Author Topic: Re: Mice in our kitchen  (Read 5343 times)

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #50 on: December 02, 2010, 02:48:40 pm »
You missed the vital part of that post.  What was your view on microwaving mice again?  

If you want a serious answer, try asking serious questions ;)

I read this as a fully serious question, trying to establish whether you might accept that there are some things that are considered beyond the pale, outside the mainstream range of confused human response to animal welfare issues.  If I'm reading Julian's approach correctly.

My views on microwaving small rodents are inconclusive.

I see

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #51 on: December 02, 2010, 02:52:08 pm »


My views on microwaving small rodents are inconclusive.

I see.


To be fair, he did explain why. You, however would be more of an expert on such things (effect of radiation in that wavelength) and could perhaps illuminate the rest of us with fact rather than conjecture?

..d
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #52 on: December 02, 2010, 02:56:07 pm »
We all known what happens when you microwave meat and stuff.  It really doesn't need any specialist knowledge.

Are you suggesting that there is actually a case that doing this to a living animal might be humane ?


David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #53 on: December 02, 2010, 03:32:07 pm »
We all known what happens when you microwave meat and stuff.  It really doesn't need any specialist knowledge.

Are you suggesting that there is actually a case that doing this to a living animal might be humane ?




You may be acquainted with one of the recommended methods for humane dispatching of small furry animals in laboratories. This involves a sharp blow to the back of the neck (whilst retaining a very strong grip of the tail otherwise you have a 'degloved' tail and a *very* angry mouse loose in the room).

The point is that it isn't the method (hitting it) that renders the method humane or inhumane but the combination of method and dose. Bludgeoning the mouse with sub-lethal force would not be humane.

We know that microwaves cook food. What I am not aware of, and you may be able to provide some guidance of, is whether the power of a domestic microwave would be sufficient to immediately (ie matter of a few seconds) kill a mouse. I would suggest that if it will give an immediate death then it is not particularly inhumane, but if it generates suffering then it would be regarded as inhumane.

As stated, I do not know enough about the relative power of microwave ovens as I am sure you do not need to boil the mouse to kill it.

So no, it was not a facetious question, and the 'OMG microwaves cook stuff' response from some is a bit knee-jerk when a spring trap may trap a mouse by a limb rather than the rapid crushed neck/head intended, causing excess suffering.

So there is a genuine question there, which you may be able to answer. I would suspect that it is entirely size dependent, and what may just be OK for a mouse would certainly not work for a hamster or a rat.

..d
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #54 on: December 02, 2010, 03:41:14 pm »
This is not rocket science.  Look at how things cook in a microwave and then imagine it's a living thing.  There's no spooky mechanism to make being cooked rapidly as your skin blisters and crackles not painful, no arcane lore needed.  

There's no way on earth that could ever be a humane death. You know that. I don't suppose for one moment that if you did such a thing your defence could ever be "I didn't think it would hurt the animal".  

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #55 on: December 02, 2010, 04:07:45 pm »
This is not rocket science.  Look at how things cook in a microwave and then imagine it's a living thing.  There's no spooky mechanism to make being cooked rapidly as your skin blisters and crackles not painful, no arcane lore needed. 

There's no way on earth that could ever be a humane death. You know that. I don't suppose for one moment that if you did such a thing your defence could ever be "I didn't think it would hurt the animal". 


I thought you would do better than give a knee jerk reaction.

I am aware that microwave ovens work by heating water (and similar chemicals) in a zone near the surface of the specimen. In larger specimens the heat generated is transferred by conduction and is a relatively slow process compared to the direct radiation>heat generation.

It is obvious that if conduction needs to occur then the process would be slow and painful. The question is whether, with a mouse being small and it's brain being only a few mm across, this would be in the zone that is directly heated by radiation or would still be too far from the surface to get direct heating by radiation rather than conduction.

If it is in the zone which is directly heated by radiation, would the energy transfer in a domestic oven be sufficiently fast to kill rapidly?

Please not that this scale is a long way away from the cooking of a steak or similar. Mouse skulls are tiny, 10mm or less across, and quite delicate.

That is why it is a credible question for a mouse but wouldn't be for anything larger. My suspicion is that a) this is right on the border of the radiation affected zone and b) energy transfer in a domestic oven would be too slow. But my knowledge of the effect of radiation on flesh is somewhat limited (ISTR the zone being 3-6mm below the surface but that is an old hazy memory) and my knowledge of the rate of energy trasfer and the pattern of such energy within a domestic oven is non-existent.

..d

 
 
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #56 on: December 02, 2010, 04:12:30 pm »
I thought you would do better than give a knee jerk reaction.

Sorry if that's what you think.  It's not a kneejerk reaction.  Really, there is nothing to explain here.  You're cooking a live animal, just like holding one by its tail over a flame.  

That's what you'd expect from what you observe when you cook meat in a microwave, and as asterix suggested it doesn't warrant any further analysis for the purposes of this debate.  If you really want that then maybe start a new thread.



edit:  What you're trying to establish is that you need some expertise to know that cooking an animal in a microwave is inhumane.  You don't.  It is.  Common sense and experience tells you that, and the science does nothing to contradict that. Quite the opposite, in fact. Going into the science gives undue credence to the possibly that you need to know the science to know it's going to hurt.

Rapples

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #57 on: December 02, 2010, 04:23:23 pm »
However, dismissing me as a troll is convenient for you, as it lets you side step the argument of your own hypocrisy.

The  accusation of hypocrisy is a fail, because it's based on the equivalence of putting a catflap in a garage door with hunting foxes with dogs.  Clearly absurd.

I don't see why it's absurd. 

You procured two predators, and introduce them to the wild i.e your garden.  There they chase and kill smaller animals.  This is entirely within your control in that you can either not let them into the garden, or alternatively not own cats.  Furthermore, when your garage becomes infested with unwanted vermin, (possibly a safe haven from the said cats) you encourage the cats to access the garage by installation of a cat flap.  If a mouse was in there at any time it is likely to be chased out or possibly killed.

Now explain how, in practice, that is different from a huntsman procuring two hounds and encouraging them into a covert. If a fox is in there at the time it is likely to be chased out, or possibly killed.

Both involve actively owning predators and encouraging them into an environment where you suspect unwanted (to you) prey may be.

So far all we have is you don't do it for fun, and "I regretted any possibility that harm might occur, and went out of my way to minimise the risk of that. The objective, as I wrote before, was deterrence of the mices' return.  Not their death."  Which I'd suggest is a little naive based on experience of cats behaviour.

Quote
The playing of games is what you once told me you were on this forum for. I'm just using your own words.

So actually : no hypocrisy, no sidestepping and no dismissing you as a troll  :thumbsup:
Debate
n.
1. A discussion involving opposing points; an argument.
2. Deliberation; consideration: passed the motion with little debate.
3. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.
4. Obsolete Conflict; strife.

A game in other words, it was you who interpreted that as trolling, and I'll leave others to make their minds up about what you meant.

Quote
And demeanour matters - of course it does.

Not to the outcome of the prey it doesn't, which is what I said ::-)


Quote
Cruelty a sideshow to hunting ? Well, nice of you to finally admit that it's a component.

It can be very hard to remain polite when such blatant obtusness is used.  I clearly stated that the argument about animal cruelty was a sideshow ::-)


Quote
Feel free to respond, but please try to keep it polite.  I would avoid accusations of hypocrisy thrown out at anyone who replies to you though, unless you can back them up. Apologising when they're shown to be false would help too  :thumbsup:

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #58 on: December 02, 2010, 04:30:27 pm »
I thought you would do better than give a knee jerk reaction.

Sorry if that's what you think.  It's not a kneejerk reaction.  Really, there is nothing to explain here.  You're cooking a live animal, just like holding one by its tail over a flame.  

That's what you'd expect from what you observe when you cook meat in a microwave, and as asterix suggested it doesn't warrant any further analysis for the purposes of this debate.  If you really want that then maybe start a new thread.

And a considered response would be something along the lines of 'No it would not be instant becasue a mouse brain is still too large to be directly heated by microwaves' or 'the power of a domestic microwave oven is too low to trasfer energy fast enough'.

Instead we get an 'oh, cooking meat' which is broadly equivalent to 'oh, hitting an animal' when considering spring traps.

It isn't what is done, it is the speed with which it is done which is the question. And it doesn't matter if the mouse cooks or not once the brain is dead. Like it doesn't matter that the mouse trapped by a spring trap cannot access food and water.

Or you could say "I don't know becasue I'm not prepared to consider it".

Instead we get a potentially erroneous extrapolation back from large specimens where the majority of heating is by conduction from the surface.

Googling suggests from non-authoratative sources that penetration is anywhere from 10-25mm, so well within the potential size of a mouse skull. But those figures were non-authoritative and give no idea of depth vs power transfer.

..d
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #59 on: December 02, 2010, 04:34:00 pm »
Hypocrisy is an interesting one in this debate.  Julian explained it well upthread, but perhaps you didn't read (or understand) all of that, or else chose to ignore it.

Unless you have an absolutist position, then you indulge in a degree of hypocrisy.

Those two absolutes are (of necessity):

Killing animals is good, whether for fun or for use.  Cannibalism is OK.

and

Killing animals is always wrong.  We should not breathe unfiltered air, in case we inadvertently harm an animal, and should ensure that where we place our footsteps are clear of any life.

The latter of these is recognisable as an extreme Jain viewpoint, and goes beyond even the Buddhist practice.  The former is blatantly absurd.

As, Rapples, you have described how you have mixed views, then you, yourself, are a hypocrite in this context.  Everybody is.

I do not eat meat or meat products.  I wear vegan boots, belts and jacket.  I do eat dairy, and I do know the processes which lie behind that.  I will not consciously harm any living being.

But I am a hypocrite.  However, I am a hypocrite at a very different point on the scale from where you are.  Julian tried to elicit from you what shades of grey you favour, but you were not forthcoming, instead prefering to keep throwing the hypocrisy tag around as an insult.

OK, yes, we are all hypocrites (unless I am mistaken and there are some Jains or extreme psychopaths among us), so it doesn't get us anywhere to use the term without exploring it.

If yuo're not prepared to do that, and just keep repeating yourself, then you are falling into the definition of that which you don't want to be called.
Getting there...

Panoramix

  • 50 61 6E 6F 72 61 6D 69 78
  • Suus cuique crepitus bene olet
    • Some routes
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #60 on: December 02, 2010, 04:36:21 pm »
I know for a fact that a seagull flying to close to an anti aircraft radar - which works at microwave wavelength - gets instantly killed, so I wouldn't say that David's hypothesis is unreasonable.

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #61 on: December 02, 2010, 04:39:47 pm »
You procured two predators, and introduce them to the wild i.e your garden.  

Ah, so having failed to establish that having a catflap in a garage does it, we're now trying to establish that anyone with a cat is a hypocrite  :facepalm:

I think I'd struggle to make it up.  Luckily I have you to do it for me  :thumbsup:

Quote
A game in other words, it was you who interpreted that as trolling,

I repeated what you'd said to me yourself once, that you were playing a game.  Mapping that to trolling is your own work, mon ami.  

;)

Quote
Not to the outcome of the prey it doesn't, which is what I said ::-)

You were mapping that attribute from hunting to having a catflap.  The object on which it operates is human :. it matters


border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #62 on: December 02, 2010, 04:40:24 pm »
I know for a fact that a seagull flying to close to an anti aircraft radar - which works at microwave wavelength - gets instantly killed

sorry, but that's just impossible.

Seineseeker

  • Biting the cherry of existential delight
    • The Art of Pleisure
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #63 on: December 02, 2010, 04:41:47 pm »
Clarion is right. Let's not call anyone hypocrits. Because all our lives are mixed up with inconsistencies.

I am vegetarian. I also have been poisoning the mice in our basement for the past month. I am hoping they are all now dead, because right or wrong we can not tolerate having mice in the house. And this method is the most effective I have found in the short term. Meanwhile we are busy looking for all the possible entry points and making sure they don't get in again!

I don't think this discussion should be hijacked.

Anyway, back to the original thread, if you really don't want mice in your kitchen:
Have no food available, make all food containers mouseproof and keep your kitchen spotless.
Seal all the entry points to your house.
Get rid of the resident population (whatever method you choose).

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #64 on: December 02, 2010, 04:43:17 pm »
I know for a fact that a seagull flying to close to an anti aircraft radar - which works at microwave wavelength - gets instantly killed

sorry, but that's just impossible.

Perhaps it choked on a flying chip...
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #65 on: December 02, 2010, 04:44:39 pm »
Maybe it got covered in twitters.
Getting there...

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #66 on: December 02, 2010, 04:45:12 pm »
I don't think this discussion should be hijacked....

Yes, back to peanut butter and raisins... this is OTK.
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #67 on: December 02, 2010, 04:46:25 pm »

Instead we get an 'oh, cooking meat'

I'm sorry if you don't like the answer, but there it is.  That's what happens.  
Quote
It isn't what is done, it is the speed with which it is done which is the question.

Only if microwaves kill instantly.  They don't, they kill by cooking, which is why it hurts.

Quote
And it doesn't matter if the mouse cooks or not once the brain is dead. Like it doesn't matter that the mouse trapped by a spring trap cannot access food and water.

The brain is killed by cooking.

Quote
Or you could say "I don't know becasue I'm not prepared to consider it".

I do know, and as I've explained the animal gets cooked alive, just as you expect.  Nothing more to it than that.

Quote
Instead we get a potentially erroneous extrapolation back from large specimens where the majority of heating is by conduction from the surface.

all the energy comes through the surface.  heating is concentrated at the surface.  Jut below the fat layer, where the pain receptors are.  OK ?  Just as you'd expect.

Quote
Googling suggests from non-authoratative sources that penetration is anywhere from 10-25mm, so well within the potential size of a mouse skull. But those figures were non-authoritative and give no idea of depth vs power transfer.

The size of the mouse skull is irrelevant. The animal isn't rendered insensitive by some spooky action on its brain.  It gets cooked alive.  

The only relevant question is whether that can be humane. It can't.

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #68 on: December 02, 2010, 04:52:45 pm »
David, at my end of the scale, harming an animal is just wrong anyway, so trying to find a 'humane' length of suffering is in the realms of angels & pins.  Is it OK if it lasts ten seconds?  One second?  Half a second? 0.1? 0.01?  Why?

But do you harm an animal by refusing it access to food and medicine, and forcing it to die painfully  from disease or old age? It is a rhetorical question.

Your position can have no bearing on this discussion because of the initial premise that any killing is wrong. But if one accepts killing, but in the way that provides the least suffering, then the discussion becomes relevant.

A conventional spring trap will kill many mice instantly but there will be a proportion that  are trapped by limbs and starve to death. A 'humane' trap that is not checked every few hours (I forget the exact time limit) can lead to animals dying of starvation/dehydration.

The question I asked about microwaves is a genuine one, and I was hoping that Mal could provide a genuine answer. It may be that the numbers really don't add up - that is fine but I do not know the EM radiation field as well as he does (by a very long margin) so was hoping he could answer that.

All the energy comes through the surface.  heating is concentrated at the surface.  Just below the fat layer, where the pain receptors are.  OK ?  Just as you'd expect.

Thankyou. had you said that right at the beginning then it would have avoided the rest of the discussion. A few mm penetration is insufficient to directly heat the brain. Hence it would be an inhumane method.

We finally have a qualified answer.
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

David Martin

  • Thats Dr Oi You thankyouverymuch
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #69 on: December 02, 2010, 04:55:07 pm »
I know for a fact that a seagull flying to close to an anti aircraft radar - which works at microwave wavelength - gets instantly killed

sorry, but that's just impossible.

A military radar from WWII would use a 200+ kW magnetron. I suspect that instantly killed is a bit of a misnomer, but knocked out of the sky?
"By creating we think. By living we learn" - Patrick Geddes

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #70 on: December 02, 2010, 04:57:08 pm »
Thankyou. had you said that right at the beginning then it would have avoided the rest of the discussion.

I did.  I said it was like holding the animal above a flame.  That's a pretty good analogy

But be careful - the penetration depth is likely a cm or so; the key aspect is that it's falling off as 1/e and the pain sensors are near the surface, so even if the core temperature rises enough to cause heat stroke (which may be the final cause of death) you'd get intense pain and tissue damage before that. The peak heating is in the outer few mm.

Panoramix

  • 50 61 6E 6F 72 61 6D 69 78
  • Suus cuique crepitus bene olet
    • Some routes
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #71 on: December 02, 2010, 04:58:57 pm »
I know for a fact that a seagull flying to close to an anti aircraft radar - which works at microwave wavelength - gets instantly killed

sorry, but that's just impossible.

Witnessed aboard this ship by a source I consider reliable.



2 ships like this can cover the Mediterranean airspace with their radar so I guess that it is not domestic scale microwaving.



A military radar from WWII would use a 200+ kW magnetron. I suspect that instantly killed is a bit of a misnomer, but knocked out of the sky?

Well at least following a donward parabolic flight path toward the sea.

border-rider

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #72 on: December 02, 2010, 05:00:36 pm »
I know for a fact that a seagull flying to close to an anti aircraft radar - which works at microwave wavelength - gets instantly killed

sorry, but that's just impossible.

A military radar from WWII would use a 200+ kW magnetron. I suspect that instantly killed is a bit of a misnomer, but knocked out of the sky?

yebbut pulsed.  The thermal burden is small, time-averaged over a pulse repetition period.  You can stun with very rapid pulses, due to rapid thermoelastic expansion in the brain*, but it needs colossal powers - something bigger and faster than an EMP device

The biggest hazard with the high power areas of the beam of radars is being hit by the boom...

*and some people can hear radar modulation, apparently, by the same mechanism.  Maybe this is what startled the seagull.

Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #73 on: December 02, 2010, 05:03:23 pm »
I still think it was a chip...
Destroying rainforest for economic gain is like burning a Renaissance painting to cook a meal.  EOW.

clarion

  • Tyke
Re: Mice in our kitchen
« Reply #74 on: December 02, 2010, 05:03:33 pm »
David, at my end of the scale, harming an animal is just wrong anyway, so trying to find a 'humane' length of suffering is in the realms of angels & pins.  Is it OK if it lasts ten seconds?  One second?  Half a second? 0.1? 0.01?  Why?

But do you harm an animal by refusing it access to food and medicine, and forcing it to die painfully  from disease or old age? It is a rhetorical question.

Your position can have no bearing on this discussion because of the initial premise that any killing is wrong. But if one accepts killing, but in the way that provides the least suffering, then the discussion becomes relevant.


I'm interested that you feel so free to dismiss my view, but it certainly does have a bearing on the discussion, since the issue of hypocrisy has been prominent, and my approach is on a continuum.

So my question to you still stands, since it is entirely relevant to your judgment of what is 'humane'.  How much suffering do you deem acceptable?  And why?
Getting there...