"The film features various mutated creatures, none of which are actually sharks on cocaine as the title suggests." they had one job
butlike 7 days ago [-]
One. Job.
api 7 days ago [-]
So much potential in that franchise. Cocaine moose, cocaine snake (or Snakes on Cocaine, which could have the line “I want these mother f’ing snakes off mother f’ing cocaine!”), cocaine lion, cocaine hippo, cocaine alligator…
that's what the person you're replying to was referring to
snapplebobapple 7 days ago [-]
Meh, i think branching out to different animals is a mistake. They could have evolved beyond comedy to drama by instead putting the bear on meth in the sequel. Follow the bear through its downward spiral losing its teeth and eventually hitting bottom drinking its own urine to stay high. The redemption ark could be an unlikely friendship formed with one of the campers it mauled in the first movie sparked by the bear sobering up and doing the apology tour.
api 7 days ago [-]
That sounds more like magic mushrooms bear, in which the bear realizes all life is one and to maul other beings is to maul yourself.
yruam001 8 days ago [-]
indeed
numpad0 7 days ago [-]
Not surprising. A lot of these substances get metabolized, or just diluted by water and filtered out without being like, magically deconstructed and turned into all CO2 and H2O and N2. So a lot of wacky chemical compounds humans tend to consume tend to get detected wherever humans gather and discharge bodily fluids that eventually reach the ocean. This does not immediately indicate that e.g. evil corporations are dumping toxic wastes, forever plastics pieces are leaching out scary additives, etc.
augusto-moura 7 days ago [-]
Hm, I'm not convinced this is contamination from human waste. The quantity of caffeine and painkillers a human consume should be too small. Also, the body does break caffeine and painkillers, the amount in waste shouldn't be meaningful
If diluted in the oceans I would say that it would be undectable. Cocaine is even harder, because it is not commonly consumed, it is for a group of people, but not enough for the statistics
croemer 7 days ago [-]
The measured concentrations are on the order of 1-20 ng/mL in blood. Cmax in humans when taking those drugs are about 100-1000x higher.
I wouldn't put too much weight on the finding that those with detections had different urea/lactate etc. There might be something underlying explaining both drug and physiology, like age.
Could still be bad to have chronic exposure at such low levels - also fish physiology is different.
metalman 8 days ago [-]
this clearly points to an previously unknown seasonal migration from wall st.
pixelpoet 8 days ago [-]
The Shark of Wall St
Gravityloss 7 days ago [-]
Clearly there are missing parts, or opportunites, in the two trilogies.
[Cocaine] Shark | Wolf | Bear [of Wall St]
seanhunter 7 days ago [-]
...on a plane.
It has the potential for a whole cinematic universe.
pixelpoet 7 days ago [-]
... in the multiverse.
Who are we kidding, this is literally Marvel's combinatorial formula.
throwanem 7 days ago [-]
Seasonal migration from Wall Street to the Bahamas? 'Previously unknown?' A bit déclassé maybe, but...
laughing_man 7 days ago [-]
I wonder how much of this is just that our tests are getting more sensitive.
croemer 7 days ago [-]
Exactly, the detection itself doesn't mean anything. Is the dose relevant? If not, then not. And the dose likely isn't relevant.
eggy 7 days ago [-]
Agreed. When you zoom in, even the normal life stuff can give you concern. I showed my kids what creatures live on their and others' bodies. You have millions of microscopic arachnids called Demodex mites living in your hair follicles and sebaceous glands, particularly on your face. My wife gave me an evil look as I showed my children this fact in online vids and pics. Granted these are symbiotic/parasitic relationships of life, but still, the closer you look, the more you see!
mistrial9 7 days ago [-]
OK - but had you been to the Bahamas recently when you decided to do that....
doubleg72 7 days ago [-]
Not millions
eggy 6 days ago [-]
Correct, not millions of Demodex mites, which are usually in the hundreds to thousands on a typical, non-infested human. The millions should be the general amount of mites and other symbiotic/parasitic on and in your body. Thanks!
seanhunter 7 days ago [-]
You can say what you like about the dose being pharmacologically ineffective but I want my sharks completely sober.
If diluted in the oceans I would say that it would be undectable. Cocaine is even harder, because it is not commonly consumed, it is for a group of people, but not enough for the statistics
I wouldn't put too much weight on the finding that those with detections had different urea/lactate etc. There might be something underlying explaining both drug and physiology, like age.
Could still be bad to have chronic exposure at such low levels - also fish physiology is different.
[Cocaine] Shark | Wolf | Bear [of Wall St]
It has the potential for a whole cinematic universe.
Who are we kidding, this is literally Marvel's combinatorial formula.
Is caffeine really that bad?