Comments | asimplechord: have a laff

asimplechord

have a laff

May 09, 2007 15:35

Hat-tip to J for this link. The five-second rule investigated. Dude. Who funds this sh*t, and are they accepting grant applications right now?

RE: Chris Cornell, Live in Seattle
( Arm yourself because no one else here will save you )

science!, music, humor

Comments 9

fiona_fawkes May 9 2007, 22:03:05 UTC

How sad is it that my first reaction to that article was Well of course the rule doesn't apply to WET foods. But a cookie... ;) Then you just have to weight the chances of illness from bacteria against the illnesses you'll pick up in prison after murdering some poor schmuck because you didn't get your chocolate fix.

scotrid May 10 2007, 01:36:22 UTC

Actually, I would have expected the rule to work better on wet foods because where the food meets the floor, the liquid should stay behind with the germs.

fiona_fawkes May 10 2007, 01:39:54 UTC

Well, that and you can always wash of the balogna much easier than the cookie. And hey, it makes it low salt!

asimplechord May 10 2007, 01:54:26 UTC

I guess I figured it would depend. Surface tension and all that, right? Would it be enough to that the bacteria could adsorb to it or not?

Thread 5

topaz7 May 9 2007, 23:09:54 UTC

I saw the throat cancer news on another site; it makes sense, doesn't it. Too bad.

I had to have a cone biopsy because of precancerous cells about 10 years ago; I never found out if i had HPV. I'd never heard of HPV until a couple of years ago. Anyway, that's a bit OT.

asimplechord May 10 2007, 01:56:16 UTC

Yeah. But it's weird because I know what viruses are, and somehow there's a disconnect between a normal virus and an oncogenic one in my head.

Your doc probably would have told you if you had HPV. It's a common cause of cancer, but not the only one.

scotrid May 10 2007, 01:44:10 UTC

I wish people would get the hang of "times more" vs. "times as much". It can't be a coincidence that the article had figures of 250% and 750%, but said "more", which to me indicate factors of 3.5 and 8.5, which are not as round numbers as 2.5 and 7.5. I bet they meant "as likely", rather than "more likely".

asimplechord May 10 2007, 01:51:02 UTC

I'm curious to read the actual journal articles and see if similar language is used. The Chief and I had a good laugh, wondering where you'd publish this sort of thing, and what kind of standards are required.