all 65 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 51 points 10 months ago (16 children)

Punching holes in poison ivy leaves sounds like a good way to get a rash.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    Some of us are immune. I have no idea why other than I got it from my mother, who has really bad allergies.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (6 children)

    ..I should ask my mom if poison ivy affects her. pretty sure it does, though, and my allergies are worse. maybe I'm first in the line. too bad I don't have a kid to find out.

    I remember at some summer jobs way back as a teen that I would literally sit in patches of poison ivy at times to eat lunch, because I didn't care to check and just found a spot in the ditch that looked comfy

    now, wild parsnip blisters after getting sap on you and not cleaning it before exposure to sunlight... that shit is gross

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    I've heard people with Native American ancestry tend to have immunity to poison ivy, but I'm not sure if that's backed by science.

    Also, if you got burned by wild parsnip... that was hemlock, a poisonous lookalike...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    oh, no, it was definitely parsnip. it's a big issue in Ontario

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Interesting, I've never heard that. Is that the same plant as wild carrot/Queen Anne's Lace?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

    I'm not exactly a botanist but as I understand it, hogweed / Queen Anne's Lace / hemlock are all similar plants, and parsnip is a less similar plant

    I don't know if other colours are possible, but one differentiating feature I am aware of is that parsnip has yellow flowers and all the others have white. and only Queen Anne's Lace is not harmful

    but yeah they all generally look very similar

    https://www.ontario.ca/page/giant-hogweed

    https://www.ontario.ca/page/wild-parsnip

    https://www.ontario.ca/document/weed-identification-guide-ontario-crops/wild-carrot

    https://www.ontario.ca/document/weed-identification-guide-ontario-crops/spotted-water-hemlock

    also I just want to point out that do I ever love having a provincial website with resources like this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    That's interesting, I did not know wild parsnip was a separate plant. We must not have that where I'm from.

    And yeah, clearly Ontario is doing something right

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago

    yeah, and I had forgotten that it was actually invasive

    apparently hogweed has been a growing issue for the past decade around here, but I can't say that I've ever noticed any myself. parsnip, on the other hand, practically lines our ditches to the point that I would consider it an actual safety concern for the general public since most people don't know that you can have severe reactions to the sap. like we're talking a ditch just completely filled with an 8-ft wide section the whole length right next to a multi-use path. obviously not every ditch, but more common than not it seems

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago

    I recently realized I'm not affected by it either, for nearly 40 years I just thought I was great at identifying it and just careful. My wife got into it a few years back and it was horrible for her (big welts and oozing stuff, pretty gross), when she went to the doctor they were like, "Yep, that's poison ivy, here is some cream and a shot, be more careful"; so I went out and cleared all of it I could find and learned how to properly identify it.

    I still try to wear gloves because I've heard that you can eventually start having a reaction but I have debated the idea of using an aerosolized form of the oil as an emergency oh shit button if an unidentified masked person tries to pull me out my car.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 22 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Not sure how long it takes, but I hear tell there's biodegradable glitter.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 10 points 10 months ago

    There are many, I believe the best ones are TUV certified water-biodegradable ('OK Biodegradable Water' cert). It's means it's 100% biodegradable and non-ecotoxic to a high standard, with at least 90% fully biodegrading in fresh water in 56 days or less, and confirms it does not biodegrade into microplastics - which some 'bioplastics' do.

    'BioGlitter' is one example, a British invention now owned by a German company and made in Germany. From quick research it seems to be made primarily of Eucalyptus (leaf?) cellulose and wood pulp.

    https://www.discoverbioglitter.com/what-does-ok-biodegradable-water-certification-mean/

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    In Australia there's a tree called Gympie-Gympie.

    "Gympie" is a powerful swear-word in the local aboriginal language (like "Fucking cunt!") and in that language, repeating a word twice is like amplifying it 10x. They named this tree the most aggressive swear they could come up with.

    The tree is covered in tiny hypodermic needle-like hairs. Brushing against it leaves you coated in these hairs which inflict a pain that has been described as like being burned with fire, except with fire, your nerve endings are eventually destroyed. Not so with the Gympie-Gympie.

    Pain from an encounter has been known to last for months or years. There is a story of a soldier on patrol who used it's leaves as toilet paper. He committed suicide after a few weeks. There's a report of a horse which brushed one of these trees, and it went mad and ran nonstop until it found a cliff and ran right over the edge to its death.

    Gympie-Gympie leaves would make the most cursed glitter imaginable

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago

    All natural biological warfare

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago* (1 child)

    Extracting urisol for entirely legitimate purposes

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [+] 10 points 10 months ago (1 child)
  • [+] -14 points 10 months ago (34 children)

    I'm pretty sure purchasing a glitter bomb-worth of glitter does not determine whether that same amount will be subsequently manufactured. the glitter has already been made. might was well make the most of it.

  • source
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Doesn't it? More people buying -> more being manufactured?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] -11 points 10 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 7 points 10 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] -5 points 10 months ago* (2 children)

    if I press the power button on a computer, it boots up following a set of causal events. it's not like there are little people inside the machine deciding how much power to let through or how many pixels to make white.

    but human manufacturing and market systems are rife with people who can decide if or when or how much or how long. my decisions don't cause their decisions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    It does indirectly; if there is a trend of glitter bombs that causes the sales of glitter to go up 100% over a sustained period, then those people will likely decide to manufacture more, because making decisions that way is their job. Are you trying to say that their decisions have moral weight here while the consumer's decisions do not? Or are you trying to say that how much glitter is purchased literally does not impact how much is produced? I could see how someone might argue for the former even though I disagree, but I'm pretty sure the latter is just not the truth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 10 months ago (4 children)

    It does ensure a non-zero amount ends up as pollution though

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    once it is manufactured it is pollution, no matter what happens to it

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Mate, you're making commies look bad by failing to understand supply and demand.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    supply and demand is a theory about price discovery

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    .. Annnd what does it mean when you buy a big bag of glitter, and then the price is the same tomorrow, and in a week.. And in month?

    It means your demand has not outpaced production, nor reduced a finite resource - your purchase of stock has simply been replenished by a supplier.

    Purchases inform supply - more will be made to continue meeting demand. If this is not the case, the market price will change.

    https://qoblex.com/blog/the-law-of-supply-and-demand-complete-guide-to-market-economics/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (14 children)

    This is the same silly argument people have for eating meat - doesn't hold water

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (13 children)

    it's absolutely true, but if you object, point out whatever said that's wrong.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (12 children)

    When you buy something, you add yourself to the demand for the thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 10 months ago (10 children)

    and when you buy something, the supply shrinks

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 10 months ago (9 children)

    What do manufacturers do when the supply shrinks?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 10 months ago (8 children)

    they're agents with free will. they can decide anything at all, including to destroy their existing inventory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 10 months ago (7 children)

    Okay but realistically what is going to happen? You seem smart, you don't need to be walked across the line, you know that in this world that we live in, they are going to manufacture more. Because there is no force that is going to stop them from doing it. And until there is, that won't change. So while that force does not exist, it is a near certainty that you purchasing glitter or meat contributes to its continued production.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (6 children)

    realistically what is going to happen

    production Will continue at the same levels regardless of what I buy

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 10 months ago (5 children)

    Categorically untrue, there is no demand without consumers.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (4 children)

    but production happens without demand

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (3 children)

    Does some part of you truly believe that if demand for glitter dropped to 0 that glitter production would continue for any significant period of time?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 10 months ago (2 children)

    that's not what I said. it's a strawman.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (1 child)

    Then your argument is not clear to me, sorry :/ I said "there is no demand without consumers" and you said "production happens without demand". What do you mean by this? Do you mean that production sometimes exceeds demand? Do you mean that production happens no matter what demand?

    It seems plainly obvious, to me, that by being a consumer of a good, you are stimulating the demand for that good, and with capitalism being as it is, when demand is stimulated, production (or price increasing, where production is not an option) shortly follows. Short of radical regime or legislation change (both of which I should be clear I support) I don't see that changing. Thus, buying glitter is worse than not buying glitter (as far as I can see).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 10 months ago (2 children)

    One single bag of glitter may not make a big difference, but each bag makes an equal contribution. Sure, regulation would be more effective, but in its absence the best way to prevent glitter production is to not buy any.

    This is absolutely causal btw. More glitter purchased -> shelves empty -> stores order more glitter -> producers make more glitter

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments