This year's Ig Nobel Prizes have recently been announced. The Chemistry Prize winner one is perhaps my favorite among this year's selections:
Teenagers, do not take heed: Coca-Cola is an effective spermicide. Sharee A. Umpierre, Deborah Anderson and Joseph Hill mixed four different types of Coke with sperm (in test tubes, mind you), and found that Diet Coke is the most lethal sperm killer. No sperm was left standing after its wrath. New Coke wasn’t so deadly: it destroyed only 59 percent of sperm. Again, we can’ emphasize this enough: teenagers, don’t not try this in real life.
I have always wondered why New Coke was such a dismal marketing failure despite the fact that blind taste tests showed that most consumers preferred it to "classic" Coke. This important new research provides a possible solution to the longstanding conundrum. Maybe taste wasn't the only relevant consideration for consumers!
http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=964
Diet Coke is only lethal to your sperm if you immerse the sperm in a pool of Diet Coke. Which, if that's your technique, is already unlikely to result in pregnancy.
Diet Coke is only lethal to your sperm if you immerse the sperm in a pool of Diet Coke. Which, if that's your technique, is already unlikely to result in pregnancy.
Thanks for clearing that up for our more impressionable younger readers:).
I was told once that the shape of glass Coke bottle was specifically designed to be used as a douche.
Whether or not I believe that is something else entirely.
Okay, but anything that can kill 100% of my sperm probably shouldn't go in large quantities into my body.
The problem was in the application which (also rumored, as I can't find an online cite) resulted in embolisms as carbonated gases made their way further into the woman's body. Then there was the problem of adding sugars to an area already susceptible to yeast infections.
'Feed the Yeast' was not a good marketing slogan, I guess, outside of breweries and wineries.
John Burgess: those who didn't actually get this bit of folk wisdom on the dtreet heard about it the first time someone in their high school turned up with a Fugs album.
Anyway, New Coke failed because it sucked. If I wanted Pepsi or something similar, I would have bought Pepsi.
New Coke beat out Pepsi (and the original Coke) in sip tests, probably mostly because it was sweeter. But try drinking 12 ounces of it. It's simply overwhelming.
I may prefer a bit of a cheesecake over a bite of a cheeseburger. But I'd rather have the cheeseburger for lunch.
The sensation of the carbonated fizz could introduce whole new realms of sexual pleasure.
... Or it could just leave someone looking for a REAL douche, in a hurry.
Indeed. As anyone who went to my high school could tell you, only Mountain Dew kills your sperm when consumed.
I never thought of it as a spermicide, but some on here seem to know a lot more about that than I ever did.
Maybe Ms. Lewinski could check in and give us her evaluation.
Or maybe she's down with the mumps?
Back on topic I think far more useful was the research into placebos, buy the expensive placebos they are more effective than the cheap ones.
Now we know why.
On the other hand, why waste a perfectly good bottle of Coke as a spermicide, when you can waste it much more spectacularly with a well-placed Mentos candy instead?
Nick
Clearly, you're behind the times.
That is because consumers don't drink Coke blind.
Product A may be preferable to Product B in a scientific blind test, but such tests ignore psychological issues present in normal, every day decision making.
These aren't mutually exclusive, are they?
People really should not be allowed to have genitals at that age.
You could let the stuff stand until it goes flat, but since they add a chunk of phosphoric or citric acid to tart the taste up, so to speak, relieving the nasty brew of its carbonic acid might not do much.
What? You think we're all vertebrate biologists or something? Enough with the scientific jargon.