damn, it wasn't anything spooky or interesting afterall.
damn, it wasn't anything spooky or interesting afterall.
life's a gift thats why they call it the present
If you used a detergent to assist in the removal, it is quite possible that one of the pigments in the ink was altered by one of the chemicals in the soap - a little like using litmus or phenolphthalein as an indicator.my friend wrote on my arm in black, and it came off blue... i think the pen company has tricked me- the black is just a very dark blue.
It is also possible that the pH of the water you had used to wash your hands could have had something to do with it.
Alternatively, it could just be that you had been ripped off.
The world's greatest beer (Guinness) looks to all the world as it consists as a black bit and a white bit. However....
The Guinness website claim that the beer is 'very dark red'. I shone a bright light through it and it is true.
Nigel Clough's Black and White Army, beating Forest away with 10 men
As an addundem to luckyeddie's explanation, inks tend to be what's called 'Zwitterionic' in that, depending on the pH of the solution, they are either positively or negatively charged. So it's probable that one of the components of the detergent changed the pH of the area you applied it to and so changed the chemical nature of the ink, which can in turn change the colour it absorbs and them emits for sure.
well I still have blue marks on my arm from that black drawing.
Another fascination i have is seasonal change. A week ago it was cold and i was wearing a polyprop, a tshirt and a jersey. Now its so hot i can barely wear jeans (right now ... almost 4pm it is 25.5 degrees). Last week, up until friday the temp was under 20degrees. I think it changed on friday, and on saturday our thermometer (which is highly accurate) read 27.5 at its high point. Crazy...
phew.. i feel like swimming
A small amount of acetone, alcohol or even nail polish remover will help to remove the ink stains.well I still have blue marks on my arm from that black drawing.
If you are using alcohol, alternatively just drink it then you won't care about the stains.
wow - are you on the Omo careline
Member of CW Green
Kerry O'Keefe - Worlds funniest Commentator
Nope - British universal grit, grime and effluent remover
(slogan : "If Daz don't Brighten it and Omo don't whiten it - B.U.G.G.E.R. it").
I just watched the BBC mini series, Traffik, made in 1989. I had seen it long time ago, but appreciated it more this time. It was awesome.
Anyways, whoever has seen it know that its about heroin. Top Cat might be the best person to answer this, my question is that they talked about designer drugs wich will apparently be 1000 times stronger than heroin, how is that possible. Also, if you could tell us the some info about drugs, lke wich ones can do permanent damage and what damage (I remember doing a little bit of this in univ. but dont remember any of it), which are the most dangerous etc that would be awesome.
Also, people keep talking about how marijuana should be decriminalized, on what basis do they say that? Or maybe its just that they dont want to pay for the expensive joints which might become cheaper if made legal.
Well that depends on what the definition of 'strong' being used is. Terms like that are subject to sensationalism and I would say that 'strength' is measured by how much you need to get wasted. You need less an amount of ecstacy than heroin to get off and this is because heroin isn't purified much and so contains less of the active ingredient per gram. ecstacy contains more of its active ingredient per gram so you need less to get smashed etc. To me, this is the only criteria they could possibly use to quantify 'strength'.Anyways, whoever has seen it know that its about heroin. Top Cat might be the best person to answer this, my question is that they talked about designer drugs wich will apparently be 1000 times stronger than heroin, how is that possible.
It's moot anyway. What matters in drug brain chemistry isn't the strength but which parts of the brain it affects.
Just bear in mind that I've never taken any of the soon to be mentioned drugs in my life and don't intend to. As someone who's a scientist but also was a counseller, I was required to know more about these things than anyone else. So I'm not glorifying them at all. Drugs are bad, mmmmm'kay?
The active ingredient of ecstacy is a compound called MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-methylamphetamine). Notice it's a methamphetamine. This gives you an indication as to which parts of the brain it attacks. Here's what it looks like:
In technical-speak, MDMA is primarily a serotonergic (5-HTergic) drug. Serotonin (5-hydroxytrytamine, 5-HT) is one of the major neurotransmitters in the brain, and is synthesized from tryptophan through the intermediate 5-hydroxytryptophan. It is synthesized in 5-HT neurons, and stored in synaptic vesicles. These vesicles release their 5-HT into the synaptic cleft in response to the firing of the 5-HT neurons. In the synaptic cleft the 5-HT neurotransmitter performs its action on both pre- and post- synaptic receptor sites (sites on the 5-HT neuron itself, and on the neuron which it is communicating with.) 5-HT is then taken back into the 5-HT neuron via the synaptic membrane 5-HT transporter (aka "reuptake pump"), where it is again stored in the synaptic vesicles. 5-HT is metabolized primarily by monoamine oxidase (MAO) into 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA).
Serotonin is thought to be responsible for many psychological (and physiological) states including mood and sleep. It has been particularly associated with major depression and obsessive compulsive disorder, and drugs to treat these disorders tend to effect 5-HT (although things are not quite clear-cut as usual in biological sciences ).
MDMA blocks the reuptake of 5-HT, similarly to SSRI (serotonin specific reuptake inhibiting) anti-depressants such as fluoxetine (Prozac), sertraline, and paroxetine. Unlike those drugs, however, MDMA appears to enter the neuron, either through passive diffusion or directly through the reuptake transporter, and causes the release of 5-HT. This release is calcium-independent (independent of the firing of the 5-HT neuron) and appears to come from cytoplasmic sources rather than from synaptic vesicles. The released 5-HT then enters the synaptic cleft through the 5-HT transporter. MDMA thus acts on 5-HT similarly to the way amphetamines act on dopamine.
It is thought that this efflux of 5-HT into the synaptic cleft, and the subsequent action of this 5-HT on pre- and post- synaptic binding sites is central to MDMA's neuropharmacology. MDMA, however, has micromolar potency for the serotonin 5-HT2, muscarinic M1, alpha-2 adrenergic and histamine H1 receptors. Agonist (stimulation rather than blocking) properties at the 5-HT2 receptor have been found to fairly universally be associated with "classical" psychedelic drugs such as LSD, psilocybin and mescaline. It is possible that some of MDMA's "psychedelic" effect occurs because of interactions with this receptor. The alpha-2 adrenergic receptor may be associated with some of the carciovascular effects of MDMA.
Phew! Got that? In short, the compound which calms you down (serotonin) is affected by ecstacy and not only is it blocked (as anti-depressants do) but it's prevented from being released in the first place.
Sorry you asked yet?
Techno-speak: Psychostimulants act at axonal terminals of monoaminergic neurons as indirect monoamine agonists. Cocaine blocks the reuptake of DA by DAT, a member of the Na+/Cl--dependent twelve transmembrane domain transporter family, that also includes 5-HT and nor-adrenaline (NA) transporters. Amphetamine releases DA and reverses its transport via DAT. The blocking of DAT in the striatum was classically considered the most important feature regarding the development of addiction. The rate at which DAT is blocked determines the perception of the "high" by a human user as determined by PET studies, whereas the level of blockade determines the intensity of this feeling. It should be mentioned here, that other drugs of abuse also increase the DA concentration in NAcc, but by different, less direct routes. They can facilitate DA release by inhibition of GABAergic neurotransmission via mu-opioid receptors in the VTA in case of opioids and ethanol and via delta-opioid receptors in the NAcc in case of ethanol.
The major DA receptors of the striatum are D1 and D2 receptors. D2 receptors are tonically stimulated by basal levels of DA, and this tonic activity is important for normal motor behavior, whereas D1 receptors are activated by phasic release of DA and are particularly relevant in terms of DA involvement in learning and addiction. However both receptors act synergistically, and moreover, the final effect of cocaine action depends on the co-activation of several systems. For example, the induction of IEG in the striatum requires both functional D1 and NMDA receptors and is blunted by the selective denervation of 5-HT projections under certain conditions, whereas 5HT-1B receptor knockout (KO) mice exhibit reduced expression of the IEG in the striatum. Cocaine also acts as a local anaesthetic causing dose-dependent inhibitions of most spontaneously active and glutamate-stimulated neurons. These inhibitions which are not dependent on DA receptors may involve direct interaction with sodium channels, but the precise mechanism is unknown. For some reason, no-one wants to put research dollars into it.
Short answer: Cocaine makes you REALLY sensitive to everything and inhibits the chemistry of those things which make you feel hungry or sleepy.
Believe it or not, it's not as addictive as even alcohol but because it's probably the most powerful stimulant in its chemical class, the withdrawals are VERY severe (I've seen it first-hand; not pretty) and so relapses are very common.
OPINION ALERTAlso, people keep talking about how marijuana should be decriminalized, on what basis do they say that? Or maybe its just that they dont want to pay for the expensive joints which might become cheaper if made legal.
Apparently the basis of making it illegal is that the government can't make enough money out of it. Tobacco is quite difficult to process and must be grown in specific conditions whereas wacky tobaccy can be grown just about anywhere multiple ways. Plus, marijuana doesn't cause the same health effects as tobacco so the government makes less money there.
Government money comes from:
Govenment money would come from taxing official growers but people would then choose to just grow their own, thereby avoiding taxes unless private growers were taxed too. But to enforce that would cost a lot of money and there'd STILL be a loss of revenue. Plus with less people dying and sick, less patients in hospitals = less money.
Either way, it cannot be because of the dangers. Cigarette tobacco is far more dangerous than marijuana yet it's legal. I'm not advocating use of the drug at all (I have never and never will indulge) but it's quite the inconsistency.
Yea. imagine asking the ministry of health (or whoever decides what drugs can be sold) if you can sell a new product.
The product is harmful to the human body. it causes loads of diseases and harms not just the people that use it but also the people around at the time. it has no positive effects but you feel it will be a big hit with the kids!
They would tell you to bugger off. Then you say "Its a new brand of tobacco" and whammo its on the shelves.
i hate tobacco, i loathe the companies that produce it. my mum is the director of ASH though so i get a lot of information about it. http://<a href="http://www.ash.org.n...ash.org.nz</a> is the website of her organization. thats if anyone is interested.
and i think marijuana should be decriminalized, not legalised though.
smoking marijuana shouldn't get you a criminal record.
Thanks as always TC for an awesome, in-depth explanation, but this time it was a bit overwhelming for me, and I am sure for a few others. I am just thanking God that I did not go into medicine, thes elong names would have spelt the end of me.
I dont understand this point. I thought being maddictive meant that withdrawl was difficult.Believe it or not, it's not as addictive as even alcohol but because it's probably the most powerful stimulant in its chemical class, the withdrawals are VERY severe (I've seen it first-hand; not pretty) and so relapses are very common.
Also, u seem to be really anti government, or anti establishment I guess. Is it really that bad, or this is 'TC the cynic' speaking? I completely agree with the fact that due to enormous lobbying by the tobacco industry, tobacco is not banned, but the governments wont make cigarettes legal just because it can increase medical bills, infact on the contrary this sort of a thing puts an enormous burden on the medicare of a country and consequently a detrimental effect on the budget and economy.
Well it's a weird one. Just because a drug may be highly addictive doesn't ensure that you will experience severe withdrawals in terms of intensity. Addictiveness and dependence is more a function of the amount of time it takes for your body to get over the addiction.I dont understand this point. I thought being maddictive meant that withdrawl was difficult.
For example, alcohol is tough to get off because the withdrawals aren't as intense, you think you're over it and so are free to drink again, get addicted again etc. Conversely, Naltrexone can get you off heroin overnight and even methodone can take you off that sooner than you can get off alcohol. In that sense alcohol is more of a psychological addiction than a chemical addiction but the chemical addiction is certainly there.
It's just a bunch of arbitrary terms which anyone might disagree with and certainly aren't objective.
More just the cynic speaking I would say.Also, u seem to be really anti government, or anti establishment I guess. Is it really that bad, or this is 'TC the cynic' speaking?
If your economy is primarily privatised (as in the US) then cigarette treatments are a boon for the government because they get the money from taxing cigarette usage and don't have to worry about the administrative costs so the public system's burden is lifted. Here in Aussie, where the public system dominates, smoking certainly DOES weigh down the hospital system.I completely agree with the fact that due to enormous lobbying by the tobacco industry, tobacco is not banned, but the governments wont make cigarettes legal just because it can increase medical bills, infact on the contrary this sort of a thing puts an enormous burden on the medicare of a country and consequently a detrimental effect on the budget and economy.
But in the US it's an entirely different proposition. Smoking does weigh down the economy a lot but the money collected elsewhere offsets this.
For the record, I'm not anti-government in an anarchic sense. I'm just not a fan of capitalism in its purest form (which, given, doesn't really exist here or in the US). Commodifying something like healthcare or education is just immoral to me. And no, I don't have private insurance.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)