Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-11-2017, 08:37 PM
Green Bean Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 11,871
How Long Would It Take One Person to Eat a Blue Whale?

Assume they eat 2,500 calories of whale per day.
  #2  
Old 03-11-2017, 08:50 PM
HoneyBadgerDC HoneyBadgerDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 7,208
I would guess between 150 and 200 years.

Last edited by HoneyBadgerDC; 03-11-2017 at 08:51 PM.
  #3  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:01 PM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 24,089
Is this inspired by Shel Silverstein?
  #4  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:06 PM
engineer_comp_geek engineer_comp_geek is offline
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 19,897
As a practical matter, the blue whale is going to turn into a rotten carcass and decay long before a person could eat it.

Getting into "assume a spherical cow" type calculations where we ignore rot, and just base this on size and general calories, we can plug through the math and see what kind of silly answer we get.

I don't know the caloric content of a blue whale. Some googling shows that cows weigh about a thousand pounds, and one cow can make about a thousand quarter-pound burgers. With each burger coming in at roughly 300 calories, this give a typical cow about 300,000 calories. Admittedly, this ignores non-burger stuff that we eat, but since I also don't know how meaty a blue whale is, let's just run with these numbers and see what happens.

A blue whale (again according to google) weighs about 300,000 lbs, or as much as about 300 cows. Assuming a roughly similar caloric content per weight as cows, this puts our blue whale at 90,000,000 calories.

Divide that by 2500 calories per day, and you end up with 36,000 days, or a bit shy of 100 years.

Last edited by engineer_comp_geek; 03-11-2017 at 09:07 PM.
  #5  
Old 03-12-2017, 05:06 PM
DesertDog DesertDog is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Mesa, Ariz.
Posts: 3,347
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
As a practical matter, the blue whale is going to turn into a rotten carcass and decay long before a person could eat it.
What if you had a really big freezer?

And a lot of Tupperware?
  #6  
Old 03-12-2017, 05:36 PM
HoneyBadgerDC HoneyBadgerDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
What if you had a really big freezer?

And a lot of Tupperware?
I live in So Cal so jerky would be my only option.
  #7  
Old 03-13-2017, 01:35 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 34,053
Quote:
Originally Posted by DesertDog View Post
What if you had a really big freezer?

And a lot of Tupperware?
Like, say the Arctic?

My Dad grew up with the Eskimo, and one small whale fed a entire village for quite some time.
  #8  
Old 03-13-2017, 07:41 PM
Marvin the Martian Marvin the Martian is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Phoenix, AZ, USA
Posts: 679
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Like, say the Arctic?
For now. Who knows by the time you're polishing up the last of the whale...
  #9  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:37 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,150
http://www.enr.gov.nt.ca/sites/defau...f_wildlife.pdf

This is what Canadian natives would eat so this is about real world accurate as you are going to get. Scale up from the Beluga whale edible weight listed which is 300-500 lbs per whale with a body weight of 2000 - 3000 lbs for about a 6 to 1 ratio. Blue whales are 100x as large so a 250,000 lb blue whale would yield about 40,000 lbs of edible meat-skin-fat. Assuming a calorie load of 37% meat 63% muktuk


whale meat (no fat is about 481 cals per lb -


Muktuk skin+fat is 2106 cals per lb

so 40,000 lbs x .37 = 14,800 lbs lean meat and x .63 = 25,200 lbs of muktuk
53,071,200 calories of muktuk +7,118,800 of lean meat = 60,190,000 edible calories in a blue whale / 2500 per day = 24,076 days or 65.96 years

Last edited by astro; 03-11-2017 at 09:41 PM.
  #10  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:53 PM
harmonicamoon harmonicamoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Posts: 2,457
So, we are going to have a few years supply.

How is blue whale meat generally served?

Any good recipes for whale meat/muktuk?
  #11  
Old 03-11-2017, 10:13 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonicamoon View Post
How is blue whale meat generally served?

Any good recipes for whale meat/muktuk?
i believe its eaten raw?
  #12  
Old 03-11-2017, 10:17 PM
Green Bean Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 11,871
Assume it won't rot.

My seat-of-the-pants calculations got me 149 years, but I figured you guys would come up with a better approach.

The question came up as a result of a "name the worst possible housepet" contest, which was handily won by my 8 year old niece. As unpleasant as a pet alligator or skunk might be, we all had to admit that the practical realities of trying to house a blue whale trumped all other considerations. In trying to come up with something positive to say about the prospect of a pet blue whale, I said, "well, if you got sick of keeping it as a pet, you could just eat it." The question of how long that would take was inevitable.

Now, the reason we were all together was to celebrate my mom's 75th birthday, now also known as "halfway done eating that whale."

Of course, if astro's calculations are correct, she'd already be finished.
  #13  
Old 03-13-2017, 12:12 PM
Blue Blistering Barnacle Blue Blistering Barnacle is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
Assume it won't rot.

My seat-of-the-pants calculations got me 149 years, but I figured you guys would come up with a better approach.

The question came up as a result of a "name the worst possible housepet" contest, which was handily won by my 8 year old niece. As unpleasant as a pet alligator or skunk might be, we all had to admit that the practical realities of trying to house a blue whale trumped all other considerations. In trying to come up with something positive to say about the prospect of a pet blue whale, I said, "well, if you got sick of keeping it as a pet, you could just eat it." The question of how long that would take was inevitable.

Now, the reason we were all together was to celebrate my mom's 75th birthday, now also known as "halfway done eating that whale."

Of course, if astro's calculations are correct, she'd already be finished.
When I was a kid, I saw a cartoon which lives with me to this day.

Two cavemen, contemplating a 'brontosaurus'* in the middle distance (midground?). One says to the other, "I'd kill one of those, but then it would be brontosaurus, day in and day out for a month!"

*Yes, when I was a kid, it was literally true that brontosaurs walked the earth (at one time). Then everything's name got changed, and by the time the dust settled, Pluto was no longer a planet. Now, get off my lawn!
  #14  
Old 03-12-2017, 09:27 AM
LSLGuy LSLGuy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Southeast Florida USA
Posts: 20,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by harmonicamoon View Post
So, we are going to have a few years supply.

How is blue whale meat generally served?

Any good recipes for whale meat/muktuk?
It seems astro's got the best calculation. So we're going to need 65 years worth of "good" recipes. That's a tall / long / heavy order!
  #15  
Old 03-12-2017, 12:45 PM
John Mace John Mace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: South Bay
Posts: 81,123
Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
It seems astro's got the best calculation.
I think that was a fluke.
  #16  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:14 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,303
For a dedicated musher, it's only about 38 years and 8 months. The arctic chill keeps the whale nice and fresh for years, too. If his dog team gets to chow down too, the time can be cut to less than 5 years.

Don't ask me how I know this.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 03-11-2017 at 09:15 PM.
  #17  
Old 03-11-2017, 09:23 PM
Weisshund Weisshund is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 1,623
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
For a dedicated musher, it's only about 38 years and 8 months. The arctic chill keeps the whale nice and fresh for years, too. If his dog team gets to chow down too, the time can be cut to less than 5 years.

Don't ask me how I know this.
Er what about freezer burn? yuck

5 years, for a great blue whale?
173 metric tons
110 feet long

I could not eat that in a life time
  #18  
Old 03-11-2017, 11:08 PM
SigMan SigMan is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 672
Boy, talk about a lot of BarBQing!
  #19  
Old 03-12-2017, 07:12 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 28,091
Grilling.
  #20  
Old 03-12-2017, 07:31 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,303
Braise the whales!
  #21  
Old 03-13-2017, 07:30 PM
gigi gigi is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Flatlander in NH
Posts: 24,778
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
Braise the whales!
I'd krill for some braised whale right about now.
  #22  
Old 03-13-2017, 07:37 PM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 12,078
I wonder what whale tastes like? Chicken, prolly.
  #23  
Old 03-13-2017, 08:00 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ambivalid View Post
I wonder what whale tastes like? Chicken, prolly.
It's much closer to beef or mutton. It's a mammal, remember.
  #24  
Old 03-13-2017, 10:32 PM
TokyoBayer TokyoBayer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Taiwan
Posts: 9,097
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
It's much closer to beef or mutton. It's a mammal, remember.
But more oily.

Whale meat was used in school lunches for a long time and a lot of Japanese don't particularly have fond memories of it.
  #25  
Old 03-13-2017, 10:46 PM
Ambivalid Ambivalid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In my head
Posts: 12,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by scr4 View Post
It's much closer to beef or mutton. It's a mammal, remember.
Yeah the "tastes like chicken" part was just a joke.
  #26  
Old 03-16-2017, 07:17 PM
Angstwulf Angstwulf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by gigi View Post
I'd krill for some braised whale right about now.
Stop spouting off that nonsense.
  #27  
Old 03-12-2017, 10:33 AM
Nansbread1 Nansbread1 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: England
Posts: 278
You will die of various ailments due to eating raw whale meat and blubber first.
  #28  
Old 03-12-2017, 11:57 AM
harmonicamoon harmonicamoon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Yucatan, Mexico
Posts: 2,457
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nansbread1 View Post
You will die of various ailments due to eating raw whale meat and blubber first.
Splendid. If there are no consumers, the meat will last even longer.
  #29  
Old 03-12-2017, 12:07 PM
Green Bean Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 11,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nansbread1 View Post
You will die of various ailments due to eating raw whale meat and blubber first.
Assume no ill health effects from the all-whale diet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LSLGuy View Post
It seems astro's got the best calculation. So we're going to need 65 years worth of "good" recipes. That's a tall / long / heavy order!
I think the weak link in astro's calculations is the assumption that the blue whale will have the same proportion of edible to non-edible material as a whale 100x as small and of a different species as well. I think the larger animal would at least have a greater proportion of edible weight, and the meat/muktuk proportion would probably be different as well.

But he definitely offers the best approach so far, and the caloric values of the meat and muktuk are probably similar between the species. So we just need to adjust for the different proportions.

So, anybody know anything about blue whale anatomy?
  #30  
Old 03-12-2017, 12:52 PM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
Assume no ill health effects from the all-whale diet.


I think the weak link in astro's calculations is the assumption that the blue whale will have the same proportion of edible to non-edible material as a whale 100x as small and of a different species as well. I think the larger animal would at least have a greater proportion of edible weight, and the meat/muktuk proportion would probably be different as well.

But he definitely offers the best approach so far, and the caloric values of the meat and muktuk are probably similar between the species. So we just need to adjust for the different proportions.

So, anybody know anything about blue whale anatomy?
The most accurate large whale yield figures you could get are probably old science journal papers on whalers who kept fairly accurate figures for whale dimensions and rendered oil yield but I'm not sure they calculated meat yield or even kept the meat. I'm sure some scientific expeditions caught smaller whales and ate them and measured meat yield but I do not have access to this data.

Plus meat yield to a non-native English scientist may not include the muktuk which many (it is an acquired taste by all accounts) would consider inedible wastage vs the flesh. If we're just talking lean whale "meat" as something westerners would eat the yield numbers are much smaller.
  #31  
Old 03-12-2017, 01:33 PM
EdelweissPirate EdelweissPirate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Madison, WI USA
Posts: 110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Green Bean View Post
I think the larger animal would at least have a greater proportion of edible weight

<snip>

So, anybody know anything about blue whale anatomy?
Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale.

Galileo was one of the first to notice this nonlinearity. Here's an account of Galileo's take on things and how that correlates to the observable world:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...LEOSCALING.pdf
  #32  
Old 03-12-2017, 02:39 PM
HoneyBadgerDC HoneyBadgerDC is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Torrance Ca
Posts: 7,208
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate View Post
Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale.

Galileo was one of the first to notice this nonlinearity. Here's an account of Galileo's take on things and how that correlates to the observable world:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...LEOSCALING.pdf
I have always been facinated with the concept of scaling things that actually do work.

In the case of the whale being almost weightless in water I am not so sure galileo's theory here would hold true. Some very large fish use cartilage instead of bone.
  #33  
Old 03-12-2017, 04:09 PM
Green Bean Green Bean is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: NJ, Exit #137
Posts: 11,871
Quote:
Originally Posted by astro View Post
Plus meat yield to a non-native English scientist may not include the muktuk which many (it is an acquired taste by all accounts) would consider inedible wastage vs the flesh. If we're just talking lean whale "meat" as something westerners would eat the yield numbers are much smaller.
I was figuring it as all edible parts being eaten, including organ meats, so muktuk woyld definitely be included.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate View Post
Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale.

Galileo was one of the first to notice this nonlinearity. Here's an account of Galileo's take on things and how that correlates to the observable world:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...LEOSCALING.pdf
Hm, interesting.

I realize too that I was envisioning a blue whale as being of a greater relative girth than it actually is, probably as a result of cartoon depictions!
  #34  
Old 03-12-2017, 04:44 PM
ftg ftg is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Not the PNW :-(
Posts: 15,825
All these posts and no "Need answer fast?" joke. Sigh.
  #35  
Old 03-16-2017, 09:17 PM
markn+ markn+ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 1,115
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdelweissPirate View Post
Actually, it goes the other way: bone mass does not increase linearly with body mass, but rather with mass raised to the power of 1.09. So if a blue whale is 100 times the size of a smaller whale, we'd expect its ones to be 151 times as big as the smaller whale's. This suggests a smaller proportion of edible material from the larger whale.
The approximate exponent of 1.09 was derived from terrestrial animals, which support their weight on their bones. As HoneyBadgerDC mentioned, whales are aquatic and don't support their weight using their bones, so whale bones could be proportionally lighter than terrestrial animals' bones.

The Canadian Museum of Nature has a blue whale skeleton from an animal that is estimated to have weighed 80-90 tonnes. Based on the formula in your link (bones = 0.061 * animal1.09), the bones would be predicted to weigh 13,000-15,000 kg, but in fact they only weigh 2883 kg.
  #36  
Old 03-17-2017, 06:27 AM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by markn+ View Post
The approximate exponent of 1.09 was derived from terrestrial animals, which support their weight on their bones. As HoneyBadgerDC mentioned, whales are aquatic and don't support their weight using their bones, so whale bones could be proportionally lighter than terrestrial animals' bones.
Actually, while I don't know off the top of my head about whales, some aquatic mammals have heaver bones than land mammals to act as ballast

Quote:
The Canadian Museum of Nature has a blue whale skeleton from an animal that is estimated to have weighed 80-90 tonnes. Based on the formula in your link (bones = 0.061 * animal1.09), the bones would be predicted to weigh 13,000-15,000 kg, but in fact they only weigh 2883 kg.
This could be affected by the fact that whales do not have (significant) long limb bones.
  #37  
Old 03-12-2017, 01:02 PM
aceplace57 aceplace57 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: CentralArkansas
Posts: 22,543
Don't forget to factor out the weight of the oil.

One whale fueled a bunch of lamps in Colonial times.
  #38  
Old 03-13-2017, 10:53 AM
muldoonthief muldoonthief is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: North of Boston
Posts: 9,859
Quote:
Originally Posted by aceplace57 View Post
Don't forget to factor out the weight of the oil.

One whale fueled a bunch of lamps in Colonial times.
Why would you factor it out? Whale oil is rendered down from the blubber, which in all the above calculations is being eaten, not discarded.
  #39  
Old 03-13-2017, 08:36 AM
Tom P. Tom P. is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Norway
Posts: 162
Norwegian Wikipedia refers to a blue whale caught in 1947 by a Japanese whaler. It weighed 136353kg, and had 60962kg meat and 19812kg of blubber. (60962kg is about 134000 pounds of meat). The maximum weight ever recorded seems to be 173000kg, so this whale is smaller that, but I guess the total/meat/blubber ratio is the same.

Using just the meat from above (so no organs or blubber):

Whale meat (no species indicated in the source I found) gives about 120kcal/100g, so at 2500 kcal/day your caloric intake is covered for about 30000 days or around 80 years of eating nothing but around 4 pounds of blue whale meat every day.

Frankly, I'd recommend a salad instead.
  #40  
Old 03-13-2017, 11:09 AM
astro astro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Taint of creation
Posts: 33,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom P. View Post
Norwegian Wikipedia refers to a blue whale caught in 1947 by a Japanese whaler. It weighed 136353kg, and had 60962kg meat and 19812kg of blubber. (60962kg is about 134000 pounds of meat). The maximum weight ever recorded seems to be 173000kg, so this whale is smaller that, but I guess the total/meat/blubber ratio is the same.

Using just the meat from above (so no organs or blubber):

Whale meat (no species indicated in the source I found) gives about 120kcal/100g, so at 2500 kcal/day your caloric intake is covered for about 30000 days or around 80 years of eating nothing but around 4 pounds of blue whale meat every day.

Frankly, I'd recommend a salad instead.
This link which is derived from whales that were actually caught and consumed indicates a lean meat to skin blubber ration of 37% lean meat - 63% muktuk (skin- blubber). The Norwegian cite above indicates a 3 to 1 ratio of (assumed lean) meat to blubber.

Re calories you are using just lean meat calories not meat + skin-blubber calories in your calculation.

Last edited by astro; 03-13-2017 at 11:11 AM.
  #41  
Old 03-13-2017, 12:15 PM
Blue Blistering Barnacle Blue Blistering Barnacle is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,975
What's the best part of a Blue whale? Sharks seem to like the tongue. The hagfish on the ocean floor seem to like the blubber. What do humans seem to like?
  #42  
Old 03-13-2017, 01:07 PM
scr4 scr4 is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Alabama
Posts: 13,950
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Blistering Barnacle View Post
What's the best part of a Blue whale?
In Japan, Onomi (literally "tail meat") is the most expensive cut of whale meat. It is a marbled meat at the base of the tail fin of larger baleen whales like fin whales and blue whales. (Other whales have the equivalent meat but it's not marbled to the same extent.) More info on Wikipedia.

Last edited by scr4; 03-13-2017 at 01:09 PM.
  #43  
Old 03-13-2017, 01:31 PM
Blue Blistering Barnacle Blue Blistering Barnacle is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,975
I call the Onomi!
  #44  
Old 03-13-2017, 02:14 PM
Blue Blistering Barnacle Blue Blistering Barnacle is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cayuga View Post
Good news! Brontosaurus walks the earth again! I mean, they walked the earth at one time again. They once walked the earth again.



Hell, just click the link.


Well, "Bully for Brontosaurus!"*

*My pet solution to the brontosaurus problem would be to use brontosaurus as the name for generic giant dinosaur that is "skinny on one end, thick in the middle, and skinny at the other end" (paraphrasing Anne Elk). Guess that's no longer possible.
  #45  
Old 03-13-2017, 04:49 PM
TSBG TSBG is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,681
There are restaurants in Iceland that serve whale--most likely not blue whale. I was once told that the cuts came from one whale in a deep freeze, taken before Iceland gave up whaling, but apparently that is not the case--they're still whaling.

In conclusion, please don't eat actual whale.
  #46  
Old 03-14-2017, 05:49 PM
MacLir MacLir is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 543
Quote:
Originally Posted by TSBG View Post
There are restaurants in Iceland that serve whale--most likely not blue whale. I was once told that the cuts came from one whale in a deep freeze, taken before Iceland gave up whaling, but apparently that is not the case--they're still whaling.

In conclusion, please don't eat actual whale.
Unless you grew up eating it, you likely wouldn't like it anyway.

Imagine the toughest, stringiest piece of chuck steak you ever had. Now cook it in sardine oil. That's what whale is like, as I remember it. (From long before Greenpeace and the Marine Mammal Protection Act) Blue whale, as I recall, but I was young at the time.
  #47  
Old 03-13-2017, 05:58 PM
Darren Garrison Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 4,864
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Blistering Barnacle View Post
*My pet solution to the brontosaurus problem would be to use brontosaurus as the name for generic giant dinosaur that is "skinny on one end, thick in the middle, and skinny at the other end" (paraphrasing Anne Elk). Guess that's no longer possible.
Never was possible. There is already a term for that--sauropod.
  #48  
Old 03-13-2017, 10:53 PM
Blue Blistering Barnacle Blue Blistering Barnacle is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,975
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
Never was possible. There is already a term for that--sauropod.


Why is sauropod better than brontosaur?

Anyway, eating whale beats slurping goo in Zion.
  #49  
Old 03-14-2017, 03:59 PM
Lumpy Lumpy is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Minneapolis, Minnesota US
Posts: 15,625
(sorry to continue the hijack, but...)

I think the name "Brontosaurus" should be preserved for the now-fictional sauropod that was thought to be semi-aquatic, staying mostly underwater like a hippopotamus. E.g., in the original King Kong movie the raft was overturned by a Brontosaurus.
  #50  
Old 03-14-2017, 05:14 PM
snfaulkner snfaulkner is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: 123 Fake Street
Posts: 5,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lumpy View Post
I think the name "Brontosaurus" should be preserved for the now-fictional sauropod that was thought to be semi-aquatic, staying mostly underwater like a hippopotamus. E.g., in the original King Kong movie the raft was overturned by a Brontosaurus.
Dude! Spoilers!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:06 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017