Are half of Snapple's "Real Facts" intentionally false?

Others that are obviously false:

Really? Bees have compound eyes and no eyelids.

I’m pretty sure they meant that cats have over 100 different vocalizations, not vocal chords.

Artichokes are flowers. So are squash blossoms and cauliflowers.

I don’t even know how to make sense of this. A smell is a perception - it has no weight (or mass). Maybe it refers to the minimum mass that the average person can smell, but even this doesn’t make much sense, since the nose is more sensitive to some compounds than others.

The total power consumed by the brain isn’t anywhere close to the power required to run an electric train. Maybe they meant that brain waves can be used to control an electric train - something that is possible with modern technology.

Many people in California have Caller ID.

I’ll stop now - this is too easy.

Actually the thing about measuring the weight of "smells"comes from an actual study, odd as it sounds. It’s only the part where they make up an average weight that’s bull; the number doesn’t seem to appear in any of the reporting on the study and the concept of “average” in that context is nonsensical. "Average mass of odor-producing particles necessary to be detected as a scent by a human when in a certain concentration, maybe?

If that’s what they mean, though, they didn’t come anywhere near enough to saying that and again, I don’t know where the actual number came from. Still counted it as false when I made my grand tally.

:confused: 760 nanograms is in the NewScientist link:

(Not that I’m saying that calling that the weight of an average smell is valid.)

Oops. Well, this is what I get for trying to comment on things between naps while lying around the house with a fever. I suspect I was looking at a different article discussing the study when I first looked that one up. But thank you. :slight_smile: