I once overheard a couple of girls talking about ones sex the night before with her boyfriend and she insisted he used a condom, the other asked:
""Why, are you afraid of getting a bit more pregnant?" and laughed
"Yes. Why are you laughing?"
Earth question - Shaver socket
- Thread starter Simon2710uk
- Start date
""Why, are you afraid of getting a bit more pregnant?" and laughed
"Yes. Why are you laughing?"
Yes I can believe that.
A lady was speaking about dogs, breeds, Crufts and all that, (My dog was a mongrel, a Labrador cross, great dog, loved him to bits).
The lady (an accountant) that if a "pure" breed of dog was allowed pups by a mongrel then the pure breed would be spoiled in the eyes of the dog fraternity.
When I asked why she replied that future pups even when both parents were pure breed would have a trace of the impure dog in them.
I didnt think it worked like that?
Anyway, more to the point, I reckon John is correct (sorry Morq) but just to add, I did here tell that the Nazis inflicted all sorts of electric shock tests in the concentration camps etc to investigate what level of shock might result in electrocution under the right (wrong!) conditions . If true that might be the closest we got to some answers. It was suggested that 12mA even 11,10,9 etc might result in death under certain conditions.
Thing is, whether its tests on humans/animals/rockets however gained and at whose expense of the outcome, should we unlearn it or use it to save more lives? what would be the best honour to those unfortunates? Dilemma - dammed if we do dammed if we dont!
Ha. just goes to show that I learn some amazing things on the diynot electrics forum
Same effect - none.
The injection for C19 was not a vaccine.
The injection for C19 was not a vaccine.
It's called microchimerism. There's a recently published book about it called "Hidden Guests" by Lise Barneoud.
So it is said (and, I believe, documented), and 'worse', but I don't think they were necessarily the first to have done such experiments
It would provide some 'answers' to some questions, but only in relation to 'populations', not individuals - i.e. it could produce estimates of 'averages' in the population, or of the proportion of a population that had a certain outcome etc. - but, as I've said, that is of limited usefulness in relation to an individual, witnessed by the fact that virtually the whole of the science of Statistics revolves around the fact that there is 'variation' (between individuals or whatever).
This is something which I think morqthana probably overlooked. Yes, trials or surveys could establish that, say, when groups of people were subjected to a certain electric shock, more would survive when there was RCD protection than when there was no such protection (and one could even estimate the probabilities of survival with/without RCD protection). However, going back to what I said that morq 'jumped on' (that, if someone had survived a shock which caused an RCD to operate, it would be impossible to know whether or not they would have survived in the absence of an RCD), if an individual survives a shock which causes an RCD to operate it is clearly NOT necessarily the case that they would not have survived without the RCD, even though trials may have established that 'on average' (across groups of people) more survived with RCD protection than without it.
In particular (given the marked variation between individuals) the primary reason why a person survived a shock which caused an RCD to operate may have been that they were particularly 'resilient' to electric shocks (i.e. needed a much worse shock to kill them than would kill many other people) - and it therefore could be that they were equally 'resilient' to the shock when there was no RECD protection.
As above, there is a wide degree of variation between individuals - not to mention, of course, the fact that the nature of the shock (points of contact, skin moisture level, duration etc. etc.) make big differences.
I have seen people who (often without knowing it) had hearts so electrically unstable that they were at constant risk of spontaneously developing a fatal disturbance of heart rhythm (the most common cause of 'sudden death') - so, in them, an electric shock of only 1 mA, or less, might be enough as 'the final straw'. Conversely, although I obviously can't know, I imagine that there are individuals who would/could survive an arm-to-arm shock considerably in excess of 30 mA.
I think the answer to that is essentially a no-brainer - not only morally/ethically but also because we obviously cannot 'unlearn' things.
There are many examples. For example, much/most of what we know about the biological dangers of ionising radiation derives from events and experiments which are more than a little 'ethically questionable'
Kind Regards, John
Could you perhaps explain/clarify?
Could you perhaps explain/clarify?
Self explanatory and very clear.
Yes, we've learned a lot in recent times about the previously unrecognised importance of maternal DNA and RNA.
However, I'm not at all sure that, in the above context, this necessarily means that subsequent offspring of a pure-bred dog (when mated with another pure-bred one) would not be 'pure-bread'. It's one thing to have a little 'alien DNA' (in 'alien cells') in the mother's blood, but that's not going to get into the genetic make-up of her eggs (which were all created prior to her birth), so will not be passed on in the DNA in every cell of her offspring. At worse, via a very tortuous route, a very small traces of the 'alien DNA' might get into the blood of her subsequent offspring - but, despite that, if all the cells of the offspring were 'pure-bred', I don't reallyt see why the offspring could not be regarded as 'pre-bred?
I obviously cannot discuss with you, then. In the meantime, I'll ignore the comments that I don't understand.
That depends on the opinion of the body defining "Pure-bred" in any given case.
Yes, since it's essentially a 'bureaucratic' decision on their part, that is obviously true.
One might hope that they would understand that it's the DNA in all the somatic cells of an organism (dog or otherwise) that determine it's 'characteristics' and hence, I would have thought, whether it was 'true to the breed'.
If one thinks otherwise, it could get silly. If the presence of traces of 'alien DNA' in the body or blood of an animal (dog, human or otherwise) meant that it couldn't be regarded as 'pure bred' (even though its parentage suggested that it was) that would 'catch' anyone/any animal who had had a blood transfusion or transplant or even who had, or had had, a viral infection
DIYnot Local
Staff member
If you need to find a tradesperson to get your job done, please try our local search below, or if you are doing it yourself you can find suppliers local to you.
Select the supplier or trade you require, enter your location to begin your search.
Are you a trade or supplier? You can create your listing free at DIYnot Local
