What does organic really mean

[Seymore4Head]

I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.

I guess that is not technically true.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-ocean-worlds-solar-system-1.4067177?cmp=rss

[raven1]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
<Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:

>I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.

In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
><Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>
>>I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>
>In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.

Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.

And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.

>>I guess that is not technically true.
>>
>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-ocean-worlds-solar-system-1.4067177?cmp=rss

--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
>><Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>>
>>In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
>
>
>Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.
>
>And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.

For completeness, I point out that in biology, organic refers to
compounds from living systems. So synthetic fibers like nylon are
described as chemically organic but not biologically organic, except
when bacteria produce it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
>><Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>>
>>In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
>
>
>Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.
>
>And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.

As for me, I'm *still* searching for inorganic veggies...

>>>I guess that is not technically true.
>>>
>>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-ocean-worlds-solar-system-1.4067177?cmp=rss
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[raven1]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>

wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
>><Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>>
>>In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
>
>
>Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.

Yes, i was trying to keep it simple.

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <h5tveclfdajcdi1jn...@4ax.com>,

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> >On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
> ><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
> >><Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
> >>
> >>>I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
> >>
> >>In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
> >
> >
> >Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.
> >
> >And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.
>
> As for me, I'm *still* searching for inorganic veggies...

I can't help with that, but the market near my house does sell organic
sea salt.

Andre

--
To email remove 'invalid' & replace 'gm' with well known Google mail service.

[jillery]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 19:35:35 -0400, raven1

<quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
>><quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
>>><Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>>>
>>>In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
>>
>>
>>Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.
>
>Yes, i was trying to keep it simple.

Yes, I was trying to be ironic.

>>And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.
>>
>>
>>>>I guess that is not technically true.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-ocean-worlds-solar-system-1.4067177?cmp=rss

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 20:55:13 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

Oy... :-(

[RonO]

Bits of little sea critters and their waste products add to the flavor.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

USDA definitions

https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/organic

The mutagens in plants like those produced in orange peels are organic
as long as you don't use chemical fertilizers, herbicides or
insecticides. The organic mutagens and toxic chemicals will be produced
in larger quantities in response to herbivory (mostly insect damage,
plants usually do not want to be eaten) and are already at higher
concentrations than any residual insecticide left after treatment over 3
orders of magnitude greater than allowable insecticide residue in some
cases. So if you don't mind biting into a wormy apple and just eat the
"clean" parts, that apple has initiated defense responses and some of
those organic chemicals aren't very good for you, but it is all natural.

Scientific definitions as in organic chemistry.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_chemistry

Ron Okimoto

[Wolffan]

On 2017 Apr 13, Bob Casanova wrote
(in article<h5tveclfdajcdi1jn...@4ax.com>):

> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
> > <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
> > > <Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
> > >
> > > In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
> >
> >
> > Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.
> >
> > And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.
>
> As for me, I'm *still* searching for inorganic veggies...

The advertising bumf which _really_ annoys me includes stuff like
‘Cholesterol-free’ when applied to products like peanuts. Off _course_
peanuts are cholesterol-free; they’re a _plant_ product, and cholesterol is
an _animal_ fat. Seeing ‘cholesterol-free!’ or ‘fightscholesterol!'
on the label, especially when there’s a warning that the can of peanuts
‘may contain nuts’ makes me wish for five minutes alone with my chainsaw
and some advertising execs. Just five minutes.

Grrrrr....

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article
<0001HW.1EA2609E00...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2017 Apr 13, Bob Casanova wrote
> (in article<h5tveclfdajcdi1jn...@4ax.com>):
>
> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >
> > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
> > > <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
> > > > <Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
> > > >
> > > > In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
> > >
> > >
> > > Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.
> > >
> > > And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.
> >
> > As for me, I'm *still* searching for inorganic veggies...
>
> The advertising bumf which _really_ annoys me includes stuff like
> ‘Cholesterol-free’ when applied to products like peanuts. Off _course_
> peanuts are cholesterol-free; they’re a _plant_ product, and cholesterol is
> an _animal_ fat. Seeing ‘cholesterol-free!’ or ‘fightscholesterol!'
> on the label, especially when there’s a warning that the can of peanuts
> ‘may contain nuts’ makes me wish for five minutes alone with my chainsaw
> and some advertising execs. Just five minutes.

In fairness, you can't really blame them for the 'may contain peanuts'
warning since that's a legal requirement (at least in Canada - YMMV).
You can, of course, still blame the legislators for requiring it even in
particularly obvious cases.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sat, 15 Apr 2017 10:07:26 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Wolffan <AKWo...@gmail.com>:

>On 2017 Apr 13, Bob Casanova wrote
>(in article<h5tveclfdajcdi1jn...@4ax.com>):
>
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:46:23 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by jillery<69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>> > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:16:02 -0400, raven1
>> > <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Thu, 13 Apr 2017 13:00:16 -0400, Seymore4Head
>> > > <Seymor...@Hotmail.invalid> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>> > >
>> > > In chemistry, the term means matter that contains carbon atoms.
>> >
>> >
>> > Mostly true, excluding inorganic exceptions, like CO2 and carbonates.
>> >
>> > And don't even get me started on advertisings' abuse of the word.
>>
>> As for me, I'm *still* searching for inorganic veggies...
>
>The advertising bumf which _really_ annoys me includes stuff like
>‘Cholesterol-free’ when applied to products like peanuts. Off _course_
>peanuts are cholesterol-free; they’re a _plant_ product, and cholesterol is
>an _animal_ fat. Seeing ‘cholesterol-free!’ or ‘fightscholesterol!'
>on the label, especially when there’s a warning that the can of peanuts
>‘may contain nuts’ makes me wish for five minutes alone with my chainsaw
>and some advertising execs. Just five minutes.

Same here, in a dark alley.

I'm waiting for "Gluten-Free" toilet paper.

>Grrrrr....

Yep.

[Ernest Major]

On 15/04/2017 15:07, Wolffan wrote:
> The advertising bumf which _really_ annoys me includes stuff like
> ‘Cholesterol-free’ when applied to products like peanuts. Off _course_
> peanuts are cholesterol-free; they’re a _plant_ product, and cholesterol is
> an _animal_ fat. Seeing ‘cholesterol-free!’ or ‘fightscholesterol!'
> on the label, especially when there’s a warning that the can of peanuts
> ‘may contain nuts’ makes me wish for five minutes alone with my chainsaw
> and some advertising execs. Just five minutes.

Apparently peanuts aren't cholesterol-free.

http://cbc-wb01x.chemistry.ohio-state.edu/~gopalan.5/file/7B.PDF

--
alias Ernest Major

[Mark Isaak]

I have been growing my own free-range apricots.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"Ignorance, allied with power, is the most ferocious enemy justice can
have." - James Baldwin

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 16 Apr 2017 18:10:26 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mark Isaak
<eciton@curiousta/xyz/xonomy.net>:

Be sure to post a link to a roundup-time video...

[Mark Isaak]

"Free-range" means only that you give an opportunity to roam, not that
they actually roam. None of the apricots ever chooses to move far from
the tree, despite an absence of fences to constrain them.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 17 Apr 2017 19:01:27 -0700, the following appeared

Point...

[J. J. Lodder]

Except that there aren't any.
The sea salt (which is almost chemically pure NaCl)
is carefully washed before being packed,

Jan

[jillery]

Of course, washing sea salt presents a conundrum to us similar to
washing a sugar cube before eating it does to a raccoon.

Also, washing sea salt removes the organic from it, and so its appeal
to purists.

In fairness, labels helps to distinguish organic sea salt from table
salt, which typically has added aluminosilicate and iodine, which
appear to cause hysteria among said purists.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 02 May 2017 10:25:06 -0400, the following appeared

>Of course, washing sea salt presents a conundrum to us similar to
>washing a sugar cube before eating it does to a raccoon.
>
>Also, washing sea salt removes the organic from it, and so its appeal
>to purists.
>
>In fairness, labels helps to distinguish organic sea salt from table
>salt, which typically has added aluminosilicate and iodine, which
>appear to cause hysteria among said purists.

The problem is that "organic" has become a marketing term
(like "all natural") rather than an accurate descriptor.
NaCl is not organic in any rational sense.

[Greg Guarino]

On 4/15/2017 12:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:

>
> I'm waiting for "Gluten-Free" toilet paper.

I have actually seen Gluten Free Shampoo.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Andre G. Isaak]

In article <bqihgc585lg565tvg...@4ax.com>,

Sort of like non-GMO auto parts, which I predict will be an emerging
market.

Apart from the organic sea salt, the same market also sells vegan animal
crackers which has always perplexed me.

[jillery]

On Tue, 02 May 2017 11:12:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Yes, that's another problem.

[Burkhard]

Greg Guarino wrote:
> On 4/15/2017 12:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm waiting for "Gluten-Free" toilet paper.
>
> I have actually seen Gluten Free Shampoo.

If my brother's youngest had coeliac disease, that would be a life saver
- that or shampoos that don't smell of edible stuff.

[Tim Norfolk]

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 1:04:58 PM UTC-4, Seymore4Head wrote:
> I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>

> I guess that is not technically true.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-ocean-worlds-solar-system-1.4067177?cmp=rss

My Labrador seems to think that the term applies to anything that she can swallow.

[J. J. Lodder]

> Of course, washing sea salt presents a conundrum to us similar to
> washing a sugar cube before eating it does to a raccoon.

Yes, if you don't understand how it is done.

Jan

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 16:28:17 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

<http://www.thekitchn.com/come-along-on-a-159478>

*****************************************
The salt is rinsed first in a brine solution to wash out calcium and
other impurities, and then in actual Bay water to dissolve the
magnesium chloride. What you're left with is 99.8% pure sodium
chloride sea salt.
******************************************

So I suppose your right, using some interpretations of "almost pure".

Are you going to claim the above is an inferior American process?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 02 May 2017 12:36:05 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "Andre G. Isaak"
<agi...@gm.invalid>:

Ooooh, I like that one!

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 2 May 2017 14:26:56 -0400, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Greg Guarino <gdgu...@gmail.com>:

>On 4/15/2017 12:49 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm waiting for "Gluten-Free" toilet paper.
>
>I have actually seen Gluten Free Shampoo.

....which confirms that, despite the evidence provided by a
number of posts here, "idiotic" and "false" are not
necessarily synonymous.

"All Natural"
"Organic"
"Free Range"
And, as you note, "Gluten Free"

All marketing hype aimed at the cognition-challenged.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 03 May 2017 12:34:06 -0400, the following appeared

Is a bear Catholic? Does the Pope...

Well, you know what I mean.

[John Bode]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 1:39:53 PM UTC-5, Andre G. Isaak wrote:

[snip]

> Apart from the organic sea salt, the same market also sells vegan animal
> crackers which has always perplexed me.

That just makes my head hurt.

[Harry K]

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> In article <h5tveclfdajcdi1jn...@4ax.com>,
> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>

<snip>

>
> I can't help with that, but the market near my house does sell organic
> sea salt.
>
> Andre

In the grocery the other day passed one of those towers at the end of the aisle stacked with water bottle "Real Water". I didn't buy, I'm waiting for the "Organic Water".

[J. J. Lodder]

Indeed.

> Are you going to claim the above is an inferior American process?

Ah, you are being a silly American again.
Why, can't you really help yourself?

And nothing particularly American about it.
The Romans already harvested sea salt on a large scale 2000 years ago,
(at Les Salins d'Aigues Mortes for example)

Jan

PS You might like the picture at
<http://www.location-aigues-mortes.com/salin-du-midi>
Some of the washing is done simply by storing the salt outdoors,
in the rain.
As for scale: these salt hills are about 20 m high.

[Seymore4Head]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 12:31:08 -0700 (PDT), Harry K <tur...@q.com>
wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqXFrs6quvE

[jillery]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 21:36:43 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Says the silly jingoist who makes a point of posting silly anti-U.S.
assertions.

>And nothing particularly American about it.
>The Romans already harvested sea salt on a large scale 2000 years ago,
>(at Les Salins d'Aigues Mortes for example)

So you're saying the above is an inferior Roman process.

>Jan
>
>PS You might like the picture at
><http://www.location-aigues-mortes.com/salin-du-midi>
>Some of the washing is done simply by storing the salt outdoors,
>in the rain.
>As for scale: these salt hills are about 20 m high.

[RonO]

You obviously haven't seen what some companies are selling as "Sea
Salt". It is not pure white and they even list some of the other
minerals in it. It is not supposed to be refined and should contain
anything that has settled in with the crystals that are harvested.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

It's those "settled-in" bits what makes it organic, dontchaknow.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 3 May 2017 12:31:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harry K <tur...@q.com>:

The sort with the pond scum floating on the top?

[J. J. Lodder]

Google brings up white, white, and white, for 'organic sea salt'
The exception is Celtic sea salt,
which is brown from being smoked for flavour.

> It is not supposed to be refined and should contain
> anything that has settled in with the crystals that are harvested.

That's nonsense. Even very 'organic' evaporation pools
produce quite white salt. See for example:
<http://www.salins.com/wp-content/plugins/responsive-full-width-backgrou
nd-slider/inc/images/background-3.jpg>

If you want it non-white you'll have to add junk artificially,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

And you'll make them up when not there.

> >And nothing particularly American about it.
> >The Romans already harvested sea salt on a large scale 2000 years ago,
> >(at Les Salins d'Aigues Mortes for example)
>
>
> So you're saying the above is an inferior Roman process.

It is a perfectly good Roman process,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Wed, 3 May 2017 12:31:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harry K <tur...@q.com>:
>
> >On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> >> In article <h5tveclfdajcdi1jn...@4ax.com>,
> >> Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>
> ><snip>
> >>
> >> I can't help with that, but the market near my house does sell organic
> >> sea salt.
> >>
> >> Andre
> >
> >
> >In the grocery the other day passed one of those towers at the end of the
> >aisle stacked with water bottle "Real Water". I didn't buy, I'm waiting
> >for the "Organic Water".
>
> The sort with the pond scum floating on the top?

Ask your cat.
She will refuse tap water if she can find a flowerpot, a vase,
or a puddle outdoors,

Jan

[jillery]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 22:45:23 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

I have no need to make them up. You provide all the trolling line
needed to entangle yourself.

>> >And nothing particularly American about it.
>> >The Romans already harvested sea salt on a large scale 2000 years ago,
>> >(at Les Salins d'Aigues Mortes for example)
>>
>>
>> So you're saying the above is an inferior Roman process.
>
>It is a perfectly good Roman process,

Too bad for you Romans weren't mentioned in the article.

[jillery]

If you're going to invoke pets, ask your dog. The toilet water they
typically prefer has plenty of organics in it.

[RonO]

You are obviously wrong. I googled organic sea salt and three links
down is this. Not only that, but I've seen organic sea salt being sold
in the stores with green bits in it that looked like bits of algae.

http://www.livestrong.com/article/196020-what-is-organic-unrefined-sea-salt/

Ron Okimoto

[J. J. Lodder]

Who cares about your article?
All it shows is that you googled for a source that confirms what I said,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Obviously a crackpot site.
Or do you really believe that
====
Organic unrefined sea salt contains 2 percent trace minerals, which vary
depending on the geography of the salt. These beneficial minerals are
destroyed in mined salt during refinement, according to CureZone.com
=====
'beneficial minerals' can be 'destroyed' by refining?

For me conservation of matter applies,

Jan

PS European consumer law strictly regulates
what can be sold as table salt.
In particular it may not contain 'beneficial elements'
such as copper, arsenic, mercury, etc. at more than the ppm level.

[RonO]

They are lost during washing and recrystalization. How do you think
refined salt gets to form those nice evenly sized crystals. What
happens when you just grind the larger crystals?

>
> For me conservation of matter applies,

When I started in science we were recrystallizing acrylamide to bring it
to the purity we needed for our electrophoresis. Under the right
conditions you can get rid of the impurities (they stay in solution or
precipitate before the crystals you want to keep). Think about it.

Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt

"Unrefined sea salt contains small amounts of magnesium and calcium
halides and sulfates, traces of algal products"

>
> Jan
>
> PS European consumer law strictly regulates
> what can be sold as table salt.
> In particular it may not contain 'beneficial elements'
> such as copper, arsenic, mercury, etc. at more than the ppm level.
>
>

So they faked the pictures too. We are not talking about Europe. Do
you understand how much like a creationist argument that you are putting
forward. Have you ever seen this junk sold by these health food nuts?
I've seen different colored organic salt. The worst looked like it had
dirt or clay in it, but it could have been just about anything. My
guess is that a major store like Whole Foods would have some of the
offerings that the health nut vitamin stores sell. Some of these places
actually sell "edible" clay (yes literally edible dirt). Do you see
that in Europe?

The facts are just the facts and you aren't going to change them with
baseless denial.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Sat, 6 May 2017 12:29:17 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Who cares about what you said? Apparently not you.

[Bob Casanova]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 22:45:26 +0200, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder):

I have no cat, but none of my dogs have made any distinction
between tap water (well or commercial) and puddles, ponds or
any other source.

Which has nothing to do with my question, which was
obviously not intended seriously.

[Robert Carnegie]

About destroying - salts, in particular, are
chemical compounds in a form of A + B = AB.
If a refining process removes A or removes B
from the product - as it may (in salt, the
A and B dissolve in water separately) -
then arguably the AB has been destroyed.

Rather like converting water to separate
hydrogen and oxygen - but that is more likely
to be done with electricity - and the water
is destroyed?

Ionised (salt) calcium in your diet is
important to rebuild your bones - which ought
to be happening all the time - but I wouldn't
particularly want it in table-salt.

[J. J. Lodder]

Sure, dogs are stupid. Is confirmation needed?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

> > Obviously a crackpot site.
> > Or do you really believe that
> > ====
> > Organic unrefined sea salt contains 2 percent trace minerals, which vary
> > depending on the geography of the salt. These beneficial minerals are
> > destroyed in mined salt during refinement, according to CureZone.com
> > =====
> > 'beneficial minerals' can be 'destroyed' by refining?
> >
> > For me conservation of matter applies,
> >
> > Jan
> >
> > PS European consumer law strictly regulates
> > what can be sold as table salt.
> > In particular it may not contain 'beneficial elements'
> > such as copper, arsenic, mercury, etc. at more than the ppm level.
>
> About destroying - salts, in particular, are
> chemical compounds in a form of A + B = AB.

Not really. All there is are A+ and B- ions.
They can be present stuck together in a crystal
or in aquous solution.

> If a refining process removes A or removes B
> from the product - as it may (in salt, the
> A and B dissolve in water separately) -
> then arguably the AB has been destroyed.

Except for that it was never present to begin with.
All there is are ions, in or out of solution

> Rather like converting water to separate
> hydrogen and oxygen - but that is more likely
> to be done with electricity - and the water
> is destroyed?

That is correct, since in that case molecules are destroyed.
You shouldn't conflate physical and chemical processes.

> Ionised (salt) calcium in your diet is
> important to rebuild your bones - which ought
> to be happening all the time - but I wouldn't
> particularly want it in table-salt.

Right. It has a nasty taste,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

You didn't understand how salt can be washed, (see above)
so I posed it as a little puzzle, challenging you to think about it.
You didn't, and googled up some reference instead.
Your reference may have been educational for you,
I don't need it,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

> > Obviously a crackpot site.
> > Or do you really believe that
> > ====
> > Organic unrefined sea salt contains 2 percent trace minerals, which vary
> > depending on the geography of the salt. These beneficial minerals are
> > destroyed in mined salt during refinement, according to CureZone.com
> > =====
> > 'beneficial minerals' can be 'destroyed' by refining?
>
> They are lost during washing and recrystalization. How do you think
> refined salt gets to form those nice evenly sized crystals. What
> happens when you just grind the larger crystals?

Table salt grinders are unknown in your part of the world?

> > For me conservation of matter applies,
>
> When I started in science we were recrystallizing acrylamide to bring it
> to the purity we needed for our electrophoresis. Under the right
> conditions you can get rid of the impurities (they stay in solution or
> precipitate before the crystals you want to keep). Think about it.

Sea salt is not refined by recrystalisation.
That would be far to energy-intensive,
and there is no need for it
It is pure enouh as is.

> Wiki:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt
>
> "Unrefined sea salt contains small amounts of magnesium and calcium
> halides and sulfates, traces of algal products"

Right, and a mild rinse is all that is needed to get rid of those.
In addition sea salt stored in the open air
acquires pollutants from the air that also need to be washed of.

> >
> > Jan
> >
> > PS European consumer law strictly regulates
> > what can be sold as table salt.
> > In particular it may not contain 'beneficial elements'
> > such as copper, arsenic, mercury, etc. at more than the ppm level.
> >
> >
>
> So they faked the pictures too. We are not talking about Europe. Do
> you understand how much like a creationist argument that you are putting
> forward. Have you ever seen this junk sold by these health food nuts?
> I've seen different colored organic salt. The worst looked like it had
> dirt or clay in it, but it could have been just about anything. My
> guess is that a major store like Whole Foods would have some of the
> offerings that the health nut vitamin stores sell. Some of these places
> actually sell "edible" clay (yes literally edible dirt). Do you see
> that in Europe?
>
> The facts are just the facts and you aren't going to change them with
> baseless denial.

You want me to deny that America is full of nutters?
Take comfort, powerfood goeroes and clay eaters are not unknown
in Right-Pondia,

Jan

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 11:04:58 +0200, the following appeared in

Well, I guess that's one way to interpret "Dogs will drink
from any source, but cats prefer contaminated water"...

[RonO]

They have salt mines in Europe. What happens to the large chucks of salt?

>
>>> For me conservation of matter applies,
>>
>> When I started in science we were recrystallizing acrylamide to bring it
>> to the purity we needed for our electrophoresis. Under the right
>> conditions you can get rid of the impurities (they stay in solution or
>> precipitate before the crystals you want to keep). Think about it.
>
> Sea salt is not refined by recrystalisation.
> That would be far to energy-intensive,
> and there is no need for it
> It is pure enouh as is.

This is getting ridiculous. Read the Wiki. Refined salt is recrystalized.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill Rogers]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_salt

No mention of recrystallization in the production of sea salt.

[RonO]

We will have to start reviewing the science of being stupid.

http://www.mortonsalt.com/business-product/refined-sea-salt-and-tfc-refined-sea-salt/

QUOTE:
Morton Refined Sea Salt is harvested from the waters of the San
Francisco Bay. This food grade sea salt is recrystallized to produce
cubical crystals that are extremely uniform in size. There are no additives.
END QUOTE:

This is what is settling in with the salt crystals in the salt ponds.

https://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view.php?id=2631

Again the quote from my wiki source:
QUOTE:

Unrefined sea salt contains small amounts of magnesium and calcium

halides and sulfates, traces of algal products, salt-resistant bacteria
and sediment particles.
END QUOTE:

Ron Okimoto

[jonathan]

On 4/13/2017 1:00 PM, Seymore4Head wrote:
> I always thought it was rock and non-rock. non-rock=organic=life.
>

> I guess that is not technically true.
>
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/nasa-ocean-worlds-solar-system-1.4067177?cmp=rss
>


In general it refers to that which is
fundamental.

Organic law, for instance, refers to laws
that form the basis of society or an
organization.



Definition of organic

1 archaic : instrumental

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/organic

[jillery]

Go ahead and move the goalposts again. Why should you stop now?

>Take comfort, powerfood goeroes and clay eaters are not unknown
>in Right-Pondia,
>
>Jan
>

[jillery]

Sea salt <> refined salt.

From the Wiki article above:

***********************************
Mined salt is often refined in the production of table salt; it is
dissolved in water, purified via precipitation of other minerals out
of solution, and re-evaporated.
**********************************

The marketing appeal of "organic" and sea salt is 1) some claim it has
important trace ingredients which are somehow lost from refined salt,
and 2) it does not have added and allegedly poisonous aluminosilicates
and iodides. Also, some people claim sea salt tastes "saltier" and has
a different mouth feel.

[jillery]

On Mon, 8 May 2017 11:04:56 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

But it doesn't necessarily involve a final rinse, which would justify
your implicit claim of an inferior Roman process.

>> >> Too bad for you Romans weren't mentioned in the article.
>> >
>> >Who cares about your article?
>> >All it shows is that you googled for a source that confirms what I said,
>>
>>
>> Who cares about what you said? Apparently not you.
>
>You didn't understand how salt can be washed, (see above)

I already acknowledged that some companies do in fact give their salt
a final rinse. It's your implicit claim that salt is universally, or
even typically, given a final wash that I question.

>so I posed it as a little puzzle, challenging you to think about it.

Which I did, so why are you still yammering about it?

>You didn't, and googled up some reference instead.
>Your reference may have been educational for you,
>I don't need it,

[Robert Carnegie]

You seem to be arguing now that a salt AB doesn't
exist in the first place. But I can buy it at the
supermarket. (That is, NaCl.)

If you have salt AB in solution in water, and you
add another salt CD, you may get insoluble salt
AD falling out of the water as solid particles,
leaving a solution of CB. So where is your AB now?

[J. J. Lodder]

Correct. Crystalisation of sea salt is not a chemical proces
in which molecules of salt are formed.
It is a physical process.
Dissolving the salt again is just that, dissolving.
It is not the destruction of salt molecules.

> If you have salt AB in solution in water, and you
> add another salt CD, you may get insoluble salt
> AD falling out of the water as solid particles,
> leaving a solution of CB. So where is your AB now?

Nothing like that happens in the case of (sea) salt.
As for your AB, it never existed.
All there was were A+ and B- ions in aqueous solution,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course it can be done, but that is rather silly.
The point of harvesting sea salt under the sun
is that you do not have to waste large amounts of fuel
for evaporation.
Sea salt is usually sold as rough crystals to show that it is sea salt,
and not the mined stuff.
Ron hasn't answered, but salt grinders seem to be unknown
in his part of the world indeed,

Jan

[RonO]

This is definitely ridiculous at this point. Reality can't penetrate
for some reason. I didn't read the sea salt wiki because when I opened
the link it was only a page of information and I believed Rogers that it
didn't have recrystalization in it. If you read the sea salt wiki that
he put up you will see that the sea salt is cleaned by recrystalization
they just do not call it that. They take the sea salt and clean it by
making a brine removing the junk and letting the clean brine evaporate
in the sun in pans. That is recrystalization even if they don't call it
that. Then you have my link and what does it tell you about how they
refine sea salt. That comes from the company that actually produces the
stuff. If you read the wiki that I put up they do waste energy
processing salt. They make a brine and then they heat it or put it
under a vacuum to recrystalize it.

Why deny reality? I am not makiing this stuff up. What does this even
matter. Why even try to make yourself look this bad? Have you figured
out that yet?

Ron Okimoto

[J. J. Lodder]

Reality check: google 'sea salt' in google images
and scroll down and down until you see
nice evenly sized cubical crystals.

And you didn't answer: are salt grinders really unknown to you?

Jan

[Bill Rogers]

If you wanted to recrystallize sea salt you wouldn't rinse it with sea water, you'd dissolve it in fresh water.

[J. J. Lodder]

It's just that you don't understand what they actually do.
They don't call it recrystalisation because it in't.

> They take the sea salt and clean it by
> making a brine removing the junk and letting the clean brine evaporate
> in the sun in pans. That is recrystalization even if they don't call it
> that.

But that is not what they do. They just wash the salt,
and it does not get re-solved because they wash it
with a saturated salt solution. (aka brine)
The dirty brine goes into a sink pool to let the solid dirt settle.
and eventually back into an evaporation pool.
The point you missed is that salt crystals
are insoluable in saurated brine,
so you can wash the salt with brine without loosing any.

> Then you have my link and what does it tell you about how they
> refine sea salt. That comes from the company that actually produces the
> stuff. If you read the wiki that I put up they do waste energy
> processing salt. They make a brine and then they heat it or put it
> under a vacuum to recrystalize it.
>
> Why deny reality? I am not makiing this stuff up. What does this even
> matter. Why even try to make yourself look this bad? Have you figured
> out that yet?

Do try to cool down,

Jan

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 May 2017 05:02:45 -0700 (PDT), Bill Rogers

Sea water is typically 3-4% salt. Saturated brine is typically 26%
salt. So sea water has plenty of capacity to recrystallize salt, and
which one to use would be one of economics and availability.

And "brine" can refer to any concentration inbetween, so one can't
know what concentration is under discussion unless it's actually
specified.

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 May 2017 14:02:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

>And you didn't answer: are salt grinders really unknown to you?

Are salt grinders so important to you? Apparently the allegedly
superior manufacturers your market are incapable of producing salt of
a uniform and appropriate size so as to make salt grinders
superfluous.

[Robert Carnegie]

I think I confused the question by having AB
refer sometimes to NaCl - still widely sold
(usually not perfectly pure, because the pure
stuff is hard to handle) - and to the "beneficial
minerals" that were being "destroyed" in the
purification process.

I assume these are other salts, and I'm not
convinced that they are beneficial. Although
for most people, a healthy element that you
could have in salt, is, less salt: we take more
than is good for us.

[RonO]

Worse and worse if that is possible. According to that Wiki the sea
salt was recrystalized after it was gathered from the bottom of the sea
pond. What do you not get. You were just wrong. Nothing is going to
change that. Just look at how gray and brown the salt is in the other
pictures before you get to the salt grinder. The organic nut jobs leave
the dirt and other impurities in the salt to be natural. You saw the
pictures and should have given up then after just one post of being wrong.

How deep of a hole can anyone that has observed the same stupid behavior
in creationists dig himself?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Tue, 9 May 2017 14:15:38 -0700 (PDT), Robert Carnegie
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:

[...]

>I assume these are other salts, and I'm not
>convinced that they are beneficial. Although
>for most people, a healthy element that you
>could have in salt, is, less salt: we take more
>than is good for us.

No doubt "other salts" compose much of the 0.3% which makes sea salt
less than pure, or as some say less accurately, "almost pure".

The following pdf introduces the label"gourmet" to the topic. Those
who think these salts are "almost pure" should ask themselves how
these salts are colorful and aromatic.

<http://www.spexcertiprep.com/knowledge-base/files/AppNote_GourmetSalts.pdf>

*******************************************************
This study shows that the highest concentration of elements were found
in the darker or deeply colored salts. The Kala Namak Black Mineral
Salt (#11) had the highest concentration of arsenic, mercury,
vanadium, potassium, zinc, and iron. The reagent grade NaCl and
generic table salt contained the least amounts of the elements
examined.
*******************************************************

As with almost all things involving life, the question isn't a matter
of absolutes, but as Baby Bear said, not too much, not too little, but
just right. Even too much water can kill you.

Of course, with some things, "just right" is a lot closer to zero than
others. My impression is heavy metals like mercury and lead are
among the exceptions to the rule above; trace amounts might not
really hurt you, but they don't do you any good either.

[RonO]

I can't believe the utter incompetence. Your own reference says that
they used sea water to make the brine that they recrystalized. Beats me
why they used sea water, likely because it was there. Sea water will
dissolve the crude salt and allow them to let the junk settle out before
pouring the concentrated brine into the pans to recrystalize. Do you
have any reason to believe that your own reference could be wrong?

From your own link above:
QUOTE:
Workers scraped up the concentrated salt and mud slurry and washed it
with clean sea water to settle impurities out of the now concentrated
brine. They poured the brine into shallow pans (lightly baked from local
marine clay) and set them on fist-sized clay pillars over a peat fire
for final evaporation.
END QUOTE:

It is cleaning by recrystalization even if they don't call it that. It
is what it is.

Why are the two of you being so stupid about something so obvious? I'd
really like to know. What is the incentive for acting so stupid? Jan
just has denial and you won't even believe your own reference. It is
like creationists are using you two as sock puppets.

Is pretending to be someone else against the rules and something that
could get you banned? Has there ever been a case of that?

Ron Okimoto

[J. J. Lodder]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 May 2017 14:02:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >And you didn't answer: are salt grinders really unknown to you?
>
>
> Are salt grinders so important to you?

Much table sea salt is sold nowadays in disposable grinders.

> Apparently the allegedly
> superior manufacturers your market are incapable of producing salt of
> a uniform and appropriate size so as to make salt grinders
> superfluous.

What? You want to destroy the nice irregular grains of sea salt
(what proves that it is organic) by those soulless small cubes
that prove its nasty mineral origin?

Consumers don't buy that anymore,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:

> On Mon, 8 May 2017 11:04:58 +0200, the following appeared in
> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder):
> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 5 May 2017 22:45:26 +0200, the following appeared in
> >> talk.origins, posted by nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder):
> >> >Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> >> On Wed, 3 May 2017 12:31:08 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Harry K <tur...@q.com>:

> >> >> >

> >> >> >In the grocery the other day passed one of those towers at the end
> >> >> >of the aisle stacked with water bottle "Real Water". I didn't buy,
> >> >> >I'm waiting for the "Organic Water".
> >> >>
> >> >> The sort with the pond scum floating on the top?
> >> >
> >> >Ask your cat.
> >> >She will refuse tap water if she can find a flowerpot, a vase,
> >> >or a puddle outdoors,
> >>
> >> I have no cat, but none of my dogs have made any distinction
> >> between tap water (well or commercial) and puddles, ponds or
> >> any other source.
> >>
> >> Which has nothing to do with my question, which was
> >> obviously not intended seriously.
> >
> >Sure, dogs are stupid. Is confirmation needed?
>
> Well, I guess that's one way to interpret "Dogs will drink
> from any source, but cats prefer contaminated water"...

That's from your ignorant ape perspective.

Cats of course know better,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

You already gave the answer in a previous ref.
Both is done. Harvested sea salt is washed in a concentrated brine
to remove 'dirt', and next (mildly) in sea water or rain water
to dissolve out unwanted salts like calcium chloride,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Harry K <tur...@q.com> wrote:

> On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 7:59:57 PM UTC-7, Andre G. Isaak wrote:
> > In article <h5tveclfdajcdi1jn...@4ax.com>,
> > Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >

> <snip>

> >
> > I can't help with that, but the market near my house does sell organic
> > sea salt.
> >
> > Andre
>
>

> In the grocery the other day passed one of those towers at the end of the
> aisle stacked with water bottle "Real Water". I didn't buy, I'm waiting
> for the "Organic Water".

Not good enough. Insist on 'left-turning water',
<http://www.clean-water.dk/side1776.html>

Jan

[Robert Carnegie]

Urban water supply usually has stuff like chlorine
in it. And probably animals smell it when we don't.
Some owners recommend filtered tap water as minimum.
That may be excessive, but tap water is weird,
to animals. But sometimes also fascinating.

[jillery]

The above is a separate point, as noted. Washing with either fresh or
salt water will necessarily dissolve salt. Only saturated brine would
wash salt without dissolving it.

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 12:07:52 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 May 2017 14:02:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >And you didn't answer: are salt grinders really unknown to you?
>>
>>
>> Are salt grinders so important to you?
>
>Much table sea salt is sold nowadays in disposable grinders.

Quantify "much", as a percentage of total sales of table salt
worldwide.

>> Apparently the allegedly
>> superior manufacturers your market are incapable of producing salt of
>> a uniform and appropriate size so as to make salt grinders
>> superfluous.
>
>What? You want to destroy the nice irregular grains of sea salt
>(what proves that it is organic) by those soulless small cubes
>that prove its nasty mineral origin?
>
>Consumers don't buy that anymore,

[J. J. Lodder]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 10 May 2017 12:07:52 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, 9 May 2017 14:02:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> >> Lodder) wrote:
> >>
> >> >And you didn't answer: are salt grinders really unknown to you?
> >>
> >>
> >> Are salt grinders so important to you?
> >
> >Much table sea salt is sold nowadays in disposable grinders.
>
>
> Quantify "much", as a percentage of total sales of table salt
> worldwide.

Woof! WoofWoof!!

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

J. J. Lodder <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote:
[continued]

As expected, no answer.

Dear RonO,
are you really incapable of seeing that your excessive noise
about things you know next to nothing about
(just a misunderstood google link)
damages your credibility in other subjects,
like biology and creationism?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Cat smell is much better than ape smell.

> Some owners recommend filtered tap water as minimum.
> That may be excessive, but tap water is weird,
> to animals. But sometimes also fascinating.

Likewise with source water.
In the wild, cats hardly need water.
They get what they need from their prey,

Jan

[RonO]

Why should I have bothered? This one it was just a continuation of your
denial?

This is the quote from the reference and you are wrong about what they
do. I pointed that out to Rogers. They do not just wash the salt.
Just washing the salt would not remove the contaminants that get trapped
between the clumps of growing crystals.

QUOTE:
Workers scraped up the concentrated salt and mud slurry and washed it
with clean sea water to settle impurities out of the now concentrated
brine. They poured the brine into shallow pans (lightly baked from local
marine clay) and set them on fist-sized clay pillars over a peat fire
for final evaporation.
END QUOTE:

They call it washing, but it is dissolving the salt and making a
concentrated brine. Read it again. They wash by making a brine and
letting the impurities settle out before pouring the brine into pans and
recrystalizing by heating it to evaporate the water.

It may be the English that you are confused about. They definitely
state that they make a brine and recrystalize. They just do not call it
recrystalization.

You are the one that is acting like a creationists. You obviously took
the reference and ignored what you saw in the other pictures and should
have read in the text and tried to make an argument that wasn't
consistent with reality. You have done that consistently if you go up
through your responses. You were just wrong from the beginning and it
just got worse.

You ignored the reality of the link that I gave to a manufacturer of sea
salt where they definitely state that the salt has been recrystalized.
You ignored the first link that I gave and pretended that it was fake.
You have been in denial of the facts since the beginning and where has
it gotten you?

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

On Thu, 11 May 2017 12:18:10 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 May 2017 12:07:52 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Tue, 9 May 2017 14:02:11 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> >> Lodder) wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >And you didn't answer: are salt grinders really unknown to you?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Are salt grinders so important to you?
>> >
>> >Much table sea salt is sold nowadays in disposable grinders.
>>
>>
>> Quantify "much", as a percentage of total sales of table salt
>> worldwide.
>
>Woof! WoofWoof!!
>
>Jan

Let me know when you're through licking yourself.

[J. J. Lodder]

RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

> We will have to start reviewing the science of being stupid.
>
> http://www.mortonsalt.com/business-product/refined-sea-salt-and-tfc-refined-se
a-salt/
>
> QUOTE:
> Morton Refined Sea Salt is harvested from the waters of the San
> Francisco Bay. This food grade sea salt is recrystallized to produce
> cubical crystals that are extremely uniform in size. There are no additives.
> END QUOTE:

A straw man.
As I already showed you the bulk of what is sold as 'sea salt'
is not in the shape of fine cubical crystals.
(for then it would not look like sea salt)

Even the bulk of what your Morton company sells is not,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Which is indeed what is done in mining salt domes.
Fresh warmed water is pumped down a borehole, brine is extracted.
Salt is produced by evaporating it again.
It is an energy-intensive process.

The same goes for all salt production.
You don't dissolve salt again more than is unavoidable,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

<optimist mode on>
You might want to know why you are wrong about it?

> This is the quote from the reference and you are wrong about what they
> do. I pointed that out to Rogers. They do not just wash the salt.
> Just washing the salt would not remove the contaminants that get trapped
> between the clumps of growing crystals.
>
> QUOTE:
> Workers scraped up the concentrated salt and mud slurry and washed it with
> clean sea water to settle impurities out of the now concentrated brine.
> They poured the brine into shallow pans (lightly baked from local marine
> clay) and set them on fist-sized clay pillars over a peat fire for final
> evaporation.
> END QUOTE:
>
> They call it washing, but it is dissolving the salt and making a
> concentrated brine. Read it again.

Yes do. They call it washing because that is what it is.

> They wash by making a brine and
> letting the impurities settle out before pouring the brine into pans and
> recrystalizing by heating it to evaporate the water.

There lies your mistake. They start with a salt and mud slurry,
then wash it, and are left with a salt slurry (in brine of course)

> It may be the English that you are confused about. They definitely
> state that they make a brine and recrystalize.

Of course. What else should you do with a brine?

> They just do not call it recrystalization.

With good reason.

> You are the one that is acting like a creationists.

You are the one. You have a set idea in your mind (that is wrong)
and you make the words in the text meaning something else.
(they call it ... but it really is ... )
You should try to understand the process
instead of quote mining sources for confirmation.

> You obviously took
> the reference and ignored what you saw in the other pictures and should
> have read in the text and tried to make an argument that wasn't
> consistent with reality. You have done that consistently if you go up
> through your responses. You were just wrong from the beginning and it
> just got worse.

BTW, in your enthousiasm to be wrong about it
you also failed to notice that the wiki quote
that you are rambling on about
is about methods used in Iron Age and Roman times
at one particular site in Britain,
not about modern salt production.
Has it occurred to you that evaporating brine
in throw-away earthenware containers (Briquetage)
over a peat fire is not quite state of the art?

> You ignored the reality of the link that I gave to a manufacturer of sea
> salt where they definitely state that the salt has been recrystalized.
> You ignored the first link that I gave and pretended that it was fake.
> You have been in denial of the facts since the beginning and where has
> it gotten you?

At an understanding. It's your denialism that is getting you nowhere.
It does make me doubt your ability to handle other subjects
that you make noise about fairly,

Jan

[RonO]

Is someone faking your posts? Is this really Lodder? What did the salt
look like in the grinder picture that you put up before? Morton just
ends the crystalization sooner so that the crystals will fit in a normal
salt shaker. This seems to be some type of tragically stupid type of
argument and seems to have nothing to do with how wrong you have been.
Why would you not believe the manufacturer?

What is the point of lying to yourself like this? This company is
making the sea salt and selling it. If you had gone to the link they
even claim that it is kosher.

What about the sea salt wiki that describes recrystalization even though
they don't call it that? Was that a strawman too? Rogers put up that
link. What are you trying to argue at this point? Your claims have been
wrong down the line from the first post.

Just go back to the first link that I gave and accept the pictures as
fact and move on. You indicated that the pictures were fake, like a
dolt of a creationists, and you have never demonstrated that they could
have been fake.

I don't know what the EU laws are, but you might try to go to a health
food store and see what they are selling for yourself.

Accept reality.

Ron Okimoto

[Bill]

RonO wrote:


...

> This seems to be some type of tragically
> stupid type of argument

" ... Tragically stupid ..." I like that.

Bill

[jillery]

That's not a straw man. There is no definition of what sea salt is
supposed to look like. That Morton's product is more pure than other
sea salts is IMO a positive feature.

>Even the bulk of what your Morton company sells is not,

Now that's a straw man. It matters not what other products Morton
makes. Morton also sells de-icer, which also has nothing to do with
their sea salt. That SAAB also makes automobiles has nothing to do
with them making jet aircraft and submarines.

All that matters to sea salt is that it comes from the sea and is
mostly NaCl. You have expectations of what sea salt should look like,
and how it should be packaged, and others may agree with you, but
those expectations are arbitrary and ad hoc, with no legal or
traditional weight behind them, just like other purely marketing
labels. That is the relevant point of this topic.

[jillery]

On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:48:41 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
Lodder) wrote:

That also applies to "recrystalizing".

>> They wash by making a brine and
>> letting the impurities settle out before pouring the brine into pans and
>> recrystalizing by heating it to evaporate the water.
>
>There lies your mistake. They start with a salt and mud slurry,
>then wash it, and are left with a salt slurry (in brine of course)

You're conflating, perhaps deliberately, two different processes which
do two different things. Concentrated brine can help to mechanically
"float" salt crystals from surface impurities. That doesn't remove
impurities locked in the crystals. To do that necessarily requires
recrystalizing using unconcentrated brine. One, both, or neither step
is done to products sold as sea salt.

>> It may be the English that you are confused about. They definitely
>> state that they make a brine and recrystalize.
>
>Of course. What else should you do with a brine?

That brine has many other uses isn't relevant. The relevant part is
you just tacitly admitted above the very thing you previously denied,
that the brine is recrystalized. Make up your mind.

>> They just do not call it recrystalization.
>
>With good reason.

Which you have yet to identify. None of your alleged reasons hold up.

>> You are the one that is acting like a creationists.
>
>You are the one. You have a set idea in your mind (that is wrong)
>and you make the words in the text meaning something else.
>(they call it ... but it really is ... )
>You should try to understand the process
>instead of quote mining sources for confirmation.

You should know that English provides many ways to say the same thing.
Perhaps your native language is less flexible, which would explain
your tendency to argue as if words have fixed and absolute meanings.

>> You obviously took
>> the reference and ignored what you saw in the other pictures and should
>> have read in the text and tried to make an argument that wasn't
>> consistent with reality. You have done that consistently if you go up
>> through your responses. You were just wrong from the beginning and it
>> just got worse.
>
>BTW, in your enthousiasm to be wrong about it
>you also failed to notice that the wiki quote
>that you are rambling on about
>is about methods used in Iron Age and Roman times
>at one particular site in Britain,
>not about modern salt production.
>Has it occurred to you that evaporating brine
>in throw-away earthenware containers (Briquetage)
>over a peat fire is not quite state of the art?

So you go back to basing your opposition on inferior Roman technology.
One can only wonder whom you credit for that "modern salt production".
The only certain thing here is it ain't Americans.

>> You ignored the reality of the link that I gave to a manufacturer of sea
>> salt where they definitely state that the salt has been recrystalized.
>> You ignored the first link that I gave and pretended that it was fake.
>> You have been in denial of the facts since the beginning and where has
>> it gotten you?
>
>At an understanding. It's your denialism that is getting you nowhere.
>It does make me doubt your ability to handle other subjects
>that you make noise about fairly,
>
>Jan

[jillery]

If so, it's because that's what is most economic to use, as I pointed
out in a previous post.

>Fresh warmed water is pumped down a borehole, brine is extracted.
>Salt is produced by evaporating it again.
>It is an energy-intensive process.

Only if one is in a hurry. The same trick of using the Sun works as
well to crystalize salt as it does to re-crystalize it.

>The same goes for all salt production.
>You don't dissolve salt again more than is unavoidable,

"Unavoidable" despends primarily on the market.

[J. J. Lodder]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 14 May 2017 16:48:42 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tuesday, May 9, 2017 at 7:24:54 AM UTC-4, Ron O wrote:
> >> > On 5/9/2017 5:59 AM, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> >> > > Bill Rogers <broger...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

> >> If you wanted to recrystallize sea salt you wouldn't rinse it with sea
> >> water, you'd dissolve it in fresh water.
> >
> >Which is indeed what is done in mining salt domes.
>
>
> If so, it's because that's what is most economic to use, as I pointed
> out in a previous post.
>
>
> >Fresh warmed water is pumped down a borehole, brine is extracted.
> >Salt is produced by evaporating it again.
> >It is an energy-intensive process.
>
>
> Only if one is in a hurry. The same trick of using the Sun works as
> well to crystalize salt as it does to re-crystalize it.

If you don't mind getting only half the production from the same area.

> >The same goes for all salt production.
> >You don't dissolve salt again more than is unavoidable,
>
>
> "Unavoidable" despends primarily on the market.

All the market demands is lowest price,
hence efficient operation, or you lose to the competition.

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

> Is someone faking your posts? Is this really Lodder? What did the salt
> look like in the grinder picture that you put up before? Morton just
> ends the crystalization sooner so that the crystals will fit in a normal
> salt shaker. This seems to be some type of tragically stupid type of
> argument and seems to have nothing to do with how wrong you have been.
> Why would you not believe the manufacturer?

Yes, I wondered about that too.
Have you noticed how hysterical you have been going over this?

> What is the point of lying to yourself like this? This company is
> making the sea salt and selling it. If you had gone to the link they
> even claim that it is kosher.
>
> What about the sea salt wiki that describes recrystalization even though
> they don't call it that?

Why deny what your own sources are telling you?

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Let me guess: It sounded familiar?

Jan