🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6206oe$ali@lynx.dac.neu.edu>,
Michael Kagalenko <mkagalen@lynx.dac.neu.edu> wrote:
[I cited some number from a few places regarding the 
(not-necessarily-"chemical") LD50 of  Pu]
> False. The LD50 for Pu is 1750 mg/kg body weight.

But then -- in the light of your argument on "chemical effects" -- you
and your reference (?) are talking about strictly "chemical effects".

As I indicated  -- it's a naive red herring to say "hey -- X is not
so bad as far as THIS cause-of-death goes (just let's ignore all other causes)".

(If you doubt that the radiological causes are of "major" concern
with respect to chemical ones, then you are simply another quack).

As you go on to indicate, you don't seem to believe that death from
exposure to X is "real" death if you have to wait an un-defined time.

[another post, same date]
$$$ I wonder how "eventually" this is. 

I guess that's where your argument is coming from.

>]I.e. the lethality of of Pu where at least 50% of the subjects exposed
>]died from its associated effects (eventually) is at least 1000 times 
>]"greater" than GB nerve gas (presuming a human weighs => 2 kg -- a "safe" 
>]bet) -- the latter generally regarded as "damn well good enough" for 
>]casual military use in the indiscriminate mass-killing sphere.
>
> Hmm, 100% of subjects exposed to dihydrogen monooxide die "from associated
> effects eventually." I guess that means it is more toxic then sarin, too.

You're naively shifting ground, again.

And please stop citing examples from the advertising brochures.  To
defuse this old saw, it's  rather unreasonable that any substance kills 
100% of subjects exposed to it at an UNDEFINED levels as you have it here.  
I've heard of drowing victims being revived, for example.  Perhaps you 
have heard differently. (Hence, as we say in the defusing business, 
another "obvious lie" bites the dust).

Secondly, suffocation may take an indefinite time hence it does not fulfill
your own -- apparent -- "instant death that I can understand" criterion.
(So we see you're prepared to shift ground far enough to contradict yourself).
Drowning is not terribly akin to other forms of "poisoning" (although there are 
both trivial and non-trivial commonalities); but certainly (the 
previously "disallowed" cause of death) cancer ain't neither.

Perhaps you didn't follow the argument. When I (and e.g. convention) say 
something like "more toxic" I'm talking about it in the context of a 
specified doses.  (E.g. you'll recall, above, we're talking about LD50s
in the context of the relevant doses and -- hopefully not to confuse
you -- the associated vector and experimental subject).
X is regarded as "more toxic" than Y if it causes greater mortality at 
the same dose, or causes the same mortality at lower doses. 
(And note: "causes morality" is also a technical term, indicating analysis 
of the corpus whenever that may happen to turn up).  

From you various posts, it seem you shift the argument into several grounds: 
this last, a naive "how many die at some unspecified level" as being
congruent with toxicity.

But then, when someone starts OUT with the chestnut of comparing an inorganic 
substance and a (we understand) hand-selected organic one, saying the 
inorganic one is "less CHEMICALLY toxic (ignoring other things)", then 
we're pretty much assured they're on something imagination-enhancing.