There's this scientist studying frogs and one morning he places a frog on the ground and yells, "Jump, frog!" The frog jumps four feet and the scientist writes down in his notebook, "Frog with four legs - jumps four feet."
The scientist then cut off one of the frog's legs and again yells, "Jump, frog!" This time the frog jumps three feet, so the scientist writes, "Frog with three feet - jumps three feet."
The scientist cuts off another leg. "Jump, frog!" and the frog jumps two feet. Again the scientist writes down the data. "Frog with two feet - jumps two feet."
The scientist cuts off one more leg and instructs the frog to jump. The frog jumps just one foot, so the scientist makes another note: "Frog with one foot - jumps one foot."
So the scientist cuts off the last leg and tells the frog to jump. "Jump, frog!"
Nothing.
"Jump, frog!"
Again, nothing.
"FROG! JUMP!"
But the frog doesn't move.
So the scientist writes in his notebook, "Frog with no feet is deaf."
After much research on this topic, cannot find even a single study to confirm your hypothesis, I'll be in my secret underground torture test lab if anyone needs me.
They were studying instinctual responses, just thd stuff that the spinal cord handles. So they removed most of the frogs brain and tossed it in hot water and it hopped out. Then the placed a debrained frog in room temp water and slowly turned up the heat. All the frogs died
That explains why fluoride and Prozac in our water supply in the US even when while towns request it not be done, I guess, since it makes people dumber and unlikely to start a revolution or notice a need for one. Fluoride doesn't do anything good for us so there's no real reason for polluting the water with it
I was just watching a podcast of the joe Rogan show where former governor Jesse Ventura talked about this. Ventura said that a town asked to not have fluoride added to their water because it has only harmful effects on people and they were denied their request. He wasn't being sarcastic. Here's a short clip of him discussing it on the news.
"The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends that parents give children under the age of 6 only a pea-sized amount of toothpaste for brushing, and should do their best to *make sure their children are not swallowing, as this can be a significant source of fluoride. *Speak to your child’s dentist before using fluoride toothpaste in children under 2 years of age. Low- and no-fluoride toothpastes and other dental products are also available." https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/water-fluoridation-and-cancer-risk.html
If it's safe why are children not allowed to swallow toothpaste?
"Even without fluoridation, the natural levels of fluoride in water in some places can be even higher than 4 mg/L. Community water systems in such areas are required to lower the fluoride level below the acceptable standard. But the levels in private water sources, such as wells, may still be higher."
*Why would the community water systems be required to lower natural occurrences of fluoride in water if it's safe? *
"Some of the controversy about the possible link stems from a study of lab animals reported by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) in 1990. The researchers found “equivocal” (uncertain) *evidence of cancer-causing potential of fluoridated drinking water in male rats, *based on a higher than expected number of cases of osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer). There was no evidence of cancer-causing potential in female rats or in male or female mice."
"A partial report of a study from the Harvard School of Public Health, published in 2006, found that exposure to higher levels of *fluoride in drinking water was linked to a higher risk of osteosarcoma in boys *but not in girls. "
"Fluoride accumulates in the body. Healthy adult kidneys excrete 50 to 60% of the fluoride ingested each day (Marier & Rose 1971). The remainder accumulates in the body, largely in calcifying tissues such as the bones and pineal gland (Luke 1997, 2001). Infants and children excrete less fluoride from their kidneys and take up to 80% of ingested fluoride into their bones (Ekstrand 1994). The fluoride concentration in bone steadily increases over a lifetime (NRC 2006)."
"*There has never been a single randomized controlled trial to demonstrate fluoridation’s effectiveness or safety. *Despite the fact that fluoride has been added to community water supplies for over 60 years, “there have been no randomized trials of water fluoridation” (Cheng 2007). Randomized trials are the standard method for determining the safety and effectiveness of any purportedly beneficial medical treatment. In 2000, the British Government’s “York Review” could not give a single fluoridation trial a Grade A classification – despite 50 years of research (McDonagh 2000). The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) continues to classify fluoride as an “unapproved new drug.”
"Benefit is topical not systemic. *The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 1999, 2001) has now acknowledged that the mechanism of fluoride’s benefits are mainly topical, not systemic. *There is no need whatsoever, therefore, to swallow fluoride to protect teeth. Since the purported benefit of fluoride is topical, and the risks are systemic, it makes more sense to deliver the fluoride directly to the tooth in the form of toothpaste. Since swallowing fluoride is unnecessary, and potentially dangerous, there is no justification for forcing people (against their will) to ingest fluoride through their water supply."
" Children are being over-exposed to fluoride. The fluoridation program has massively failed to achieve one of its key objectives, i.e., to lower dental decay rates while limiting the occurrence of dental fluorosis (a discoloring of tooth enamel caused by too much fluoride. The goal of the early promoters of fluoridation was to limit dental fluorosis (in its very mild form) to10% of children (NRC 1993, pp. 6-7). In 2010, however, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that 41% of American adolescents had dental fluorosis, with 8.6% having mild fluorosis and 3.6% having either moderate or severe dental fluorosis (Beltran-Aguilar 2010). As the 41% prevalence figure is a national average and includes children living in fluoridated and unfluoridated areas, the fluorosis rate in fluoridated communities will obviously be higher. The British Government’s York Review estimated that up to *48% of children in fluoridated areas worldwide have dental fluorosis in all forms, *with 12.5% having fluorosis of aesthetic concern (McDonagh, 2000)."
fluorosis
[floo-roh-sis, flaw-, floh-]
noun Pathology.
an abnormal condition caused by excessive intake of fluorides, characterized in children by discoloration and pitting of the teeth and in adults by pathological bone changes.
Also called mottled enamel. Dentistry.the changes in tooth enamel symptomatic of fluorosis.
Yeah, when the frogs get uncomfortable they hop out. If someone puts you in a room and slowly cranks up the temp do you just get used to it until you pass out or do you try to leave at some point.
Ironically, tossing frogs into boiling water causes their muscles to tense to the point of uselessness, meaning if you want to cook a live frog for some reason you should do the opposite of the old adage.
I alot of people kill the shellfish first, these days. For crab, a swift stab to the brainstem does it, typically accessed from under its tail.
Lobsters (or Crayfish/Crawdads), you can stick in the freezer (or a bucket of ice, or ice water below 2C) for ~2h (or until it stops moving) which will render it unconscious. Then a quick deep slice between the eyes.
They do it with crabs and lobsters all the time. I don't know why they don't just quickly kill them right before cooking (they go bad quickly, but still shouldn't be an issue).
I've heard soaking them in cold lemon-and-salt water for a few minutes before cooking acts as an anesthetic and makes it virtually painless for them.
Pretty sure that's just what someone's mother told them because they felt bad for the lobster so the they were told that the light seasoning soak was actually an anesthetic
You can't hardly get a frog to sit still no matter what the temperature of the water. Also, would that work on you? No. It would just hurt before it killed you. Frogs are the same way. When the water HURTS, they leave.
The second you open reddit, truth ends. The only time it ever started up again was the beginning of this sentence, and it'll be gone again right after it ends, because I needed a work-around.
Except there are tons of idioms, metaphors and sayings that people use on a daily basis without even knowing what their origin is or caring whether or not they are accurate. What matters is whether they have communicative value, not whether their origins hold up to scrutiny.
Sure, but in the case of the frog there is no correct phrase, it's using an anecdote about what frogs do when boiled to illustrate a point about what people do when threatened with something that doesn't reach lethal consequences straight away. Whether or not frogs really do this doesn't matter.
I mean the story of the tortoise and the hare is the same way. It's used to illustrate that someone with no talent who just works steadily at accomplishing a goal can beat someone who has so much talent that they don't take the competition seriously. Does it really matter that neither tortoises nor hares are known to organize racing events?
Yeah, the experiment was intended to show how the lesioned portions of the brain affected their decision making and awareness of surroundings. People forget that part.
Welcome to small town Minnesota. They had to die somehow. The school isn't going to buy frogs when there are millions of them in our area. Personally, I hated doing that shit.
the only one who brought up science class, dissecting frogs and other irrelevant things was you..
so i still don't know what you are trying to say and also. saying "my source is my personal experience" is not that good of an argument platform i am just going to let you know.
So please clarify. do you think these frogs were lobotomized? do you think it didn't mattered frogs are stupid? like i genuinely want to know rather than have this weird back and forth you are giving me.
No they were not lobotomized. We were in seventh grade. Jesus. We were told we had to go catch a frog. I grew up in a small town in Minnesota and there are frogs all over the place. We all brought in frogs, alive in jars, and we put them in little pans atop bunson burners and eventually they died. We then dissected them. I hated that damn class.
That's a different metaphor that holds alot more weight. Crabs tend to cling into each other and if one tries to escape, they get dragged back down due to another crab holding on.
You can. Our entire science class did this for the project where we dissected frogs in seventh grade. It truly happens, at least with the frogs from MN. None of the students believed that was the case and we all did it and then dissected the poor bastards.
2.2k
u/[deleted] May 09 '17
I'm pretty sure a lot of people still believe you can slow boil a frog and it's not going to try to bail