HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: grante@aquarius (Grant Edwards)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Head survival time after decapitation
Date: 13 Apr 92 22:17:57 GMT
Article-I.D.: rosevax.1992Apr13.221757.17986
Organization: Rosemount, Inc.

heathh@cco.caltech.edu (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes:

: 	What fo you think of this?  Is it possible?  How long would you
: expect a head to "survive" decapitation?  (I heard +/- 30 seconds.)

Does that mean that sometimes you die 30 seconds _before_ the blade hits
your neck??

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Am I having fun yet?
Rosemount Inc.                                |
                                              |
grante@aquarius.rosemount.com                 |
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.religion.kibology
From: mitchell@seas.smu.edu (Gary Mitchell)
Subject: Re: Head survival time after decapitation
Organization: Brute Force Productions
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 18:09:26 GMT

Ketil Malde writes:
>I was once told that if you cut offblood supply to the head,
>losing consciousness will take about three seconds.  So, if you
>can take the shock of losing the rest of your body, I suppose
>you`d be alive that long.
>
I don't know about DYING that quickly... as a kid, my friends and I would
breathe in and out deeply fifteen times, then take one last breath while
a friend would pinch off our carotids. We'd pass out pretty quickly, but
we'd become conscious about 15 seconds after the pinching stopped.

I figure that, if a head were decapitated, the brain would lose consciousness,
certainly, but it could be revived.

From my artificial respiration lessons, I was taught that brain damage
begins within five minutes of oxygen loss. How long it'd take for the
entire brain to be damaged beyond revival is something I don't know.
My guess is that the ten minutes you mentioned in the latter part of
the letter sounds about right.

Now, the big question: WHOSE HEAD???

(Look out, Kibo, methinks someone is out to get you...)

Gary Mitchell -- mitchell@star0.seas.smu.edu
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: jmlake@grimm.cogsci.uiuc.edu (J M Lake)
Subject: Re: Head survival time after decapitation
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 21:39:53 GMT

I'm not an MD, but I have friends who are. 8-)

A college roommate of mine's father is a pathologist, and had the misfortune of 
having a nice dinner of prime rib with the two of us after we had seen a 
docudrama on Magellan's trip 'round the globe...seems Magellan's first mate
led a mutiny, and Magellan sentenced him to lose the ol' canteloupe.  

Anyway, we asked him about the medical facts (!) surrounding decapitation in 
various degrees, ranging from the simple broken neck to the guillotine.  His
professional opinion was that consciousness is lost almost instantaneously
during complete decapitatation, as the medulla is usually destroyed or 
severely damaged in the process.  Severe shock to the medulla is sufficient 
to cause immediate death in humans, and is apparently what causes the 
"Hangman's fracture" to be so quickly fatal. 

He actually laughed while telling us about people who swallowed pipes on the
mistaken impression that hanging was equivalent to strangulation.  Some of
these died from internal hemhorraging before the hangman was even awakened.

Mike
--
J. Michael Lake          Beckman Institute for Advanced Science and Technology
Dept. of Comp. Science           jmlake@uiuc.edu             Urbana, IL  61801
From: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: De-ionized water mishap
Date: 13 Apr 92 16:41:18 GMT
Reply-To: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Jack Campin)
Organization: COMANDOS Project, Glesga Yoonie

robin@lsl.co.uk (Robin Fairbairns) wrote:
> carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>>   While I don't have any references in front of me, I'd imagine that the 
>> difference in osmotic pressure between deionized water and tap water is 
>> pretty trivial.  This means that the water would not damage cells.  It is
>> true that immersion in distilled water can kill certain human cells, i.e. 
>> erythrocytes, however cells of the pharynx and mouth are designed to resist
>> this phenomenon, and will not be harmed.
> When you say `designed', I presume you mean `have evolved'.  Which 
> raises the question `what's the evolutionary advantage of have 
> pharyngial and mouth cells resistant to deionised water?'.  Which raises 
> the further question `what am I missing here?'.

As I pointed out in the posting that moved this thread here, I drank no
kind of water but deionized for a month and I did not get an ulcerated
pharynx, my body did not swell up like the Michelin man, I didn't choke on
my tongue, and my eyeballs did not bulge out of my head.  Exactly nothing
happened to me or the other other guinea pigs on the same regime except
excruciating boredom.

Body fluids have a few percent dissolved salts (potassium in cells, sodium
in intercellular fluids), not far short of sea water.  Tap water has at
most a few parts per thousand.  The difference between that and zero isn't
something your body is going to notice.  Water in granitic or basaltic
areas is near-as-dammit ion-free, and I don't think Aberdeen and Iona
regularly resound to the soggy splatter of unwary tourists bursting after
drinking the tap water.


> I thought that several things had a habit of attaching themselves to, 
> and working their way through, the stomach lining.  For example,
> aspirin, which is why it's used by suicides (and why it's such an 
> astoundingly painful way to go ...

Aspirin causes gastric bleeding by a systemic effect mediated by
prostaglandins; intravenous aspirin, or slow-release aspirin that doesn't
dissolve till it reaches the intestine, can also cause it.  The effect is
larger by direct contact, but not particularly dramatic at any dose unless
the person taking it already has gastritis or ulceration.  The unpleasant
effects of suicidal doses of aspirin are mostly due to acidosis.
-- 
--  Jack Campin    room G092, Computing Science Department, Glasgow University,
17 Lilybank Gardens, Glasgow G12 8RZ, Scotland   TEL: 041 339 8855 x6854 (work)
INTERNET: jack@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk or via nsfnet-relay.ac.uk    FAX: 041 330 4913
BANG!net: via mcsun and uknet     BITNET: via UKACRL    UUCP: jack@glasgow.uucp
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU (Carl J Lydick)
Subject: Re: Pressure
Reply-To: carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU
Organization: HST Wide Field/Planetary Camera
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:14:24 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.022901.3743@ceilidh.beartrack.com>, dnichols@ceilidh.beartrack.com (Don Nichols (DoN.)) writes:
>In article <5628@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca> gee@dciem.dciem.dnd.ca (Thomas Gee) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr8.074615.12947@odin.diku.dk> klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen) writes:
>>>s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) writes:
>>>
>>>>Recently, people (well, navy crack(ed) soldiers) exited from a sub
>>>>submerged to 180 meters, and rose to the surface.  And lived.
>
>	[ ... ]
>
>>But I expect that  submarines use only one atmosphere (more or less)
>>of pressure internally.  After all, if they used higher pressures, then
>>the crew would have to decompress after surfacing if they had stayed
>>down for any length of time.
>
>	But, if the interior pressure of the sub is one atmosphere, and the
>ports of a sub are designed to withstand pressure (they open out only), how
>did they ever get the ports open?  (Did they shoot the poor divers from the
>torpedo tubes? :-)

They use an airlock.  Step into the lock.  Flood it.  Now you can open the
port.  When you return, pump the water out of the lock and equalize pressure,
and you can get back into the rest of the sub.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl J Lydick | INTERnet: CARL@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU | NSI/HEPnet: SOL1::CARL

Disclaimer:  Hey, I understand VAXes and VMS.  That's what I get paid for.  My
understanding of astronomy is purely at the amateur level (or below).  So
unless what I'm saying is directly related to VAX/VMS, don't hold me or my
organization responsible for it.  If it IS related to VAX/VMS, you can try to
hold me responsible for it, but my organization had nothing to do with it.
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: w3wes@edison.gsfc.nasa.gov (William E. Smith)
Subject: Re: Head survival time after decapitation
Organization: General Sciences Corporation
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:10:46 GMT

In article <1992Apr13.092151.12619@cco.caltech.edu>, heathh@cco.caltech.edu (Heath Ian Hunnicutt) writes:
> 
> Hello,
> 	I have heard tales regarding execution by guillotine that the
> severed heads' eyes would pivot, often "staring-down" a loved one or
> hated enemy in the crowd.  I've also heard of tongues lolling about
> in what looked like speech.  
> 
> 	Now, I don't mean first-hand accounts here -- I'm talking
> about pure folklorish musing about executions in the French Revolution,
> etc.,
> 
> 	What fo you think of this?  Is it possible?  How long would you
> expect a head to "survive" decapitation?  (I heard +/- 30 seconds.)
> 
> Morbidly,
> Heath
> 
	From Panati's EXTRORDINARY ENDINGS OF PRACTICALLY EVERYTHING AND EVERYBODY:

	Despite assurances that the Guillotin was painless and humane, medical
men of the 18th Century had their doubts.  One wrote that "the severed head
retains the faculty of feeling and thinking during several seconds."  Another
claimed he made a pact with a condemned man, who promised to blink three times
immediately after his beheading; he blinked twice.

	These numerous tales prompted some ghastly experimentation.  Doctors
and medical students were present at executions to perform various tests.
Their findings were as various as the experiments.  Faces grimaced, twitched,
blinked; lips pleaded silently for mercy, or so it seemed.

	Today we know that facial muscles are still alive following a decapitation,
and can contract in response to stimuli.  However, brain neurons do not die 
instantaneously, but unconciousness can occur that quickly.


*******************************************************************************
        ___      _      ___      ___________      ___
       / _ \    | |    / _ \    / __________|    / _ \     Bill Smith 
      | | \ \   | |   / / \ \  | <_________     / / \ \    Code 910.4
      | |  \ \  | |  / /   \ \  \_________ \   / /   \ \   Goddard Space Center
      | |   \ \_| | / /     \ \___________> | / /     \ \  Greenbelt, MD 20771
      |_|    \___/ /_/       \_____________/ /_/       \_\ 
Reunite Pangaea!!!                                  w3wes@edison.gsfc.nasa.gov
*******************************************************************************
From: klaus@diku.dk (Klaus Ole Kristiansen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Pressure
Date: 8 Apr 92 07:46:15 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen

s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) writes:

>Recently, people (well, navy crack(ed) soldiers) exited from a sub
>submerged to 180 meters, and rose to the surface.  And lived.
>(One of them accidentally swallowed a gulp of air at 180m, which
>on the way up expanded to roughly 19 times its volume, and ruptured
>his stomach, but apart from that, things seemed to go 'well'.)

>Is this a record?

>Are there any limits how deep this can be done from? (We're talking 
>about going from 180m to surface in a matter of seconds..)

>What are the medical problems that can arise? (except from teh obvious
>ones of holding your breath and blowing up!)

The water within your body has gasses disolved in it, and
is in an equilibrium with the air you breathe. What happens
when there is a quick drop in air pressure? Try opening
a bottle of pop. You don't want this to happen inside your
tissues! Note that the little bubbles can not just raise to
the surface and disappear, they will stay. If you are placed
in a pressure that is higher than the one you rose from too
fast, the bubbles will usually be disolved. However, there
was a case a few years ago where someone was still suffering
from paralysis due to bubbles in his central nerveus system
after spending a few hours a week in a pressure tank for
6 months.

Klaus O K
From: reynard@susie.cs.scarolina.edu (John Reynard)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Prussian Blue
Date: 15 Apr 92 19:28:59 GMT
Article-I.D.: usceast.reynard.703366139
Organization: USC  Department of Computer Science


moroney@ramblr.enet.dec.com writes:

>I heard a new one a couple days ago.  Prussian Blue is a blue pigment used in
>paints, dyes in olden times.  What I heard was this:  Back when chemists were
>bold, and rarely lived to be old, a Prussian chemist invented this stuff. 
>Well, in the olden days, they tasted almost everything. Well, Prussian Blue is
>made with cyanide, and this killed him, and in addition colored his body blue. 
>So they named they dye after the nationality and skin coloring of the inventer.

>Sounds wrong, somehow, but I'm posting this anyway.

>-Mike

It wouldn't have had anything to do with the fact that the Prussian Army 
wore Prussian blue either now would it.  I think it is for the army
uniforms that it is named Prussian Blue since this is what people around 
Europe would have seen.  Not that some idiot didn't taste the stuff and
die, that's quite possible but not why it would be named as such.

John
From: robin@lsl.co.uk (Robin Fairbairns)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: De-ionized water mishap
Date: 12 Apr 92 18:32:24 GMT
Organization: Laser-Scan Ltd., Cambridge

In article <1992Apr9.041116.8503@panix.com>, carlf@panix.com (Carl Fink) writes:
>   While I don't have any references in front of me, I'd imagine that the 
> difference in osmotic pressure between deionized water and tap water is 
> pretty trivial.  This means that the water would not damage cells.  It is
> true that immersion in distilled water can kill certain human cells, i.e. 
> erythrocytes, however cells of the pharynx and mouth are designed to resist
> this phenomenon, and will not be harmed.

When you say `designed', I presume you mean `have evolved'.  Which 
raises the question `what's the evolutionary advantage of have 
pharyngial and mouth cells resistant to deionised water?'.  Which raises 
the further question `what am I missing here?'.

>   Similarly, water can't be absorbed significantly through the stomach.  In
> fact, the only substance I know of that CAN be absorbed through the stomach
> lining is alcohol.  Water is not in fact absorbed until it reaches the
> large intestine.

I thought that several things had a habit of attaching themselves to, 
and working their way through, the stomach lining.  For example,
aspirin, which is why it's used by suicides (and why it's such an 
astoundingly painful way to go ... hmmm - make that `ill-equipped or ill-
informed suicides').
-- 
Robin Fairbairns, Senior Consultant, postmaster and general dogsbody
Laser-Scan Ltd., Science Park, Milton Rd., Cambridge CB4 4FY, UK
Email: robin@lsl.co.uk  --or--  rf@cl.cam.ac.uk
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: rdippold@cancun.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold)
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 18:05:01 GMT

It's psychological.  10 minutes to too long to oversleep, but 9
minutes can be justified...  because it only has one digit.
-- 
You can get more with a kind word and a gun than you can with a kind word.
From: olea@ii.uib.no (Ole Arntzen)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Pressure
Date: 7 Apr 92 14:40:42 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Informatics, University of Bergen

In article <1992Apr7.131752.22360@alf.uib.no>, s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde) writes:
|> Recently, people (well, navy crack(ed) soldiers) exited from a sub
|> submerged to 180 meters, and rose to the surface.  And lived.
|> (One of them accidentally swallowed a gulp of air at 180m, which
|> on the way up expanded to roughly 19 times its volume, and ruptured
|> his stomach, but apart from that, things seemed to go 'well'.)
|>
|> Is this a record?
It was then.

|> Are there any limits how deep this can be done from? (We're talking 
|> about going from 180m to surface in a matter of seconds..)
It should be possible to go much deeper, there were no new problems
compared with the ordinary training from 18 meters.  Except that if
something went wrong, the effect would be much more serious.  I doubt
that there will be any more training to this depth as sufficient
security will be very expensive.  In an emergency situation however,
you don't set the same standards to security.

|> What are the medical problems that can arise? (except from teh obvious
|> ones of holding your breath and blowing up!)
There will of course be the normal problems involved in deep diving,
but everything happens during a very short period of time, the ascend
from 180 meters took about 1 minute.  A very large percentage had
problems their tympanic membrane.  Not a large medical problem but
but it is painful, and you get dizzy afterwards.

Everything I have written here are recalled from my not so perfect
memory, don't take it too serious.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Ole Arntzen (olea@ii.uib.no)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
From: treincke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu (Tim Reincke)
Subject: Re: digital alarm clocks
Keywords: digital alarm clock
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 1992 01:09:34 GMT

umland04@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Peter A. Land) writes:


>1. Press 'sleep' and 'alarm' buttons at the same time.
>      This will display the last digit of the minutes and the seconds for the current time.
>2. While still holding one of the 2 buttons, hit the 'hour' button. This will
>   reset the seconds of the time to zero, and round off the minutes.
>3. While still holding one of 'sleep' or 'alarm', hit the 'minute' button. This
>   will pause the counter for the current time.

On my alarm clock, if you press the alarm set, hour set, and minute set buttons
together, it resets the alarm time to 12:00 midnight.  Pressing the minute
set button while setting the time resets the seconds to :00.

>Anyone else notice this?  I find it useful for setting the exact time on my
>  clock radio. And why is it not in the manual that comes with it?

Umm...it's too complicated for most users to set anyway, and the "extra" 
features would just confuse them more?

Or if the clock mentioned those features, people would feel compelled to pay
more than the list price for the clock.

Some people might insist that the clock company put specific buttons on the
clock for those functions.  Then, once the company complied, others would 
complain of too many buttons.

>Peter Land - umland04@ccu.umanitoba.ca

- Tim Reincke
  treincke@uiuc.edu
  Please don't take this posting at face value.
-- 
Timothy J. Reincke                            | treincke@uiuc.edu 
CCSO Site Consultant, CCSO Resource Center    | treincke@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
----------------------------------------------| treincke@mrcnext.cso.uiuc.edu
Sophomore, Computer Science                   | treincke@uiucvmd (bitnet)
From: neil@robots.oxford.ac.uk (Neil Townsend)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: Why do snooze alarms do +9 minutes?
Date: 16 Apr 92 11:58:24 GMT
Organization: Robotics Research Group, Engineering Science Dept, Oxford, UK.

In article <kFuaJB3w164w@acme.gen.nz> dogbowl@acme.gen.nz (Alan Brown) writes:
>andyg@hpcvra.cv.hp.com (Andrew Gryc) writes:
>
>> I think that an alarm snoozes for 9 minutes because it uses the frequency
>> of the AC line (60 Hz) as a time measurement, and it is using an 9 bit
>> counter.  1/60 * 512 = 8.5 minutes, so this is about right. 
>> 
>OK what about the parts of the world using 50 line frequency?

For what it's worth, I think the 9 minute snooze has evolved from the
early days (tm) of clock radios. I can remember at least one which,
rather than snoozing 9 minutes exactly, snoozed until the next time
ending in 9 (ie 9:59, 10:29, 0:09, 15:29 etc). This meant you got
anything from a few seconds to just under ten minutes.

I suppose that this evolved from the days before digital displays when
those flip up numbers (like you used to get on airport displays) were
used. Presumably it would be easy to wait until a certain number was
displayed using some physical check. 9 because, I suppose again, it
fits human habits ("I'll be out of bed by 20 to ...").

Neil "I find a hammer much more effective" Townsend


-- 
"Well Alan," he said scornfully, "you'd better fall out of O  O this is whe
in love pretty soon or you'll lose all your chips."         \/  re the disc
                       (paraphrase) "Dead Heat" D.Francis   /\  laimer goes
Neil Townsend   neil@uk.ac.ox.robots  273126               /  \ -----------
From: krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us (Doug Krick)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science
Subject: Re: TV 'buzz' when graphics are on screen (was:Re: FCC Call letters)
Date: 14 Apr 92 02:08:51 GMT
Organization: The Meltdown - A Team Star BBS

[BIn article <32556@darkstar.ucsc.edu>, unknown@ucscb.UCSC.EDU (99E99)
writes:
>
>	Unrelated question.. (this group seems to have become an open forum
>for any question..Sort of a worldwide Straight Dope.. so here goes)
>
>	WHY do TVs, even new TVs, put out an audible (irritating!) buzz 
>when graphics are shown on screen?  I mean like "typed text", and pictures
>and such.
>
>	New TVs don't seem to do it as much as old TVs, but it still happens
>on occassion.
>
If I remember correctly, the problem occured in the editing of the tape.  (The
placing of the graphics on the screen.)  I think it is because that when the
graphics were dropped on the screen, sometimes less-than-perfect equipment was
used, and sometimes a background hum was accidentally edited into the
soundtrack at the same time.

Krikket  --  a.k.a. Doug Krick  --  krikket@meltdown.chi.il.us   

Supercalifragilisticsadomasochisim   !   Disclaimers?  We don't need no
   -- Need I say anything else?      !   stinkin' discalimers!
Xref: sparky alt.folklore.science:1401 alt.religion.kibology:1633
From: s082@brems.ii.uib.no (Ketil Malde)
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science,alt.religion.kibology
Subject: Re: Head survival time after decapitation
Date: 14 Apr 92 12:30:05 GMT
Organization: University of Bergen, Norway

I was once told that if you cut offblood supply to the head,
losing consciousness will take about three seconds.  So, if you
can take the shock of losing the rest of your body, I suppose
you`d be alive that long.

I suppose it will take a while (minutes?) for the different cells
to die, there was a police officer a while ago who killed somebody
by choking him (cutting off blood) for about ten minutes, I believe.
This wouldn't be the same as draining the head of blood (see the
executioner holding the head by the hair, showing it to the angry 
mob?  See the blod and gore dripping?) of course, but an upper limit?

    ; Ketil Malde,           In real life: s082@ii.uib.no +
    ; ISO-8859-1 rules         Honk if you love unicorns! +
Newsgroups: alt.folklore.science