"actually, botulinum toxin a is something like 100 million times more lethal than ricin"

 

Ooh, I sense a debate coming. Yeah, even with similar dispersion, I'd imagine 1ug of botulin A would do more harm than 1ug ricin. I don't think that it would be anywhere near 100 million times more lethal in this scenario though, but more anyway.

no need for debate; i know im right

"no need for debate; i know im right"

 

Heh, at least you're confident about it.

Ricin D's LD50 is 248 picograms/kg. For natural Clostridium botulinum, the LD50 is 30 picograms/kg!!!!! Plutonium is 1-2 mg/kg. So Botulinum is more toxic than Ricin, but not a 100 million times.

"So Botulinum is more toxic than Ricin, but not a 100 million times."

 

Oh yeah, I knew it.

i was speaking in terms of moles. botulinum toxin a is bloody huge; its molecular mass is greater than 150,000 and they still dont know the entire polypeptide sequence. ricin on the other hand is significantly smaller

"botulinum toxin a is bloody huge; its molecular mass is greater than 150,000 and they still dont know the entire polypeptide sequence."

 

Wow, that's some large molecule. "Today in the Molecule Weight Watchers - Botulin A!". )

One thimble full of plutonium is enough to give everyone on earth cancer!

and enough to kill george mason within 12 hours:(

"One thimble full of plutonium is enough to give everyone on earth cancer!"

 

If we're talking about Pu-239 that's inside the body, it would probably eventually lead to that, yes.

magooo.....toxic....isnt kryptonite the most toxic???!!!! muahhahahahaha.

 

::obscure superman reference::

I wonder if you could call krypton fluoride "kryptonite". )

standard run of the mill botulism food poisoning is far less toxic than Ricin though, the Clostridium variety "Amplifies" (for wants of a better word) this.

 

ditribution remains a problem though.

standard run of the mill botulism food poisoning is far less toxic than Ricin

i was speaking of the pure polypeptide extract

Heh, as we see here it requires a lot of specifying before we can decide which is the most dangerous. )

I think lead is the most dangerous because if you accelerate to a high rate of speed with the help of a gunpowder, it can kill you pretty instantly.

"I think lead is the most dangerous because if you accelerate to a high rate of speed with the help of a gunpowder, it can kill you pretty instantly."

 

Rofl. Shoot me with a 9mm lead bullet from a car, and I'll shoot you and your car with an uranium slug. ) (Damn, I need an uranium slug first)

I read that per milligram, beryllium was the most toxic element on the periodic table. And I have ~3g.

i can think of others that are worse, namely plutonium, astatine (for its radioactivity), perhaps tellurium, and oh yeah, definitely fluorine

Thallium`s been used on a few occasions too, it`s rather nasty stuff.

Beryllium is 100% harmless in a solid form. Beryllium is only toxic when its in a finely divided or powdered form. Having a lump of beryllium metal is no more toxic than a lump of magnesium metal. However, if you were to try and sand or polish your beryllium, you'd be in some major trouble.

because of its carcinogenic properties i take it?

Well, beryllium dust will lead to beryllosis(sp?) which is a nasy inflammation of the lungs. For some people, it doesn't cause any problems at all. But for the majority of people, the 'allergic' reaction leads to chronic, incurable intense pain and difficulty with your lungs. Cancer can result from all of the inflammed tissue.

thats no good at all. 2 micron al dust wont do the same will it?

I'm pretty sure aluminum won't do the same. For some reason, the body reacts really adversely to beryllium. I'm not sure why though.