Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Splenda:Do we have a right not toBe poisoned?

Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://www.anh-usa.org...

Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

First off, put this stuff in a special section in the supermarket so that people can know what has it and what doesn't. In 2011, despite my horrid dislike for this poisonous additive, I've bought many products containing it simply because it isn't easily distinguishable (including chewing gum, grape jelly, jarred peaches, and NON-DIET lemonade). Wasting my money is one thing, but slipping it into my diet is another entirely.

Secondly, we need to counter Splenda's propaganda campaign. Unfortunately capitalism is going to produce this sort of externality profusely, since each business is fighting to create its own niche (even if that niche is unethical), so even more organizations are necessary to be constructed in order to counter the immoral practice of poisoning consumers. Splenda is actually pushing towards labeling itself a "health" food, which I suppose is a great idea when you're trying to avoid the label "poison."

Artificial sweeteners back in the 80s and 90s used to come with warning labels about causing cancer in laboratory animals, and apparently their lobbying has been able to push things so far the other way that these cancer-warnings are now replaced with vitamin-labels and pictures of skinny women swinging on rope swings in green fields.

Shouldn't we be passing regulations in order to keep any foods that have additives and other non-natural ingredients in separate aisles of the store? How can we keep a jar of fruit next to a jar of chlorine-soaked fruit with nearly identical labels and expect citizens to be able to make healthy choices? I guess the answer is that if we did this, there would suddenly be no need for these products because people WOULD HAVE TOO EASY A TIME SELECTING NATURAL FOODS. Right now we keep separate aisles for ORGANIC foods, and even applying the term "organic" in the first place is a godamnedfuckingOUTRAGE. How can any sane society keep chlorinated and other artifical foods as the norm, and then take natural foods and create a separate term for those? What the hell does "organic" mean in the first place? Isn't all food organic unless it's INORGANIC?

Right now organic foods make up a very small percentage of the overall supermarket and are limited to an aisle or two off to the side. This should be reversed completely.
Rob
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 10:13:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

--NaCl--

oaahh mah gawd i'm poisoned.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 10:27:40 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 10:25:40 AM, Koopin wrote:
My mother never let us eat/drink sugar free food, or artificial sweeteners.

The chicken was dry. The corn was so overcooked and artificially sweetened--all wrapped up in it's tin foil--that it seemed more like creamed candy corn mush on a stick. The slaw was KFC slaw; so no surprise there. But the crowning insult was they served it to me without their famous spork/napkin/wipes package, so I had to raid my glove compartment for some old napkins and a leftover plastic fork (I luckily carry around with me).
Mimshot
Posts: 275
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 12:10:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Chlorine =/= chloride

It's amazing how something so incredibly stupid can be made to sound intelligent with the addition of some fancy words and complete sentences.
Mimshot: I support the 1956 Republican platform
DDMx: So, you're a socialist?
Mimshot: Yes
logicrules
Posts: 1,721
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 12:20:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM, Lasagna wrote:
http://www.anh-usa.org...

Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

First off, put this stuff in a special section in the supermarket so that people can know what has it and what doesn't. In 2011, despite my horrid dislike for this poisonous additive, I've bought many products containing it simply because it isn't easily distinguishable (including chewing gum, grape jelly, jarred peaches, and NON-DIET lemonade). Wasting my money is one thing, but slipping it into my diet is another entirely.

Secondly, we need to counter Splenda's propaganda campaign. Unfortunately capitalism is going to produce this sort of externality profusely, since each business is fighting to create its own niche (even if that niche is unethical), so even more organizations are necessary to be constructed in order to counter the immoral practice of poisoning consumers. Splenda is actually pushing towards labeling itself a "health" food, which I suppose is a great idea when you're trying to avoid the label "poison."

Artificial sweeteners back in the 80s and 90s used to come with warning labels about causing cancer in laboratory animals, and apparently their lobbying has been able to push things so far the other way that these cancer-warnings are now replaced with vitamin-labels and pictures of skinny women swinging on rope swings in green fields.

Shouldn't we be passing regulations in order to keep any foods that have additives and other non-natural ingredients in separate aisles of the store? How can we keep a jar of fruit next to a jar of chlorine-soaked fruit with nearly identical labels and expect citizens to be able to make healthy choices? I guess the answer is that if we did this, there would suddenly be no need for these products because people WOULD HAVE TOO EASY A TIME SELECTING NATURAL FOODS. Right now we keep separate aisles for ORGANIC foods, and even applying the term "organic" in the first place is a godamnedfuckingOUTRAGE. How can any sane society keep chlorinated and other artifical foods as the norm, and then take natural foods and create a separate term for those? What the hell does "organic" mean in the first place? Isn't all food organic unless it's INORGANIC?

Right now organic foods make up a very small percentage of the overall supermarket and are limited to an aisle or two off to the side. This should be reversed completely.

No caveat Emptor
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 2:45:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
This is disappointing and I wish I'd known this yesterday. I just bought "sugar-free" lollipops to give to the kids of my clients when they get antsy. They are sweetened with Splenda.
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 3:09:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
My mom DESPISES Splenda.

She already knew this so...
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 5:40:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Seems harmless.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,250
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 6:08:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 12:10:51 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Chlorine =/= chloride

It's amazing how something so incredibly stupid can be made to sound intelligent with the addition of some fancy words and complete sentences.

http://heartland.org...

You too mimsy, read it... I know it is long, but pretty interesting.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 6:15:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Give it ten years, and the new science will praise it as a cure for cancer, AIDS, and the Ebola virus...
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 6:20:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Dr. Pepper, cocaine, and opium were once sold for medicinal purposes... I tend to be a little skeptical of the FDA. I rarely use any pharmaceuticals because, quite honestly, I don't trust any of it.

I live by a general rule that one should eat as much whole foods as possible, and abstain from food loaded with preservatives as much as possible. I figure you really can't go wrong with that ethos, regardless of what the latest craze is about.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:37:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 10:13:18 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

--NaCl--

oaahh mah gawd i'm poisoned.

Salt goes in your body and come out your body NaCl - the bond is extremely strong. You don't piss out sodium and chlorine.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:38:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 12:10:51 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Chlorine =/= chloride

It's amazing how something so incredibly stupid can be made to sound intelligent with the addition of some fancy words and complete sentences.

Chlorine does = chloride. For instance, NaCl is sodium chloride. I believe the "ide" suffix simply means it's on the end of the equation...
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:39:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 2:45:43 PM, nonentity wrote:
This is disappointing and I wish I'd known this yesterday. I just bought "sugar-free" lollipops to give to the kids of my clients when they get antsy. They are sweetened with Splenda.

Yeah feeding splenda to kids is not a good idea.. Throw them out and eat the $3 and get them something natural :)
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:40:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 5:40:31 PM, mongoose wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Seems harmless.

Yeah no isht it's wikipedia. You think the manufacturers of Splenda go 5 minutes without checking that site and "correcting" it?
Rob
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:43:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 8:37:10 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 10:13:18 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

--NaCl--

oaahh mah gawd i'm poisoned.

Salt goes in your body and come out your body NaCl - the bond is extremely strong. You don't piss out sodium and chlorine.
The bond is broken actually. The reason we need salt is because we make use of the ions produced to regulate the viciousness of substances either side of epithelial cell membranes.

Also he was being sarcastic.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:49:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 6:20:22 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
Dr. Pepper, cocaine, and opium were once sold for medicinal purposes... I tend to be a little skeptical of the FDA. I rarely use any pharmaceuticals because, quite honestly, I don't trust any of it.

I live by a general rule that one should eat as much whole foods as possible, and abstain from food loaded with preservatives as much as possible. I figure you really can't go wrong with that ethos, regardless of what the latest craze is about.

That's the thing - people think they can create this exotic substance to sweeten and cheat the calories. The basis of our sustainance has to start with natural foods. Sweetness is indulgence. You can't just indulge and indulge and indulge and then find a technological solution to allow you to continue unscathed. Nothing in life works that way. Opium, cocaine, weed, cigarettes, coffee, sugar... no matter what it is, you have to use restraint in your indulgence of it or else you will pay the consequences. All Sucralose does is replace your natural trade-off of calories with an unnatural one - introducing exotic substances into your body which have yet to be fully understood. Once we discover the carcinogenic attributes or other detriments we ditch it and move on. We can keep introducing new substances which affect us in ways not yet recorded but that doesn't mean we are getting away with it scott-free. The burden of proof must be put on proving that the substance is safe before entering it into the food supply, not the other way around.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 8:51:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Heartland article doesn't really address artificial sweeteners directly. Furthermore, it uses economic arguments to argue with which really don't resonate with me because I don't value economics over science.
Rob
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 9:00:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
There is nothing, chemically speaking, that makes Sucralose harmful.

It's literally Sucrose, which is fructose and glucose bonded by a glycosidic bond, with Halogen functional groups, in this case chloroalkane, where they wouldn't normally be.

If it is harmful, how? What will it do? Would you be able to explain that medically, attributing it to this simple chemical?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 9:37:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 9:00:14 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
There is nothing, chemically speaking, that makes Sucralose harmful.

You can't prove that.

It's literally Sucrose, which is fructose and glucose bonded by a glycosidic bond, with Halogen functional groups, in this case chloroalkane, where they wouldn't normally be.

It's not literally sugar at all. Sugars are made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. Sucralose uses chlorine. In chemical terms, alcohol is FAR closer to sugar than Sucralose is.

If it is harmful, how? What will it do? Would you be able to explain that medically, attributing it to this simple chemical?

Saccharin was "safe" until enough testing showed it to be carcinogenic. Aspartame was "safe" until we found out it was a NEUROTOXIN. Now Sucralose is "safe" as well. If we keep coming up with new exotic chemicals and then shuffle them into the food supply before we completely understand them, then yeah they are safe because the human body is amazingly complex and it takes a long time to test the substance on every organ including the brain. Furthermore you can't watch the effects of the chemical over long-periods of time if you are operating in a use-first test-later atmosphere. "There have been no long term studies of the effects of Sucralose in humans." So basically we are all just guinea pigs for a bunch of entrepreneurs who almost certainly don't touch the stuff themselves. And I don't have a right to opt-out, other than spending lots of time reading tiny verbose labels on every product I buy.
Rob
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 9:50:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 12:10:51 PM, Mimshot wrote:
Chlorine =/= chloride

It's amazing how something so incredibly stupid can be made to sound intelligent with the addition of some fancy words and complete sentences.

Agreed.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 9:53:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 9:37:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:00:14 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
There is nothing, chemically speaking, that makes Sucralose harmful.

You can't prove that.
I can't prove there's anything that makes nitrous oxide definitively harmful either. The burden is on you, friend.

It's literally Sucrose, which is fructose and glucose bonded by a glycosidic bond, with Halogen functional groups, in this case chloroalkane, where they wouldn't normally be.

It's not literally sugar at all. Sugars are made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. Sucralose uses chlorine. In chemical terms, alcohol is FAR closer to sugar than Sucralose is.
Well Alcohols are aliphatic and are not crystaline whereas Sucralose is, that itself is a big difference. To create sucralose from sucrose you simple change a few functional groups from -H to -CL, that's why they are chemically and physically similar.

If it is harmful, how? What will it do? Would you be able to explain that medically, attributing it to this simple chemical?

Saccharin was "safe" until enough testing showed it to be carcinogenic. Aspartame was "safe" until we found out it was a NEUROTOXIN. Now Sucralose is "safe" as well. If we keep coming up with new exotic chemicals and then shuffle them into the food supply before we completely understand them, then yeah they are safe because the human body is amazingly complex and it takes a long time to test the substance on every organ including the brain. Furthermore you can't watch the effects of the chemical over long-periods of time if you are operating in a use-first test-later atmosphere. "There have been no long term studies of the effects of Sucralose in humans." So basically we are all just guinea pigs for a bunch of entrepreneurs who almost certainly don't touch the stuff themselves. And I don't have a right to opt-out, other than spending lots of time reading tiny verbose labels on every product I buy.
Saccharin, Aspartame are alkaloids (N) which is a completely different ball game. They both brake down to make ammino acids whilst in the human body; this is nothing like that. You're comparing Carbon Dioxide or Mustard Gas.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 9:54:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 8:43:26 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/22/2012 8:37:10 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 10:13:18 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

--NaCl--

oaahh mah gawd i'm poisoned.

Salt goes in your body and come out your body NaCl - the bond is extremely strong. You don't piss out sodium and chlorine.
The bond is broken actually. The reason we need salt is because we make use of the ions produced to regulate the viciousness of substances either side of epithelial cell membranes.

Also he was being sarcastic.

OK I'm getting over my head in biology here but I don't think that when we consume salt that we just end up with a bunch of free chlorine floating around. I know we use the sodium along with potassium to regulate how things enter and exit cells, but I don't think it's as simple as you are leaving it. Chlorine "reacts with water to produce acids. The acids are corrosive and damage cells in the body on contact." I doubt that every time we eat something with salt in it that our cells start getting destroyed. The chlorine in salt is no doubt used in a very special way, perhaps re-bonding to the sodium afterwards. The chlorine in Sucralose, no doubt, is not met with a highly-evolved and safe process within the body.
Rob
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 10:05:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 9:54:40 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 8:43:26 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/22/2012 8:37:10 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 10:13:18 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

--NaCl--

oaahh mah gawd i'm poisoned.

Salt goes in your body and come out your body NaCl - the bond is extremely strong. You don't piss out sodium and chlorine.
The bond is broken actually. The reason we need salt is because we make use of the ions produced to regulate the viciousness of substances either side of epithelial cell membranes.

Also he was being sarcastic.

OK I'm getting over my head in biology here but I don't think that when we consume salt that we just end up with a bunch of free chlorine floating around. I know we use the sodium along with potassium to regulate how things enter and exit cells, but I don't think it's as simple as you are leaving it. Chlorine "reacts with water to produce acids. The acids are corrosive and damage cells in the body on contact." I doubt that every time we eat something with salt in it that our cells start getting destroyed. The chlorine in salt is no doubt used in a very special way, perhaps re-bonding to the sodium afterwards. The chlorine in Sucralose, no doubt, is not met with a highly-evolved and safe process within the body.
They aren't radicals, these are Chloride anions. Cl-

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://users.rcn.com...
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 10:17:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 9:53:55 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:37:43 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:00:14 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
There is nothing, chemically speaking, that makes Sucralose harmful.

You can't prove that.
I can't prove there's anything that makes nitrous oxide definitively harmful either. The burden is on you, friend.

So let's start dumping it in all our foods then, right? I think your burden of proof is a little twisted.

It's literally Sucrose, which is fructose and glucose bonded by a glycosidic bond, with Halogen functional groups, in this case chloroalkane, where they wouldn't normally be.

It's not literally sugar at all. Sugars are made up of carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen atoms. Sucralose uses chlorine. In chemical terms, alcohol is FAR closer to sugar than Sucralose is.
Well Alcohols are aliphatic and are not crystaline whereas Sucralose is, that itself is a big difference. To create sucralose from sucrose you simple change a few functional groups from -H to -CL, that's why they are chemically and physically similar.

If it is harmful, how? What will it do? Would you be able to explain that medically, attributing it to this simple chemical?

Saccharin was "safe" until enough testing showed it to be carcinogenic. Aspartame was "safe" until we found out it was a NEUROTOXIN. Now Sucralose is "safe" as well. If we keep coming up with new exotic chemicals and then shuffle them into the food supply before we completely understand them, then yeah they are safe because the human body is amazingly complex and it takes a long time to test the substance on every organ including the brain. Furthermore you can't watch the effects of the chemical over long-periods of time if you are operating in a use-first test-later atmosphere. "There have been no long term studies of the effects of Sucralose in humans." So basically we are all just guinea pigs for a bunch of entrepreneurs who almost certainly don't touch the stuff themselves. And I don't have a right to opt-out, other than spending lots of time reading tiny verbose labels on every product I buy.

Saccharin, Aspartame are alkaloids (N) which is a completely different ball game. They both brake down to make ammino acids whilst in the human body; this is nothing like that. You're comparing Carbon Dioxide or Mustard Gas.

I'm just saying that this chemical is just another in a long line of dangerous substances that are introduced into our foods before they are understood. And you would say that we should just add them into our foods right away even though history and common sense dictates that there are probably going to be problems later on that we can't specifically predict, although we can generally predict that the mindset that you can eat a bunch of sweets by substituting exotic chemicals for sugar is fundamentally problematic. One hundred years ago we were adding cocaine to our fountain drinks without a care in the world.

Again, no biologist here, but here is a quick explanation of how the body works: it is evolved to process a set of natural substances that it evolved to assimilate over millions of years (billions counting prior species). We can handle these natural substances well. Exotic, artificial substances, when introduce, produce unknown effects on the body and tend to accumulatein our tissues, cause undesired effects, or flat-out destroy cells completely. For instance, every baby born in America starts out with 20+ exotic chemicals in it's tissues from birth (which would not have been there in previous centuries), with that number increasing over time.

Putting the burden of proof on me is outrageous. The human body is amazingly complex and the effects of substances on the brain are usually extremely difficult to test, particularly within normal ethical and time limits. We already well understand what substances we have been designed to consume and only a fool or an entrepreneur would try to convince us that they have created some new exotic substance which we can ingest large amounts of which isn't going to have some kind of unexpected result.

And are you going to deny that there isn't a conflict of interests here? Are you going to say that Johnson & Johnson created this chemical simply to help humanity with only good intentions? They aren't turning a blind eye to the uncertainty of what this does to us just to turn a profit? We haven't been in this same exact situation many times before? We believe that you can cheat indulgence and use this to eat large amounts of sweets with no logical side-effects? Parrot is citing articles which are using economic arguments to tell me why I should accept consuming chlorine... it wasn't directly relevant obviously but the fact is that I find it odd that someone would use an economic argument to try and combat an issue of plain biology. This highlights the mindset of you capitalists, ready to justify the means with monied ends at every turn out of some misguided sense of responsibility to the pocket-book. Is there anything we are no longer willing to compromise for money, including our own families?
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2012 10:19:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 2/22/2012 10:05:42 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:54:40 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 8:43:26 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/22/2012 8:37:10 PM, Lasagna wrote:
At 2/22/2012 10:13:18 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 2/22/2012 9:16:59 AM, Lasagna wrote:
Splenda, which is basically sugar fused with highly-toxic chlorine, is being slowly added to more and more foods. Now if people want to chlorinate themselves then fine whatevs, but I doubt they actually know what's in this stuff.

--NaCl--

oaahh mah gawd i'm poisoned.

Salt goes in your body and come out your body NaCl - the bond is extremely strong. You don't piss out sodium and chlorine.
The bond is broken actually. The reason we need salt is because we make use of the ions produced to regulate the viciousness of substances either side of epithelial cell membranes.

Also he was being sarcastic.

OK I'm getting over my head in biology here but I don't think that when we consume salt that we just end up with a bunch of free chlorine floating around. I know we use the sodium along with potassium to regulate how things enter and exit cells, but I don't think it's as simple as you are leaving it. Chlorine "reacts with water to produce acids. The acids are corrosive and damage cells in the body on contact." I doubt that every time we eat something with salt in it that our cells start getting destroyed. The chlorine in salt is no doubt used in a very special way, perhaps re-bonding to the sodium afterwards. The chlorine in Sucralose, no doubt, is not met with a highly-evolved and safe process within the body.
They aren't radicals, these are Chloride anions. Cl-

http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://users.rcn.com...

I can't interpret this. If you want to provide some closing conclusion on this particular matter then go for it.
Rob