Good Scientist Cartoon. 31st set of five

Some good stuff there.

152 is very interesting.

Yet another example of the willingness of almost everyone to accept stuff that is obviously wrong, if it was stated by someone of sufficient authority.

You might want to run your text through a spell checker prior to publishing…

The Rev Dodgson said:

Some good stuff there.

152 is very interesting.

Yet another example of the willingness of almost everyone to accept stuff that is obviously wrong, if it was stated by someone of sufficient authority.

Yes. There is a huge tendency to copy what has been done before, retaining it even when more recent data shows that it couldn’t possibly be correct. Or to put it another way, evidence of absence tends to be ignored.

“Sumarta’s”

Dang spelling mistake.

mollwollfumble said:

“Sumarta’s”

Dang spelling mistake.

Just pretend it’s all part of the joke :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

“Sumarta’s”

Dang spelling mistake.

Just pretend it’s all part of the joke :)

I can’t do that, That’s already on Cartoon number 68.

Fixed

• Fixed

And the rest?

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

“Sumarta’s”

Dang spelling mistake.

Just pretend it’s all part of the joke :)

I can’t do that, That’s already on Cartoon number 68.

Fixed

There’s also a “therm” instead of “them” somewhere.

furious said:

• Fixed

And the rest?

Don’t be so picky.

This stuff isn’t religeon you know.

• This stuff isn’t religeon you know.

What kind of societity do we live in?!

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 31st set of five

Like your work. Few typos in those ones though.

The way you are pumping them out you could syndicate yourself.

Actually comets are much higher in silicon than living things are…

dv said:

Actually comets are much higher in silicon than living things are…

True. I’m sure we could find a use for that silicon in a biosphere, though.

I think moll needs to be reminded again that the ancient Egyptians actually had a written language, and left copious amounts of text, which modern archaeologists can read fluently.

So we know beyond a doubt that theirs was a very religious society.

AwesomeO said:

The way you are pumping them out you could syndicate yourself.

I’m probably breaching copyright in 100 different ways. Which I think would argue against syndication.

Bubblecar said:

I think moll needs to be reminded again that the ancient Egyptians actually had a written language, and left copious amounts of text, which modern archaeologists can read fluently.

So we know beyond a doubt that theirs was a very religious society.

Yes. And no.

I know that they had gods. I don’t know that they believed in them.

There is a difference. Our society has gods “Superman” and “Hulk”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we all believe that the planet Krypton really exists.

When it comes to the ancient Egyptians. I’ve been wondering if what we interpret as Gods are merely representations of animals and other aspects of nature.

I had intended to research this for a future cartoon, but haven’t got around to it. My two main sources for the research would be two hardcopy books I have at home: Pritchard “The ancient near east – an anthology of texts and pictures” contains six direct translations of ancient Egyptian myths and tales. And there’s Herodotus “The histories” in his chapter on Egypt.

It’s something I’m undecided about without more research.

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

The way you are pumping them out you could syndicate yourself.

I’m probably breaching copyright in 100 different ways. Which I think would argue against syndication.

Bubblecar said:

I think moll needs to be reminded again that the ancient Egyptians actually had a written language, and left copious amounts of text, which modern archaeologists can read fluently.

So we know beyond a doubt that theirs was a very religious society.

Yes. And no.

I know that they had gods. I don’t know that they believed in them.

There is a difference. Our society has gods “Superman” and “Hulk”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we all believe that the planet Krypton really exists.

When it comes to the ancient Egyptians. I’ve been wondering if what we interpret as Gods are merely representations of animals and other aspects of nature.

I had intended to research this for a future cartoon, but haven’t got around to it. My two main sources for the research would be two hardcopy books I have at home: Pritchard “The ancient near east – an anthology of texts and pictures” contains six direct translations of ancient Egyptian myths and tales. And there’s Herodotus “The histories” in his chapter on Egypt.

It’s something I’m undecided about without more research.

No, we know they were very religious people, in a traditional superstitious, supernaturalist sense. Their texts, arts and customs make that clear.

Bubblecar said:

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

The way you are pumping them out you could syndicate yourself.

I’m probably breaching copyright in 100 different ways. Which I think would argue against syndication.

Bubblecar said:

I think moll needs to be reminded again that the ancient Egyptians actually had a written language, and left copious amounts of text, which modern archaeologists can read fluently.

So we know beyond a doubt that theirs was a very religious society.

Yes. And no.

I know that they had gods. I don’t know that they believed in them.

There is a difference. Our society has gods “Superman” and “Hulk”, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that we all believe that the planet Krypton really exists.

When it comes to the ancient Egyptians. I’ve been wondering if what we interpret as Gods are merely representations of animals and other aspects of nature.

I had intended to research this for a future cartoon, but haven’t got around to it. My two main sources for the research would be two hardcopy books I have at home: Pritchard “The ancient near east – an anthology of texts and pictures” contains six direct translations of ancient Egyptian myths and tales. And there’s Herodotus “The histories” in his chapter on Egypt.

It’s something I’m undecided about without more research.

No, we know they were very religious people, in a traditional superstitious, supernaturalist sense. Their texts, arts and customs make that clear.

God belief is weird, our fiction stories are more real than any religion as they have numerous books, comics, movies, tv shows, tshirts, toys, etc based on them with detailed fleshedout backgrounds and history.

No, we know they were very religious people, in a traditional superstitious, supernaturalist sense. Their texts, arts and customs make that clear.

You could be right. Can you prove that?

The key to whether that is really true would be whether what has been unearthed could have an unforced, natural atheist interpretation. Ancient Egyptian embalming has. What we call “temples” could be the ancient equivalent of modern “council chambers”, perhaps, a place to collect taxes and resolve disputes.

> God belief is weird, our fiction stories are more real than any religion as they have numerous books, comics, movies, tv shows, tshirts, toys, etc based on them with detailed fleshed out backgrounds and history.

mollwollfumble said:

The key to whether that is really true would be whether what has been unearthed could have an unforced, natural atheist interpretation. Ancient Egyptian embalming has. What we call “temples” could be the ancient equivalent of modern “council chambers”, perhaps, a place to collect taxes and resolve disputes.

They were that until Jesus tipped over their tables and declared temples as places of worship. According to the book.

roughbarked said:

mollwollfumble said:

The key to whether that is really true would be whether what has been unearthed could have an unforced, natural atheist interpretation. Ancient Egyptian embalming has. What we call “temples” could be the ancient equivalent of modern “council chambers”, perhaps, a place to collect taxes and resolve disputes.

They were that until Jesus tipped over their tables and declared temples as places of worship. According to the book.

They had a documentary on embalming and how it was almost like a status/fad and they had dodgy brothers embalmers who ripped the customers off by doing a close enough for government work on whatever was being embalmed.

I’m still searching for that CPR/AED/emergency video from the other day.

Moll, vast numbers of books and papers have been written about ancient Egyptian culture and beliefs by highly qualified people who’ve made the subject their life’s work.

There’s really no more room for woo in this subject.

Whoops. Wrong thread. Anyway, just found it.

Lifesaver.

Bubblecar said:

Moll, vast numbers of books and papers have been written about ancient Egyptian culture and beliefs by highly qualified people who’ve made the subject their life’s work.

There’s really no more room for woo in this subject.

It could have been more lip service than a genuine belief much like many religious people today , a kind of back up just in case

Cymek said:

Bubblecar said:

Moll, vast numbers of books and papers have been written about ancient Egyptian culture and beliefs by highly qualified people who’ve made the subject their life’s work.

There’s really no more room for woo in this subject.

It could have been more lip service than a genuine belief much like many religious people today , a kind of back up just in case

Amongst some of them, for sure, but it was lip service to a traditional superstitious religion. They weren’t “preserving DNA” for future scientists etc.

Cartoon 154 has a spelling mistake in the last part, therm

Cartoon 153 has a spelling mistake in the first part, religeon

Cartoon 155 has a spelling mistake in the first part, Egyptain

I found cartoon 153 to be enlightening

Bubblecar said:

Moll, vast numbers of books and papers have been written about ancient Egyptian culture and beliefs by highly qualified people who’ve made the subject their life’s work.

There’s really no more room for woo in this subject.

Yes. But the leading authority on Egyptology, Zahi Hawass, is challenging some of those ideas. And he is overturning some of them. He’s written a book. Not all of the ideas, but some of them.

This chap. See for example http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/04/egypt-pyramids-archaeology-zahi-hawwas-king-tut-smuggling.html

Tau.Neutrino said:

Cartoon 154 has a spelling mistake in the last part, therm

Cartoon 153 has a spelling mistake in the first part, religeon

Cartoon 155 has a spelling mistake in the first part, Egyptain

I don’t want to know. That set of five began with me accidentally overwriting number 154 by 155, so I had to recapture 154, but I started that off by deleting the wrong duplicate, etc.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 32nd set of five.

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

Moll, vast numbers of books and papers have been written about ancient Egyptian culture and beliefs by highly qualified people who’ve made the subject their life’s work.

There’s really no more room for woo in this subject.

Yes. But the leading authority on Egyptology, Zahi Hawass, is challenging some of those ideas. And he is overturning some of them. He’s written a book. Not all of the ideas, but some of them.

This chap. See for example http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/04/egypt-pyramids-archaeology-zahi-hawwas-king-tut-smuggling.html

what makes him the leading authority, I mean I don’t dispute that he knows a lot and has done a lot of research, but the leading?

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Bubblecar said:

Moll, vast numbers of books and papers have been written about ancient Egyptian culture and beliefs by highly qualified people who’ve made the subject their life’s work.

There’s really no more room for woo in this subject.

Yes. But the leading authority on Egyptology, Zahi Hawass, is challenging some of those ideas. And he is overturning some of them. He’s written a book. Not all of the ideas, but some of them.

This chap. See for example http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/04/egypt-pyramids-archaeology-zahi-hawwas-king-tut-smuggling.html

http://images.al-monitor.com/almpics/2016/04/RTXTL4HH.jpg/RTXTL4HH-570.jpg

what makes him the leading authority, I mean I don’t dispute that he knows a lot and has done a lot of research, but the leading?

This particular man was (until the coup) the head of the Egyptian Antiquities agency. He had ultimate control over all sites and monuments in Egypt.

party_pants said:

Arts said:

mollwollfumble said:

Yes. But the leading authority on Egyptology, Zahi Hawass, is challenging some of those ideas. And he is overturning some of them. He’s written a book. Not all of the ideas, but some of them.

This chap. See for example http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2016/04/egypt-pyramids-archaeology-zahi-hawwas-king-tut-smuggling.html

http://images.al-monitor.com/almpics/2016/04/RTXTL4HH.jpg/RTXTL4HH-570.jpg

what makes him the leading authority, I mean I don’t dispute that he knows a lot and has done a lot of research, but the leading?

This particular man was (until the coup) the head of the Egyptian Antiquities agency. He had ultimate control over all sites and monuments in Egypt.

Yes I read that. Still wondering about him being leading. Anyway. I suppose it’s a matter of opinion with these things it often depends who you ask.

Arts said:

party_pants said:

Arts said:

what makes him the leading authority, I mean I don’t dispute that he knows a lot and has done a lot of research, but the leading?

This particular man was (until the coup) the head of the Egyptian Antiquities agency. He had ultimate control over all sites and monuments in Egypt.

Yes I read that. Still wondering about him being leading. Anyway. I suppose it’s a matter of opinion with these things it often depends who you ask.

In his position he would have been familiar with every site and every period. I can’t think of anyone else who would be better placed to be the leading expert on Egyptian ancient history.

party_pants said:

Arts said:

party_pants said:

This particular man was (until the coup) the head of the Egyptian Antiquities agency. He had ultimate control over all sites and monuments in Egypt.

Yes I read that. Still wondering about him being leading. Anyway. I suppose it’s a matter of opinion with these things it often depends who you ask.

In his position he would have been familiar with every site and every period. I can’t think of anyone else who would be better placed to be the leading expert on Egyptian ancient history.

he also has his opponents and critics, which he simply dismisses.

I was having a conversation with BU about this very topic… to be an expert you need to know a lot – this guy certainly does, to be a leader you need to admit you are fallible and entertain your critics ideas rationally… this is where he falls short.
I’m not disputing that he is an expert, my dispute is that he is the only one not to be questioned.

Arts said:

he also has his opponents and critics, which he simply dismisses.

I was having a conversation with BU about this very topic… to be an expert you need to know a lot – this guy certainly does, to be a leader you need to admit you are fallible and entertain your critics ideas rationally… this is where he falls short.
I’m not disputing that he is an expert, my dispute is that he is the only one not to be questioned.

ROFL. Yes. He does give that impression. It took me a bit of time to figure out, but what he has been doing is to push everyone he meets until they either disobey him openly or go home. He has no time for those that go home, but has a deep respect for those who have the integrity and dedication to oppose him face to face.

It’s an attitude that has earned him a lot of enemies.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 33rd set of five.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 34th set of five.

On 168:

Assuming an infinite universe starting a finite number of years ago with initial probability of life 0, and hence no life:
The probability of life on at least one planet is now greater than zero, since there is at least one planet with life.
Therefore there must have been some point in time when the probability of life changed from 0 to greater than zero.
There may have been an earlier time, somewhere else in the infinite universe, where this change of probability event happened, in fact it is near certain that there is.
At the earliest occurrence of this event in an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of occurrences of the same event, because the probability is finite and the universe is infinite.
So since there is one example of life in the universe, if the universe is infinite there must be infinite examples of life.

The Rev Dodgson said:

On 168:

Assuming an infinite universe starting a finite number of years ago with initial probability of life 0, and hence no life:
The probability of life on at least one planet is now greater than zero, since there is at least one planet with life.
Therefore there must have been some point in time when the probability of life changed from 0 to greater than zero.
There may have been an earlier time, somewhere else in the infinite universe, where this change of probability event happened, in fact it is near certain that there is.
At the earliest occurrence of this event in an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of occurrences of the same event, because the probability is finite and the universe is infinite.
So since there is one example of life in the universe, if the universe is infinite there must be infinite examples of life.

No. The reason your argument fails is for the same reason that Douglas Adams “proof” that there is no life in the universe fails.

“The universe … Population: None. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero.”

When dealing with an infinite universe, you have to allow infinitesimal probabilities. There’s an enormous difference between a zero probability and an infinitesimal probability, when you multiply that probability by infinity.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 35th set of five.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On 168:

Assuming an infinite universe starting a finite number of years ago with initial probability of life 0, and hence no life:
The probability of life on at least one planet is now greater than zero, since there is at least one planet with life.
Therefore there must have been some point in time when the probability of life changed from 0 to greater than zero.
There may have been an earlier time, somewhere else in the infinite universe, where this change of probability event happened, in fact it is near certain that there is.
At the earliest occurrence of this event in an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of occurrences of the same event, because the probability is finite and the universe is infinite.
So since there is one example of life in the universe, if the universe is infinite there must be infinite examples of life.

No. The reason your argument fails is for the same reason that Douglas Adams “proof” that there is no life in the universe fails.

“The universe … Population: None. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero.”

When dealing with an infinite universe, you have to allow infinitesimal probabilities. There’s an enormous difference between a zero probability and an infinitesimal probability, when you multiply that probability by infinity.

Or, to express Rev Dodgson’s fallacy mathematically, what he’s saying is:

1 = (1/∞)*∞ = 0*∞ = 0

Which is wrong.

mollwollfumble said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On 168:

Assuming an infinite universe starting a finite number of years ago with initial probability of life 0, and hence no life:
The probability of life on at least one planet is now greater than zero, since there is at least one planet with life.
Therefore there must have been some point in time when the probability of life changed from 0 to greater than zero.
There may have been an earlier time, somewhere else in the infinite universe, where this change of probability event happened, in fact it is near certain that there is.
At the earliest occurrence of this event in an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of occurrences of the same event, because the probability is finite and the universe is infinite.
So since there is one example of life in the universe, if the universe is infinite there must be infinite examples of life.

No. The reason your argument fails is for the same reason that Douglas Adams “proof” that there is no life in the universe fails.

“The universe … Population: None. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero.”

When dealing with an infinite universe, you have to allow infinitesimal probabilities. There’s an enormous difference between a zero probability and an infinitesimal probability, when you multiply that probability by infinity.

Or, to express Rev Dodgson’s fallacy mathematically, what he’s saying is:

1 = (1/∞)*∞ = 0*∞ = 0

Which is wrong.

TRD is correct…

TRD is not correct.
You can’t divide a finite number by infinity and call it a probability.
—————
Good Scientist Cartoon. 36th set of five.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

On 168:

Assuming an infinite universe starting a finite number of years ago with initial probability of life 0, and hence no life:
The probability of life on at least one planet is now greater than zero, since there is at least one planet with life.
Therefore there must have been some point in time when the probability of life changed from 0 to greater than zero.
There may have been an earlier time, somewhere else in the infinite universe, where this change of probability event happened, in fact it is near certain that there is.
At the earliest occurrence of this event in an infinite universe there would be an infinite number of occurrences of the same event, because the probability is finite and the universe is infinite.
So since there is one example of life in the universe, if the universe is infinite there must be infinite examples of life.

No. The reason your argument fails is for the same reason that Douglas Adams “proof” that there is no life in the universe fails.

“The universe … Population: None. Any finite number divided by infinity is zero, therefore the average population of the Universe is zero, and so the total population must be zero.”

When dealing with an infinite universe, you have to allow infinitesimal probabilities. There’s an enormous difference between a zero probability and an infinitesimal probability, when you multiply that probability by infinity.

No, the reason DA’s proof fails is because he divides a finite number by infinity, but I am not dividing a finite number by infinity. I am multiplying a finite number by infinity, which is quite different.

But never mind that. Could we have some more information on the sub-random distribution thing.

The Rev Dodgson said:

But never mind that. Could we have some more information on the sub-random distribution thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-discrepancy_sequence
Look further on that link at “additive recurrence”

In Press “Numerical recipes” it’s in the chapter “7.7 Quasi- (that is, Sub-) Random Sequences”

I ought to have an unpublished paper on this somewhere.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But never mind that. Could we have some more information on the sub-random distribution thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-discrepancy_sequence
Look further on that link at “additive recurrence”

In Press “Numerical recipes” it’s in the chapter “7.7 Quasi- (that is, Sub-) Random Sequences”

I ought to have an unpublished paper on this somewhere.

I actually came up with the idea from the following well-known random number generator, at a suggestion in Knuth’s book “the art of computer programming”.

Set a=1 and it becomes a generator for additive subrandom numbers. In 1-D the best choice when m=1 is to choose c equal to the golden ratio.

In 2-D and higher dimensions the value c becomes a vector. I failed to find the optimum vector, but found many that looked good for generating up to 10,000 subrandom points.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But never mind that. Could we have some more information on the sub-random distribution thing.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-discrepancy_sequence
Look further on that link at “additive recurrence”

In Press “Numerical recipes” it’s in the chapter “7.7 Quasi- (that is, Sub-) Random Sequences”

I ought to have an unpublished paper on this somewhere.

Thanks

I found that hard work.

The references had a link to a blog post by someone by the name of Mollwollfumble, so I’ll have a look at that some time. :)

The Rev Dodgson said:

The references had a link to a blog post by someone by the name of Mollwollfumble, so I’ll have a look at that some time. :)

LOL
If you find it please let me know. I lost access to that blog when I reinstalled the software on this computer.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 37th set of five

Ha! I used to chew lead flashing quite a bit as a child. It has a great mouth-feel, too.

http://mollwollfumble.blogspot.com.au/

Michael V said:

Ha! I used to chew lead flashing quite a bit as a child. It has a great mouth-feel, too.

Do you now tend to sink rather than float in the ocean?

Ian said:

Michael V said:

Ha! I used to chew lead flashing quite a bit as a child. It has a great mouth-feel, too.

Do you now tend to sink rather than float in the ocean?

:)

Oh good they’re back.

I’ll probably regret asking, but what is wee-knights about?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Oh good they’re back.

I’ll probably regret asking, but what is wee-knights about?

wee-knights without punctuation is weeknights.

Good Scientist Cartoon. 38th set of five

Good Scientist Cartoon. 39th set of five

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 39th set of five

!https://scontent.fmel1-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/19399375_1697913323848417_7558648883426936380_n.jpg?oh=c462b6f78d8325b3c617d651bdf20325&oe=59DF3909

The cat who lives here is another type Discathermal. Equally inactive by day or by night.

192 is pretty good.

Of course the figure on the right would know about donkeys.

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 39th set of five

Hey moll a few others for your panel. I was taught in survival training how to eat unknown potentially harmful things. First process was to rub the juice of the berry or fruit onto your wrist and wait awhile checking for tingling or numbness, then do the same to your lips, followed by a wait and a chew of a small amount to swallow juice then spit out. Then continue in increasing amounts as confidence increases.

Also not suitable for those mushroom poisons that take three days before you even realise you are a dead man walking.

Yes, avoid things that irritate the skin. But nettle tea is said to be good to eat. By the way, prickly pear is very good to eat although it irritates the skin, too. Carefully burn off all the fine hairs before eating.

AwesomeO said:

Also not suitable for those mushroom poisons that take three days before you even realise you are a dead man walking.

That’s why I said “be especially careful with toadstools”. I know practically nothing about this. Do you know any more than that?

PS, the method is OK for purified ricin (ie Bulgarian umbrella). I checked. And I have nibbled on castor oil seeds, didn’t like the flavour much.

mollwollfumble said:

Yes, avoid things that irritate the skin. But nettle tea is said to be good to eat. By the way, prickly pear is very good to eat although it irritates the skin, too. Carefully burn off all the fine hairs before eating.

AwesomeO said:

Also not suitable for those mushroom poisons that take three days before you even realise you are a dead man walking.

That’s why I said “be especially careful with toadstools”. I know practically nothing about this. Do you know any more than that?

PS, the method is OK for purified ricin (ie Bulgarian umbrella). I checked. And I have nibbled on castor oil seeds, didn’t like the flavour much.

The seeds of cycads need to be leeched to flush out the toxins for 2 or more weeks at a time. These have been eaten raw by early travelers after seeing the Aborigines had been collecting them. They will certainly make you very ill in a day or two and if too many are eaten can lead to a slow death.

AwesomeO said:

Also not suitable for those mushroom poisons that take three days before you even realise you are a dead man walking.

I’m looking that up now. In particular, the death cap fungus. The deadly dose is 30 g, which is quite a lot. My first recommendation of 1 mm^3 is 0.001 gram so you’d have to eat it six times according to the chart before ingesting a deadly dose. Also, initial symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea rapidly appear. Which ought to make you stop before the sixth time.

The real danger would be in eating a large dose straight off, and in thinking that you’re safe after three days because the initial symptoms have worn off.

I think I’d be OK eating death cap mushrooms, but wouldn’t want to have to prove it.

PermeateFree said:

The seeds of cycads need to be leeched to flush out the toxins for 2 or more weeks at a time. These have been eaten raw by early travelers after seeing the Aborigines had been collecting them. They will certainly make you very ill in a day or two and if too many are eaten can lead to a slow death.

Yes, that’s one of the reasons I said to learn about how to recognize by taste and to detoxify the most common poisons. The cycad poisons are one of the three common ones I mentioned. Because eating cycads causes nausea, you’d stop eating unprocessed cycads at doses far too small to be dangerous.

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

Also not suitable for those mushroom poisons that take three days before you even realise you are a dead man walking.

I’m looking that up now. In particular, the death cap fungus. The deadly dose is 30 g, which is quite a lot. My first recommendation of 1 mm^3 is 0.001 gram so you’d have to eat it six times according to the chart before ingesting a deadly dose. Also, initial symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea rapidly appear. Which ought to make you stop before the sixth time.

The real danger would be in eating a large dose straight off, and in thinking that you’re safe after three days because the initial symptoms have worn off.

I think I’d be OK eating death cap mushrooms, but wouldn’t want to have to prove it.

“A single gram of fresh A phalloides can yield approximately 0.2-0.4 mg of alpha-amanitin. The lethal dose is less than 0.1 mg/kg”

Sure you would, average weight of one death cap is 28g, ~11 to 6 mg of amatoxin, at 70kg, lethal dose is <7mg, so you’d be dead after one full shroom bro.

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

Also not suitable for those mushroom poisons that take three days before you even realise you are a dead man walking.

I’m looking that up now. In particular, the death cap fungus. The deadly dose is 30 g, which is quite a lot. My first recommendation of 1 mm^3 is 0.001 gram so you’d have to eat it six times according to the chart before ingesting a deadly dose. Also, initial symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea rapidly appear. Which ought to make you stop before the sixth time.

The real danger would be in eating a large dose straight off, and in thinking that you’re safe after three days because the initial symptoms have worn off.

I think I’d be OK eating death cap mushrooms, but wouldn’t want to have to prove it.

A lot of people have died eating the death’s cap fungus including the Emperor Claudius, so obviously you don’t necessarily get quick symptoms, nor do you necessarily have to eat large quantities.

I wonder if the job of new plant food taster paid well

mollwollfumble said:

PermeateFree said:

The seeds of cycads need to be leeched to flush out the toxins for 2 or more weeks at a time. These have been eaten raw by early travelers after seeing the Aborigines had been collecting them. They will certainly make you very ill in a day or two and if too many are eaten can lead to a slow death.

Yes, that’s one of the reasons I said to learn about how to recognize by taste and to detoxify the most common poisons. The cycad poisons are one of the three common ones I mentioned. Because eating cycads causes nausea, you’d stop eating unprocessed cycads at doses far too small to be dangerous.

Well many don’t. Think you need a better reference.

PermeateFree said:

mollwollfumble said:

AwesomeO said:

Also not suitable for those mushroom poisons that take three days before you even realise you are a dead man walking.

I’m looking that up now. In particular, the death cap fungus. The deadly dose is 30 g, which is quite a lot. My first recommendation of 1 mm^3 is 0.001 gram so you’d have to eat it six times according to the chart before ingesting a deadly dose. Also, initial symptoms of nausea, vomiting and diarrhoea rapidly appear. Which ought to make you stop before the sixth time.

The real danger would be in eating a large dose straight off, and in thinking that you’re safe after three days because the initial symptoms have worn off.

I think I’d be OK eating death cap mushrooms, but wouldn’t want to have to prove it.

A lot of people have died eating the death’s cap fungus including the Emperor Claudius, so obviously you don’t necessarily get quick symptoms, nor do you necessarily have to eat large quantities.

Poison fungi are pretty damn shifty in how they impersonate edible fungus as well

Yes, the rule of thumb is give fungi a miss.

Plant matter – crush it and rub it on your lips. Then hold a small amount in your cheek for 15 mins… see if your feel crook afaicr

Cymek said:

I wonder if the job of new plant food taster paid well

There is a book called “poisonous plants of Australia”. The author was teaching biology at the University of Queensland in the 1980s. He would occasionally have a sign on his office door saying, for example, Off for two weeks after eating …”.

He ate all the poisonous plants himself. He would I suppose receive money from sales of the book, but largely it’s just another poorly paid scientific pursuit.

I never met him, but I was a close friend of one of his PhD students, who was also into eating poisonous plants.

This book:

“Poisonous Plants of Australia
Book by Selwyn Lawrence Everist
Originally published: 1974”

I’ve read it.

For most of the year in especially in southern areas, fruits can be difficult to find, but much nutrition is held in the roots and tubers of many plants, plus the heart of palms and grasstrees. These are not obvious without some tuition, but are available in large quantity and easy to obtain, plus I cannot recall any that are poisonous, whereas fruits are often small, difficult to obtain in quantity and commonly poisonous.

PermeateFree said:

For most of the year in especially in southern areas, fruits can be difficult to find, but much nutrition is held in the roots and tubers of many plants, plus the heart of palms and grasstrees. These are not obvious without some tuition, but are available in large quantity and easy to obtain, plus I cannot recall any that are poisonous, whereas fruits are often small, difficult to obtain in quantity and commonly poisonous.

If you tslk to the local aborigines they can show which may be eaten and how to prepare tyhem.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

For most of the year in especially in southern areas, fruits can be difficult to find, but much nutrition is held in the roots and tubers of many plants, plus the heart of palms and grasstrees. These are not obvious without some tuition, but are available in large quantity and easy to obtain, plus I cannot recall any that are poisonous, whereas fruits are often small, difficult to obtain in quantity and commonly poisonous.

If you tslk to the local aborigines they can show which may be eaten and how to prepare tyhem.

First find your Aborigine. which might a great deal more difficult than finding some food for yourself.

roughbarked said:

If you tslk to the local aborigines they can show which may be eaten and how to prepare tyhem.

Because they learned it from the Bush Tucker Man.

There is a book,
Wild food plants of australia.
I’ve read it, but learned more from the Poisonous Plants book.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

For most of the year in especially in southern areas, fruits can be difficult to find, but much nutrition is held in the roots and tubers of many plants, plus the heart of palms and grasstrees. These are not obvious without some tuition, but are available in large quantity and easy to obtain, plus I cannot recall any that are poisonous, whereas fruits are often small, difficult to obtain in quantity and commonly poisonous.

If you tslk to the local aborigines they can show which may be eaten and how to prepare tyhem.

First find your Aborigine. which might a great deal more difficult than finding some food for yourself.

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

For most of the year in especially in southern areas, fruits can be difficult to find, but much nutrition is held in the roots and tubers of many plants, plus the heart of palms and grasstrees. These are not obvious without some tuition, but are available in large quantity and easy to obtain, plus I cannot recall any that are poisonous, whereas fruits are often small, difficult to obtain in quantity and commonly poisonous.

If you tslk to the local aborigines they can show which may be eaten and how to prepare tyhem.

First find your Aborigine. which might a great deal more difficult than finding some food for yourself.

In Victoria and Tasmania, yes.

mollwollfumble said:

roughbarked said:

If you tslk to the local aborigines they can show which may be eaten and how to prepare tyhem.

Because they learned it from the Bush Tucker Man.

There is a book,
Wild food plants of australia.
I’ve read it, but learned more from the Poisonous Plants book.

Kurrajong seeds are tasty and nutritious but you do need to clean them with the wind behind you as the fine hairs are extremely irritating and these must all be removed before roasting the seeds.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

If you tslk to the local aborigines they can show which may be eaten and how to prepare tyhem.

First find your Aborigine. which might a great deal more difficult than finding some food for yourself.

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

I had in mind needing food in a remote region, not where you don’t need it to keep you going.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

First find your Aborigine. which might a great deal more difficult than finding some food for yourself.

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

I had in mind needing food in a remote region, not where you don’t need it to keep you going.

It can be found but you need to be there at the correct times of year or good season. Other times there is eff all to eat.

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

I had in mind needing food in a remote region, not where you don’t need it to keep you going.

It can be found but you need to be there at the correct times of year or good season. Other times there is eff all to eat.

Roots, tubers, palms and grasstrees can be found at any time of the year.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

PermeateFree said:

I had in mind needing food in a remote region, not where you don’t need it to keep you going.

It can be found but you need to be there at the correct times of year or good season. Other times there is eff all to eat.

Roots, tubers, palms and grasstrees can be found at any time of the year.

In your area maybe.

mollwollfumble said:

There is a huge tendency to copy what has been done before, retaining it even when more recent data shows that it couldn’t possibly be correct.

That actually happened with the Millikan oil drop experiment. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_drop_experiment#Millikan.27s_experiment_as_an_example_of_psychological_effects_in_scientific_methodology

roughbarked said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

Pure political propaganda

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

Pure political propaganda

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush/ full stop

Fixed

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

Pure political propaganda

Where do you get off?

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

Pure political propaganda

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush/ full stop

Fixed

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush rather than have his children taken by the state.

Pure political propaganda

Where do you get off?

A bus stop or railway station normally.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

Pure political propaganda

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush/ full stop

Fixed

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

No, I’m another non descript unit

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush/ full stop

Fixed

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

No, I’m another non descript unit

Just another deadshit.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

No, I’m another non descript unit

Just another deadshit.

How rude. Didd i say something to upset the?

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

No, I’m another non descript unit

Just another deadshit.

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

No, I’m another non descript unit

Just another deadshit.

How rude. Didd i say something to upset the?

Being deliberately decrepit.

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

No, I’m another non descript unit

Just another deadshit.

Mr Hanky is a liveshit

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Just another deadshit.

How rude. Didd i say something to upset the?

Being deliberately decrepit.

I believe you are delusional

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

How rude. Didd i say something to upset the?

Being deliberately decrepit.

I believe you are delusional

You can believe what you want. I know you are.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

roughbarked said:

Being deliberately decrepit.

I believe you are delusional

You can believe what you want. I know you are.

Oh, um, ??? eat my shorts
ML LOL

The_observer said:

PermeateFree said:

roughbarked said:

Just another deadshit.

Mr Hanky is a liveshit

I see what you mean.

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

The_observer said:

Pure political propaganda

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush/ full stop

Fixed

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

I’m no great fan of Christopher Pyne, but I really think that’s going a bit far.

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

The_observer said:

I’m probably lucky then in that I have good friends who know how to use their traditional knowledge because their father took them bush/ full stop

Fixed

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

I’m no great fan of Christopher Pyne, but I really think that’s going a bit far.

The fixer.

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

I’m no great fan of Christopher Pyne, but I really think that’s going a bit far.

The fixer.

Yes, good . I rest my case

Good Scientist Cartoon. 40th set of five

(PS, I’m really proud of 197, but it was hard to draw. Cover up each side in turn with your hand to see it better).

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 40th set of five

(PS, I’m really proud of 197, but it was hard to draw. Cover up each side in turn with your hand to see it better).

Yes, 197 is really good, and the drawing is fantastic. They almost look like photographs.

You should do a historical version of 199.

I’d go for Galileo, Newton, and someone else, Darwin maybe.

But I expect you’ll choose others.

Kudos to all the effort you put in for these cartoons Mr mollwollfumble

roughbarked said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

roughbarked said:

So you are really Christopher Pyne?

I’m no great fan of Christopher Pyne, but I really think that’s going a bit far.

The fixer.

Oh, I’d missed the “fixer” thing.

I think I see Pyne as more Bob the Builder than Darth Vader.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

Good Scientist Cartoon. 40th set of five

(PS, I’m really proud of 197, but it was hard to draw. Cover up each side in turn with your hand to see it better).

Yes, 197 is really good, and the drawing is fantastic. They almost look like photographs.

They do, don’t they.

In other news, I’ve found my copy of “wild food in Australia” by a.b and j.w. Cribb. So anything you want to know, just ask.