this post was submitted on 06 Sep 2024
440 points (99.1% liked)

science

14325 readers
9 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Chozo@fedia.io 146 points 1 week ago (5 children)

“We strongly discourage attempting this on human skin, as the toxicology of dye molecules in humans, particularly when applied topically, has not been fully evaluated,” he tells Popular Science.

I feel like it's only a matter of time before this becomes a TikTok trend.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 68 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Wait, let me get this straight: they're not even sure if Yellow #5/Tartrazine is safe to be applied topically, but it's FDA-approved to be ingested?

[–] Chozo@fedia.io 82 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Things absorbed through the skin may be in a different state when they reach your bloodstream than things that are ingested. The process of digestion can break down a lot of things that would otherwise be harmful, but aren't similarly filtered when absorbed through the skin.

It's also why some medicines are taken by swallowing a pill, and some are taken by dissolving a tablet under your tongue.

[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Does it mean I'm supposed to eat that with gloves,? This is not making sense

[–] EldritchFeminity@lemmy.blahaj.zone 74 points 1 week ago (3 children)

There's a difference between having Dorito dust on your fingers and having it massaged/injected into your skin via microneedling. It's closer to "don't tattoo yourself with Dorito dust" than it is "don't let it get on you."

[–] mjhelto@lemm.ee 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

I mean, people tattoo with phosphorous (I think it was phosphorous) to get glow in the dark tattoos and that shit's a carcinogen! People gonna people.

[–] Fondots@lemmy.world 23 points 1 week ago

Some glow in the dark chemicals are called phosphors, and while they're named after phosphorus, they usually do not contain any phosphorus, zinc sulfide for example. These are the kinds of things you might find on a watch face or stickers or whatever that need to absorb light from some other source first.

To make it even more confusing, phosphorus isn't actually phosphorescent, its glow is from chemiluminescence, the result of a chemical reaction.

And for what it's worth, stuff that glows under a black light is fluorescent.

I don't think phosphorus has ever been used for glowing tattoos, and if it was I'm pretty sure no one is still using it. We're well outside of my realm of expertise, but it should also be considered that how a chemical enters your body can make a difference in how toxic it is too, there's a whole lot of chemistry at work in your body, and ingesting something and absorbing it through digestion isn't necessarily going to have the same effect as absorbing it through your skin, there's a reason different medications have to be taken oral, allowed to dissolve under your tongue, given as a suppository, intravenously, intramuscularly, subdermally, etc. that said, I'm pretty sure phosphorus is bad no matter how you put it into someone's body.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Hey don't give people ideas

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] TheLowestStone@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

Additionally, we're talking about using a significantly higher concentration of the dye that you're going to find in Dorito dust.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] MonkderVierte@lemmy.ml 35 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Vinegar isn't good for the skin either. But healthy if ingested.

[–] Tinidril@midwest.social 42 points 1 week ago

Trump's way ahead of you there.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] dharmacurious@slrpnk.net 10 points 1 week ago (5 children)

I believe have a problem with the cuboid bone in my foot, and I've been waiting over a year for a podiatrist. I wonder if I can see if there's a crack in it myself... It's close enough to the surface that it should be visible if that really works? I wonder how no one who works with the stuff has ever noticed this before

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago (13 children)

I'd think a fracture big enough to be a problem would be immediately apparent, but if it's just a hairline, this probably isn't clear enough to show it...

OTOH, if you're around Portland, I know a super good podiatrist.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Smoogs@lemmy.world 13 points 1 week ago

eating Doritos with dorito dust all over fingers

Well….uh, ok?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] quixotic120@lemmy.world 90 points 1 week ago (4 children)

“massaging tartrazine solution into hairless mouse skin over the course of a few minutes or using microneedling achieves “complete optical transparency in the red region of the visible spectrum”

I know it didn’t happen this way but I like to believe it was someone having their unwashed dorito fingers after lunch, decided to massage a mouse for several minutes, and figuring this out

[–] catloaf@lemm.ee 28 points 1 week ago

No that's probably exactly what happened. Most discoveries happen serendipitously.

[–] sudo@lemmy.today 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] holycrap@lemm.ee 7 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Come to think of it, I didn't see any claims about no animals being harmed...

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] datavoid@lemmy.ml 9 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Sounds like a masturbation injury if I've ever heard of one, the mouse is clearly a cover

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] trolololol@lemmy.world 5 points 1 week ago

Smoke some, eat snacks and try using real mouse with your laptop.

[–] Sabre363@sh.itjust.works 70 points 1 week ago (3 children)

How the fuck can anyone say science sucks

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg 50 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Have you ever seen a vacuum chamber? Science does suck ... and it's fucking awesome at it. 🥁

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 12 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

Erm technically that's the air pushing not the vacuum sucking 🤓

  • Neil DeGrasse Tyson, probably
[–] atomicorange@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

He knows a thing or two about sucking!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NocturnalMorning@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Because doing science sometimes DOES suck. I bang my head on my desk doing science sometimes, and I dislike it.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] NatakuNox@lemmy.world 39 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (3 children)

All I read was, Eat more Doritos to become invisible...

[–] JadenSmith@sh.itjust.works 13 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Some of us can't be trusted with such power. I would personally use invisibility to switch items in people's coat pockets. Keys always in the left? Well now they're in the right pocket!

Total anarchy.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Zier@fedia.io 28 points 1 week ago

Halloween is going to be lit this year bitches. Release the ghost mice!!!

[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 28 points 1 week ago (1 children)

This is awesome! How long until we have invisibility potions?

[–] Markaos@lemmy.one 40 points 1 week ago (5 children)

How much Doritos dust are you willing to inhale?

[–] Artyom@lemm.ee 27 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

If you walk without rhythm
You won't attract the worm

[–] alquicksilver@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (2 children)

For invisibility? All the dust.

[–] NegativeInf@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Congrats, you now have mesothelioma.

[–] Whitebrow@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago

Call now as you may be eligible for financial compensation

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org 12 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Not invisible, transparent. As in you can see all the insides from the outside.

[–] variants@possumpat.io 8 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Just keep applying doritos further inside

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] ThePantser@lemmy.world 8 points 1 week ago

The worst kind of invisible man

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Dave@lemmy.nz 8 points 1 week ago

Depends on the flavor.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Durandal@lemmy.today 24 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Remember where you are so you can tell your kids what you were doing before the “xtreme flavor blasted mousepocalypse”.

[–] NOT_RICK@lemmy.world 7 points 1 week ago

I now suddenly want an idocracy game where you stop the xtreme flavor blasted mousepocalypse from happening

[–] TotalFat@lemmy.world 15 points 1 week ago (3 children)

But the real question is... How do they taste?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] njm1314@lemmy.world 10 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (4 children)

That doesn't sound like something we should be putting in our bodies then does it?

[–] tacosplease@lemmy.world 11 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Yellow 5 is super common (in the US) for things that go inside our bodies. Doritos, Mt Dew, probably Red Bull. When we were kids there was a rumor that it would shrink your dick haha.

Read the ingredients on stuff the next few days and take note of how often you see it. It's probably why they chose it as one of the test substances. It's relatively safe to eat.

What is unknown is how dangerous it is to absorb large amounts into someone's skin.

It's like the illegal weed vape pen issue years ago. People would cut the product with vitamin e to thicken it and also make more money. Vitamin E is safe for human consumption. Turns out its vapor is terrible for lungs. It's quite unsafe for that kind of consumption.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›