"Unsafe in any quantity"

[Vort]

http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2016/03/11/Study-links-Splenda-to-higher-risk-of-leukemia/3741457711872/?src=FB

Feeding mice far higher concentrations of sucralose than humans would ever eat causes a statistical increase in leukemia. Therefore, it's unsafe in any quantity and should be completely avoided.

But don't worry about alcohol. No problem for the moderate user. Nothing to see here, folks.

[LeSellers]

38 minutes ago, Vort said:

Feeding mice far higher concentrations of sucralose than humans would ever eat causes a statistical increase in leukemia. Therefore, it's unsafe in any quantity and should be completely avoided.

Splenda is a chlorinated hydrocarbon.

Lehi

[Guest]

The real killer is dihydrogen monoxide. 

 

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

 

 

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

The real killer is dihydrogen monoxide. 

 

http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html

But, like carbon dioxide, it is absolutely necessary for life on earth.

Lehi

[theSQUIDSTER]

The real killer is mortality.  Nobody who's tasted of it ever gets out alive.  Still, it beats the alternative.. Just ask Legion.

[omegaseamaster75]

Guns are evil.

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

unsafe in any quantity 

Edited March 11, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[Guest]

[Jojo Bags]

Doctors are evil.  The medical community is the third leading cause of death killing 225,000 people each year.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/allen-frances/why-are-medical-mistakes-_b_5888408.html

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/07/30/doctors-death-part-one.aspx

 

 

 

[David13]

3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Guns are evil.

http://heedinggodscall.org/content/pfctoolkit-10

unsafe in any quantity 

There's just no end to the stupidity, is there?

Gun violence?  There is no such thing.  No gun ever killed anyone.  It was a person who picked up the gun, loaded it, and cocked it, and pulled the trigger. 

But no one can take responsibility for anything today, it's a new rule.  Somebody else is always to blame.  "The NRA killed them".

Or better yet, something else.  An inanimate object is responsible.

If I get drunk and run over some people with my car, it's not my fault.  It's the cars fault.  It was "Car Violence".

dc

[Blackmarch]

Don't forget O2...

[Vort]

On 3/10/2016 at 10:48 AM, LeSellers said:

Splenda is a chlorinated hydrocarbon.

Lehi

Correction: Splenda is a chlorinated carbohydrate. Huge difference.

[Ffenix]

30 minutes ago, Vort said:

Correction: Splenda is a chlorinated carbohydrate. Huge difference.

 the same huge difference as dihydrogen monoxide from oxygen dihydride?

[Vort]

57 minutes ago, Ffenix said:

 the same huge difference as dihydrogen monoxide from oxygen dihydride?

No, a different huge difference. The joke terms "dihydrogen monoxide" and "oxygen dihydride", along with other joke terms like "hydrogen hydroxide", all refer to the same substance. But hydrocarbons and carbohydrates are very different things, which you'll find out when you try to make your cookies with gasoline.

[Guest MormonGator]

44 minutes ago, Vort said:

 which you'll find out when you try to make your cookies with gasoline.

That was awesome. 

[zil]

17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

That was awesome. 

Seriously?  You've eaten a cookie made with gasoline and it was "awesome"?!

[Guest MormonGator]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

Seriously?  You've eaten a cookie made with gasoline and it was "awesome"?!

Again, college. 

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Ffenix said:

 the same huge difference as dihydrogen monoxide from oxygen dihydride?

Basically, hydrocarbons are oils and fats.  Carbohydrates are sugars, starches, and similar substances.

[LeSellers]

5 hours ago, Vort said:

Correction: Splenda is a chlorinated carbohydrate. Huge difference.

C₆H₁₂O₆ is sugar: carbon and water (hydrogen and oxygen): carbon and hydrate (water).

Splenda (Sucralose) is C₁₂H₁₉Cl₃O₈

The only serious difference is the chlorine.

You can quibble about the difference between a hydrocarbon and a carbohydrate, but the distinction is trivial when it comes to sucralose's being a threat to health.

Lehi

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

You can quibble about the difference between a hydrocarbon and a carbohydrate, but the distinction is trivial when it comes to sucralose's being a threat to health.

Uhmm...

Usually, "quibble" is used to talk about a minor difference.  It's a pretty big difference.  And the post you made to start this sideline was "sucralose is a chorinated hydrocarbon".

Edited March 15, 2016 by Guest

[Vort]

2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

C₆H₁₂O₆ is sugar: carbon and water (hydrogen and oxygen): carbon and hydrate (water).

Right, Carbohydrate.

And C₆H₁₂O₆ is a simple sugar, like glucose or fructose. Sucrose (table sugar) is C₁₂H₂₂O_11.

2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

Splenda (Sucralose) is C₁₂H₁₉Cl₃O₈

Right. In other words, C₁₂H₁₉O₈Cl₃. Replace three of sucrose's hydrogens with chlorines, and voilà! Sucralose. In other words, sucralose is chlorinated sucrose.

2 hours ago, LeSellers said:

You can quibble about the difference between a hydrocarbon and a carbohydrate, but the distinction is trivial when it comes to sucralose's being a threat to health.

LeSellers, I'm chuckling at this. Do you honestly believe that the distinction between a cup of sugar and a cup of diesel is trivial? One is a carbohydrate and the other a hydrocarbon.

I'll give you exactly one guess to tell me who funds the anti-sucralose "studies" and advertising you see. If you guessed anything besides "the sugar lobby", you fail.

Sucralose is sugar (sucrose) that has been chlorinated. It is manifestly not a hydrocarbon. Seriously, there is no way you win this particular disagreement. It is not a matter of opinion.

[LeSellers]

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

Sucralose is sugar (sucrose) that has been chlorinated. It is manifestly not a hydrocarbon. Seriously, there is no way you win this particular disagreement. It is not a matter of opinion.

 

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Uhmm...

Usually, "quibble" is used to talk about a minor difference.  It's a pretty big difference.  And the post you made to start this sideline was "sucralose is a chorinated hydrocarbon".

Neither of you understand hyperbole, do you?

An exaggeration to make a point is a common means of making that point.

Lehi

[Vort]

Interesting side note: It is said that sucralose was discovered when a lab manager told one of his (her?) staff scientists to test a certain compound recently isolated from chlorinating sucrose, and the scientist misheard the instruction as "taste" instead of "test". The result was the discovery of a compound that is 600 times sweeter than sugar* and that is not metabolized by the human gut.

*How do you determine relative sweetness, anyway? Eat 600 teaspoons of sugar and see if you have the same reaction as 1 teaspoon of sucralose gives you?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

Interesting side note: It is said that sucralose was discovered when a lab manager told one of his (her?) staff scientists to test a certain compound recently isolated from chlorinating sucrose, and the scientist misheard the instruction as "taste" instead of "test". The result was the discovery of a compound that is 600 times sweeter than sugar* and that is not metabolized by the human gut.

*How do you determine relative sweetness, anyway? Eat 600 teaspoons of sugar and see if you have the same reaction as 1 teaspoon of sucralose gives you?

I don't know.  That sounds suspiciously like a myth.  Was this from a reliable source?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

I'll give you exactly one guess to tell me who funds the anti-sucralose "studies" and advertising you see. If you guessed anything besides "the sugar lobby", you fail.

@Vort

This isn't logical.  If it takes sucrose to make sucralose, then they'd be all for selling more.  It would be a way to push corn syrup out of the market.  A diabetic biochemist told me it was the aspartame people who were crying out against sucralose.  And she absolutely loved sucralose.  She couldn't say enough good stuff about it.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't know.  That sounds suspiciously like a myth.  Was this from a reliable source?

Wikipedia (a perhaps less-than-unimpeachable source) say the following:

Quote

Sucralose was discovered in 1976 by scientists from Tate & Lyle, working with researchers Leslie Hough and Shashikant Phadnis at Queen Elizabeth College (now part of King's College London). While researching ways to use sucrose and its synthetic derivatives for industrial use, Phadnis was told to "test" a chlorinated sugar compound. Phadnis thought Hough asked him to "taste" it, so he did. He found the compound to be exceptionally sweet.

The citation given is:

Quote

Gratzer, Walter (28 November 2002). "5. Light on sweetness: the discovery of aspartame". Eurekas and Euphorias: The Oxford Book of Scientific Anecdotes. Oxford University Press. pp. 32–. ISBN 978-0-19-280403-7

 

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

@Vort

This isn't logical.  If it takes sucrose to make sucralose, then they'd be all for selling more.  It would be a way to push corn syrup out of the market.  A diabetic biochemist told me it was the aspartame people who were crying out against sucralose.  And she absolutely loved sucralose.  She couldn't say enough good stuff about it.

Not if it's 600 times sweeter. Sucralose-sweetened soda pop, for example, would require only 1/600th the sugar usage that sucrose-sweetened soda pop would take.

That the interests for competing artificial sweeteners also lobby against their competition is hardly surprising, nor any sort of evidence that the sugar lobby does not do so.