The Straight Dope 05/19/2006

The Straight Dope -- By Cecil Adams
http://www.straightdope.com

You are subscribed as: [[email protected]]

To unsubscribe CLICK on the URL below this line:
mailto:[email protected]
If you can't "click" above, then send a blank email to:
[email protected]
____________________________________________
THE STRAIGHT DOPE 05/19/2006

Dear Cecil:

According to urban legend, while garlic oil is harmless when consumed,
it's lethal if it gets into your bloodstream. Supposedly, this is why
mafiosi used to coat their bullets in garlic oil--so if the shot was
off-center and hit your shoulder or something it would kill you anyway.
I was wondering if you could explain the truth (or lack thereof) or
devise some sort of scientific/pseudoscientific experiment so that I and
others like me can rest easier at night. --David Bowles, via
e-mail

~~~~~~
Looking for the perfect gift for that wedding, birthday, or
bar mitzvah? Straight Dope books are the very thing! 
See http://www.straightdope.com/store.html
~~~~~~

Cecil replies:

You might think the only parties that need to fear garlic are (a) people
stuck in an elevator with somebody who just had a big Italian meal and
(b) the undead. Not so. Scientific experiments (and where do you get off
insinuating we truck with any other kind?) indisputably prove: garlic
kills. Granted, what it mainly kills are lab rats and mice, a fact
usually conceded when discussing what a boon to humanity Allium sativum,
as the eggheads call it, has otherwise proven to be. Still, I figure the
public has a right to know.

First the good news. Not only does garlic have documented antibiotic and
anticholesterol properties, research suggests it may help prevent cancer
and cardiovascular disease. Interestingly in view of your question, as
recently as World War II garlic was used to prevent infection of battle
wounds. We now know it's ineffective for that purpose, but clearly
getting it in your bloodstream doesn't mean certain death.

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/060519.html

STAFF REPORT

Dear Straight Dope:

I have heard that in international waters you can commit endless crimes
with no jurisdiction to prosecute you. Is this true? Do such ungoverned
spaces exist? I am in no way interested in going to them, but I know
they exist and my friends say they don't. Please help settle this
argument. --Michelle

SDSTAFF gfactor replies:

Nope, it doesn't work that way. Freedom of the seas is a fundamental
principle of the law, but it only applies to countries. At sea ordinary
folks remain subject to at least one nation's jurisdiction--sometimes
more. 

Freedom of the seas is often credited to the Dutch jurist Grotius. In
the early seventeenth century the Dutch wanted part of the East Indies
trade. Several nations, especially Spain and Portugal, claimed control
over all the oceans, which prevented the Dutch from reaching foreign
ports. The idea that a country could claim control of the sea was called
mare clausum (closed sea). Grotius, a pioneer in international law,
argued for the right of innocent passage (or navigation) on the high
seas. He noted, "the sea is called indifferently the property of no one
(res nullius), or a common possession (res communis), or public property
(res publica)." Grotius contended that the sea could not be owned, and
that no country could deny another country's ships innocent passage
right up to the shoreline.

Grotius didn't dream up freedom of the seas on his own. 

For more, see: 
http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mlawofsea.html

STRAIGHT DOPE CLASSIC - 02/10/1989

Dear Cecil: 

When I read the ingredients of certain foods, I often see something of
this sort: "...oil (may contain one or more of the following: soybean,
safflower, palm, and/or lard)..." Don't the food companies know what
they're putting in their own products? Don't they care? I mean, they're
either putting lard in the food or they're not. -- Ben Schwalb, Laurel,
Maryland

Dear Ben:  

Your feelings are understandable. As many consumer advocates
have pointed out, knowing exactly what's in a product is no
trivial matter. For example, a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew obviously would
object to eating lard, which comes from pigs, but wouldn't mind
something like safflower oil. Of wider significance is the fact that
animal fats and tropical oils like palm and coconut are much higher in
saturated fat than ordinary vegetable oils such as soy, safflower, and
cottonseed. Saturated fats, of course, have been associated with heart
disease.  

The reason the labels aren't more specific is that the food companies
want to be able to substitute shortenings depending on availability
and price without having to change labels at the same time.
To date federal regulators haven't made an issue of it, pointing out
that present labeling standards are actually stricter than they were in
the early 70s, when all you had to say was "shortening."  

For more, see:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_115.html

____________________________________________
Here's how you can get your OWN FREE Subscription:
Send a blank mailto:[email protected]
____________________________________________
Copyright 1995 - 2006 Chicago Reader, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
You may forward this document by email ONLY if you
include the entire document INCLUDING the information
at the bottom of this publication
____________________________________________
Visit our good friends at Joke A Day http://www.jokeaday.com
They're kind enough to mail THE STRAIGHT DOPE for us.
Join the World's Largest Daily Humor List and receive daily
laughs in your email by sending mailto:[email protected]