I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false

From my understanding you are correct.
Tony
"metspitzer" wrote in message
...
I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false

A GFCI does not measure short to ground. It measures a difference
between current in on the hot and current out on the neutral. So, the
second the guy's drill "shorted out" the GFCI would have popped.

In fact, the code allows GFCI's to be installed in place of a 2-prong
ungrounded outlet. However, the receptacle must either be labeled as
ungrounded, or the grounding port must be permanently sealed. They
figure that a GFCI in that case is still better than the old 2-prong
outlet, or someone installing a normal 3-prong outlet.

I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false

metspitzer wrote in
:

I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false


I like CSI and CSI Miami,but they are full of "mistakes".
They are entertainment,but not factual.

(Florida doesn't have gun registration and our cars don't have front
plates;MAJOR errors.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
metspitzer wrote in
:

I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false


I like CSI and CSI Miami,but they are full of "mistakes".
They are entertainment,but not factual.

(Florida doesn't have gun registration and our cars don't have front
plates;MAJOR errors.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that network.
NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes. I also find
all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I saw on them if I
were a juror.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:14:52 -0400, wrote:

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:11:40 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false

The GFCI might trip before the shock kills you but you can still fall
off the ladder

You may be right. I have never experienced a shock from a device
plugged into a GFCI.

I have heard that a GFCI manufacturer has a video of a person jumping
into a pool with an electrical appliance that has been plugged into
their GFCI.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:11:40 -0500, metspitzer
wrote:

I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false

The GFCI might trip before the shock kills you but you can still fall
off the ladder


What was useless without the ground prong was the main circuit breaker which
would have tripped as soon as it was plugged in otherwise. (in actual, the
GFCI would have beat the panel breaker to the trip)

GFCI trip current is designed to be low and fast enough to minimize the jerk
reaction from a shock. They recognize already that most shock injuries are
secondary from the reaction.

Lets all hear it for plastic power tools and double insulation. Eliminates
the need for a ground.

"pipedown" wrote in
:


"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
...
metspitzer wrote in
:

I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false


I like CSI and CSI Miami,but they are full of "mistakes".
They are entertainment,but not factual.

(Florida doesn't have gun registration and our cars don't have front
plates;MAJOR errors.)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that
network. NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes.
I also find all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I
saw on them if I were a juror.




I've read that jury candidates who watch CSI and like shows are often
rejected for duty. They tend to expect evidence that is not possible or
practical.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

pipedown ) said...

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that network.
NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes. I also find
all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I saw on them if I
were a juror.

I wonder how many of these "mistakes" are really mistakes and how many
are deliberate misinformation.

These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is just
entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in our province
in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a few times by the
producers of Quincy. Given that production values have increased since
that time, it reasonably follows that research has followed.

From that and the desire on the part of the producers and the networks
to avoid litigation, it seems reasonable to believe that deliberate
misinformation is sprinkled into scripts to prevent the accusation that
the show is a "how-to" manual on committing murder.

--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
"Unusual or extreme reactions to events caused by negligence
are imaginable, but not reasonably foreseeable"
- Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, May 2008
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: if replying by email, remove "remove." and ".invalid"

** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

"metspitzer" wrote in message
...
I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

Some guy falls 12 floors. His drill has been shorted and the ground
plug has been cut.

CSI says the GFCI is useless without the ground plug. false

In some cases that's true.

If his drill has exposed metal parts that were not connected to each other
then a combination of faults could make one piece of metal "hot" and the
other "neutral." If you use the drill you get the full 120 volts.

As an example, say you have a mostly plastic drill but the chuck and metal
and a couple of the screws that hold it together are metal. You use the
drill on something. You right hand is in contact with the screws that hold
it together and you left comes in contact with the drill chuck. ZAP.
And the GFCI would not trip.

If the ground was functional, the "cross" would likely cause a ground fault.

Don't get me wrong, what I outline isn't likely to happen. And
many/most smaller electric drills only have a 2 wire plug.


** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **

Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote in
:

pipedown ) said...

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that
network. NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes.
I also find all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I
saw on them if I were a juror.

I wonder how many of these "mistakes" are really mistakes and how many
are deliberate misinformation.

These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is
just entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in our
province in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a few times
by the producers of Quincy. Given that production values have
increased since that time, it reasonably follows that research has
followed.

From that and the desire on the part of the producers and the networks
to avoid litigation, it seems reasonable to believe that deliberate
misinformation is sprinkled into scripts to prevent the accusation
that the show is a "how-to" manual on committing murder.


IMO,the CSI:Miami "Florida gun registration database" is an attempt to bias
the unknowing public in favor of gun registration,as a tool for solving
crimes,when it hasn't been shown to be effective at that.

also what irks me is when a CSI holds up a bullet and says "9mm" without
measuring it,and the difference between .38,.380,.357 Magnum,and the
several 9's is only a few thousandths of an inch,not discernable with the
naked eye.

They also show a CSI test-shooting a handgun into ballistic gelatin and the
actual bullet depicted is a spitzer RIFLE bullet.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote in
:

Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote in
:

pipedown ) said...

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that
network. NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes.
I also find all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I
saw on them if I were a juror.

I wonder how many of these "mistakes" are really mistakes and how
many are deliberate misinformation.

These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is
just entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in our
province in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a few
times by the producers of Quincy. Given that production values have
increased since that time, it reasonably follows that research has
followed.

From that and the desire on the part of the producers and the
networks to avoid litigation, it seems reasonable to believe that
deliberate misinformation is sprinkled into scripts to prevent the
accusation that the show is a "how-to" manual on committing murder.


IMO,the CSI:Miami "Florida gun registration database" is an attempt to
bias the unknowing public in favor of gun registration,as a tool for
solving crimes,when it hasn't been shown to be effective at that.

also what irks me is when a CSI holds up a bullet and says "9mm"
without measuring it,and the difference between .38,.380,.357
Magnum,and the several 9's is only a few thousandths of an inch,not
discernable with the naked eye.

They also show a CSI test-shooting a handgun into ballistic gelatin
and the actual bullet depicted is a spitzer RIFLE bullet.


You guys are paying too much attention to the CSI Miami legal stuff. The
lab is lacking as there is never any duct tape to be seen. Pay more
attention to the hot chickies and their atire. That's for real.

"Calvin Henry-Cotnam" wrote in message
...
pipedown ) said...


These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is just
entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in our province
in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a few times by the
producers of Quincy. Given that production values have increased since
that time


"production values" have increased ?

compared to what ?

we have the same folks bringing us that abomination "American Idol".

we have the same folks bringing us that 'technique' of shaking the
camera lens & jerking it around for no viable reason (thereby making
a joke out of ENG helo's who have six figure "gyro stabilized image
stabilization camera platforms".

we have the same folks bringing us shows that glorify beating the
other guy senseless ("ultimate fighting").

and other assorted rubbish that "hollywood" puts out (and an equally
moronic - and large - segment of society, buys into with enthusiasm).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Has anybody mentioned 'isolation' transformers; particularly as one
understands are used on UK construction sites?

Agree that having to drag around a heavy transformer or have longer
extension cords can be a chore; having done it since 1956 in order to
use my 230 volt British Wolf drill (purchased in 1953 and still going
strong) here in North America on 115 volts 60 hertz!

Also have now added some carefully grounded 230 volt outlets above a
work bench to avoid having to use the transformer, which also acts as
an extension cord when not at a fixed location. Also bench saw etc.
are 230 volts.

With the North American 3 wire 115-0-115 volt system the maximum
voltage to ground is 115 RMS.

The UK construction site system appears to combine, for the use of
hand tools, the best of two worlds?

It allows the use of generally cheaper and more universally available
115 volt tools on European mains voltage of 230 volts 50 hertz.

As understood, the construction site isolation transformer has a 230
volt input. The isolated secondary winding is half that at 115 volts
and since it is closer to where the tool is used voltage drop not a
concern.

But, particularly, the 115 volt secondary is centre tapped and THAT is
grounded/earthed. So the maximum voltage to ground/earth, at the tool
itself, is 115/2 = 57.5 volts RMS.

So the maximum 'peak' voltage, per cycle, to ground, at the tool, is
around 81 volts!

Compared to 230 x 1.41 = 263 peak volts for a hand held 230 volt
tool, that's a lot safer?

Thinking of a possible variation of that system to use on our North
American 115/230 volt domestic wiring. And or use a lighter weight
auto-transformer to be able to plug my 230 volt drill into 115 volts
more easily, anywhere.

pipedown wrote:

GFCI trip current is designed to be low and fast enough to minimize the jerk
reaction from a shock. They recognize already that most shock injuries are
secondary from the reaction.

Lets all hear it for plastic power tools and double insulation. Eliminates
the need for a ground.

But a lot of double-insulated tools have a large exposed metal area
that the user will likely hold during operation. An example is the
metal gear case of a corded electric drill. Doesn't that defeat the
double insulation? I don't use double-insulated tools with 2-prong
cords, except in GFCI-protected AC outlets, and then I test the GFCI
immediately before use.

I've had two plug-in GFCI's fail, one by shutting off the current, the
other -- its replacement, by leaving the current on all the time. The
second replacement is still OK.

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
....
But a lot of double-insulated tools have a large exposed metal area
that the user will likely hold during operation. An example is the
metal gear case of a corded electric drill. Doesn't that defeat the
double insulation? ...

Depends on how it is connected to the rest of the saw. If it is
isolated, it still won't/can't complete a circuit.

--

On Jun 5, 9:34*pm, Red Green wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote :





Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote in
:

pipedown ) said...

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that
network. NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes.
I also find all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I
saw on them if I were a juror.

I wonder how many of these "mistakes" are really mistakes and how
many are deliberate misinformation.

These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is
just entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in our
province in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a few
times by the producers of Quincy. Given that production values have
increased since that time, it reasonably follows that research has
followed.

From that and the desire on the part of the producers and the
networks to avoid litigation, it seems reasonable to believe that
deliberate misinformation is sprinkled into scripts to prevent the
accusation that the show is a "how-to" manual on committing murder.

IMO,the CSI:Miami "Florida gun registration database" is an attempt to
bias the unknowing public in favor of gun registration,as a tool for
solving crimes,when it hasn't been shown to be effective at that.

also what irks me is when a CSI holds up a bullet and says "9mm"
without measuring it,and the difference between .38,.380,.357
Magnum,and the several 9's is only a few thousandths of an inch,not
discernable with the naked eye.

They also show a CSI test-shooting a handgun into ballistic gelatin
and the actual bullet depicted is a spitzer RIFLE bullet.

You guys are paying too much attention to the CSI Miami legal stuff. The
lab is lacking as there is never any duct tape to be seen. Pay more
attention to the hot chickies and their atire. That's for real.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Pay more attention to the hot chickies and their atire. That's for
real

There are girls on that show? I gotta watch more carefully.

On 5 Jun 2008 17:36:44 GMT, Jim Yanik wrote:



IMO,the CSI:Miami "Florida gun registration database" is an attempt to bias
the unknowing public in favor of gun registration,as a tool for solving
crimes,when it hasn't been shown to be effective at that.

also what irks me is when a CSI holds up a bullet and says "9mm" without
measuring it,and the difference between .38,.380,.357 Magnum,and the
several 9's is only a few thousandths of an inch,not discernable with the
naked eye.

They also show a CSI test-shooting a handgun into ballistic gelatin and the
actual bullet depicted is a spitzer RIFLE bullet.


Such mistakes bug me, too, but TV writers are just that: writers.
They're not engineers, physicians, judges, lawyers, chemists,
physicists, gunsmiths, etc. Let's face it, a TV show based on real
lawyers would be pretty boring - let's watch for an hour as they talk
on the phone, write letters, and get stuck in traffic driving to court
to hand in a motion to a judge's clerk.

In article ,
(Bill) wrote:


Such mistakes bug me, too, but TV writers are just that: writers.

The writers give general idea of what they want, but SFX guys are what
put these together and you would hope even if the script had direction
that said (visual shooting pistol, SFX: Rifle bullet in gelatin) they
would ignore it. Most of this is more related to the desire to use
something already paid for or stock than anything else.

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:21:23 -0400, Calvin Henry-Cotnam
wrote:

pipedown ) said...

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that network.
NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes. I also find
all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I saw on them if I
were a juror.

I wonder how many of these "mistakes" are really mistakes and how many
are deliberate misinformation.

These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is just
entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in our province
in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a few times by the
producers of Quincy. Given that production values have increased since
that time, it reasonably follows that research has followed.

From that and the desire on the part of the producers and the networks
to avoid litigation, it seems reasonable to believe that deliberate
misinformation is sprinkled into scripts to prevent the accusation that
the show is a "how-to" manual on committing murder.

The thing I find most "unbelievable" about the show is that I have saw
Grissom "taste" evidence it 3 different shows.

He tasted toothpaste that had been used to fill in a hole in the wall.
He licked a bone. And, he tasted a yellow substance on a shopping
cart that turned out to be mustard. Ever heard of baby shift yellow?

DerbyDad03 wrote in
:

On Jun 5, 9:34*pm, Red Green wrote:
Jim Yanik wrote
innews:Xns9AB48A7946966jyanikkuanet@64.
209.0.87:





Calvin Henry-Cotnam wrote in
:

pipedown ) said...

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that
network. NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical
mistakes. I also find all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely
on anything I saw on them if I were a juror.

I wonder how many of these "mistakes" are really mistakes and how
many are deliberate misinformation.

These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is
just entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in
our province in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a
few times by the producers of Quincy. Given that production values
have increased since that time, it reasonably follows that
research has followed.

From that and the desire on the part of the producers and the
networks to avoid litigation, it seems reasonable to believe that
deliberate misinformation is sprinkled into scripts to prevent the
accusation that the show is a "how-to" manual on committing
murder.

IMO,the CSI:Miami "Florida gun registration database" is an attempt
to bias the unknowing public in favor of gun registration,as a tool
for solving crimes,when it hasn't been shown to be effective at
that.

also what irks me is when a CSI holds up a bullet and says "9mm"
without measuring it,and the difference between .38,.380,.357
Magnum,and the several 9's is only a few thousandths of an inch,not
discernable with the naked eye.

They also show a CSI test-shooting a handgun into ballistic gelatin
and the actual bullet depicted is a spitzer RIFLE bullet.

You guys are paying too much attention to the CSI Miami legal stuff.
The lab is lacking as there is never any duct tape to be seen. Pay
more attention to the hot chickies and their atire. That's for real.-
Hide quot
ed text -

- Show quoted text -

Pay more attention to the hot chickies and their atire. That's for
real

There are girls on that show? I gotta watch more carefully.


DerbyDad03 wrote in


You would think someone with the initials DD pun intended would be more
attentive...

metspitzer wrote in
:

On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 09:21:23 -0400, Calvin Henry-Cotnam
wrote:

pipedown ) said...

Yeah, CSI Miami is probably the worst of the 4 such shows on that
network. NCIS comes closest but still makes a few technical mistakes.
I also find all of them entertaining but wouldn't rely on anything I
saw on them if I were a juror.

I wonder how many of these "mistakes" are really mistakes and how many
are deliberate misinformation.

These shows do a surprising amount of research, given that this is
just entertainment. I had a relative who was the chief coroner in our
province in the 70's and 80's and his office was consulted a few times
by the producers of Quincy. Given that production values have
increased since that time, it reasonably follows that research has
followed.

From that and the desire on the part of the producers and the networks
to avoid litigation, it seems reasonable to believe that deliberate
misinformation is sprinkled into scripts to prevent the accusation
that the show is a "how-to" manual on committing murder.

The thing I find most "unbelievable" about the show is that I have saw
Grissom "taste" evidence it 3 different shows.

He tasted toothpaste that had been used to fill in a hole in the wall.
He licked a bone. And, he tasted a yellow substance on a shopping
cart that turned out to be mustard. Ever heard of baby shift yellow?



I think he wanted to taste Lady Heather too. He was afraid Sara would
beat the **** out of him though.

metspitzer wrote:
..

The thing I find most "unbelievable" about the show is that I have saw
Grissom "taste" evidence it 3 different shows.

He tasted toothpaste that had been used to fill in a hole in the wall.
He licked a bone. And, he tasted a yellow substance on a shopping
cart that turned out to be mustard. Ever heard of baby shift yellow?


Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

On Sat, 7 Jun 2008 06:13:50 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

metspitzer wrote:
.

The thing I find most "unbelievable" about the show is that I have saw
Grissom "taste" evidence it 3 different shows.

He tasted toothpaste that had been used to fill in a hole in the wall.
He licked a bone. And, he tasted a yellow substance on a shopping
cart that turned out to be mustard. Ever heard of baby shift yellow?


Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

So you are saying that CSI people routinely lick bones and taste
unknown substances?

dpb wrote:

larry moe 'n curly wrote:
...
But a lot of double-insulated tools have a large exposed metal area
that the user will likely hold during operation. An example is the
metal gear case of a corded electric drill. Doesn't that defeat the
double insulation? ...

Depends on how it is connected to the rest of the saw. If it is
isolated, it still won't/can't complete a circuit.

The motor's non-isolated metal shaft is in contact with a metal
bearing, either directly or through a metal gear, that's in contact
with the exposed metal. IOW if a motor winding shorts to the
armature, electricity can flow through the metal part of the case.

metspitzer wrote:

Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

So you are saying that CSI people routinely lick bones and taste
unknown substances?

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the origin and
migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly, by
accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine, liquefied
feces, pus, and so on.

HeyBub wrote:
metspitzer wrote:
Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

So you are saying that CSI people routinely lick bones and taste
unknown substances?

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the origin and
migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly, by
accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine, liquefied
feces, pus, and so on.



Do you just enjoy a little story telling or is your "lab experience"
circa 1921?

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
metspitzer wrote:

Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

So you are saying that CSI people routinely lick bones and taste
unknown substances?

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the origin and
migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly, by
accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine, liquefied
feces, pus, and so on.

Wow. Almost thirty years later, I still remember getting reamed, as a
second-year chemistry major, by the proctor in the Organic lab for doing just
that: "NEVER PIPETTE BY MOUTH!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE!"

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:38:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "HeyBub" wrote:
metspitzer wrote:

Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

So you are saying that CSI people routinely lick bones and taste
unknown substances?

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the origin and
migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly, by
accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine, liquefied
feces, pus, and so on.

Wow. Almost thirty years later, I still remember getting reamed, as a
second-year chemistry major, by the proctor in the Organic lab for doing just
that: "NEVER PIPETTE BY MOUTH!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE!"

How, then, can it be true that....."Taste is a common diagnostic
tool."

In article , metspitzer wrote:
On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:38:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
metspitzer wrote:

Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

So you are saying that CSI people routinely lick bones and taste
unknown substances?

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the origin and
migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly, by
accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine, liquefied
feces, pus, and so on.

Wow. Almost thirty years later, I still remember getting reamed, as a
second-year chemistry major, by the proctor in the Organic lab for doing just
that: "NEVER PIPETTE BY MOUTH!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE!"

How, then, can it be true that....."Taste is a common diagnostic
tool."

Draw your own conclusions about that.

Doug Miller wrote:

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the
origin and migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly,
by accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine,
liquefied feces, pus, and so on.

Wow. Almost thirty years later, I still remember getting reamed, as a
second-year chemistry major, by the proctor in the Organic lab for
doing just
that: "NEVER PIPETTE BY MOUTH!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE!"

Oh, bother.

If you didn't know what was "in there," why were you fooling with it? 99% of
the time you could simply look at the label on the bottle!

There's best practices and expedient practices. Most of the time,
"expedient" trumps "best."

I don't know of anything that would kill you if you simply LOOKED at it, but
there are a number of things that are lethal if sniffed. Did you proctor
have a fit when people smelled things?

As a point of historical note, before sophisticated tests, physicians used
to diagnose diabetes by tasting the patient's urine.

metspitzer wrote in
:

On Sun, 08 Jun 2008 14:38:14 GMT, (Doug Miller)
wrote:

In article , "HeyBub"
wrote:
metspitzer wrote:

Almost every chemical substance is characterized by "taste," as in
"odorless, colorless, tasteless..."

Taste is a common diagnostic tool.

So you are saying that CSI people routinely lick bones and taste
unknown substances?

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the
origin and migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly,
by accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine,
liquefied feces, pus, and so on.

Wow. Almost thirty years later, I still remember getting reamed, as a
second-year chemistry major, by the proctor in the Organic lab for
doing just that: "NEVER PIPETTE BY MOUTH!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN
THERE!"

How, then, can it be true that....."Taste is a common diagnostic
tool."

that is an assertion that doesn't make any sense,considering the hazards.

samples might be tasted AFTER one actually determines what they are....

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

On Sun, 8 Jun 2008 16:42:46 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research Clinical
Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the exploration and
production labs at the world's largest facility for studying the
origin and migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly,
by accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine,
liquefied feces, pus, and so on.

Wow. Almost thirty years later, I still remember getting reamed, as a
second-year chemistry major, by the proctor in the Organic lab for
doing just
that: "NEVER PIPETTE BY MOUTH!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE!"

Oh, bother.

If you didn't know what was "in there," why were you fooling with it? 99% of
the time you could simply look at the label on the bottle!

There's best practices and expedient practices. Most of the time,
"expedient" trumps "best."

I don't know of anything that would kill you if you simply LOOKED at it, but
there are a number of things that are lethal if sniffed. Did you proctor
have a fit when people smelled things?

As a point of historical note, before sophisticated tests, physicians used
to diagnose diabetes by tasting the patient's urine.

Name one CSI taste test.

And one is still not.........."Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic
tool

"HeyBub" wrote in
m:

Doug Miller wrote:

Dunno about CSI folks, but I've worked in two labs: Research
Clinical Pathology at a major cancer research hospital and the
exploration and production labs at the world's largest facility for
studying the origin and migration of petroleum.

"Taste" is a fairly common diagnostic tool - sometimes, admittedly,
by accident as you mouth-pipette various substances such as urine,
liquefied feces, pus, and so on.

Wow. Almost thirty years later, I still remember getting reamed, as a
second-year chemistry major, by the proctor in the Organic lab for
doing just
that: "NEVER PIPETTE BY MOUTH!! YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT'S IN THERE!"

Oh, bother.

If you didn't know what was "in there," why were you fooling with it?
99% of the time you could simply look at the label on the bottle!

Well,In the electronics lab we would make a box with only a cord and male
plug coming out. Put a label on it "#1 Fuse Blower" and leave it around.
Newbies would read and then plug it in. Of course, inside the box the
wires were just terminated together. People don't always believe labels.

Reminds me of the Cheech & Chong dog **** skit that was something like
one convinced the other to taste the unidentified pile. "Tastes like dog
****!"..."Good thing we didn't step in it."


There's best practices and expedient practices. Most of the time,
"expedient" trumps "best."

I don't know of anything that would kill you if you simply LOOKED at
it, but there are a number of things that are lethal if sniffed. Did
you proctor have a fit when people smelled things?

As a point of historical note, before sophisticated tests, physicians
used to diagnose diabetes by tasting the patient's urine.

On Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:11:40 -0500, metspitzer wrote:
I was watching CSI. It is a great show.

CSI is fantasy. There is no connection between it and reality.
Any time they show something more technical than a wood pencil you can
count on it being bull****.

Here some hints for you: dna matching against a 50 million record database
takes more than a second. Computers don't beep when they think. They're
capable of displaying text faster than twenty characters per second without
beeping and CSI agents are rarely involved in gunbattles.