Jump to content
Premed 101 Forums

*** The Saskatchewan Forum Quiz ***


Guest saskmedman

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 636
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Guest Lactic Folly

Morbid riddle:

One warm summer's day in Chicago, a body is found in a park. The skull has fractures in it and many other bones are broken, but this person died of hypothermia. How did this happen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kosmo14

I'll give this a go.

 

A young punk was thinking he could get a free ride on an airplane, so he sneaks onto the tarmack and climbs up into the landing gear compartment. The plane takes off and climbs to 30000 ft where it is really cold. The space in the landing gear compartment is extremely tight and there is no heat. The punk subsequently freezes to death. The plane then begins its decent into Chicago and as it flys over the park the landing gear comes down. Since the punk is frozen and dead he can no longer hold on and falls out of the compartment and lands in a park which causes fractures and breaks to many bones.

 

Probably pretty far fetched and very inaccurate, but that is the best I can come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Lactic Folly

You got it, kosmo - I'm not sure if this actually happened or not, but worse scenarios have occurred with people trying to get into other countries by unofficial means :\

 

()}> conch (to the eye of faith)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest UOMeds06

Kosmo,

Did you just think that up? That's quite amazing! I would have guessed that this "punk" was just David Blain (that crazy magician who froze himself for 36 hours or something) freezing himself again, but this time on the top of the Sears Tower. I would have then said that a huge gust of wind blew his frozen body off the building, causing him to land and break all of his bones in the fall. The hot summers day, combined with the heat radiated from the black tar/concrete of the ground below would have melted and evaporated the ice/water.

 

That may have happened too, I don't know! :)

 

UOMeds06

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest kosmo14

Yah, I just thought it up which is strange for me because I am not very imaginative, but I was bored yesterday.

 

Heres my question (I am trying to ask something pertaining to the U of S, forgive me if this is too easy).

 

A University of Saskatchewan professor developed a technological use for DNA, who discovered this and what did he call it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was it Dr Moorthy with DNA-based microbial detection? Basically you take a sample from a patient and try to find microbial DNA to screen for infections, according to this Innovation Place newsletter from August 1999 (scroll down to "BIO-ID Diagnostics Receives Patent for Medical Innovation").

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest medicator007

I suppose you were looking for the recent U of S development by Dr. Jeremy Lee and staff of M-DNA (metal containing) that could serve as a form of "Molecular Wire"?

 

Medicator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest medicator007

Thanks for the Conch....

 

While the 007 after my nickname was because Medicator was taken, it also reflects my love for James Bond and since the Ottawa med orientation is Bond themed... here is my question for you!

 

Pierce Brosnan's first Bond film was not based on an Ian Fleming novel. However, there is a connection between this film and the author/ex-spy who created Mr. Bond. What is it?

 

Cheers and happy hunting!

 

Medicator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bronson's first Bond movie was Goldeneye...

 

Goldeneye was NOT a novel by fleming......but rather, the name Fleming gave to a beach property which was given by a friend. issat it?? =D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks medicator…now here’s my little riddle…….

 

Once upon a time in a little kingdom in ancient Egypt, many Egyptians created poisons - some were more potent than others. Now why this kingdom liked to make poisons nobody knows…but what made this kingdom unique was that to counteract a poison, you had to take a stronger poison than the previous poison, to eliminate the effects of the previous poison. The stronger poison would have no effect afterwards.

Because there were so many poisons around, the Queen of Egypt wanted to ensure that she had the most potent and strongest poison possible to guarantee that she could not die from poisoning.

So, the Queen ordered her alchemist and accountant to each make the most potent poison possible within a month. After a month, the alchemist and accountant would switch their poisons and would drink it. Later on, they would then take their own poison. Thus, whoever survived, would be the one who created the strongest poison.

While alchemist immediately began experimenting, the accountant was stuck – he had no science background whatsoever – he would surely die. So, the accountant made a plan such that he would live and the alchemist would be poisoned.

At the end of the month however, the alchemist said to himself, “The accountant knows nothing about chemistry. Surely he must be thinking of a scheme so that he won’t be poisoned!” After much pondering, the alchemist knew what the accountant was up to.

The time was here and the Queen ordered the alchemist and accountant to drink each other’s poison, followed by their own: the alchemist lived, the accountant died, and the Queen failed to achieve her goal.

 

So – how did the alchemist live, the accountant died, and why did the Queen fail to achieve her goal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Couldnt the alchemist make 2 poisons? One being stronger than the first. Give the weaker poison (which would be stronger than the accountant's and still survive) to the queen.

 

But all the time he had another?

 

Bad answer I do agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the alchemist poisoned or killed the accountant and so there was no 2nd poison at all. the alchemist had his poison but the queen wanted to compare 2 poisons, and since there was only the one from the alchemist, the queen failed, the accountant died and the alchemist lived

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the alchemist killed/poisoned the accountant. the alchemist made his poison but there was no 2nd poison for the queen to compare with so the queen failed. in the end, the queen failed, the accountant died and the alchemist lived

 

EMHC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest cheshirecat12

Here goes my idea:

 

The accountant knew he couldn't make a stronger poison than the alchemist, so his survival plan was to drink a weak poison BEFORE going to the Queen's planned demonstration. He would then drink the strong poison that he thought the alchemist would bring and be fine (according to these rules). As his "poison", he planned to bring a totally innocuous substance.

 

The alchemist, however, figured out this plan and he too brought an innocuous substance as his poison. Thus, he would drink the accountant's harmless substance, then his own harmless substance and live.

 

The account though, drank the weak poison, followed by the two harmless substances and then dies!

 

Thus, this is how the alchemist would live, the accountant would die and the Queen would fail to achieve her goal (because she has no poison at all in the alchemist's winning "poison"). 8o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sorry for the late response guys....orientation week was a blast!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

but anyhoo....you've got the answer!!!

 

and the inncoulous substance was water, but i guess it could be anything like juice or something...,....i pass the torch on to you now cheshirecat12!

 

cheers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...