Would you eat Splenda?
Richard
reasonable (a few cups of coffee/tea sweetened with Splenda) amounts
of this chlorinated organic molecule? Or allow your children to
consume it?
Richard
Chris
The acceptable daily intake of sucralose is 15mg per kg of body
weight. It is the artificial sweetener with the broadest spectrum of
use and can be found in a plethora of artificially sweetened products
as well as can be purchased as a table top sweetener (Splenda). It is
also the newest artificial sweetener; approved in 1998 after over 110
studies on animals and humans. Saccharin (you will have to find the
commercial name) is safe to 5mg/kg body wt/day and has been around for
over 100 years and extensively studied for harmfull effects.
Saccharin is quickly and harmlessly excreted in the urine without
accumulation in the body. Any artificial sweetener has been tested in
humans before release to the market and it is important to note that
compounds may behave much differently in the body than in the test
tube. Hence I left my Organic chem texts on the shelf for this one
and consulted a nutrition text. If you are really concerned consult a
proffessional nutritionist. Myself I stick to old fashioned sucrose
in moderation.
Chris
Reference:Understanding Nutrition 8th ed. (118-121) Eleanor Noss
Whitney & Sharon Rady Rolfes, Wadsworth Publishing Company (1999)
Frank Logullo
"Richard" <beez...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9fa77d4c.03021...@posting.google.com...
Personally, no. I'll wait until there are millions of exposures for any
bugs to surface.
Frank
Uncle Al
That is the proper test. Uncle Al says, "Never buy anything with a
low serial number."
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
The Sceptical Chymist
3E51585D...@hate.spam.net...
Yeap, that's exactly what us Europeans are doing right now with genetically
modified foods. Let North Americans eat them if they insist. In a generation
or two we'll know if they're harmfull or not. Talk about large scale
testing...
Kostas
To reply by private e-mail remove the antispam device
Uncle Al
There is a difference between ingesting a halognated alkylating agent
for its flavor and saying Luther Burbank is good but Kary Mullis is
bad. The contents of your intestines are merrily exchanging plasmids
as your read this. The whole biome is a giant genetic swap meet.
Enviro-whiners are priest-Luddites. They fill their bindlestiffs by
making things worse not better. God is destroyed by prosperity,
education, health, strength, and self-reliance.
RuBisCO is the critical carbon-fixing enzyme in photosynthesis. It is
the slowest (a few turnovers/second) most inefficient (1% net output)
enzyme known. About 30% of all soluble protein in leaves is RuBisCO,
making it the most abundant protein on the planet. Now then... If a
Caltech summer student brewed up a recombinant RuBisCO that did a
paltry 50 turnovers/second at 10% overall efficiency, farm
productivity could multiply by
a hundredfold. Food would no longer be a constraining factor in
civilization, even amidst moronic societies (North Korea, Cuba,
Sub-Saharan Africa). Famines would be exposed as purely political
acts. Do you see why the priests are shrieking "devil!"?
Buckleys
> RuBisCO is the critical carbon-fixing enzyme in photosynthesis. It is
> the slowest (a few turnovers/second) most inefficient (1% net output)
> enzyme known. About 30% of all soluble protein in leaves is RuBisCO,
> making it the most abundant protein on the planet. Now then... If a
> Caltech summer student brewed up a recombinant RuBisCO that did a
> paltry 50 turnovers/second at 10% overall efficiency, farm
> productivity could multiply by
> a hundredfold. Food would no longer be a constraining factor in
> civilization, even amidst moronic societies (North Korea, Cuba,
> Sub-Saharan Africa). Famines would be exposed as purely political
> acts. Do you see why the priests are shrieking "devil!"?
>
> --
> Uncle Al
> http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
> (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
> "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" The Net!
After 100's of millions of years of selection pressure, one has to
wonder why the enzyme is so slow/inefficient. After all, a more
effective rubisco system would confer an enormous advantage upon a
plant, providing that the enzyme is the RDS in photosynthesis, and not
CO2/water availability. On land, this is likely to be a limiting factor,
but has anyone looked at the relative efficiency of rubisco in something
like kelp or water hyacinth?
Rob.
Tim Dellinger
>RuBisCO is the critical carbon-fixing enzyme in photosynthesis. It is
>the slowest (a few turnovers/second) most inefficient (1% net output)
>enzyme known. About 30% of all soluble protein in leaves is RuBisCO,
>making it the most abundant protein on the planet. Now then... If a
>Caltech summer student brewed up a recombinant RuBisCO that did a
>paltry 50 turnovers/second at 10% overall efficiency, farm
>productivity could multiply by
>a hundredfold.
Is carbon-fixing the rate limiting step? I always assumed that
RuBisCo is only as efficient as it has to be, and any increases
in efficiency of the carbon-fixing step wouldn't be seen due
to other (I can only speculate which exactly) rate limiting steps.
--
Tim Dellinger www.ews.uiuc.edu/~tdelling
tdel...@uiuc.edu
Uncle Al
RuBisCO came about very early on when the atmosphere was anerobic. It
is poisoned by oxygen. The enzyme is oligomeric and the chemistry is
dreadful. Evolution seems to have painted itself into a corner.
Insect eye's rhabdomeres will not evolve into lenses and retinas no
matter how long you wait.
OTOH, it is trivially simple to gentically substitute amino acids in a
protein and to evolve the enzyme in lab conditions that support
intermediate fragile mutants. RuBisCO should be the *singular* target
of crop science, not a backwater. Various international rice, corn,
and wheat institutes have spent $billions of your tax dollars to
create the rather modest Green Revolution using Mendelian breeding
over decades of "hard work."
1) A new plant can be custom-synthesized cell to sprouts in a
couple of weeks to a month. The entire planet's protracted
humanitarian compassionate this and that could be redone in a summer
research project for the cost of a corporate jet. All this crap could
be replaced by significant results issuing from one building of
contemporary gene-gineers.
2) While all this unproductive expensive UN bullshit was
transpiring, dopers took comonplace 0.1% THC mixed isomer marijuana
and came up with stuff like Northern Lights: 100% female cloned boo,
30 wt-% single isomer /_\9-THC. A single plant goes for $5-7 K in
British Columbia, Canuckistan. Somebody is lying about costs and
efforts vs. real world results.
If you can grossly custom roll marijuana, you can get the same folks
to do it to rice, corn, and wheat. Never ascribe to malice what can
be explained by idiocy and bureaucracy.
Dale A Trynor
> Tim Dellinger wrote:
> >
> > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> writes:
> >
> > >RuBisCO is the critical carbon-fixing enzyme in photosynthesis. It is
> > >the slowest (a few turnovers/second) most inefficient (1% net output)
> > >enzyme known. About 30% of all soluble protein in leaves is RuBisCO,
> > >making it the most abundant protein on the planet. Now then... If a
> > >Caltech summer student brewed up a recombinant RuBisCO that did a
> > >paltry 50 turnovers/second at 10% overall efficiency, farm
> > >productivity could multiply by
> > >a hundredfold.
> >
> > Is carbon-fixing the rate limiting step? I always assumed that
> > RuBisCo is only as efficient as it has to be, and any increases
> > in efficiency of the carbon-fixing step wouldn't be seen due
> > to other (I can only speculate which exactly) rate limiting steps.
Dale Trynor wrote:
One time I did think it would be a good experiment to try growing plants
under an increased CO2 atmosphere + growth hormones and then do an artificial
selection to see where it would eventually lead.
Its to be noted that plant photosynthesis can go up to an amazing 30% energy
efficiency if one were to use red light instead. Normal white light is only 1
to 3 % efficiency as much of the energy is thrown away in wavelengths that
are less efficiently used. Only optimistic point of this is that some light
are moderately efficient in producing just the red. Red LED's were up to
about 13% efficient about a year ago and an American Scientific article
mentioned the record efficiency was up to 40%. An analogue of the sodium
lights that use lithium instead are also potential possibilities. Its to be
noted that about 3% of blue was needed for hormonal reasons.
>
>
> RuBisCO came about very early on when the atmosphere was anerobic. It
> is poisoned by oxygen. The enzyme is oligomeric and the chemistry is
> dreadful. Evolution seems to have painted itself into a corner.
> Insect eye's rhabdomeres will not evolve into lenses and retinas no
> matter how long you wait.
>
> OTOH, it is trivially simple to gentically substitute amino acids in a
> protein and to evolve the enzyme in lab conditions that support
> intermediate fragile mutants. RuBisCO should be the *singular* target
> of crop science, not a backwater. Various international rice, corn,
> and wheat institutes have spent $billions of your tax dollars to
> create the rather modest Green Revolution using Mendelian breeding
> over decades of "hard work."
>
> 1) A new plant can be custom-synthesized cell to sprouts in a
> couple of weeks to a month. The entire planet's protracted
> humanitarian compassionate this and that could be redone in a summer
> research project for the cost of a corporate jet. All this crap could
> be replaced by significant results issuing from one building of
> contemporary gene-gineers.
I later realized that because hydroponics lighting is so inefficient that a
completely different approach might be even better. If you are to experiment
with this sort of artificial selection and or gene manipulation why not skip
the use of light altogether and go the the gold. The whole idea of
chemosynthesis enhanced hydroponics first came to me when I found out that a
simple mix of chlorophyl and an enzyme would decompose water into its
elements when exposed to light. A logical question came up on what would
happen if I tried to grow plants within a hydrogen rich atmosphere and then
selected the plants that did the best with the least light, could I
eventually evolve plants that would grow almost exclusively on hydrogen and
almost no light.
Later questions involved using glucose from scrap cellulose and then looking
at easily made synthetic sugars such as perhaps the one easily made from
formaldehyde.
Such plants could eventually evolve that would not require much stem or roots
that would increase efficiency even more again. Probably a bit obvious but
the advantages of hydroponics gardens that could be put anyplace even
abandoned mines where heating is not a problem, as it is with greenhouses
would result in a type of farming that could easily compete with the chaotic
wild farming of today.
>
>
> 2) While all this unproductive expensive UN bullshit was
> transpiring, dopers took comonplace 0.1% THC mixed isomer marijuana
> and came up with stuff like Northern Lights: 100% female cloned boo,
> 30 wt-% single isomer /_\9-THC. A single plant goes for $5-7 K in
> British Columbia, Canuckistan. Somebody is lying about costs and
> efforts vs. real world results.
Now if the general public could realize the benefits of incentive and start
putting more importance on science and education over sports and other
nonsense. You can get a scholarship for being good at football to go and take
medicine, but being good at medicine doesn't inspire anyone to give you a
scholarship to go take football. If you are good at writing music or acting
do you see any scholarships despite the fact your chances of becoming
professional are probably just as good. Maybe sports is better for
scholarships because it involves the maximum of dumbing down of the general
public?. Training people to stay at home watching football games keeps then
stooped and out of politics.
Norman Chomskys ( ? spelling ) got some interesting opinions on this subject
as well.
>
>
> If you can grossly custom roll marijuana, you can get the same folks
> to do it to rice, corn, and wheat. Never ascribe to malice what can
> be explained by idiocy and bureaucracy.
Isn't it a fun ironic, that the very drug laws that claim to be against
something is also its very life blood. Try convincing me that the job of the
police is not to prevent market flooding. Cigarettes depend on their legality
to survive in the market. just an marijuana requires the laws against it to
survive. Otherwise old grandmas would be growing it in their gardens and it
would have the same value as hemp rope again. The produces are also voters
after all and much of the general public is stooped.
Muhammar
you now, it was on sale and I was realy curious about the taste - I
heard about it back around 1990 and was told by a felow chemist that
it tasted wonderful) and I did not like it!
There was this lingering aftertaste and I hated the mouthfeel of the
juice. I think Splenda does not taste any better than acesulfame K.
All the super-sweeteners tend to stick to the taste receptors tightly,
hence the aftertaste. I think it will be hard to develop a realy good
tasting sweetener (with the same texture of the drink) that is not a
bulk-quantity polyol.
Besides, splenda structure looks awfully like an antimetabolite, like
something you would use to treat cancer...
Muhammar
do you have any good web reference about RuBisCo? I cannot understand
why - after all these years - Nature would keep something this lazy if
there was a simple better solution.
CO2 chemical absorbtion from air does not seem like a great feat of
evolution to me, like the photoreduction.
Muhammar
...................................
The views and opinions stated within this page are not those of the
author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and
opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The
opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Organized
Crime Civilian Syndicate®. This web site is not connected with Science
or any of its fronts in any way.
Uncle Al
>
> Dear Uncle,
>
> do you have any good web reference about RuBisCo? I cannot understand
> why - after all these years - Nature would keep something this lazy if
> there was a simple better solution.
>
> CO2 chemical absorbtion from air does not seem like a great feat of
> evolution to me, like the photoreduction.
Google RuBisCO and any added terms to narrow the search, and try the
enzyme's full name in double quotes. It is quite a sordid tale of the
worst enzyme on Earth, an almost zero-level of funding to try
improving it, and a remarkable volume of whining bemoaning the fact
that it doesn't operate better.
We know what proteins and enzymes look like in thermophiles,
halophiles, baryphiles, acidophiles... and other organisms that like
insanely extreme conditions. We have contrasted them with their
brethren enjoying ambient conditions. We know about zinc fingers,
salt bridges, cystine cross-linking, and other things that stabilize
"fragile" protein against extreme environments. I have no doubt that
synthesizing an armor-plated RuBisCO is directly possible. A shotgun
blast of combinatorial active site meddling then opens the door.
If we had 10^6 turnovers/second and 99.99% efficiency I'd say doing
better would be quite the chore - though possible in princple. Given
the RuBisCO hovers hard by not working at all in both rate and yield,
it's hard to see how even a pariah lab nigger hated by his
golf-playing management couldn't double output on the first try. Tell
his group that they will share a 1% royalty on profits and watch the
sweat fly. (One presumes there is a whole building of Hollywood
accountants that will assure even $100 billion in sales barely breaks
even overall - no profits ever!)
Marvin Margoshes
I don't know any organic chemists who share the health-food-cultist view
that all compounds that contain chlorine are bad for you.
B.t.w, did you know that it is the ice in the drink that gets you drunk?
Eric Lucas
I use sucralose all the time--it stands up to hot acidic liquids like tea,
and I think it tastes more like sugar than any of the other artificial
sweeteners I've tried. Aspartame was a pretty close second, but it's got a
lingering sweet aftertaste that sucralose doesn't to me. Despite the
knee-jerk temptation to say "oh my god, it's an alkylating agent, it can't
be safe to eat", it doesn't concern me a bit, for two reasons that require
quite a bit of understanding of mechanistic organic chemistry and a modicum
of biochemistry. First, it's a very poor alkylating agent for several
reasons. C-Cl bonds aren't especially good electrophiles, and except in the
case of a very stable carbocation, only go by Sn2 chemistries. In all 3
cases in sucralose, they're quite hindered to backside attack (yes, even the
primary C-Cl bonds--for the same reason that isobuyl or neopentyl halides
are especially poor electrophiles). Anchimeric assistance from a
neighboring -OH often boosts electrophilicity by generating a highly
electrophilic oxirane. In all but one case in sucralose, this generates an
oxetane not an oxirane, and oxetanes aren't good electrophiles at all. The
one possibility for oxirane formation is at the 4-chloro position (secondary
C-Cl), but the cis-axial-equitorial arrangement of the OH and Cl would
require frontside attack or Sn1 chemistry--which ain't gonna happen.
Second, from what I understand of carcinogenesis, alkylating agents can only
cause problems if they alkylate the nucleobases in genetic material, either
DNA or RNA. Metabolism and excretion are two things that may prevent much
contact between sucralose and anything it might alkylate. I suspect that,
given its similarity to sugar, it's metabolized pretty rapidly (its lack of
calories and safety to diabetics is probably more related to dosage than
lack of metabolic pathways) and contact with DNA is probably minimal. It
would be interesting to know what the metabolites of sucralose are, where in
the cell the metabolism occurs, and what its excretion profile looks like.
Finally, particularly with respect to children, there's a big deal made
about the effect of some sweeteners on brain cells. I'm not sure this is
one of the issues raised by opponents of sucralose, but remember, to do
damage it would have to cross the blood-brain barrier easily. As I
understand it, the blood-brain barrier is pretty lipophilic, and these
molecules are probably quite lipophobic.
All that said, I'm happy to believe the studies that show it is safe. If
enough studies appear that credibly indict its safety *at the dosages I
use*, I may reconsider my stance. The cyclamate fiasco is too clear in my
mind to allow me a knee-jerk aversion.
Eric Lucas
Dourmind
> Dale Trynor wrote:
> One time I did think it would be a good experiment to try growing plants
> under an increased CO2 atmosphere + growth hormones and then do an artificial
> selection to see where it would eventually lead.
>
> Its to be noted that plant photosynthesis can go up to an amazing 30% energy
> efficiency if one were to use red light instead. Normal white light is only 1
> to 3 % efficiency as much of the energy is thrown away in wavelengths that
> are less efficiently used. Only optimistic point of this is that some light
> are moderately efficient in producing just the red. Red LED's were up to
> about 13% efficient about a year ago and an American Scientific article
> mentioned the record efficiency was up to 40%. An analogue of the sodium
> lights that use lithium instead are also potential possibilities. Its to be
> noted that about 3% of blue was needed for hormonal reasons.
[snip Uncle Al's stuff]
>
>
> I later realized that because hydroponics lighting is so inefficient that a
> completely different approach might be even better. If you are to experiment
> with this sort of artificial selection and or gene manipulation why not skip
> the use of light altogether and go the the gold. The whole idea of
> chemosynthesis enhanced hydroponics first came to me when I found out that a
> simple mix of chlorophyl and an enzyme would decompose water into its
> elements when exposed to light. A logical question came up on what would
> happen if I tried to grow plants within a hydrogen rich atmosphere and then
> selected the plants that did the best with the least light, could I
> eventually evolve plants that would grow almost exclusively on hydrogen and
> almost no light.
>
> Later questions involved using glucose from scrap cellulose and then looking
> at easily made synthetic sugars such as perhaps the one easily made from
> formaldehyde.
>
> Such plants could eventually evolve that would not require much stem or roots
> that would increase efficiency even more again. Probably a bit obvious but
> the advantages of hydroponics gardens that could be put anyplace even
> abandoned mines where heating is not a problem, as it is with greenhouses
> would result in a type of farming that could easily compete with the chaotic
> wild farming of today.
Congratulations, you have invented fungus, bacteria, and yeast. These
organisms already display the properties you have described… If you
have the energy you can split H2O to H2 and O2. Then react the H2
with CO2 for alcohols. Several, perhaps many, organisms can use the
alcohols directly as an energy and carbon resource. Or, it might be
possible to synthesize sugars efficiently from the alcohols and save
the microbes the trouble.
Of course, such a system would be more difficult to construct and
maintain than a field of dirt with various plants largely taking care
of themselves. It would only be worthwhile where dirt, space, and
even atmosphere were largely absent and very expensive. It would also
require considerable electrical energy. So real astronauts must learn
to like yeast burgers and fungus soup. Well they won't be running
about the kuiper belt looking for cabbages and caviar anyway.
dourmind
J. Wellington Wimpy
> golf-playing management couldn't double output on the first try. Tell
> his group that they will share a 1% royalty on profits and watch the
> sweat fly. (One presumes there is a whole building of Hollywood
> accountants that will assure even $100 billion in sales barely breaks
> even overall - no profits ever!)
Wouldn't work on me. As the cartoonist Robert Crumb once said, "Always
insist on a percentage of the gross!"... He found out the hard way
(viz., "Keep on Truckin'", "Fritz the Cat"). Somehow he ended up owing
tax on royalies he never received, or some such SNAFU.
-jww
Oscar Lanzi III
naturally -- basically stuff that stands the test of time.
--OL
Uncle Al
>
> No. Where there is a choice, I'd rather stick to chemicals that evolved
> naturally -- basically stuff that stands the test of time.
Where are the Enviro-whiners?
okra - sterculic acid (anti-metabolite)
celery - psoralins (light-stimulated carcinogens)
crucifers - goitrin (turns off your thyroid)
litchee - hypoglycin-A (L-a-amino-b-[methylene
cyclopropyl]propionic acid)
peanuts - aflatoxcins (fungal metabolites; hepatic carcinogens)
lima beans - cyanogenic glycosides
carrots - carotatoxin (neurotxin)
mushrooms - hydrazines (carcinogen; holy Alar, Batman!)
tomatoes - tomatine (neurotoxin), quercetin glycosides (carcinogens)
broccoli - benzpyrene (carcinogin), goitrin (shuts down thyroid)
potatoes - solanine (toxin; causes spina bifida), chaconine
(neutrotoxin), isoflavones (estrogens), arsenic
cassava - linamarin (cyanogenic glycoside)
broad bean - vicine (hemolytic)
chick pea - beta-N-oxalylamino-L-alanine (lathyrogenic factor)
fiddlehead - ptaquiloside (leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, hemolysis;
bladder and intestinal carcinogen)
comfrey - pyrrolizidine alkaloids (hepatotoxin)
cabbage - thiocyanates (shuts down thyroid)
spinach - phytanic acid (chelates iron adn zinc - no absorption)
soy - genistin, daidzin, coumesterol (phytoestrogens)
wheat germ - phytoestrogens
nutmeg - myristicin (hallucinogen, spasmodic)
mustard - allyl isothiocyanate (war gas)
alfalfa sprouts - canavanine (arginine mimic; highly toxic to growing
mammals)
Cultures with heavy soy consumption have feminized men - small
stature, underdeveloped genitalia. Is that natural enough for you?
Muhammar
Now, the Yperite was called 'mustard gas' because of the stench of the
(not-so-pure) warfare agent. Sulfur yperite is
bis(2-chloroethyl)thioether. But these potent alkylation agents are
not the isothiocyanate compounds from mustard. You would know by
now...
Questor Inquestor
If it has already been approved for use by the FDA, then it is not
completely unfeasible that many of you may have missed the list of
ingredients on the size of a container, that had splenda as an
ingredient. Many may have already done so without noticing it.
Dale A Trynor
Dale Trynor wrote:
Actually the more common plants will actually grow better under an enriched
carbon dioxide atmosphere suggesting that this is the limiting factor. They
are already growing at less than their potential because of the scarcity of
CO2 and a more efficient RuBisCO would do little good. If you were to
increase this efficiency you would need to also increase their ability to
extract CO2 from the atmosphere to begin with befor any gains could be
relised. Alternatively if you are growing them under an artificial semi
closed environment you can easily increase the CO2 concentration. I am told
that to much will burn the plants as they are now. It may well be much
easier to use increased CO2 with aquatic plants as the extra CO2 may be
somewhat contained without the need for a chamber and or also be easily
produced by bacteria. Its also possible that they may also prove to be
better able to access the extra CO2 without modification.
4 carbon cycle plants that use it more carbon more efficiently don't usually
gain any advantage from an increased CO2, however they are a minority. I
believe it includes corn and sugarcane.
Questor Inquestor
Admittably, on notable point on the side of splenda is that it is a
chlorinated carbohydrate. DDT and PCBs were chlorinated organics that
were probably metabolised as fats, and were generally lipid soluble
molecules.
Those chlorinated organics were metabolised in the liver, where the
chlorines were pulled off and formed free radicals, crosslinking with
other molecules as a byproduct of the fat processing enzymes.
A chlorinated molecule acting as a sugar rather than a fat might
processed through a different set of enzymes, at different points in
the body.
Also, being linked to a carbohydrate, it would seem that probably it
could be more easily processed than something locked up in a more
inert organic molecule like a biphenyl.
I would guess that it is at least theoretically possible that if you
spread Splenda across a field, that it would probably not linger in
the field like DDT would.
Questor Inquestor
> 4 carbon cycle plants that use it more carbon more efficiently don't usually
> gain any advantage from an increased CO2, however they are a minority. I
> believe it includes corn and sugarcane.
>
I have heard that the efficiency of C3 versus C4 plants changes with
temperature. Supposedly many tropical plants, which statistically
have a greater likelihood of being C4 plants, will not benefit from
the fertilizing effect of higher CO2 concentration levels, in relation
to C3 plants, which are more common in temperate regions.
Uncle Al
I didn't say they were. Allyl isothiocyanate is classifed as a
chemical munition. Try buying some.
hanson
> Muhammar wrote:
> >
> > It is only good that my mom did not like soya!
> >
> > Now, the Yperite was called 'mustard gas' because of the stench of
the
> > (not-so-pure) warfare agent. Sulfur yperite is
> > bis(2-chloroethyl)thioether. But these potent alkylation agents
are
> > not the isothiocyanate compounds from mustard. You would know by
> > now...
>
> I didn't say they were. Allyl isothiocyanate is classifed as a
> chemical munition. Try buying some.
>
Are you sure ?
http://www.ensia.inra.fr/~courtois/fidel/Lisbon/flaves/sec2/sec24.html
.
"In the black mustard, the allyl isothiocyanate is the responsible of
the
pungent characteristics of this condiment."
When did they classify this a chemical munition? Do you have an url?
hanson
RP Henry
"hanson" <han...@quick.net> wrote in message
news:Pt95a.13391$YU4.1...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
Side note: Aldrich has it for sale at $15.30/100 grams. No restrictions
noted other than HIGHLY TOXIC CANCER SUSPECT AGENT.
Eric Lucas
"RP Henry" <richard...@saic.com> wrote in message
news:3e54d9b0$1...@cpns1.saic.com...
Note, however, that frequently Aldrich's wares require a hardcopy "official"
signature on file before they will ship to you--and then only to recognized
chemical companies with preexisting accounts. This is even true of things
like acetone, whose main illicit use is as a solvent in some drug synthesis
reactions. Such restrictions never appear in the catalog, until you
actually try to order.
Eric Lucas
Eric Lucas
"Questor Inquestor" <qinqu...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:28416002.03022...@posting.google.com...
> chlorinated carbohydrate. DDT and PCBs were chlorinated organics that
> were probably metabolised as fats, and were generally lipid soluble
> molecules.
Not even remotely comparable. Both DDT and PCBs are contain chlorinated
aromatics, which appear to be really nasty actors for one reason or the
other--none of which I would be likely to ascribe to C-Cl bond rupture.
I'll bet Uncle Al's body (and that of any other organic chemist who has
spent more than 10 hours in the lab in the last 20 years) has absorbed far
greater quantities of CH2Cl2 *and* CHCl3/CDC3 than *anyone* has ever
ingested of sucralose...and both CHCl3 and CH2Cl2 contain much more reactive
C-Cl bonds than any of those in sucralose. C'mon, people, let's think a
little before we have these knee-jerk reactions based on a
half-understanding of the underlying facts.
Eric Lucas
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti
wrote:
>Muhammar wrote:
>> Now, the Yperite was called 'mustard gas' because of the stench of the
>> (not-so-pure) warfare agent. Sulfur yperite is
>> bis(2-chloroethyl)thioether. But these potent alkylation agents are
>> not the isothiocyanate compounds from mustard. You would know by
>> now...
>I didn't say they were. Allyl isothiocyanate is classifed as a
>chemical munition.
Allyl isothiocyanate is not listed on the CWC schedules of chemicals;
see:
http://www.opcw.org/html/db/cwc/eng/cwc_annex_on_chemicals.html#b
Who else besides OPCW classifies things as "chemical munitions?" I'm
unaware of any evidence that allyl isothiocyanate was used in a
chemical munition; is there some source that makes this claim?
> Try buying some.
There are any number of reasons why it might be difficult to purchase;
possible legal liability in selling toxic suspect carcinogens in pure
form to nonprofessionals for starters.
Regards,
George
**********************************************************************
Dr. George O. Bizzigotti Telephone: (703) 610-2115
Mitretek Systems, Inc. Fax: (703) 610-1558
3150 Fairview Park Drive South E-Mail: gbiz...@mitretek.org
Falls Church, Virginia, 22042-4519
**********************************************************************
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Jonathan Silverlight
Eric Lucas <eal...@worldnet.att.net> writes
Minimal snip, but I want to keep the context. Isn't that a separate
issue? No chemical supplier will ship to anyone except another firm or
an academic or government institution, and they will want an account and
probably a reference from a reputable customer.
--
mail to jsilverlight AT merseia.fsnet.co.uk is welcome
Michael Press
Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
In general, how much?
Specifically, how much solanine in a scrupulously pared potato?
Now I know why I grate a third of a nutmeg into my
25ml of rum then filter it into the 200 ml egg nog.
--
Michael Press
Uncle Al
Most of the solanine is in the skin of the potato. Serous levels in
commercial cultivars are only encountered, mostly, if the potato is
grown or stored exposed to light (green skin means death).
One level tablespoon of commercial powdered nutmeg consumed in a glass
of milk will have you drooling and spasming nicely. Some not
insignificant fraction of folks get heart failure and whatnot, so
nutmeg as a recreational pharmaceutical is contraindicated.
Alfalfa sprouts really take down kids. Soya should not be fed to
males or to their mothers while pregnant with them. Celery Handler's
Disease is serious - skin ulceration that will not heal and
carcinogenesis. One of the world champs for psoralin-induced tissue
destruction is giant hogweed.
hanson
> > > stature, underdeveloped genitalia. Is that natural enough for
you?
> >
> > In general, how much?
> > Specifically, how much solanine in a scrupulously pared potato?
> >
> > Now I know why I grate a third of a nutmeg into my
> > 25ml of rum then filter it into the 200 ml egg nog.
>
> Most of the solanine is in the skin of the potato. Serous levels in
> commercial cultivars are only encountered, mostly, if the potato is
> grown or stored exposed to light (green skin means death).
>
> One level tablespoon of commercial powdered nutmeg consumed
> in a glass of milk will have you drooling and spasming nicely.
> Some not
> insignificant fraction of folks get heart failure and whatnot, so
> nutmeg as a recreational pharmaceutical is contraindicated.
>
>
Till the 60's 2-3 tablespoons of commercial powdered nutmeg
boiled up in a glass of red wine was the standard abortion inducer
(besides coat hangers) for the poor or the bashful elite. Regular
side-effects were permanent loss of hearing as an above whatnot.
For this reason it also fell out of favor for this purpose.
hanson
>
[Al]
Jonathan Silverlight
<pre...@nevermind.org> writes
>In article <3E5426F3...@hate.spam.net>,
> Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> wrote:
>
>> Oscar Lanzi III wrote:
>> >
>> > No. Where there is a choice, I'd rather stick to chemicals that evolved
>> > naturally -- basically stuff that stands the test of time.
>>
>> Where are the Enviro-whiners?
>>
>> okra - sterculic acid (anti-metabolite)
>> celery - psoralins (light-stimulated carcinogens)
>> crucifers - goitrin (turns off your thyroid)
>> litchee - hypoglycin-A (L-a-amino-b-[methylene
>> cyclopropyl]propionic acid)
>> peanuts - aflatoxcins (fungal metabolites; hepatic carcinogens)
I'm seriously bored with Uncle Al's moanings about "enviro-whiners" but
I'll just note that aflatoxins aren't a normal component of peanuts;
they are a contaminant and monitored, and if they are found the shipment
is condemned. I should check but I doubt there is even a set MRL; any
amount is enough.
> mustard - allyl isothiocyanate (war gas)
Wow. Now we know what Saddam's secret weapon really is. He didn't buy it
from Germany and the US after all.
Mike Darrett
>
> > Tim Dellinger wrote:
> > >
> > > Uncle Al <Uncl...@hate.spam.net> writes:
> > >
> > > >RuBisCO is the critical carbon-fixing enzyme in photosynthesis. It is
> > > >the slowest (a few turnovers/second) most inefficient (1% net output)
> > > >enzyme known. About 30% of all soluble protein in leaves is RuBisCO,
> > > >making it the most abundant protein on the planet. Now then... If a
> > > >Caltech summer student brewed up a recombinant RuBisCO that did a
> > > >paltry 50 turnovers/second at 10% overall efficiency, farm
> > > >productivity could multiply by
> > > >a hundredfold.
> > >
> > > Is carbon-fixing the rate limiting step? I always assumed that
> > > RuBisCo is only as efficient as it has to be, and any increases
> > > in efficiency of the carbon-fixing step wouldn't be seen due
> > > to other (I can only speculate which exactly) rate limiting steps.
>
> Dale Trynor wrote:
> One time I did think it would be a good experiment to try growing plants
> under an increased CO2 atmosphere + growth hormones and then do an artificial
> selection to see where it would eventually lead.
>
> Its to be noted that plant photosynthesis can go up to an amazing 30% energy
> efficiency if one were to use red light instead. Normal white light is only 1
> to 3 % efficiency as much of the energy is thrown away in wavelengths that
> are less efficiently used. Only optimistic point of this is that some light
> are moderately efficient in producing just the red. Red LED's were up to
> about 13% efficient about a year ago and an American Scientific article
> mentioned the record efficiency was up to 40%. An analogue of the sodium
> lights that use lithium instead are also potential possibilities. Its to be
> noted that about 3% of blue was needed for hormonal reasons.
Sure, but sunlight at 1000 W/m^2 would still give 10-30 W/m^2 of
usable light if one assumes plants only utilize 1-3% of available
wavelengths.
I remember reading somewhere (technical article at the UC Davis
library) that TSP will make plants grow very large, very quickly
(about an order of magnitude larger). I don't remember if those were
C3 or C4 plants though.
My biochemistry's really rusty - will an increase in CO2 concentration
help C4 plants (corn, sugar) at all, or will there be no effect? And
what is this "burning" of plants with excess CO2 - what is the
mechanism of burning?
Mike Darrett
d h
last year. Gatorade's Propel Fitness water, Reebok's Fitness Water, among
others.
The list of ingredients includes: "Water, sucrose syrup, ... sucralose ...
acesulfame potassium ..."
Something to offend everyone, I guess.
Three sweeteners added to it (and it still tasted funny).