Gilded Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "actually, botulinum toxin a is something like 100 million times more lethal than ricin" Ooh, I sense a debate coming. Yeah, even with similar dispersion, I'd imagine 1ug of botulin A would do more harm than 1ug ricin. I don't think that it would be anywhere near 100 million times more lethal in this scenario though, but more anyway.
Gilded Posted December 22, 2004 Posted December 22, 2004 "no need for debate; i know im right" Heh, at least you're confident about it.
jdurg Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 Ricin D's LD50 is 248 picograms/kg. For natural Clostridium botulinum, the LD50 is 30 picograms/kg!!!!! Plutonium is 1-2 mg/kg. So Botulinum is more toxic than Ricin, but not a 100 million times.
Gilded Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 "So Botulinum is more toxic than Ricin, but not a 100 million times." Oh yeah, I knew it.
budullewraagh Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 i was speaking in terms of moles. botulinum toxin a is bloody huge; its molecular mass is greater than 150,000 and they still dont know the entire polypeptide sequence. ricin on the other hand is significantly smaller
Gilded Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 "botulinum toxin a is bloody huge; its molecular mass is greater than 150,000 and they still dont know the entire polypeptide sequence." Wow, that's some large molecule. "Today in the Molecule Weight Watchers - Botulin A!". )
Tetrahedrite Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 One thimble full of plutonium is enough to give everyone on earth cancer!
budullewraagh Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 and enough to kill george mason within 12 hours:(
Gilded Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 "One thimble full of plutonium is enough to give everyone on earth cancer!" If we're talking about Pu-239 that's inside the body, it would probably eventually lead to that, yes.
r1dermon Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 magooo.....toxic....isnt kryptonite the most toxic???!!!! muahhahahahaha. ::obscure superman reference::
Gilded Posted December 23, 2004 Posted December 23, 2004 I wonder if you could call krypton fluoride "kryptonite". )
YT2095 Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 standard run of the mill botulism food poisoning is far less toxic than Ricin though, the Clostridium variety "Amplifies" (for wants of a better word) this. ditribution remains a problem though.
budullewraagh Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 standard run of the mill botulism food poisoning is far less toxic than Ricini was speaking of the pure polypeptide extract
Gilded Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 Heh, as we see here it requires a lot of specifying before we can decide which is the most dangerous. )
jdurg Posted December 24, 2004 Posted December 24, 2004 I think lead is the most dangerous because if you accelerate to a high rate of speed with the help of a gunpowder, it can kill you pretty instantly.
Gilded Posted December 25, 2004 Posted December 25, 2004 "I think lead is the most dangerous because if you accelerate to a high rate of speed with the help of a gunpowder, it can kill you pretty instantly." Rofl. Shoot me with a 9mm lead bullet from a car, and I'll shoot you and your car with an uranium slug. ) (Damn, I need an uranium slug first)
HNO3 Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 I read that per milligram, beryllium was the most toxic element on the periodic table. And I have ~3g.
budullewraagh Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 i can think of others that are worse, namely plutonium, astatine (for its radioactivity), perhaps tellurium, and oh yeah, definitely fluorine
YT2095 Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Thallium`s been used on a few occasions too, it`s rather nasty stuff.
jdurg Posted January 12, 2005 Posted January 12, 2005 Beryllium is 100% harmless in a solid form. Beryllium is only toxic when its in a finely divided or powdered form. Having a lump of beryllium metal is no more toxic than a lump of magnesium metal. However, if you were to try and sand or polish your beryllium, you'd be in some major trouble.
budullewraagh Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 because of its carcinogenic properties i take it?
jdurg Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 Well, beryllium dust will lead to beryllosis(sp?) which is a nasy inflammation of the lungs. For some people, it doesn't cause any problems at all. But for the majority of people, the 'allergic' reaction leads to chronic, incurable intense pain and difficulty with your lungs. Cancer can result from all of the inflammed tissue.
budullewraagh Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 thats no good at all. 2 micron al dust wont do the same will it?
jdurg Posted January 13, 2005 Posted January 13, 2005 I'm pretty sure aluminum won't do the same. For some reason, the body reacts really adversely to beryllium. I'm not sure why though.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now