have benefits at low concentrations, it was the fact that Carbon Monoxide in particular may have uses beyond the ones we already know about like vaso-dilation and anti-inflammatory effects. That would certainly be news to us 500 years ago.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    3. Re:All things are poison... by noidentity · · Score: 1

      That is to say, substances often considered toxic can be benign or beneficial in small doses, and conversely an ordinarily benign substance can be deadly if over-consumed. Even water can be deadly if overconsumed.

      Hence my vigilant crusade to educate everyone I encounter about the dangers of DHMO, and the carelessness given to its widespread use in virtually everything.

    4. Re:All things are poison... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      you aren't wrong in your current mindset but you are missing the point: a substance which we did not previously thought any small dosage to be helpful in any way is now seen as being potentially helpful!

  10. Cigarettes by jellybear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?

    1. Re:Cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, if you smoke them with a filter that only lets carbon monoxide go through.

    2. Re:Cigarettes by nxtw · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?

      Nicotine is a stimulant. If you consider a stimulant's effects "good for you" (for example, if they help you perform better on an exam), then cigarettes in small doses could be good for you.

    3. Re:Cigarettes by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Maybe not cigarettes, but tobacco sure. Heroin also has huge medical benefits, but we can't touch that, can we?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, but you should stick a banana in your exhaust pipe to test it. I don't mean your asshole, I mean the tailpipe of your car.

    5. Re:Cigarettes by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      You can get the nicotine without the cigarette and the smoke etc. It's called an electric cigarette, use your Google-Fu, grasshopper.

    6. Re:Cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the nicotine......it's the smoke, it's the smoo-oo-oo-ooke, the smoo-oo-oo-ooke.

      I mean, if you took that banana and rolled it and smoked it...............

    7. Re:Cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Perhaps; the main problem with cigarettes is keeping the dose small. Forget not that there is therapeutic value in heroin, but it's heavily regulated because the patient will become addicted and seek more, almost inevitably to a point where they exceed their own limits and kick the bucket.

    8. Re:Cigarettes by StellarFury · · Score: 1

      It's called morphine, jackass.

    9. Re:Cigarettes by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Morphine is little more than low grade heroin, with lots of harmful impurities. Heroin is clean and safe.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    10. Re:Cigarettes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err? Morphine and Heroin are related but different opioids, and neither has to carry any impurities.

    11. Re:Cigarettes by treat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?

      "cigarette" is not exactly drug. If you look at the component chemicals, there certainly are drugs in there that have differing effects in small doses. Nicotine has many effects, certainly some of which could have medical relevance.

      It's rare that a drug is "good for you". The criteria is improving one condition without undue risk of causing/worsening others.

      A person who smokes cigarettes for anxiety could easily be coming out on the positive end of things, if the anxiety was so severe as to risk the life of the patient. While there are usually drugs that are more effective, government restrictions on these drugs can be quite a significant influence on patients receiving care.

      If cigarettes cure a person's anxiety, possibly a safer version can be created by extracting the nicotine. But this increases the risk of being arrested and contracting HIV due to repeated prison anal rape.

      All medications are a balance of risk.

    12. Re:Cigarettes by treat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Maybe not cigarettes, but tobacco sure. Heroin also has huge medical benefits, but we can't touch that, can we?

      In much of the world, heroin is recognized as being a safe and effective pain killer. It is used regularly in hospitals in the UK.

      The reason heroin is an effective recreational drug is due to its safety compared to other opiates.

      The situation is similar (although much more extreme) with methamphetamine. Enough caffeine to keep you awake for a week would have a high chance of killing you outright.

      Considering the low cost of making heroin from morphine, the use of morphine instead is essentially a deliberate waste in order to satisfy political considerations.

    13. Re:Cigarettes by treat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Morphine is little more than low grade heroin, with lots of harmful impurities. Heroin is clean and safe.

      Morphine is one molecule, heroin is another, similar molecule that is more efficient in the body.

      Neither contains any impurities by definition. Things advertised as such may contain impurities. But both are specific molecules and nothing else.

      Obviously the risk of a drug being contaminated with impurities can be greatly increased by the government's treatment of the regulation of that drug.

    14. Re:Cigarettes by treat · · Score: 1

      You can get the nicotine without the cigarette and the smoke etc. It's called an electric cigarette, use your Google-Fu, grasshopper.

      Governments often make this difficult to distribute/obtain because the device can be considered a "drug delivery device", while nicotine incidentally contained in tobacco is not always legally considered a drug.

      Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.

    15. Re:Cigarettes by treat · · Score: 1

      Still, nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in nicotine, readily apparent if you compare the effects of tobacco to vaporized pure nicotine.

      Oops, Nicotine is not the sole psychoactive chemical in tobacco.

      Oddly I'd consider this an obvious typo that doesn't need correction, but there's already too much confusion here about the difference between a molecule and a plant that produces that molecule.

    16. Re:Cigarettes by Gerafix · · Score: 1

      I suppose in less civilized countries. Here in Canada it's no problem.

    17. Re:Cigarettes by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      So you claim that most heroin addicts die of overdose? Wrong. Overdose is rare, most often occurring in relapsed addicts who take more than they can handle now that their tolerance has dropped. The other common cases are very new users, or users getting a cut that's purer than usual, and misjudging quantity.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
    18. Re:Cigarettes by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

      Heroin is the trade name by Bayer.

      --
      I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
    19. Re:Cigarettes by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      I forgot why, but in one episode Gregory House prescribed cigarettes to a guy with intestinal issues. Not sure what the exact issue was.

      --
      ...
  11. You also get synergistic benefit if you... by jeffb+(2.718) · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...coadminister with tetraethyl lead.

  12. all medical treatments have this paradox by Kevinv · · Score: 1

    "is revealing a paradox: the gas often called a silent killer could also be a medical treatment."

    Not much of a paradox. Every medical treatment suffers the exact same paradox. Morphine - great pain killer. Too much and it silently kills you. Anesthesias are the same. Cancer chemo treatments come very close to killing you, a small overdose may do it. Too much tylenol? Liver disease. Too much advil? Kidney problems.

    1. Re:all medical treatments have this paradox by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Hell, even too much water can poison you.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    2. Re:all medical treatments have this paradox by treat · · Score: 1

      "is revealing a paradox: the gas often called a silent killer could also be a medical treatment."

      Not much of a paradox. Every medical treatment suffers the exact same paradox. Morphine - great pain killer. Too much and it silently kills you. Anesthesias are the same. Cancer chemo treatments come very close to killing you, a small overdose may do it. Too much tylenol? Liver disease. Too much advil? Kidney problems.

      Tylenol is in the same ballpark as the chemo drugs, as opposed to morphine. Double a normal (but high) dose of tylenol and you can destroy your liver. Tylenol is actually added to other drugs in the US in order to punish patients who choose to take a higher dosage of the medication actually needed.

      One of the most evil things the US government does is adding a poison to medicines in order to destroy the liver of someone who takes "too much". The "too much" amount is likely to be a perfectly safe amount and could even be prescribed. And patients are not adequately warned what the dangers are of the medications they're given, or that certain components were added solely to have a fatal punitive effect.

  13. In a word no by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?

    Cigarettes also contain carcinogens and carcinogens have no real safe levels. They may publish recommended levels but even trace amounts of carcinogens can cause cancers. Even levels considered safe in the environment can cause cancer. Will you get cancer smoking one cigarette a week, probably not. How about one a day may be not. How about one an hour? Probably. The odds are low for one a week and somewhat higher for one a day but they are never zero. The whole point is it worth the risk? I've had friends and family die from lung cancer that were smokers so trust me it's a terrible way to die. We may all die of cancer due to unavoidable effects of modern life but I saw a friend that died from smoking at 43 and it wasn't pretty and he left a young child behind. Some things may be worth some risk but smoking isn't one of them.

    1. Re:In a word no by StellarFury · · Score: 1

      Carcinogens have no real safe levels to the EPA and FDA. Because we still don't know enough about the biochemistry behind tumorigenesis, it's impossible to give an absolute measurement of "safe levels." That's why the government regulators say "there is no safe level," because they don't know what is and isn't safe.

      I agree with you about smoking being stupid and dangerous, but really, your post is a bunch of emotional knee-jerk nonsense. People who want to smoke will smoke. Are you now going to tell everyone that they should stop driving because the risk of being horribly mutilated or killed is never zero unless you're not driving?

    2. Re:In a word no by moz25 · · Score: 1

      Are you really sure you agree that smoking is stupid and dangerous?

      Perhaps you are a smoker?

      You guys should really stop with the far-fetched car analogies: comparing an addictive drug to a useful transportation tool is just stupid.

    3. Re:In a word no by treat · · Score: 1

      Can cigarettes be good for you in small doses then?

      Cigarettes also contain carcinogens and carcinogens have no real safe levels.

      If carcinogens have no real safe levels, what possible definition are you using for "safe"?

      You realize that the word "safe" does not mean 100% completely impossible of causing any harm, right?

    4. Re:In a word no by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 1

      Google smoking and schizophrenia. For certain conditions the benefits of smoking may far outweigh the risk of cancer down the road. It's like driving in that sense; it makes sense for me to use a car to go to work because, while I could die, it's relatively safe and the benefits outweigh the risks. That analysis may be flopped for someone's 89 year old myopic grandmother's use of a car to get to bingo when her church group could get her there. Take if further, and some "normal" people may find that the beneficial feeling that they get from smoking is worth the risk to them. As long as I don't have to pay for their cancer treatment (eg tax them so they pre-pay for their future medical bills), it should be up to the individual what risks they want to take. And I am and have always been a non-smoker.

    5. Re:In a word no by moz25 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sorry, but this risk analysis just doesn't work out when put in numbers. The number of annual deaths attributed to smoking far outweighs the number of deaths in traffic.

      And, again, you're comparing an activity with only sporadic useful purpose with an activity that has a predominantly useful purpose (i.e. people being able to go from A to B). In fact, no modern economy can exist without the latter.

      But, okay, you can say: it's their choice, right? No, it's not. If they are hooked on a substance that's designed to be addictive, then they no longer have choice. Most smokers I've known actually want to quit, but they can't. Secondly, what choice do their children have? Why should one not care about the health of a fellow human being?

      As we've seen in recent years: even something as "simple" as smoking ban in certain public places has resulted in measurable health benefits in the overall population. This translates into economic advantages, which is to everyone's benefit.

    6. Re:In a word no by StellarFury · · Score: 1

      All right, how about drinking alcohol? How about eating red meat? How about veganism?

      All of these things carry risks. Secondhand smoke can be dealt with through appropriate legislation (which in a number of cities, it has). If there are people still willing to risk their lives for a few puffs, who the hell are you to say they can't?

      I'm not a smoker, but I'll be damned if we need to add yet another piece of legislation that removes personal freedoms in favor of keeping a few idiots who can't read warning labels safe.

  14. Sweet! by LockeOnLogic · · Score: 2, Funny

    Take that you health freaks! I chainsmoke like a chimney, so enjoy your tofu and cancer!!

  15. Rotten eggs and laughing gas by DaveCDalton · · Score: 1

    Reminds me of the same business with Hydrogen Sulfide and Nitric Oxide... The former being found to increase the lifespan and health of nematodes and also to prevent organ rejection and cell death after traumatic injury. The latter was developed into non-inhaled treatments that act on the vascular system... Viagra for instance. That's a long way from rotten eggs and laughing gas. http://www.physorg.com/news115924695.html http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/ars.2009.2882

    1. Re:Rotten eggs and laughing gas by FudRucker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lYN_lXU9PA&feature=PlayList&p=557A85F6897EC8FC&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=6

      this video seems off topic but he does make an insightful comment about Hydrogen Sulfide being used with cold to slow down metabolism.

      --
      Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  16. Really now? by Thyamine · · Score: 0

    Do we need all the hype? Can't we have a story that just explains the details without the OMGWTF slipping in? Wow, water in huge quantities is dangerous? Drowning? OMG. But I can drink it too? CRAZY. *sigh*

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
    1. Re:Really now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do we need all the hype? Can't we have a story that just explains the details without the OMGWTF slipping in? Wow, water in huge quantities is dangerous? Drowning? OMG. But I can drink it too? CRAZY. *sigh*

      Actually, there are documented deaths from drinking too much water. About 18 litres in one sitting will do it.

  17. More proof that Oxygen Kills! by Jonah+Hex · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I wonder how this gels with the research into the dangers of giving oxygen when resuscitating people from death. I have a feeling we'll be seeing the new standard procedure in what gasses to give change radically over the next few years. HEX

    1. Re:More proof that Oxygen Kills! by xanthines-R-yummy · · Score: 1

      Well, DUH! That's why I have anti-oxidants in everything!

      Ahh...! Red, red wine!

  18. Yeah, well by oldhack · · Score: 1

    The basic principle of the modern medicine is to modulate the poison to kill the ailment without killing the patient, no?

    --
    Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
  19. Small enough or a precise amount? by gmuslera · · Score: 3, Funny

    Would not be the only beneficial peak around.

  20. coffee by Sam36 · · Score: 0

    They say coffee is good for you too

  21. Re:Why try to make a drug? by The+Archon+V2.0 · · Score: 0

    That will make carbon monoxide in your body when the gas is readily available. Carbon monoxide might be beneficial but why not make a pill that makes nitrous oxide in your blood so the dentist doesn't have to pull out the mask.

    Because metabolism isn't as simple as "insert chemical X, get chemical Y". It's more like "insert chemical X, get chemicals Y and Z, with Z concentrated in the liver and heart and Y going all over the place, except when it hits the kidneys it turns into chemical Q".

    Note: I am not a chemist, or biologist, or taxidermist.

  22. kind of a no-brainer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For pretty much anything, the difference between "medication" and "poison" is dose. How is that surprising? Put someone in a room full of CO and they die? What do you think will happen if you choose any random life-saving pharmaceutical and tell someone to take a whole bottle of it?

  23. Most all posions by nurb432 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Have their medicinal values. Most medicines become poisonous at a certain level too, so there is some symmetry to it all.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Most all posions by BlueParrot · · Score: 1

      Most all posions have their medicinal values. Most medicines become poisonous at a certain level too, so there is some symmetry to it all.

      This may or may not be true for chemical and biological toxins ( I'm not qualified to tell ), but it is certainly not true for radioactive elements. In fact with the exceptions of a few isotopes used for radiation therapy ( like Iodine ) and some tracers used for PET scans, almost all isotopes with a significant activity are bad for you. There are some theories that very minor radioactive doses can be helpful in triggering the immune system, but these are speculative hypotheses at best, and with a few notable exceptions radioactive exposure can quite clearly be said to be undesirable. I doubt you will ever find medical use of strong alpha emitters like Polonium or Americium as an example. They may be useful for other things related to medicine ( like powering a pacemaker or calibrating equipment ) but I doubt you will ever see a good reason to administer them directly to patients.

  24. CO being useful for transplants was already known by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This documentary explains how CO can be used to help obtain organs for transplantation.

  25. Re:Why try to make a drug? by clandonald · · Score: 0

    Yah but they are giving the rats a pill that hasn't been invented yet. They are giving them gas so your point is moot.

    --
    The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
  26. Re:Why try to make a drug? by clandonald · · Score: 0

    Do the Pharma companies own this website? All it takes is to post the words "drug and money" and it is instantly modded down.

    --
    The force is not with you and you are not a jedi.
  27. Toxicology 101 by niko9 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    As any toxicologist will tell you: Dosage is everything.

  28. moderation is the key to everything by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

    Water will kill you if you drink too much of it. So it's not much of a surprise that supposed bad things can be beneficial when used sensibly.

  29. Hrmm by sjames · · Score: 3, Insightful

    From TFA:

    But given the deeply entrenched fear of carbon monoxide as a toxin, he said it is unlikely that the gas would be directly given as a therapy to many people. Instead, research into the mechanism by which carbon monoxide works could allow scientists to design a drug that could act in the same way.

    REALLY? Because CO has a scary reputation we'd rather give patients a new expensive patented drug that we think works just like CO rather than just give them a well controlled dose of a well understood, inexpensive, and easily available gas?

    No wonder nobody can afford health care.

  30. Transplantation?! by Jason+Hildebrand · · Score: 1

    "Transplantation" sounds like a Bushism to me. "Transplant" is already a noun, thank you very much.

  31. How is that a contradiction? by nedlohs · · Score: 3, Informative

    Radiation is generally bad for you, but we use it as a medical treatment.

    Pick your favorite medical prescription, now eat 10 lbs of it. Oh look it's bad for you.

    1. Re:How is that a contradiction? by selven · · Score: 1

      Take water and eat 10lbs of it. You could get hospitalized or worse.

    2. Re:How is that a contradiction? by treat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Take water and eat 10lbs of it. You could get hospitalized or worse.

      Or this could be the amount you need to drink in a day to be healthy, if you're physically active in hot weather.

    3. Re:How is that a contradiction? by St.Creed · · Score: 1

      Even then you have to be careful about ingesting enough salt/sugar (and not too much either. Drinking 10 Lbs of sportdrinks could be just as fatal as drinking only water).

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    4. Re:How is that a contradiction? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, that makes it worse. Sweat is not pure water, it is water with a lot of salt and other chemicals that your body needs. If you replace the sweat that you lose with pure water, then you will become short on salt very quickly, which can kill you in a very short amount of time.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:How is that a contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Radiation is generally bad for you, but we use it as a medical treatment.

      Pick your favorite medical prescription, now eat 10 lbs of it. Oh look it's bad for you.

      i pick a placebo.

    6. Re:How is that a contradiction? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Take water and eat 10lbs of it. You could get hospitalized or worse.

      If you're eating water, you might want to try cooking it first...

    7. Re:How is that a contradiction? by treat · · Score: 1

      Actually, that makes it worse. Sweat is not pure water, it is water with a lot of salt and other chemicals that your body needs. If you replace the sweat that you lose with pure water, then you will become short on salt very quickly, which can kill you in a very short amount of time.

      You think it's worse to drink nothing rather than pure water if you are exerting yourself to the point where you are dehydrated from sweating?

    8. Re:How is that a contradiction? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Dehydration takes around a day to kill you. Water intoxication can kill in a matter of hours. You will have lots of unpleasant short-term effects, but no long-term damage from a short period of dehydration, but if you sweat a lot and then try to quickly replenish the lost water with pure water then you can die or suffer brain damage. You should limit your water intake to about one litre an hour, and ideally combine it with something salty to eat, which replenishes the sodium that you've lost.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  32. Mod way up by wurp · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Congress & the prez are talking about bad incentives in the health care system. IMO this is one of the most obvious wrong incentives: the fact that there is no research into and marketing for cheap, widely available remedies, because you can't get a government-sponsored monopoly on them.

  33. Carbon monoxide in old ghetto homes by t3chn0n3rd · · Score: 0

    Just a reccomendation if you live in an older house or apartment. You might go to the hardware store and buy a CO detector for about 20 dollars. I think some of the older furnaces have CO in them when you first turn them on. This may be true even in newer homes and apartments.

    1. Re:Carbon monoxide in old ghetto homes by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all combustion produces some ammount of CO. Far more is produced if there is insufficiant oxygen. Properly designed and installed equipment is designed to ensure the burning conditions produce minimal CO and ensure what is produced is vented to outside before it harms the occupants.

      Faulty or incorrectly installed equipment on the other hand can produce a lot of CO and depending on the nature of the fault or incorrect installation may release it into the indoor air.

      IMO a CO alarm is a good idea if you have any fuel burning equipment in a property.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    2. Re:Carbon monoxide in old ghetto homes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      IMO a CO alarm is a good idea if you have any fuel burning equipment in a property.

      Given the intelligence in the end user to check the function of the alarm regularly, and to retire the device when it's sensor expires. It is pleasant to see that the working lifetime of sensors has been increasing significantly since I last had to pay attention to the details of these devices. In the mid-1990s the prospect of getting the average user to replace a (moderately expensive) device at 2-3 year intervals was a non-starter ; but if they're up to 10-year lifetimes, then it's a lot more consumer friendly.
      Of course, most potential users won't use them, and many will die. This I'm easy with - as long as they die without descendants.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    3. Re:Carbon monoxide in old ghetto homes by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      We have to have them by regulation here. I think its asinine. Not totally, but, this is Boston, the houses here are so old that the vast majority still use single pipe steam heat. The only air exchange beteen my living space and the basement is from when the door is left open.... and there is an aparement between us and the boiler.

      Clearly it makes sense to put a detector in the basement. First floor? sure, probably. Second and third?

      Shit, these houses have no insulation and the exterior walls are barely six inches thick. These places are leaky as hell.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    4. Re:Carbon monoxide in old ghetto homes by x2A · · Score: 1

      "Of course, most potential users won't use them, and many will die. This I'm easy with - as long as they die without descendants"

      Nah most of the time their descendants will die right there with them :-p

      --
      The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
    5. Re:Carbon monoxide in old ghetto homes by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      "Of course, most potential users won't use them, and many will die. This I'm easy with - as long as they die without descendants"

      Nah most of the time their descendants will die right there with them :-p

      Unfortunate, but probably true, in a high proportion of cases. I'd like to think differently - I've never been a great fan of punishing the innocent for the sins of others. You'd like to think that people get a sudden attack of common sense when be-sprogging become a real possibility, but it seems not.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  34. I'm convinced by labnet · · Score: 1

    Finally! I don't need to switch my A/C to recycle on the way to work.
    Just suck in the fumes and feel health benefits baby!!

    --
    46137
  35. And in related news by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Small quantities of DiHydrogen Monoxide are also beneficial to health.

  36. In the 60's it would keep the kids quiet. by kurt555gs · · Score: 3, Informative

    A lot of you here are to young to remember the big boat station wagons that parents would pile full of stuff and kids and head off to places like Yellowstone and the like. Many of these had rear facing seats and power rear windows. The only problem was that if you let the window down a little, the car exhaust would be sucked into the car, especially near the rear facing seats where the kids were. Now many would think this is a problem, but parents of that day, after having to listen to the little brats giggling, and yelling would crack that rear window and let a little CO in to quiet the kids down. It worked, they went to sleep, and the only drawback was a few points off the ACT scores later in High School.

    --
    * Carthago Delenda Est *
  37. apparent paradox by epine · · Score: 1

    I failed tribalism 101, so I never get these apparent paradoxes, which seem to be rooted in the us/them, good/evil, they rape/we liberate cognitive homunculus.

    Chlorine is also known as a deadly poison. That's how Ghandi liberated India: by extracting a deadly poison from the sea water and spreading it throughout the British subway system. And don't get me started on dihydrogen monoxide. Can kill someone with as little as one teaspoon, and it's found just about everywhere.

  38. Hardly surprising, since we produce trace amounts by smellsofbikes · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One of the final breakdown products of hemoglobin is carbon monoxide, which we produce constantly since red blood cells only live a few days and after they die, their contents are cut up to recover the iron. We only produce one molecule of CO per hemoglobin, so it's very tiny overall quantities. But, since we make it, it's not too surprising that our systems have optimized to cope with it in those same small quantities. The other main constituent of the broken-down porphyrin ring, bilirubin, is what makes feces brown.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
  39. Oxygen by arkarumba · · Score: 0, Redundant

    >60% oxygen is lethal, yet lesser amounts are beneficial. a paradox?

  40. So this means... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    smoking is good for me, right?

  41. Cuckoo for CO CO puffs? by bobbuck · · Score: 2, Funny

    Does this mean I should be cuckoo for CO CO puffs?

  42. my parents did this... by vaporland · · Score: 1

    and smoked cigarettes while driving (and pregnant, mom at least). A couple of times the hot ash would go out their window and back in ours and hit us in the face. I remember getting splitting headaches on long road trips.

    --
    Ask Me About... The 80's!
  43. Nitroglycerine by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

    For example, nitroglycerine is used as a heart medicine, yet if you ingest 100ml of it pure, your life expectency will be greatly reduced.

    (Actually there are gazillions of examples. Most pharmaceuticals are lethal in high doses, even over-the-counter ones like paracetamol or vitamin D.)

    --
    Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
  44. So are many off-the-shelf medications by highways · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It doesn't surprise me. Whilst many substances are unsafe at any dosage (e.g. mercury), some things are downright deadly in large quantities.

    Like Paracetamol. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paracetamol_toxicity Apparently, it's one of the worst ways to die.

    And warafin, an excellent anti-blood clotting agent is also used as rat poison.

    1. Re:So are many off-the-shelf medications by dotancohen · · Score: 1

      And warafin, an excellent anti-blood clotting agent is also used as rat poison.

      That's how it works in the rat, too. The rat bangs into things, developing hundreds of internal bleedings during the course of it's day. The rat has evolved to deal with that. But when the rat's blood can no longer clot, that internal bleeding kills the rat.

      Trivia: it's also what cocaine is cut with, because really good cocaine also causes nosebleeds.

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
  45. Alfred Nobel anyone? by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

    Nobel, after finding nitroglycerine, was proscribed it for his heart condition later in life. He said something along the lines of "Are you trying to blow my heart up??"

    --
    1. Re:Alfred Nobel anyone? by Inthewire · · Score: 1

      He didn't discover nitroglycerine, you dolt. He mass marketed it in stable form.

      --


      Writers imply. Readers infer.
  46. Re:Hardly surprising, since we produce trace amoun by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    Bilirubin is yellow, IIRC.

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  47. Glenn Beck by mrraven · · Score: 1

    Will someone please tell Glenn Beck the medical benefits are of *large* doses of CO? Thanks your friend the direct action radical commie, pinko, fascist...

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  48. Re:Hardly surprising, since we produce trace amoun by smellsofbikes · · Score: 1

    Depends on the concentration. It's the primary colorant for bruises, which as you've probably seen cover a pretty broad spectrum of colors depending on how much is there.

    --
    Nostalgia's not what it used to be.