Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The impossible predicament of the death newts

crookedtimber.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 192 posts

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#81

Post by parineum »

lithocarpus wrote: post #61
busterarm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? We don't live "before salt". Human use of salt _predates writing_ by about 3000 years. You wouldn't choose to do manual typesetting (or copying books by hand!!!) today either versus alternatives. If you're _just_ looking to add umami flavor to a dish today, you'd be crazy to pick foraging for wild mushrooms over Aji no Moto.

I'm skeptical of any food that humans only started eating since the industrial revolution, including those that are derivatives of or isolated compounds of real food. Mostly the effects on our bodies are not well studied. I haven't specifically read studies on msg though.

How much studying of food do you think was happening before the industrial revolution?

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#82

Post by istjohn »

lithocarpus wrote: post #58
sbierwagen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

Where I live mushrooms are by far the most abundant wild food. It's good exercise, very enjoyable "work", and they taste really really good with a huge variety of flavors. Leafy greens also have very low calories per pound. We eat them for the nutrients not for the calories. Because of mushrooms and wild greens, I buy very little vegetables, all I need is relatively cheap (per calorie) foods to go with the wild stuff…

Where is this, if you don't mind my asking?

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#83

Post by mbg721 »

lithocarpus wrote: post #61
busterarm wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares? We don't live "before salt". Human use of salt _predates writing_ by about 3000 years. You wouldn't choose to do manual typesetting (or copying books by hand!!!) today either versus alternatives. If you're _just_ looking to add umami flavor to a dish today, you'd be crazy to pick foraging for wild mushrooms over Aji no Moto.

I'm skeptical of any food that humans only started eating since the industrial revolution, including those that are derivatives of or isolated compounds of real food. Mostly the effects on our bodies are not well studied. I haven't specifically read studies on msg though.

I mean, foods like soy sauce and yogurt and sauerkraut predate industrialization, but are very processed. I wouldn't worry too much about MSG in particular, since it is also mostly made by fermentation:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monosodium_glutamate

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#84

Post by cyberax »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #72

> Turns out there is an answer: the garter snakes sequester the tetrodotoxin, storing it in their livers. This makes them toxic to their own predators. But this doesn't seem as immediate as the newt's defense where it's on the skin and thus causes potential predators to spit them out or even to seize up - meaning that at least some attacked newts survive the encounter. Eating the liver means the snake is dead. And si…

Eating a snake might not kill a predator outright.

And higher predators (like mammals) also have food preferences. They don't always eat stuff indiscriminately, so predators that don't _like_ snakes will preferentially survive. Eventually, this can get established as a genetic trait.

Or as a behavioral one, if parents don't teach cubs to hunt snakes.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#85

Post by benlivengood »

alkyon wrote: post #76

The linked article about toxic blue-ringed octopus is even more interesting. https://crookedtimber.org/2025/03/14/occasional-paper-the-in...

The author points out something I've thought about a few times; we are just giant robots that bacteria use to live in and move around rapidly.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#87

Post by adamweld »

busterarm wrote: post #57
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where are you getting your data? Is this a specific country/worldwide/what? If you're just talking about the US, a quick Google search shows your numbers are off by a few orders of magnitude. This article from the CDC estimated 100 hospitalizations for mushrooms in the US in 2016: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010a1.htm Foraging for mushrooms is not dangerous if you know what you're doing and stick to eas…

AAPCC annual reports, linked to from an actual mushroom foraging guide. Also I said plants and mushrooms. Not specifically mushrooms. AAPCC doesn't track mushrooms separately and I would consider the CDC to not be the authority on poisoning -- their specialty is diseases.

Here's the relevant section from the 2023 National Poison Data System:

https://i.imgur.com/vIXenG8.png

8294 case mentions, 3039 hospitalizations.

for outcomes check the table.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#88

Post by fireflash38 »

imp0cat wrote: post #63
sbierwagen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

Well then, what do you think about eating fugu?

fugutaboutit?

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#89

Post by tshaddox »

sbierwagen wrote: post #18
ryanblakeley wrote: post #9

I once took a group of young people foraging for mushrooms in the Willamette valley on a farm that had loads of these newts. I warned every body not to touch them. After preparing dinner, one girl got very ill, as did I, while other people who ate the dinner were fine. I was so worried I'd mis-identified some mushrooms. But turns out she had handled one of these newts and the bacteria had transferred to the mushrooms…

Eating wild mushrooms has got to have the worst cost/benefit ratio outside of wingsuiting or recreational bear wrestling. In exchange for hours of study and a significant risk of death you get fifty to a hundred calories of food. Probably made sense in the tenth century when the average person was one bad harvest away from starvation, but it seems harder to justify today.

They’re also an acquired taste, which makes it even more absurd.

Re: The impossible predicament of the death newts

#90

Post by tshaddox »

UncleOxidant wrote: post #72

> Turns out there is an answer: the garter snakes sequester the tetrodotoxin, storing it in their livers. This makes them toxic to their own predators. But this doesn't seem as immediate as the newt's defense where it's on the skin and thus causes potential predators to spit them out or even to seize up - meaning that at least some attacked newts survive the encounter. Eating the liver means the snake is dead. And si…

If the predator species have heritable differences in prey selection, no matter how slight, natural selection can work with that.
Post reply on HN