DBT
Contributor
Professor Julius Sumner Miller was always asking ''why is it so?''
-
Features
The dumb questions thread
- Thread starter NobleSavage
- Start date
Is it possible to overdose on sunflower seeds?
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
I would think it's possible to overdose on anything, given a sufficient quantity of it.
Shadowy Man
Contributor
That depends. What's the standard dose of sunflower seeds?
fromderinside
Mazzie Daius
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2008
- Messages
- 15,945
- Basic Beliefs
- optimist
Apparently sunflower seeds can cause toxicity with their purines and salicylates. More of a risk for purines. Keep it under a peck?
Natural Food Toxins http://www.healthknot.com/natural_food_toxins.html
Natural Food Toxins http://www.healthknot.com/natural_food_toxins.html
My dose is apparently a 400 g bag.
Ah, thank you.
I hope the 400 gram bag isn't sufficient. Because that's how much sunflower seeds I ate yesterday.
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
I was going to mention that birds eat about that many/much (NAZI!#!) a day here and nothing bad happens....
Really, you can relax... nothing bad happens...
http://www.boredpanda.com/inceptionism-neural-network-deep-dream-art/
Really, you can relax... nothing bad happens...
http://www.boredpanda.com/inceptionism-neural-network-deep-dream-art/
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
Why can't Iran have nuclear weapons like so many other countries do?
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
If you're asking why they're not legally allowed to, it's because of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory, so previous Iranian governments made a commitment that Iran wouldn't have them (the NPT allows a few countries to have nukes, but not Iran. Only countries that already had them when the treaty was made are allowed).
If you're asking why they in fact haven't managed to make them, it's because of significant opposition from Israel, the US and other countries.
Would you like the neighborhood mobster to have heavy weapons?
James Brown
Suspended by Member Request
Yeah, I should have been more specific. Sorry.
I wasn't aware Iran signed the NPT saying, "We won't make nukes." I presume they received some kind of concession for that?
Was the NPT essentially worded as, "Those of us that have nukes get to keep them, and no one else can make them forever"? Seems thuggish.
No. So that raises my next question: What would it take for Iran to be allowed to make nukes? Even neighborhood mobsters can reform their ways.
I wasn't aware Iran signed the NPT saying, "We won't make nukes." I presume they received some kind of concession for that?
Was the NPT essentially worded as, "Those of us that have nukes get to keep them, and no one else can make them forever"? Seems thuggish.
No. So that raises my next question: What would it take for Iran to be allowed to make nukes? Even neighborhood mobsters can reform their ways.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
The basic concessions were that the five nuclear powers recognized by the treaty (US, UK, USSR - now Russia -, France and China; actually China and France didn't openly have nukes at the time of the treaty) would pursue nuclear disarmament (but without specific timetables) and also share peaceful nuclear tech.
But you can get a lot more info in the Wikipedia article.
Bomb#20
Contributor
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,516
- Location
- California
- Gender
- It's a free country.
- Basic Beliefs
- Rationalism
I find it puzzling that so many people seem to think about this question as a matter of fairness rather than wisdom. I recall an argument with an Indian guy. I said it was a mistake for India to have developed the bomb because that made it inevitable that Pakistan would too and a nuclear Pakistan wasn't in India's best interests. His response was "America has the bomb; who are you to say other countries can't have it?".
Yup. Reactor tech is only to be exported to those who have signed the NPT. You want to buy a power reactor? You need to sign the NPT.
Angra Mainyu
Veteran Member
Or buy it from India or Pakistan, perhaps?
That wasn't originally doable, though.
Malintent
Veteran Member
I find it puzzling that so many people seem to think about this question as a matter of fairness rather than wisdom. I recall an argument with an Indian guy. I said it was a mistake for India to have developed the bomb because that made it inevitable that Pakistan would too and a nuclear Pakistan wasn't in India's best interests. His response was "America has the bomb; who are you to say other countries can't have it?".
...."... the guy with the fucking bomb says so".
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
I find it puzzling that so many people seem to think about this question as a matter of fairness rather than wisdom. I recall an argument with an Indian guy. I said it was a mistake for India to have developed the bomb because that made it inevitable that Pakistan would too and a nuclear Pakistan wasn't in India's best interests. His response was "America has the bomb; who are you to say other countries can't have it?".
Can you ask the same guy now that Trump is about to be the Republican nominee for president?
Kharakov
Quantum Hot Dog
Astronomical timing nomenclature:
If an astrophysicist says "the 2 objects will collide in 200k years" does this mean in 200k years we will get light from the objects colliding, or does this mean that in 200k years the objects will collide?
Ok, I found the answer to the specific event question I had in mind, but still wonder, is there a standard for reporting astronomical timing? In other words, do astronomers and astrophysicists generally mean "we will receive light, G-waves, and neutrinos from the phenomena in X years" when they say something is going to happen in X years?
If an astrophysicist says "the 2 objects will collide in 200k years" does this mean in 200k years we will get light from the objects colliding, or does this mean that in 200k years the objects will collide?
Ok, I found the answer to the specific event question I had in mind, but still wonder, is there a standard for reporting astronomical timing? In other words, do astronomers and astrophysicists generally mean "we will receive light, G-waves, and neutrinos from the phenomena in X years" when they say something is going to happen in X years?
They always report such things in Earth time. Astronomy's weak link is figuring out how far away something is, the numbers always leave something to be desired. (This was even a problem for the New Horizons probe--it couldn't independently find Pluto and it had to execute a turn to keep it's cameras aimed--which required an exact knowledge of where Pluto was. There were a lot of crossed fingers during the encounter!)
fast
Contributor
To hazard a guess, I'd think the latter.
To compound the issue further, (and not to change my previous answer), the distinction may be muddled. Yes, the event occurs prior detection, but if the analysis is based on current detection such that it's 200k years from now, then there may not even be an accounting for the difference, especially if there's already some uncertainty in some calculations, so even if it is based on detection (your prior choice), what they likely mean is what they said (your latter choice), especially if the difference in the actual calculated time of event and actual detection of event is insignificant to the guesstimates based on uncertainties in the calculation.
Take that with a grain of salt. Just a major guess on my part.
What I said may be uninformative, but it does give food for thought.