In the sort of story that seems to happen every year, a 12 year old girl got a rather shocking message while eating from a bag of candy conversation hearts:

“Nice Tits!”, the candy heart said, apparently from its place on the love seat. The confection then attempted to wink and cluck its tongue twice while making a lascivious hand gesture. Its sexual advances were thwarted, however, by its lack of the requisite body parts.

For the romantic who hopes all evidence of his love and/or lust will be destroyed by the digestive process, there are adult-themed conversation hearts out there. Either by accident or on purpose, an inappropriate conversation heart slipped into a bag of normal candies. Perhaps they’re both made in the same facility. Perhaps a dirty uncle slipped them in. I like to imagine it was put in by a factory worker, mentally deranged from inhaling too much candy dust.

The way this story was reported is also interesting. Online, the entire report was fully uncensored, but the televised report from KCRA chose to bleep the word and blur it out on video. In fact, they described to the word “tits” as “a derogatory term for a woman’s chest”, which seems more than a bit off the mark. Even if the slang term is obscene, it’s not nearly offensive as the fact that anyone is actually eating these awful, chalky “treats”.

Finally, before we go, a public service announcement: If you’re going to be on TV, remember to take off your bluetooth headset.

A recently-published study has shown that dogs can be trained to detect colon cancer. Apparently, their noses are sensitive enough to provide results that are up to 97% as accurate as a colonoscope. That’s pretty good, especially since it could mean not having a camera shoved several feet up your pooper.

The study itself proved both interesting and gross. Some things learned from a full reading of the study:

• “During testing, experimenters monitored each trial and recorded their observations on a digital versatile disc.”

• “Digital versatile disc” is just the spelled-out name for the common acronym “DVD”. It sounds scientific though, doesn’t it?

• No matter how many times one reads the phrase “watery stool sample”, it never becomes less foul.

• Even when this poor pooch gets off work and heads over to the dog park, she can never get away from the job. “*Sniff Sniff* I’ve got some bad news, Rusty…”.

• Information from the double-blind test needed to be verified as quickly as possible, so the dog could be properly rewarded. Thus, the information was sent by the latest in 1980s technology, the fax machine.¹

Unfortunately, it’s unlikely you’ll be greeted by a friendly black Lab at your next appointment with the proctologist. The study notes that dogs are unsuitable for widespread use, due to both the expense of training the dogs and day-to-day fluctuations in their effectiveness.

The biggest problem, however? The dogs may wind up suffering PTSD:

“Please don’t…don’t make me sniff that anymore.”

Footnotes:

1. “At the tests the dog…sat down in front of the station determined to contain a cancer scent, and then the handler noted the result on an answer card on which the test number was written. The card was transmitted to Fukuoka Dental College by fax. After submission the answer was explained to the handler and the dog as soon as possible because the correct behaviour was rewarded with a tennis ball.” ↩︎