h a l f b a k e r yRecalculations place it at 0.4999.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
Please log in.
Before you can vote, you need to register.
Please log in or create an account.
|
This would apply to any smokable substance, not just tobacco but also thorn apple, cannabis, coltsfoot and so on.
Smoking involves the inhalation of free radicals which harm the lungs. These break down in the presence of light, but the lungs are dark. Solution: make the lungs bright.
Take a
nebuliser and attach two things to it: a smoked herb delivery device such as a cigarette and a source of fluorescent alpha globulins. These particular alpha globulins are luminous and are antibodies to pathogens commonly spread by droplet infection. They are suspended in water which is injected into the nebuliser. When the smoker takes a drag, they inhale the smoke from their drug of choice and also the alpha globulins from the nebuliser. The mixture enters the lungs, and the luminous alpha globulins attach themselves to common antigens found in respiratory pathogens, likely to be quite common in smokers' lungs due to the damage to the respiratory cilia and so forth. The interior of the lungs becomes luminous, then the macrophages, the pathogens are killed and the free radicals in the smoke are broken down by the light.
Not that i would condone smoking, but this would at least reduce the harm slightly. Unfortunately, this increases the motivation to smoke, but it does also vaccinate against diseases carried by droplet infection.
A minor detail: i have no idea if the luminous portion of the alpha globulins would be toxic, but then smokers are already poisoning themselves, so "potato potato" as they say.
Luminous lumina
Luminous_20lumina
Everything should be luminous [nineteenthly, Dec 21 2007]
[link]
|
| |
No more blowing the smoke out the bathroom window, either. |
|
| |
Rather than light up the lungs, why not light up the bong? |
|
| |
I like the idea of inner light. Also, the pathogens would remain unchallenged. |
|
| |
That light breaks down free radicals is news to me - I primarily know it as a source of energy that helps *create* them (under certain circumstances - this is complicated). Can you point to more documentation about that? |
|
| |
OK, i may be wrong, but it was something i read in a quote from a New Scientist article from 1957, which is a little out of date, but does date from the time before it turned into the Beano. I'll have a look around. |
|
| |
(Later)Actually, i forgot about neutrophils, which use free radicals to attack pathogens, so anything which mops up free radicals will impair the specific immune response. Then again, [Jutta], i think you're right, so in that case i think i'll just stick to the idea of it being good to have luminous smoke and probably not very harmful, but keep the alpha globulins in there anyway to kill off the germs. |
|
| |
Ooh, i know! The light kills off the germs by creating free radicals in the lungs! Problem solved! |
|
| |
OK. First, you're talking about
fluoresecence rather than luminescence.
Fluorescence isn't a source of light - it
just absorbs one wavelength and emits
a longer wavelength. Second, light can
break down free radicals, but usually it
winds up just converting them to other
free radicals. Third, there's got to be
easier ways to passivate free radicals,
including a variety of volatile
compounds which could be added to
the tobacco and would mop up the
radicals. It's not difficult to remove or
nullify the most toxic compounds in
tobacco (or other) smoke - it's just not
something that's seen as a good thing
to do. |
|
| |
I was actually talking about luminescence. I know there are fluorescent antibodies, but i did actually mean luminous ones. |
|
| |
I have basically abandoned the idea of the luminescence being a healthy thing to do. I still think it would be visually appealing and the globulins would still be useful. |
|
| |
Does that make it two ideas? |
|
| |
I wonder if a way exists to introduce alpha-1 antitrypsin by this method. That might counteract the problem. I don't know how internal tissues would respond to long-term exposure to light. Given the xeroderma pigmentosum problem, it might well be pretty vulnerable. |
|
| |
What i was thinking is that the kind of problem people with it have on their skin may be what would happen if internal tissue was exposed to sunlight, because there's no selective pressure to protect the internal organs from any harm from visible light. Maybe the protection from the effects of daylight is a mutation rather than vulnerability to it. |
|
| |
//I was actually talking about
luminescence.// In which case, I may owe
you an apology. But I'd never come across
luminous alpha globulins. Can you cite a
reference? What's their energy source? |
|
| |
//"potato potato" as they say.// |
|
| |
No, actually it's pronounced "potato potato" instead of "potato potato". |
|
| |
Better living through bong technology. For it, big time! |
|
| |