Re: toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- From: bae@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: 22 Dec 2006 17:09:33 GMT
In article <458b7b97@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Caustic <no-spam-here@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Bernhard Kuemel" wrote:
Hi sm!
Which is more toxic to healthy, adult humans? Say, 40% vol whiskey
and normal urine from healthy, adult humans. Is the LD50 (oral) of
whiskey lower than that of urine? How about chronic consumption?
I am not a toxicologist but am confident that 40% volume whiskey is much
more toxic than urine in both the short and long term. In some cultures,
human or animal urine is drunk on religious grounds, or as part of
alternative medicine, without any noticeable harmful effects. Human urine is
normally about 96% water and the remaining 4% is low toxicity.
While the LD-50 of alcohol is certainly lower than that of urine, you can
get hepatitis A and a number of other diseases from such a small amount of
urine that the equivalent in alcohol wouldn't even give you a buzz. Note
that "normal, healthy adult humans" can carry and spread hep A as well as
other pathogens.
So it's apples and oranges here. What's the point?
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- From: GatherNoMoss
- Re: toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- References:
- toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- From: Bernhard Kuemel
- Re: toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- From: Caustic
- toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- Prev by Date: Stress and DHEA
- Next by Date: resveratrol user's group
- Previous by thread: Re: toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- Next by thread: Re: toxicity of urine vs. whiskey
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|