What everyday objects can pose a danger to our health and safety?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ~christina~
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
103 replies · 18K views
Borek said:
My feeling is that most of these todays lab regulations save 1 life in a year, impeding thousands of experiments at the same time. Overregulation is a word that comes to mind. Signum temporis.
I guess you can put a price on a life... :rolleyes:
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Staples. I quite frequently don't have the patience to find the staple remover, and so unfold them and extract them by hand. It makes for a lot of punctures in my fingers.
Rice Krispees. No personal experience, but I remember when Bobby Goldsboro was on the Mike Douglas show back in the 70's. He was relating examples of what a klutz he was, and mentioned one time that a Rice Krispee escaped the bowl and hardened into the carpet. He then encountered it barefooted, and sliced his toe open on it.
 
Danger said:
Rice Krispee escaped the bowl and hardened into the carpet. He then encountered it barefooted, and sliced his toe open on it.

And there we were thinking that Chuck Norris is dangerous!

:smile:
 
I'd rather face Chuckie than an enraged Rice Krispee any day.
 
Dangerous everyday object: episode of Walker Texas Ranger.
 
~christina~ said:
We don't use masks so I don't know how to avoid getting the chemicals in contact with ones teeth.

It is not about chemicals contacting teeth, rather about chemicals lowering general immunity.
 
DaveC426913 said:
I guess you can put a price on a life... :rolleyes:

We are constantly getting told that life is priceless. That's completely different discussion, but I have my doubts.

You can't move ahead without looses. General approach that everything can be done without any risk leads to absurds. Chemistry teachers have problems with finding experiments that will be not considered too dangerous. Test tubes are dangerous because you can cut your finger. That's ridiculous.
 
Borek said:
We are constantly getting told that life is priceless.

This is in line with the thinking of the late, great George Carlin... one who made observational humour.
Price = Worth, for the most part.
So why is something that's priceless more important than something that's worthless?
 
Danger said:
Staples. I quite frequently don't have the patience to find the staple remover, and so unfold them and extract them by hand. It makes for a lot of punctures in my fingers.
Rice Krispees. No personal experience, but I remember when Bobby Goldsboro was on the Mike Douglas show back in the 70's. He was relating examples of what a klutz he was, and mentioned one time that a Rice Krispee escaped the bowl and hardened into the carpet. He then encountered it barefooted, and sliced his toe open on it.

Which kind was it: one that went snap, crackle, or pop? Probably one of the crackle ones - those even sound dangerous.
 
~christina~ said:
I find that many objects are hazardous. (they seem quite harmless until..)

For example:

Food category

Tootsie Roll Pops => I find that, after licking the lollipop a few times, I always get shards of the candy in my tongue.
Jolly Rancher Hard candy => A swallowing risk is involved when you melt the candy until it's small and thin. Shards of the candy can become embedded in tongue as well, I find.

Everyday items

Paper=> Paper cuts anyone?

Can anyone think of anymore hazardous items in our everyday lives that seem harmless enough?

Sexy males?
 
arildno said:
Sexy males?

Yep, and they make the doors more dangerous too, staring at them and not noticing you're walking into a door, not to mention the puddle of drool on the ground that someone could slip on. :biggrin: :-p
 
Borek said:
We are constantly getting told that life is priceless. That's completely different discussion, but I have my doubts.
So, Borek..how much is your life worth :wink:
You can't move ahead without looses. General approach that everything can be done without any risk leads to absurds. Chemistry teachers have problems with finding experiments that will be not considered too dangerous. Test tubes are dangerous because you can cut your finger. That's ridiculous.

That's very true. It could also be the explanation of why I never had a chemistry class until college. (we had a lab in lower school but it had absolutely no chemicals and everything chemistry related on paper :rolleyes: )

Borek said:
It is not about chemicals contacting teeth, rather about chemicals lowering general immunity.
I am at risk then.
 
~christina~ said:
So, Borek..how much is your life worth :wink:
Yep. Christina's right.

For how many experiments that advance our knowledge would you give up your own life? If you knew your life were standing in the way of - what? 10? 20? 50? - experiments, would you offer it? :wink:
 
~christina~ said:
So, Borek..how much is your life worth :wink:

15 years ago I have been visited by insurance agent and he calculated it. Methodology used was "how much does it cost to make sure your kid will be able to start on its own". TLV limits are calculated with some approximation of life worth (or rather cost of the therapy, be it necessary, but it they assume limit of the therapy cost, that translates to your life worth).

So, if you know where to look, there is a price tag. It is not advertised, but nonetheless it exists.

~christina~ said:
Borek said:
That's very true. It could also be the explanation of why I never had a chemistry class until college. (we had a lab in lower school but it had absolutely no chemicals and everything chemistry related on paper :rolleyes: )

Some time ago someone on some other forum told a story about his daugther taking art class in sculpture, where they were not allowed to use sharp knifes, because they could harm themselves. It made some of the tasks they should perform impossible. That's part of the same problem.
 
Last edited:
Borek said:
15 years ago I have been visited by insurance agent and he calculated it. Methodology used was "how much does it cost to make sure your kid will be able to start on its own". TLV limits are calculated with some approximation of life worth (or rather cost of the therapy, be it necessary, but it they assume limit of the therapy cost, that translates to your life worth).

So, if you know where to look, there is a price tag. It is not advertised, but nonetheless it exists.
Not the same thing at all. As you acknowledge, insurance is very careful to limit itself to replacing income potential in the family unit. That can in no way be compared to the price of a person, especially in the context of "how many lives can we afford to lose to keep research going?"
 
Let me reverse your question - "can we afford to stop the research to not risk any loses?" For example Chinese will have no doubts about, they will push ahead and can pass us without trouble. Can we afford it?

In fact it is not about loss of life, it is about throwing kid with a bath. We are getting paralysed thanks to our efforts to minimalize risks of every kind, real and imaginary. I have nothing against reasonable regulations that minimalize risks, but at some point they become absurd. For example when we start to require students to use gloves for handling 1M sodium chloride, but we have nothing against the same students engaged in wrestling or futball. Somewhere on the road we have lost a balance.

That's much longer discussion and I am afraid my English is too weak to express myself properly.
 
Borek said:
In fact it is not about loss of life, it is about throwing kid with a bath. We are getting paralysed thanks to our efforts to minimalize risks of every kind, real and imaginary. I have nothing against reasonable regulations that minimalize risks, but at some point they become absurd. For example when we start to require students to use gloves for handling 1M sodium chloride, but we have nothing against the same students engaged in wrestling or futball. Somewhere on the road we have lost a balance.
I handled 1M H2SO4 with gloves but I also handled more potent things during the same day as well. I think it's not so much the danger of 1M NaCl but rather the idea of safety in whatevery you do, no matter the risk factor. (it builds up good habits)
That's much longer discussion and I am afraid my English is too weak to express myself properly.
It is understandable and if you can type a whole paragraph, well..
Borek said:
So, if you know where to look, there is a price tag. It is not advertised, but nonetheless it exists.
If you say there is a price, how much would you pay to purchase someone like a mother/father/child.
 
Please stop asking me "How much would you give for" and "what's the price of". I don't know the answer to that question and I have never stated I know. What I am stating is that whether we like it or not there are many ways of calculating life worth, that are used in different places. Be it life insurance, be it health insurance, be it estimates of loses due to war or natural cataclysms. Just because they are not advertised us such doesn't mean they don't exist. They rarely deal with the worth of individuals, rather with some generalization and statistics, but you can always divide to get an average. And I am not going to play the game in which I am pointing you to different methodologies used in different places and you are going to tell "that's not the life worth, because they concentrate on their gains/losses/aims and so on". In all these cases this is life worth from different points of view. You don't have to agree with each of these points of view, but they all deal with the same thing. Life worth.

Also note that I am not pretending to know the answer to the question "how many lives can we afford to lose to keep research going?" It is rather that I am aware of the question and its implications, and I wonder if we can afford to pretend that the question doesn't exist. Things neglected have tendency to change from bad to worse.

Finally, it is not simply a thing of research vs price tag on life. It is a much broader problem. Can you win a war without loosing soldiers? Does it make sense to implement systems dealing with specific pollutants that cost billions a year and potentially save 1 person per decade? Does it make sense to implement medical procedures that are irrationally costly?

Death was always part of our lives, and it won't change in the foreseeable future. We are doing everything to hide it from our view and to pretend we can trick it. Does it make sense to trick ouserlves that we can trick the death spending billions of dollars? Wont it be easier to accept the death as inevitable part of our lives? Accept that we will be getting older and then one day we will make place for others? Accept that everyone has to die one day and while it is better to die later, some of us will die earlier?

Could be I have stated it before - I am not against reasonable regulations that minimize risks. But we have gained momentum into enforcing more and more restrictive regulations. We are probably already past the common reason level and it doesn't look like we are going to stop, avalanche is just starting to speed up. That's in the name of false assumption that we can trick the death.

PS. I have spent over 30 minutes editing this post and I am still not sure it says what I wanted. That's why my English is an obstacle.
 
I understand your point, Borek, and I agree. We (meaning humans) aren't consistent in our approach to the value of life.

For example, when it comes to the perceived risk of chemical exposure, I find people to be irrational when it comes to calculating risk. But if we're late for work, we'll drive well over the speed limit - even though that's much, much riskier.

People rationalize some hazards, such as lighting fireworks or driving after a few drinks, but then do irrational things like wash their hands with anti-bacterial soap.
 
Borek said:
Please stop asking me "How much would you give for" and "what's the price of". I don't know the answer to that question and I have never stated I know. What I am stating is that whether we like it or not there are many ways of calculating life worth, that are used in different places. Be it life insurance, be it health insurance, be it estimates of loses due to war or natural cataclysms. Just because they are not advertised us such doesn't mean they don't exist. They rarely deal with the worth of individuals, rather with some generalization and statistics, but you can always divide to get an average. And I am not going to play the game in which I am pointing you to different methodologies used in different places and you are going to tell "that's not the life worth, because they concentrate on their gains/losses/aims and so on". In all these cases this is life worth from different points of view. You don't have to agree with each of these points of view, but they all deal with the same thing. Life worth.
It was not my intention to offend and I apologize if I did. I did not take it too seriously and it was not a very serious conversation in my opinion. I will stop asking. There is a monetary worth put on everyone's head but not when it comes to one another. Value is put only put on individuals by companies that have to put a value on them.
(okay now you can whack me with a fish http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/8264/shakefishfq0.gif
Death was always part of our lives, and it won't change in the foreseeable future. We are doing everything to hide it from our view and to pretend we can trick it. Does it make sense to trick ouserlves that we can trick the death spending billions of dollars? Wont it be easier to accept the death as inevitable part of our lives?
I absolutely agree with this. I have heard that people spend 60% of the money they have sete aside for health insurance during the last days of their lives. In the end, they die anyway and all the money cannot help.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was not offended, I was just clarifying. I am not that easy to offend. Fish saved for more dense situations :wink:
 
Borek said:
I was not offended, I was just clarifying. I am not that easy to offend. Fish saved for more dense situations :wink:
http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/1406/whewcz2.gif
 
Last edited by a moderator:
edward said:
My son once accidentally shut his wifes cat in their bottom freezer refrigerator.

They found the frosted cat after hearing a strange muffled sound coming from the fridge.

An old lady in my neighborhood once put a wet cat in a microwave in order to dry the cat. The cat exploded. :cry: It was big news in our neighborhood. I was amazed at how many sickos there are. So many people thought it was funny
 
stickythighs said:
An old lady in my neighborhood once put a wet cat in a microwave in order to dry the cat. The cat exploded. :cry: It was big news in our neighborhood. I was amazed at how many sickos there are. So many people thought it was funny

The cat wouldn't have exploded. It would have died, but the old lady must not have stuck around for the cooking. Being microwaved is a slow, painful way to die. The cat would have let out many loud, long painful screams over the approximately 10 minutes it takes to kill a cat in a microwave.

Teens plead guilty to microwaving cat
 
how do you know how long it takes to kill a cat in a microwave?! pencils are dangerous. especially recently sharpened, needle like ones. i was flipping one on my desk. it landed wrong side up. it went pretty deep. i almost passed out in the nurses clinic. i still have graphite under my skin from it, and this was threee years ago.
 
thomasxc said:
pencils are dangerous. especially recently sharpened, needle like ones. i was flipping one on my desk. it landed wrong side up. it went pretty deep.

How heavy was this pencil? And how high did you throw it??
 
BobG said:
The cat wouldn't have exploded. It would have died, but the old lady must not have stuck around for the cooking.
I thought the same thing but didn't feel like dragging it out (the argument, not the cat).
 
it was a standard wood no.2 pencil. i was throwing it up about a foot or so. after i would slip it up, i woud try to slap it down on the desk. its kinda hard to explain.
 
BobG said:
The cat wouldn't have exploded. It would have died, but the old lady must not have stuck around for the cooking. Being microwaved is a slow, painful way to die. The cat would have let out many loud, long painful screams over the approximately 10 minutes it takes to kill a cat in a microwave.

Teens plead guilty to microwaving cat

Those teenagers should be microwaved for 5 minutes.
 
sometimes i find it hard to grasp just how epicly stupid people can be:-(