Slashdot Mirror
Sequencing the Weed Genome
GNUman writes "Maybe soon we'll be able to genetically modify humans so that a specific action (e.g., tapping your nose, pinching your ear) triggers the release of THC directly from your own cells. From the Nature blog post: 'At last, the field of genomics has something to offer Cheech and Chong. DNA sequencing hit a new high last night with the midnight release of the Cannabis sativa genome. The raw sequence was posted on Amazon's EC2 public cloud computing service by a young company called Medicinal Genomics, which aims to explore the genomes of therapeutic plants.'"
Somebody needs to make a version of weed that causes cancer
They have that. It's called tobacco.
i know i wish i could get natural cbd's to treat arthritis without messing up my mind.
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
with the Opera gestures.
Hold your arm and move to the right for the next high.
Boss coming? Minimize: down and then left.
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
DNA sequencing hit a new high last night ...
I don't like it.
signature is pants
Now all we need is for someone to take an existing food plant that is legal to grow (and that couldn't be banned) like corn and add some weed genes so that when its consumed, it gives the effects of weed (i.e. make the corn contain the THC and things that the weed contains)
No way for the cops to detect it short of chemical analysis and there is far too much corn grown in the US to make that possible.
Umm.. science?
Because luckily Slashdot isn't written for you.
Personally I think it's pretty cool the potential to create natural THC in other plants or even in our own cells. It goes from being something you have to smoke which has an association with cancer in peoples minds to something scientists can show they understand and can deliver to those in need of therapeutic THC in a form a little more friendly.
I'm not reading "high times", I'd rather not see this sort of junk.
Then grow some thick skin and ignore it.
While you might think the world evolves around you, it doesn't. In fact, most of us don't even care what you think.
Sorry, did that hurt?
Seriously though, i don't give a fuck that you don't care about this. It's science and it's news.
Oh, and oddly enough, a lot of people smoke weed and don't see any problems with it. I know that hurts ya, but deal with it.
Be seeing you...
Add it to yeast. Houblon or Sugar + Yeats = Mari jeanne. And you don't need a field.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Unfortunately, I foresee a new kind of prohibition. How long before the US Congress legislates to make a gene illegal?
Smoke from any burning organic matter is a carcinogen.
The thing is that people inhale less marijuana smoke than they do tobacco smoke so there's no definite link between the amount of smoke that even heavy potheads inhale and cancer.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
You were stoned when you heard it, so it's not your fault.
Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
Does this mean Kona Gold and Maui Wowee is bk? Cool Bro, sign me up!
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
I'm sorry, I didn't notice I was reading slashdot , Thorgod edition. dam where was I....
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
But Dude! think of all the cheesy poofs they'll sell!
"Computers are a lot like Air Conditioners" "They both work great until you start opening Windows"
It's not true, of course - but even if it were, they'd just ban all oranges, like they did to hemp cloth.
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur
1.) They are certain that heredity is solely controlled by genes.
2.) They are certain that DNA is the sole mechanism for passing on genes.
3.) That looking at DNA sequences is a productive method of finding causes of things.
Personally I believe that they are uncertain in (1), uncertain in (2) and that (3) is not true. DNA is a waste of time with regards to 99.99999% of human behaviour.
John_Chalisque
I just can't help myself.
Ontopic (sort of), and funny, IMHO.
Real, or not, still funny.
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
French fries would be better.
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
However cannaboids themselves are implicating as reducing cancer risks, while nicotine is implicated in the sort of genetic damage that can lead to cancer. It also greatly compound the damage Radon or asbestos can do.
Good thing, otherwise your social ability would be affected.
Oh, I'm sorry, did you think I give a fuck that you don't give a fuck? Why don't you just grow a thick skin and ignore comments you don't like.
While you might think the world evolves around you, it doesn't. In fact, most of us don't even care what you think.
Sorry, did that hurt?
Seriously though, i don't give a fuck that you don't care about him not caring. This isn't on Slashdot because it's science (there's a lot more that goes unreported). It's here because hurr, I could get high by scratching my nose! Of course there's no science supporting that lead-in statement, but hey, pot!
Oh, and oddly enough, a lot of people disagree with you and don't see your point of view. I know that hurts ya, but deal with it.
PS: the difference between me and you is that instead of getting all sanctimonious and pretending to actually wound someone with my words, I'm just engaging in outright mockery. One is a sign that you actually do care, the other is a good way to show someone you don't.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Then he can Bogart the weed with out actually bogarting the weed.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
You know, I never really understood why "fag" is supposed to be an insult. I have known plenty of gay men and women and you know what? they have nicer clothes, nicer cars, better jobs, and live in nicer neighborhoods than straight folks. So what you are basically saying is "I hope you dress well and have a good job with lots of money in a nice area, so there!" it really doesn't make much sense. Douchenozzle, shitstain, hell even halo player would probably be better insults.
As for TFA and the asshole that hoped people who smoke pot get cancer? Please kill yourself. this is not a joke, the world would be a better place without you. Suck the barrel of a gun, get a rope, buy a razor, kill yourself.
Alcohol causes more deaths in a single month than pot has EVER. Alcohol causes more misery, more illness, more suffering than all the other drugs combined frankly. As part of the nearly extinct breed known as a conservative socialist whatever you do in your home? None of my damned business and frankly shouldn't be any of the state's business either.
I don't care what God you believe in, what you put in your body, whom you share your body with (or even if you choose to sell it) frankly it should be none of the government's business as long as you are over 18 and not forcing anyone else. I only hope the endless greed of both the Ds and Rs will give us the legalization of what is commonly known as "sin" crimes even if it is only so they can tax and spend on their pet projects. Then maybe we can grow the fuck up and stop treating adults like 3 years olds that need mommy government to spank them.
Oh and before someone pops up with "what about health insurance!" I'll tell you what: I'll happily sign a contract that the government pisses off and takes away the taxes on my cigarettes or anything else I put in my body and if i get cancer the ONLY treatment i'll get is morphine which is cheap, kay? But we know that won't happen because just as we have seen with social security, the tobacco settlements, and every other dime that was supposed to ONLY go for X the second the politicos get their hands on it they are blowing it on anything and everything.
I believe everyone should have a roof over their head, food in their belly, clothes on their back, and free or low cost medical care, but I'm also a realist. How many wanna bet that if Obama gets that mandatory insurance bit passed the congress will blow that money on bridges to nowhere?
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
I'm not sure how these arguments are related, but I like my "High Voltage" and "Corrosive" labels, thank you very much. Some warnings exist for a reason.
The issue with drugs is that, when legalized in large quantities, they tend to lead to the same situation that happened with opium. That is not good for society as a whole. Alcohol is bad enough, but putting hallucinogens and other drug chemicals into plants that do not naturally have them is a bad thing. At best it makes drugs far too easily availabe, at worst it brings the country to its knees.
Drugs are a complicated issue, as I would like to think that freedom to choose is always best, but the simple fact is that a vast majority of people will abuse the privilege. People still smoke and even choose to start smoking, despite the warnings, despite the taxes, despite all common sense to the contrary.
I have seen the damage that even "weak" drugs can do when they become the center of someone's life. We need to end all the "War on X"s, but blanket legalization is not a good thing. Maybe pot should be legal, but with crack and heroin, that is never going to happen. There needs to be some balance, and as it stands, we're far too much towards the prohibition side. The administrative costs (police, court, prison, appeals, legislation, investigation...), the infringements upon civil rights, and the seriously questionable gain is just too much. However, THC-laced vegetables is far too much towards the stoned-out society side.
Like I said, it's not a simple issue, and trying to make it into one by running around saying "your fucking business" isn't going to convince anyone. That's the kind of attitude that causes pot to be so stigmatized in US politics. Learn civility, it's the only way you'll ever get what you want in life.
Great Intellect...
Frankly, I welcome it. The Apple/Google/Microsoft dueling astroturf was getting a bit old. Something about biology, and which has already developed into a political argument about drugs, is a nice change.
Great Intellect...
I hate to say it but citation needed.
Remember, people have actually evolved being exposed to burning organic matter. IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.
I have seen studies that show tobacco smokers who also smoke pot to have less of an incident of cancer then smokers who only smoke tobacco.
The studies I've seen on pot smokers and cancer have been inconclusive though there was a trend to show that smoking pot was as bad as taking an airplane flight, very minimal and within the error bars.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
While you might think the world evolves around you, it doesn't. In fact, most of us don't even care what you think.
It does evolve around him. It doesn't revolve around him.If you're going to spew bile, at least do it accurately ;)
I hate to say it but citation needed.
Burning organic matter releases aromatic hyrdocarbons. They are carcinogens.
Remember, people have actually evolved being exposed to burning organic matter. IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.
You seem to believe that carcinogens are not found in nature. Wood smoke is particularly bad. There has been documented DNA damage done by exposure to wood smoke.
You need to get this bullshit out of your head that just because something's natural means that it's good for you.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I wouldn't worry, currently the majority of the people who could afford to have their children gene-spliced to produce THC are also those least likely to do so.
That's what you take to prevent malaria! Nothing to do with cannabis.
IIRC Homo Erectus had fire.
Homo Erectus were also lucky if they hit the ripe old age of twenty-five years old. Cancer was the least of their worries.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
CLC work was performed on a 64Gb RAM MacPro with 6.5Tb of Disk and 12 hyperthreaded Cores (24 threads total).
I looked at the README and cringed. These are really top-notch scientists, though they can't even get their (b)its and (B)ytes correct.
Going by what they said, the setup had 8GB RAM with 812.5GB of disk.
I hope that they don't mix up other measurements like this!
It's one of the things I don't get: Cannabis is by no means different from tobacco or alcohol (allegedly less addictive, I didn't test it myself), why not sell it to those that want it? Legally, and most of all, with a tax on it? And face it, ATFEC sounds a lot "rounder" than ATFE. That's missing an ending, don't you think?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Homo erectus also died a long time before cancer could kill him.
You know why cancer is the big killer today? Because we eliminated everything else that could kill us before cancer gets us.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Once you can get it to the addictiveness of crack, or at least a fraction thereof, you might have a case. 'til then, sorry, won't work.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
You guys are really harshin' my melloooowwwwww
All you need is lurv.
I think this argument that something is worth taking because it is 'natural' is a weak position, not well though out. There are a lot of things out there that occur naturally but are downright poisonous and will kill you. There are many synthetic products that are really helpful. I'd like to see a more rigorous discussion of the difference between 'natural' and 'unnatural/synthetic'. I have this suspicion that there are many borderline products and preferring 'natural' is just a psychological position that comforts people rather has medical benefits. Interested to hear further evidence....
I've occasionally wondered if legalising personal use but criminalising commercial use would be more effective (in terms of net benefit to society) than anything else. You want to make your own, share it with friends? Fine. You bought person? Only person at risk from the cops is the dealer. You want to make money off it? Felony crime, hard labor, etc.
Any country tried that? Did it work?
Glanding?
Watch this Heartland Institute video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30ruBtLIvJM
Which is false, ridiculous childhood mortality dragged down average lifespans, but like people living in Noelectricitystan today with no acess to medical care or high standard sanitation can live to 110 so could homo erectus, you just need a bit of luck and a healthy dose of social support.
Not necessarily. This is what Wikipedia says:
"The currently available literature indicates that nicotine, on its own, does not promote the development of cancer in healthy tissue and has no mutagenic properties. However, nicotine and the increased cholinergic activity it causes have been shown to impede apoptosis, which is one of the methods by which the body destroys unwanted cells (programmed cell death). Since apoptosis helps to remove mutated or damaged cells that may eventually become cancerous, the inhibitory actions of nicotine may create a more favourable environment for cancer to develop, though this also remains to be proven."
what you're forgetting is that whoever this erroneous concept would apply to wouldn't have a choice in having it in their body, because their genome would be modified before their birth.
I think that process is unofficially in practice (at least where I'm from) due to the fact that the amount of paperwork that the police have to go through when dealing with a charge, they're not about to bust a person smoking weed in their own home, or with a small amount of weed on their person, but if they suspect that they've found a dealer then its more worth their while.
for the next 5 years. j/k
but you realize, there are a huge number of unemployed biotech people who have started up their own 'DIY biotech' movement? they have 'hack spaces' but instead of soldering irons they have PCR machines.
Smoke from any burning organic matter is a carcinogen.
This may be true, but unburnt tobacco is carcinogenic to begin with (hence the high rate of oralpharyngeal cancers in chewing tobacco users).
Interestingly, much of the carcinogen load is generated during the curing process -- steam-cured tobaccos apparently are much safer, but tobacco companies are prohibited from advertising this.
I went to go look what they consider current studies, but for some reason I can't access the site used as a citation.
Have you ever been high? If you are in a high adreneline situation, you sober right the fuck up pretty quick. Weed isn't that hardcore of a drug that you can just get lost in like heroin or ketamine. Even when drunk, i have "scared" myself sober in emergency situations.
So I think your hypothetical situation is a very silly justification for massaging this incredebile find to your own ends.
Also FYI, every animal on this planet, down to the lowliest sea slug has canabanoid receptors.
Source: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111905007067
http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=sea+slug+endocannabinoid+system&btnG=Search
For more information, I highly recomend the Horizon documentary Cannibis the Evil Weed which has the above as well as more information.
-
Quotes:
"At best it makes drugs far too easily availabe, at worst it brings the country to its knees. "
"but the simple fact is that a vast majority of people will abuse the privilege"
"but blanket legalization is not a good thing."
etc etc
There are plenty of countries that DO have blanket legalization of pot, and far from falling to their knees they are doing much much better than the USA is as far as quality of life goes.
You did accidentally stumble on why the USA will never blanket legalize however:
"The administrative costs (police, court, prison, appeals, legislation, investigation...), the infringements upon civil rights, and the seriously questionable gain is just too much."
The monetary fines, confiscated cars homes and other personal belongings, and the money earned from slave labor within our prison system, are all HUGE gains for the government that only exist from keeping pot illegal.
Not to mention the billions per year spent on police, prisons, DEA,and all the other jobs created due to the legalization of pot.
Most of these needless jobs wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for this crime. Namely the DEA would be way scaled back to next to nothing, the police forces would also be scaled back since currently about 20% of all police officers are working only on pot related cases (Sorry, no citation for that number at the moment)
Prisons, and to a lesser extent jails, could be scaled back heavily too, since about 1/3rd of everyone in prison is there due to a pot related crime.
If you are really interested in a cost/benefit analysis regarding pot being legal/illegal, check out: http://oi52.tinypic.com/2wrg709.jpg
Banning pot is so painfully obvious it is not for the safety or betterment of mankind, but only the profits our government makes off of it without regard to the lives destroyed while doing so.
The math works out even better to our governments profit margins of they would instead tax the stuff, instead of settle for what they can steal from people in possession of pot at the time they are caught.
But this would displace so many needless jobs that shouldn't exist, and would take away more of the 'revenge' factor prisons currently have instead of being used for rehabilitation, that this would simply never be allowed today as it disrupts the status-quo too much. Cops and lawmakers are on such an entitlement high right now, that it would never fly to knock them back down to where they belong, as servants to the public.
While I agree that the actual physically addictive drugs like crack/coke and heroin/opium would be a bad thing to blanket legalize, the same argument simply does not hold water when it comes to non-physically addictive substances like pot.
...or hate them. Depends right?
Seriously, haven't you ever had a bad week? I have. Haven't you ever gathered with friends, looking for a evening of social antics? I have.
One of the basic, simple pleasures in this world is a nice buzz, and there are many different kinds, some good eats, entertainment, and friends. Have a nice long chat, tickle the senses, and just wash away lots of painful things for a while, happy to just be, love, do, share.
Anything good can be abused. That goes with simple food.
I like a nice high once in a while. Lots of ways to get it too. Write some brilliant code, skydive, pot, opiates (poppy tea is particularly nice), booze (hate it generally), etc...
Before you expound on "those illegal drugs", maybe you should consider more fully why some are illegal and some are not, plug that into your AM radio morals, and get back to me.
Blogging because I can...
What possible confusion of ideas would make you think that sequencing the Cannabis genome would enable you to control it's pharmacokinetics?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
The really interesting question is what the community will do with the data. First there's the problem of getting the data assembled. They should have the entire genome, they sequence 300x what they should have needed. Now that's all going to be random and in pieces though, so they've had trouble with a couple assemblers. This is the kind of thing that's done often though for other species, and should be doable with freely available tools.
Then, once you have the assembled contigs, you have to figure out what they mean. That means searching for open reading frames and then testing those for homology against known genes. THC acid synthase is already known, so that helps. But I don't think all the genes in the pathway are sequenced yet, so hopefully this helps nail that down.
Then what? Either extraction of that biosynthetic pathway into another system, or transgenic manipulation of the plant for better yields.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Not directly. One of the primary reasons to sequence is to determine the functions of genes. If you have 2 similar organisms that you have sequenced you can do a differential analysis to determine what they share, and what they have different. Many of these genes you will find have already had some analysis done on them, which you can look up to determine pathways, and which ones are promoters and inhibitors. From there, based on observations of the organism, you can determine candidate genes that may be responsible for the difference you saw between the organisms. Take those candidate genes, and either insert them into the other organism, or remove it from one of them and observe the results.
The end effect of this process is the ability to modify other organisms to produce the same effect that weed has, remove this functionality from weed (in case you just like the taste of it), or possibly even increase how potent it is.
Portugal. It has been quite successful
"Dre don't get as high as me.... I'm Cheech and Chong" - Snoop Dogg
Your nerd card has been revoked. Please turn off and dismantle your computer immediately, you are no longer permitted to be exposed to mind expanding substances such as the Internet. The processes of abstract thought that you engage in while riding the hormone rollercoaster of browsing wide and varied content is illicit and wrong and is causing real damage to me by the fact that you would even think of doing it.
:P
Doesn't take much observation to realize that just about everything the human does is for a high. Doesn't take much observation to realize that abuse of prescription drugs has taken off to a degree that puts the drug war to even worse shame. If you're an honest nerd, nerd out and learn something, rather than anti-nerding like this
you just need a bit of luck
Yes, like I said:
Homo Erectus were also lucky if...
Furthermore:
Homo Erectus is a DIFFERENT SPECIES to us, and therefore may have had a lower life expectancy because of it.
The average lifespan of people living in poverty today is much higher than 200 years ago, even ignoring infant mortality.
Even so there are very few confirmed cases of people in poverty living to more than 110 years; admittedly some of that is because of much poorer record-keeping.
Additionally, you have a terrible understanding of statistics. The existence of supercentenials in ancient populations does not mean the median age was over 25.
Given that there are probably more individuals living in poverty today than there were Homo erectus in the entirety of history, if the chance of an erectus living to 110 was the same as a modern sapiens living in poverty, there is a very real chance that no erectus ever lived to 110.
If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
Well It is legal here in COLORADO!
But yes, we are not hippie Calif. or Ohio Gangster that do not want legalization and cannot function without a nanny state..
God Bless america!
Really now. The only one I can think of to legalize it in any meaningful way is the Netherlands, and that is far from blanket legalization. It is still much more restricted than alcohol is in Pennsylvania...
You might also notice that I said legalization of pot might actually be the course of action. It probably should have the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco, combined, as its side effects are roughly similar. Yes, smoking pot causes cancer.
Your argument(s) are inconsistent. You just argued that the gains from enforcing prohibition are the reason pot is still illegal, then go on to talk about the costs of it and the possible tax revenue, then back to it somehow making money as it stands. Which is the argument you want to make? Either they're making money now and that is keeping it illegal, OR we're losing money on it and it is illegal for some other reason. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.
I do not believe, if you really did a calculation, that the government makes any money on the current system. Specific parts might gain while others lose (the FBI/Federal Government is definitely losing, and local police are gaining), but we're operating at a huge net loss.
The reason for the prohibition is definitely for the betterment of society. If it actually is doing that is an entirely different matter, and I do not think that in this case, as it stands, it is. However, that is not the sentiment shared by many. The vast majority of people hear pot, and think of stoners, and say "I don't want my kid to be that way." If you want pot to be legal, you need to change the image.
Complaining will go nowhere as long as the stereotype remains generally true. A great example of that I saw just this week. Of the 'causes' submitted to Stephen Colbert's superpac, marijuana was the top... among those who made no donations. Among the people who donated, it was barely a statistical anomaly. You have to be willing to stand by what you say if you want anything to happen.
Great Intellect...
Sequencing of Tobacco is underway evidently. Funded in large part by Philip Morris.
I find it odd that tobacco and weed, two important cash crops no matter how you feel about their use, have not had their genomes sequenced yet, but the platypus has. I know that plant genomes are generally bigger, and platypi are very interesting, but, come on, priorities people.
More to the point, evolution doesn't care so much if you get cancer after you reproduce. Of course, from an evolutionary standpoint, humans are a miserably failed experiment. An average of, what, 3 kids, and 14 years to reach reproducing age? It's no wonder there are so few of us compared to bacteria.
Actually weed is already known to be carcinogenic.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
I think that you'll find that the priorities of the people who sequenced the platypus probably centred on doing something interesting with their limited resources.
These may not be your priorities, but they are the priorities of the people who chose to do the work - including the work of preparing and submitting the grant applications for funding to do the work.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
Ummm, is there non-organic matter that you can burn?
Coal : organic?
OK, you could probably burn graphite, which is effectively not-organic-any-more, though some graphite deposits have the isotopic signatures of having been through several RuBisCo cycles, which means organic fixation at some point in the past.
You might just possibly be able to sustain a fire with pyrites, but it's going to be difficult. And even then, the sulphur isotope composition in many pyrite deposits shows strong evidence of the sulphide having been through organic action at some point in the deposition process.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
They regard the ./ community as a huge army of mindless marching morons
Didn't used to be true, but these days its largely is a statement of fact.
The internal synthesization of the cannabis chemicals would be a disaster for our country. Consider the revenue the government makes from tobacco. That in itself ensures that tobacco products will never be banned, and they are more destructive, more addictive than marijuana. It is only a matter of time before marijuana gets legalized and establishes another money cow for our government. Why, legalization of maryjane might even resolve our national debt issues and weaken organized crime. Don't any of our legislators have the balls to recognize this and propound legalization accordingly?
Depends on your defintion of "burn," no? Thermite is surely not organic but holy hell does it burn.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Actually weed is already known to be carcinogenic.
Nope:
Study Finds No Cancer-Marijuana Connection
With the first link, the chain is forged.
I take it you've never heard of magnesium? There are plenty of inorganic combustibles.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
There are many people who keep repeating that pot is addictive (like the obviously ignorant GP). Pot's not even as addictive as orange juice*, good luck engineering it to be as addictive as crack.
*even though IMO good hydro tastes better
Free Martian Whores!
Ah, another addict to dihydrogenmonoxide? Devil's own liquid if you ask me, be careful with your intake!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Point, yes. Hadn't thought of that one. I was working through lists of things that people burn for fuel and didn't think more widely.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
I like dihydrogenmonoxide so much sometimes I swim in the stuff. Every morning I soak myself in it. Ah, good old dihydrogenmonoxide. The bad part of the addiction is that withdrawal is always fatal.
Free Martian Whores!
I tried substituting with alcohol.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Someone else beat me to the punch, but yes metal. You can burn metal and it's not organic. I wouldn't want to breathe in any of the gases that are released from that either, but they're not aromatic hydrocarbons and therefore carcinogens.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano