Guest guest Posted November 10, 2005 Report Share Posted November 10, 2005 Dear oxyplusers, I often get asked about toxins in the body, and why it might be necessary for outwardly healthy people to do ozone. Today's press provides the answer: ------------------------------------------------------- Bad Chemicals In Your Blood Ottawa November 10, 2005 " In the average Canadian's blood there are flame retardants, stain removers, heavy metals, PCBs and volatile organic compounds. Blood and urine tests from volunteers from across Canada found scores of toxic chemicals, suspected of causing everything from cancer to learning disabilities, says a report from Environmental Defence. " On average, each of the volunteers showed blood contamination by more than 40 compounds, as well as urine contamination by a number of pesticides. " Environmental Defense, a Toronto-based watchdog group, says its the first nationwide study of blood and urine contamination in Canada, although similar results have been obtained in the US and Britain. " The volunteers came from different parts of the country and all walks of life. Their only common factor was that they live in Canada. " One of the few bits of good news in the report is that PCB concentrations were much lower in young volunteers, which may be due to the PCB ban imposed about 10 years ago. " - The Vancouver Province -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Best of Health! Dr. Saul Pressman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 It can be stored and passed out. Steph Toxins When you eat something that contains toxins, Splenda for example, with it's chlorine molecule, does the chlorine become stored in the body indefinitely or does it just pass through and get excreted during the process of digestion?Sherry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 Thanks for the responses, Steph and Anne Sherry > > > When you eat something that contains toxins, Splenda for example, > > with it's chlorine molecule, does the chlorine become stored in the > > body indefinitely or does it just pass through and get excreted > > during the process of digestion? > > > > Sherry > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 6, 2010 Report Share Posted April 6, 2010 Depends on your current state of health & your genetic ability to process toxins. If you are really healthy, well nourished, & blessed with good genes, you probably excrete it right away. If you are sick, short of vital nutrients, & have poor detox pathways due to your genetic makeup, toxins will stay with you a LONG time.AnneOn Apr 6, 2010, at 11:13 AM, lookonthebriteside wrote: When you eat something that contains toxins, Splenda for example, with it's chlorine molecule, does the chlorine become stored in the body indefinitely or does it just pass through and get excreted during the process of digestion? Sherry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2010 Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 " When you eat something that contains toxins, Splenda for example, with it's chlorine molecule... " It seems to me that long before worrying about the minuscule amount of chlorine bound in the small amount of Splenda you might use, you should perhaps worry a whole lot more about the clouds of chlorinated water vapor you're breathing in with every shower you take, and the added chlorine you ingest with every glass of water you drink, and the chloride bound up in your every-day sea salt (you know, sodium *chloride*?). (And if you use the pool at the Y? Talk about a chlorine dip!) Please don't spend a lot of time fretting over an extremely small amount of a possible toxin from one avenue, while ignoring that same toxin you are getting via several other avenues (heck, highways, not mere avenues! {wink}). Just a suggestion about balance, Elenor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2010 Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 Well, I have been consuming a large amount of Splenda sweetened products, and I'm not sure that the chlorine was miniscule! I actually don't swim in pools, I don't drink tap water...Most of the water I drink is purified or distilled...and I posted last week asking about chlorides as in sodium chloride, because I wasn't sure about their relationship to chlorine. Steph responded that chlorides were not something to be avoided like chlorine is. As for showering, I'm looking into getting a filter. Sherry > > " When you eat something that contains toxins, Splenda for example, > with it's chlorine molecule... " > > It seems to me that long before worrying about the minuscule amount of chlorine bound in the small amount of Splenda you might use, you should perhaps worry a whole lot more about the clouds of chlorinated water vapor you're breathing in with every shower you take, and the added chlorine you ingest with every glass of water you drink, and the chloride bound up in your every-day sea salt (you know, sodium *chloride*?). (And if you use the pool at the Y? Talk about a chlorine dip!) > > Please don't spend a lot of time fretting over an extremely small amount of a possible toxin from one avenue, while ignoring that same toxin you are getting via several other avenues (heck, highways, not mere avenues! {wink}). > > > Just a suggestion about balance, > Elenor > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2010 Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 Sherry wrote: > Well, I have been consuming a large amount of Splenda sweetened products, and I'm not sure that the chlorine was miniscule! I actually don't swim in pools, I don't drink tap water...Most of the water I drink is purified or distilled...and I posted last week asking about chlorides as in sodium chloride, because I wasn't sure about their relationship to chlorine. Steph responded that chlorides were not something to be avoided like chlorine is. As for showering, I'm looking into getting a filter. > Sherry That sounds great Sherry -- like you're really taking good precautions. (I'm researching shower filters too! But I'm not willing to give up my water aerobics twice a week in a chlorinated pool {frown}.) However, let me offer the following information about Splenda. From his blog entry, " Splenda misinformation " by Dr. Eades at: http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/splenda-misinformation/ ================== .... Qorvis Communications and Mr. Masters were hired by non other than the sugar lobby to mount an attack against Splenda. Why the sugar lobby would want to attack the folks who make Splenda, I can't imagine. Mr. Masters and " a group of concerned consumers, led by sugar cane and sugar beet farmers across America " (read: Sugar Association, the sugar lobby) put up a website purporting to tell the horrible truth about Splenda. But does this website tell the truth or is it simply sugar lobby propaganda? Let's take a look. We can forget about all the posturing and all the doctors and others who are on the site claiming that Splenda is a menace because that's all lip service. Let's cut to the chase, to the real nitty gritty. The main attack against Splenda is that it is a chlorinated artificial sweetener. Is that true? Well, yes and no. It is chlorinated, which, as we'll see shortly, doesn't mean squat. And it is really a sugar molecule, so it really isn't an artificial sweetener as is, for example, saccharine. It's artificial in the same way a bowl of ice cream with artificial flavors added is artificial. The bulk of the ice cream is made with cream, milk, and sugar, so does the little bit of artificial vanilla extract make the whole shebang artificial? I don't think so. But in Splenda's case, the additive isn't even really artificial. But what about the chlorine? That sounds like the real problem. It can't be good to consume chlorine. First of all, every time you eat salt, half of what you are eating is chlorine. Common table salt is sodium chloride, half sodium and half chlorine (since the chlorine is in its ionic form it's called chloride). Chloride is a natural substance. In fact chlorine is one of the elements in the periodic table. No one would consider salt artificial, so how can chloride – a natural element – be artificial? So, Splenda isn't really an artificial sweetener. If anything it would be more accurately called a chemically altered sweetener. Splenda is made by replacing three hydroxyl groups (an oxygen-hydrogen combination) on a sucrose (common table sugar) molecule with three chloride ions. By doing so, the sweetening power of the sugar is increased by a factor of about 600. So, in actuality, when you consume Splenda, you consume real sugar, but because of the huge increase in sweetening power only about 1/600th of what you normally would. Instead of a teaspoon it would be a tiny grain. But what about the extra chlorine? Doesn't that cause any kind of problem? Well, you do eat salt don't you. A teaspoon of salt contains many thousands of times more chlorine than you would get from the teaspoon of sugar equivalent of Splenda. If you want even more evidence that the tiny amount of chloride in the Splenda is harmless consider that, like with blood sugar, you have about a teaspoon of chloride circulating in your blood at any given time, which is more than 20,000 times the amount you would get from a dose of Splenda. How do we figure this? .... ========================== My point is: let's not pay attention to a mote in one eye and ignore a log in the other eye (to really mangle an old saying...). Elenor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2010 Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 Thanks for the Splenda information, Elenor... I certainly hope Dr. Eades is right...I tried stevia, and I'm not impressed at all!...I had thought Splenda was perfectly safe until I found out about the chlorine last week. But now I'm confused about the chlorine/chloride thing...If chlorides are bad, then why are we encouraged to use sea salt liberally? Sherry > > Well, I have been consuming a large amount of Splenda sweetened products, and I'm not sure that the chlorine was miniscule! I actually don't swim in pools, I don't drink tap water...Most of the water I drink is purified or distilled...and I posted last week asking about chlorides as in sodium chloride, because I wasn't sure about their relationship to chlorine. Steph responded that chlorides were not something to be avoided like chlorine is. As for showering, I'm looking into getting a filter. > > Sherry > > That sounds great Sherry -- like you're really taking good precautions. (I'm researching shower filters too! But I'm not willing to give up my water aerobics twice a week in a chlorinated pool {frown}.) However, let me offer the following information about Splenda. > > From his blog entry, " Splenda misinformation " by Dr. Eades at: > http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/splenda-misinformation/ > > ================== > ... > Qorvis Communications and Mr. Masters were hired by non other than the sugar lobby to mount an attack against Splenda. Why the sugar lobby would want to attack the folks who make Splenda, I can't imagine. > > Mr. Masters and " a group of concerned consumers, led by sugar cane and sugar beet farmers across America " (read: Sugar Association, the sugar lobby) put up a website purporting to tell the horrible truth about Splenda. But does this website tell the truth or is it simply sugar lobby propaganda? Let's take a look. > > We can forget about all the posturing and all the doctors and others who are on the site claiming that Splenda is a menace because that's all lip service. Let's cut to the chase, to the real nitty gritty. > > The main attack against Splenda is that it is a chlorinated artificial sweetener. Is that true? Well, yes and no. It is chlorinated, which, as we'll see shortly, doesn't mean squat. And it is really a sugar molecule, so it really isn't an artificial sweetener as is, for example, saccharine. It's artificial in the same way a bowl of ice cream with artificial flavors added is artificial. The bulk of the ice cream is made with cream, milk, and sugar, so does the little bit of artificial vanilla extract make the whole shebang artificial? I don't think so. But in Splenda's case, the additive isn't even really artificial. > > But what about the chlorine? That sounds like the real problem. It can't be good to consume chlorine. > > First of all, every time you eat salt, half of what you are eating is chlorine. Common table salt is sodium chloride, half sodium and half chlorine (since the chlorine is in its ionic form it's called chloride). Chloride is a natural substance. In fact chlorine is one of the elements in the periodic table. No one would consider salt artificial, so how can chloride – a natural element – be artificial? > > So, Splenda isn't really an artificial sweetener. If anything it would be more accurately called a chemically altered sweetener. > > Splenda is made by replacing three hydroxyl groups (an oxygen-hydrogen combination) on a sucrose (common table sugar) molecule with three chloride ions. By doing so, the sweetening power of the sugar is increased by a factor of about 600. So, in actuality, when you consume Splenda, you consume real sugar, but because of the huge increase in sweetening power only about 1/600th of what you normally would. Instead of a teaspoon it would be a tiny grain. > > But what about the extra chlorine? Doesn't that cause any kind of problem? > > Well, you do eat salt don't you. A teaspoon of salt contains many thousands of times more chlorine than you would get from the teaspoon of sugar equivalent of Splenda. > > If you want even more evidence that the tiny amount of chloride in the Splenda is harmless consider that, like with blood sugar, you have about a teaspoon of chloride circulating in your blood at any given time, which is more than 20,000 times the amount you would get from a dose of Splenda. How do we figure this? > ... > ========================== > > My point is: let's not pay attention to a mote in one eye and ignore a log in the other eye (to really mangle an old saying...). > > Elenor > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 7, 2010 Report Share Posted April 7, 2010 Chlorine and chloride are not the same in any way Bruce Re: Toxins Thanks for the Splenda information, Elenor...I certainly hope Dr. Eades is right...I tried stevia, and I'm not impressed at all!...I had thought Splenda was perfectly safe until I found out about the chlorine last week. But now I'm confused about the chlorine/chloride thing...If chlorides are bad, then why are we encouraged to use sea salt liberally?Sherry> > Well, I have been consuming a large amount of Splenda sweetened products, and I'm not sure that the chlorine was miniscule! I actually don't swim in pools, I don't drink tap water...Most of the water I drink is purified or distilled...and I posted last week asking about chlorides as in sodium chloride, because I wasn't sure about their relationship to chlorine. Steph responded that chlorides were not something to be avoided like chlorine is. As for showering, I'm looking into getting a filter.> > Sherry> > That sounds great Sherry -- like you're really taking good precautions. (I'm researching shower filters too! But I'm not willing to give up my water aerobics twice a week in a chlorinated pool {frown}.) However, let me offer the following information about Splenda.> > From his blog entry, "Splenda misinformation" by Dr. Eades at: > http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/splenda-misinformation/> > ==================> ...> Qorvis Communications and Mr. Masters were hired by non other than the sugar lobby to mount an attack against Splenda. Why the sugar lobby would want to attack the folks who make Splenda, I can't imagine.> > Mr. Masters and "a group of concerned consumers, led by sugar cane and sugar beet farmers across America" (read: Sugar Association, the sugar lobby) put up a website purporting to tell the horrible truth about Splenda. But does this website tell the truth or is it simply sugar lobby propaganda? Let's take a look.> > We can forget about all the posturing and all the doctors and others who are on the site claiming that Splenda is a menace because that's all lip service. Let's cut to the chase, to the real nitty gritty.> > The main attack against Splenda is that it is a chlorinated artificial sweetener. Is that true? Well, yes and no. It is chlorinated, which, as we'll see shortly, doesn't mean squat. And it is really a sugar molecule, so it really isn't an artificial sweetener as is, for example, saccharine. It's artificial in the same way a bowl of ice cream with artificial flavors added is artificial. The bulk of the ice cream is made with cream, milk, and sugar, so does the little bit of artificial vanilla extract make the whole shebang artificial? I don't think so. But in Splenda's case, the additive isn't even really artificial.> > But what about the chlorine? That sounds like the real problem. It can't be good to consume chlorine.> > First of all, every time you eat salt, half of what you are eating is chlorine. Common table salt is sodium chloride, half sodium and half chlorine (since the chlorine is in its ionic form it's called chloride). Chloride is a natural substance. In fact chlorine is one of the elements in the periodic table. No one would consider salt artificial, so how can chloride – a natural element – be artificial?> > So, Splenda isn't really an artificial sweetener. If anything it would be more accurately called a chemically altered sweetener.> > Splenda is made by replacing three hydroxyl groups (an oxygen-hydrogen combination) on a sucrose (common table sugar) molecule with three chloride ions. By doing so, the sweetening power of the sugar is increased by a factor of about 600. So, in actuality, when you consume Splenda, you consume real sugar, but because of the huge increase in sweetening power only about 1/600th of what you normally would. Instead of a teaspoon it would be a tiny grain.> > But what about the extra chlorine? Doesn't that cause any kind of problem?> > Well, you do eat salt don't you. A teaspoon of salt contains many thousands of times more chlorine than you would get from the teaspoon of sugar equivalent of Splenda.> > If you want even more evidence that the tiny amount of chloride in the Splenda is harmless consider that, like with blood sugar, you have about a teaspoon of chloride circulating in your blood at any given time, which is more than 20,000 times the amount you would get from a dose of Splenda. How do we figure this?> ...> ==========================> > My point is: let's not pay attention to a mote in one eye and ignore a log in the other eye (to really mangle an old saying...). > > Elenor> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Me bad, Steph asked to go to OT group with this, forgot Bruce Re: Toxins Thanks for the Splenda information, Elenor...I certainly hope Dr. Eades is right...I tried stevia, and I'm not impressed at all!...I had thought Splenda was perfectly safe until I found out about the chlorine last week. But now I'm confused about the chlorine/chloride thing...If chlorides are bad, then why are we encouraged to use sea salt liberally?Sherry> > Well, I have been consuming a large amount of Splenda sweetened products, and I'm not sure that the chlorine was miniscule! I actually don't swim in pools, I don't drink tap water...Most of the water I drink is purified or distilled...and I posted last week asking about chlorides as in sodium chloride, because I wasn't sure about their relationship to chlorine. Steph responded that chlorides were not something to be avoided like chlorine is. As for showering, I'm looking into getting a filter.> > Sherry> > That sounds great Sherry -- like you're really taking good precautions. (I'm researching shower filters too! But I'm not willing to give up my water aerobics twice a week in a chlorinated pool {frown}.) However, let me offer the following information about Splenda.> > From his blog entry, "Splenda misinformation" by Dr. Eades at: > http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/splenda-misinformation/> > ==================> ...> Qorvis Communications and Mr. Masters were hired by non other than the sugar lobby to mount an attack against Splenda. Why the sugar lobby would want to attack the folks who make Splenda, I can't imagine.> > Mr. Masters and "a group of concerned consumers, led by sugar cane and sugar beet farmers across America" (read: Sugar Association, the sugar lobby) put up a website purporting to tell the horrible truth about Splenda. But does this website tell the truth or is it simply sugar lobby propaganda? Let's take a look.> > We can forget about all the posturing and all the doctors and others who are on the site claiming that Splenda is a menace because that's all lip service. Let's cut to the chase, to the real nitty gritty.> > The main attack against Splenda is that it is a chlorinated artificial sweetener. Is that true? Well, yes and no. It is chlorinated, which, as we'll see shortly, doesn't mean squat. And it is really a sugar molecule, so it really isn't an artificial sweetener as is, for example, saccharine. It's artificial in the same way a bowl of ice cream with artificial flavors added is artificial. The bulk of the ice cream is made with cream, milk, and sugar, so does the little bit of artificial vanilla extract make the whole shebang artificial? I don't think so. But in Splenda's case, the additive isn't even really artificial.> > But what about the chlorine? That sounds like the real problem. It can't be good to consume chlorine.> > First of all, every time you eat salt, half of what you are eating is chlorine. Common table salt is sodium chloride, half sodium and half chlorine (since the chlorine is in its ionic form it's called chloride). Chloride is a natural substance. In fact chlorine is one of the elements in the periodic table. No one would consider salt artificial, so how can chloride – a natural element – be artificial?> > So, Splenda isn't really an artificial sweetener. If anything it would be more accurately called a chemically altered sweetener.> > Splenda is made by replacing three hydroxyl groups (an oxygen-hydrogen combination) on a sucrose (common table sugar) molecule with three chloride ions. By doing so, the sweetening power of the sugar is increased by a factor of about 600. So, in actuality, when you consume Splenda, you consume real sugar, but because of the huge increase in sweetening power only about 1/600th of what you normally would. Instead of a teaspoon it would be a tiny grain.> > But what about the extra chlorine? Doesn't that cause any kind of problem?> > Well, you do eat salt don't you. A teaspoon of salt contains many thousands of times more chlorine than you would get from the teaspoon of sugar equivalent of Splenda.> > If you want even more evidence that the tiny amount of chloride in the Splenda is harmless consider that, like with blood sugar, you have about a teaspoon of chloride circulating in your blood at any given time, which is more than 20,000 times the amount you would get from a dose of Splenda. How do we figure this?> ...> ==========================> > My point is: let's not pay attention to a mote in one eye and ignore a log in the other eye (to really mangle an old saying...). > > Elenor> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 >Chlorine and chloride are not the same in any way >Bruce {wry eyebrow raise} Bit of exaggeration, don't you think? Sherry, there is a lot of sniping back and forth about whether or not artificial sweeteners (and/or Splenda in particular) are safe, or safe enough, or not-at-all safe. The " chlorine in Splenda " hysteria is mainly a sales tool by the sugar industry (because, of course, Splenda is making huge inroads into " their " business). (I happen to judge the health risk of Splenda to be much lower than the risk from sugar. That is my own determination, for my own life, on the basis of years of reading and study. You cannot cut out everything in the food chain that is -- or may be -- " bad " for you. And even if you were to try, you have to make judgments between lesser and greater -- not between bad and good.) Let me repeat Dr Eades: " If you want even more evidence that the tiny amount of chloride in the Splenda is harmless consider that, like with blood sugar, you have about a teaspoon of chloride circulating in your blood at any given time, which is more than 20,000 times the amount you would get from a dose of Splenda. ... " In the 'list of priorities' for things we thyroid folks need to address? Splenda is way, WAY down on the list! A shower filter -- and a good tap water filter (because there may be more danger from plastics than from tap water, depending on your water source) -- would come miles ahead of cutting out Splenda because it is made with chlorine. It is NOT possible to remove all toxins - or even identify all toxins -- and so we must direct our limited time, money, and abilities to cutting out the worst or largest ones first, and then decide which lesser risks we are willing to take. Worrying about a barely present **possible** toxin is pound foolish and pennywise. This is the knife's edge we skate: what toxins and what possible toxins (because THEY are different things) am I willing to try to remove? If you (if one) tries to stress about removing every last bit of toxin or possible toxin, and to control everything single thing in your environment and life -- then the stress from that attempt will kill you! You say you just found out about the chloride in Splenda, and immediately set out to try to remove it from your life? Let me ask you to approach any yelling about " OMG it's a BAD TOXIN!! " you run across with a grain of ... er ... sodium chloride {wink} and don't rush to do anything different until you've had a chance to do some research. WHO is 'yelling' at you/us to avoid the thing? What possible motives might they have? How much do you trust the source of the yelling and the source of the alleged toxin? How can you rearrange your life if it seems to be worthwhile to avoid or minimize this alleged toxin? What must you give up to avoid the alleged toxin -- and what possible effects did/might/does that have? (For example -- giving up Splenda to use aspartame is crazy: aspartame seems to cause brain damage. I say " seems to " because from my own limited research into aspartame, I decided that Splenda was either no or a lesser problem, and so I made an easy decision: avoid aspartame, use Splenda; and ended my research into aspartame. I still keep an eye out on Splenda -- I am NOT declaring Splenda good forever, I am declaring it good enough for now.) If it turns out, in some number of years (as it has not yet, in some number of years) that Splenda has a negative effect, that will be too bad. I spend about 35 years of my life living mainly on pasta with meat and cheese on it. I still am completely addicted to pasta -- even though I haven't eaten any in five years. I can pull up the sensory memories of it and revel in what I have lost. I've got a messed up thyroid because of years of grains. It is unequivocal that pasta is damaging to the human body {sob} and so there is no hard choice to avoid it (and grains) completely (read " The Vegetarian Myth " by Lierre -- fantastic book!) Pasta was a " good for you " food that turns out to have done huge damage to my body. I cannot change what I did not know. So I give myself a huge " pass " for having done the damage to myself that I did. I had to live, I have to live -- and I do the best I can in making choices -- and then do not beat myself up for making the wrong one on the basis of what I knew -- or what was known -- back then. Splenda? May or may not be damaging -- may or may not be dangerous. Everything I've read (including the hysterical " anti " views of the sugar industry {eye roll}) lead me to conclude that for me, in my life, with the choices and changes I am making, with the ills and imbalances I am working to cure, with the much higher dangers on my list of dangers to confront? Splenda is an easy one. The only thing I drink besides water is Splenda-sweetened " koolaid " (Wyler's brand strawberry) -- and I'm more worried about the possible crap in the " koolaid " mix than I am about the Splenda! But I'm not willing to do without some flavor in my drink -- and tea hurts my stomach. Make your choices on the basis of what you can reasonably achieve. Do as much as you can, on the basis of your own life, your own research, and then applaud yourself for what you're able to do -- do NOT castigate yourself because " you're not doing enough " ! Make your decisions on the basis of what will have the greater effect and then give yourself the *grace* of NOT POSSIBLY being able to do it all. Yes? There is no perfection on this Earth. There is only: do what you can and call it enough. Elenor p.s., But that does mean you need to try to do what you can! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Nope, there is no worry about chlorine in salt. And salt (sea salt) is needed for health. Am just concerned with some thinking to avoid (chloride not=chlorine) in salt etc. Not looking at the chemistry, but the result. stable and healthy Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Elenor >Chlorine and chloride are not the same in any way >Bruce {wry eyebrow raise} Bit of exaggeration, don't you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formulation. It is true that the Splenda molecule is comprised of sucrose (sugar) — except that three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms.While some industry experts claim the molecule is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides. That’s because the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons. The premise offered next is that just because something contains chlorine doesn’t guarantee that it’s toxic. And that is also true, but you and your family may prefer not to serve as test subjects for the latest post-market artificial sweetener experiment — however “unique.” (See our article on endocrine disruptors for more information on toxins and persistent organic pollutants.)The manufacturer’s own short-term studies showed that very high doses of sucralose (far beyond what would be expected in an ordinary diet) caused shrunken thymus glands, enlarged livers, and kidney disorders in rodents. (A more recent study also shows that Splenda significantly decreases beneficial gut flora.)http://www.womentowomen.com/healthyweight/splenda.aspxThe thalamus suppression is a major concern to me, especially considering the number of children who consume these products. If you're suppressing the thalamus gland, you're increasing autoimmunity, immune related diseases, infections and cancers. Huge implications.People suck this stuff down like it's going out of style, it's in a ton of products. That's part of the problem, we don't use just small portions of these items. There is tons of information about Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, nothing I have read would lead me to believe that it's better than sugar (not that I think sugar is good either, but I'd definitely choose raw honey, or a natural sugar or Stevia). I deal with a Type 1 diabetic daily and I can tell you positively that Splenda and other artificial sweeteners skyrocket her blood sugar, way more than sugar does. Everyone can rationalize what they want to keep eating or drinking, it's an addiction plain and simple.Linn On Apr 8, 2010, at 8:48 AM, Elenor wrote: >Chlorine and chloride are not the same in any way >Bruce {wry eyebrow raise} Bit of exaggeration, don't you think? Sherry, there is a lot of sniping back and forth about whether or not artificial sweeteners (and/or Splenda in particular) are safe, or safe enough, or not-at-all safe. The "chlorine in Splenda" hysteria is mainly a sales tool by the sugar industry (because, of course, Splenda is making huge inroads into "their" business). (I happen to judge the health risk of Splenda to be much lower than the risk from sugar. That is my own determination, for my own life, on the basis of years of reading and study. You cannot cut out everything in the food chain that is -- or may be -- "bad" for you. And even if you were to try, you have to make judgments between lesser and greater -- not between bad and good.) Let me repeat Dr Eades: "If you want even more evidence that the tiny amount of chloride in the Splenda is harmless consider that, like with blood sugar, you have about a teaspoon of chloride circulating in your blood at any given time, which is more than 20,000 times the amount you would get from a dose of Splenda. ..." In the 'list of priorities' for things we thyroid folks need to address? Splenda is way, WAY down on the list! A shower filter -- and a good tap water filter (because there may be more danger from plastics than from tap water, depending on your water source) -- would come miles ahead of cutting out Splenda because it is made with chlorine. It is NOT possible to remove all toxins - or even identify all toxins -- and so we must direct our limited time, money, and abilities to cutting out the worst or largest ones first, and then decide which lesser risks we are willing to take. Worrying about a barely present **possible** toxin is pound foolish and pennywise. This is the knife's edge we skate: what toxins and what possible toxins (because THEY are different things) am I willing to try to remove? If you (if one) tries to stress about removing every last bit of toxin or possible toxin, and to control everything single thing in your environment and life -- then the stress from that attempt will kill you! You say you just found out about the chloride in Splenda, and immediately set out to try to remove it from your life? Let me ask you to approach any yelling about "OMG it's a BAD TOXIN!!" you run across with a grain of ... er ... sodium chloride {wink} and don't rush to do anything different until you've had a chance to do some research. WHO is 'yelling' at you/us to avoid the thing? What possible motives might they have? How much do you trust the source of the yelling and the source of the alleged toxin? How can you rearrange your life if it seems to be worthwhile to avoid or minimize this alleged toxin? What must you give up to avoid the alleged toxin -- and what possible effects did/might/does that have? (For example -- giving up Splenda to use aspartame is crazy: aspartame seems to cause brain damage. I say "seems to" because from my own limited research into aspartame, I decided that Splenda was either no or a lesser problem, and so I made an easy decision: avoid aspartame, use Splenda; and ended my research into aspartame. I still keep an eye out on Splenda -- I am NOT declaring Splenda good forever, I am declaring it good enough for now.) If it turns out, in some number of years (as it has not yet, in some number of years) that Splenda has a negative effect, that will be too bad. I spend about 35 years of my life living mainly on pasta with meat and cheese on it. I still am completely addicted to pasta -- even though I haven't eaten any in five years. I can pull up the sensory memories of it and revel in what I have lost. I've got a messed up thyroid because of years of grains. It is unequivocal that pasta is damaging to the human body {sob} and so there is no hard choice to avoid it (and grains) completely (read "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre -- fantastic book!) Pasta was a "good for you" food that turns out to have done huge damage to my body. I cannot change what I did not know. So I give myself a huge "pass" for having done the damage to myself that I did. I had to live, I have to live -- and I do the best I can in making choices -- and then do not beat myself up for making the wrong one on the basis of what I knew -- or what was known -- back then. Splenda? May or may not be damaging -- may or may not be dangerous. Everything I've read (including the hysterical "anti" views of the sugar industry {eye roll}) lead me to conclude that for me, in my life, with the choices and changes I am making, with the ills and imbalances I am working to cure, with the much higher dangers on my list of dangers to confront? Splenda is an easy one. The only thing I drink besides water is Splenda-sweetened "koolaid" (Wyler's brand strawberry) -- and I'm more worried about the possible crap in the "koolaid" mix than I am about the Splenda! But I'm not willing to do without some flavor in my drink -- and tea hurts my stomach. Make your choices on the basis of what you can reasonably achieve. Do as much as you can, on the basis of your own life, your own research, and then applaud yourself for what you're able to do -- do NOT castigate yourself because "you're not doing enough"! Make your decisions on the basis of what will have the greater effect and then give yourself the *grace* of NOT POSSIBLY being able to do it all. Yes? There is no perfection on this Earth. There is only: do what you can and call it enough. Elenor p.s., But that does mean you need to try to do what you can! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 http://www.naturalnews.com/024302_aspartame_Splenda_diet_soda.html Article on it by Mike Bruce ----- Original Message ----- From: Linn Splenda is the trade name for sucralose, a synthetic compound stumbled upon in 1976 by scientists in Britain seeking a new pesticide formulation. It is true that the Splenda molecule is comprised of sucrose (sugar) — except that three of the hydroxyl groups in the molecule have been replaced by three chlorine atoms. While some industry experts claim the molecule is similar to table salt or sugar, other independent researchers say it has more in common with pesticides. That’s because the bonds holding the carbon and chlorine atoms together are more characteristic of a chlorocarbon than a salt — and most pesticides are chlorocarbons. The premise offered next is that just because something contains chlorine doesn’t guarantee that it’s toxic. And that is also true, but you and your family may prefer not to serve as test subjects for the latest post-market artificial sweetener experiment — however “unique.” (See our article on endocrine disruptors for more information on toxins and persistent organic pollutants.) The manufacturer’s own short-term studies showed that very high doses of sucralose (far beyond what would be expected in an ordinary diet) caused shrunken thymus glands, enlarged livers, and kidney disorders in rodents. (A more recent study also shows that Splenda significantly decreases beneficial gut flora.) http://www.womentowomen.com/healthyweight/splenda.aspx The thalamus suppression is a major concern to me, especially considering the number of children who consume these products. If you're suppressing the thalamus gland, you're increasing autoimmunity, immune related diseases, infections and cancers. Huge implications. People suck this stuff down like it's going out of style, it's in a ton of products. That's part of the problem, we don't use just small portions of these items. There is tons of information about Splenda and other artificial sweeteners, nothing I have read would lead me to believe that it's better than sugar (not that I think sugar is good either, but I'd definitely choose raw honey, or a natural sugar or Stevia). I deal with a Type 1 diabetic daily and I can tell you positively that Splenda and other artificial sweeteners skyrocket her blood sugar, way more than sugar does. Everyone can rationalize what they want to keep eating or drinking, it's an addiction plain and simple. Linn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 8, 2010 Report Share Posted April 8, 2010 It is very easy to eat without eating toxins. It is a choice. I don't touch anything with Splenda unless I have some clay handy. I don't get worked up about the toxins I have no control over. Cheers, Joan > > > >Chlorine and chloride are not the same in any way > > >Bruce > > > > {wry eyebrow raise} Bit of exaggeration, don't you think? > > > > Sherry, there is a lot of sniping back and forth about whether or not artificial sweeteners (and/or Splenda in particular) are safe, or safe enough, or not-at-all safe. The " chlorine in Splenda " hysteria is mainly a sales tool by the sugar industry (because, of course, Splenda is making huge inroads into " their " business). > > > > (I happen to judge the health risk of Splenda to be much lower than the risk from sugar. That is my own determination, for my own life, on the basis of years of reading and study. You cannot cut out everything in the food chain that is -- or may be -- " bad " for you. And even if you were to try, you have to make judgments between lesser and greater -- not between bad and good.) > > > > Let me repeat Dr Eades: > > " If you want even more evidence that the tiny amount of chloride in the Splenda is harmless consider that, like with blood sugar, you have about a teaspoon of chloride circulating in your blood at any given time, which is more than 20,000 times the amount you would get from a dose of Splenda. ... " > > > > In the 'list of priorities' for things we thyroid folks need to address? Splenda is way, WAY down on the list! A shower filter -- and a good tap water filter (because there may be more danger from plastics than from tap water, depending on your water source) -- would come miles ahead of cutting out Splenda because it is made with chlorine. > > > > It is NOT possible to remove all toxins - or even identify all toxins -- and so we must direct our limited time, money, and abilities to cutting out the worst or largest ones first, and then decide which lesser risks we are willing to take. Worrying about a barely present **possible** toxin is pound foolish and pennywise. > > > > This is the knife's edge we skate: what toxins and what possible toxins (because THEY are different things) am I willing to try to remove? If you (if one) tries to stress about removing every last bit of toxin or possible toxin, and to control everything single thing in your environment and life -- then the stress from that attempt will kill you! > > > > You say you just found out about the chloride in Splenda, and immediately set out to try to remove it from your life? Let me ask you to approach any yelling about " OMG it's a BAD TOXIN!! " you run across with a grain of ... er ... sodium chloride {wink} and don't rush to do anything different until you've had a chance to do some research. > > > > WHO is 'yelling' at you/us to avoid the thing? > > What possible motives might they have? > > How much do you trust the source of the yelling and the source of the alleged toxin? > > How can you rearrange your life if it seems to be worthwhile to avoid or minimize this alleged toxin? > > What must you give up to avoid the alleged toxin -- and what possible effects did/might/does that have? (For example -- giving up Splenda to use aspartame is crazy: aspartame seems to cause brain damage. I say " seems to " because from my own limited research into aspartame, I decided that Splenda was either no or a lesser problem, and so I made an easy decision: avoid aspartame, use Splenda; and ended my research into aspartame. I still keep an eye out on Splenda -- I am NOT declaring Splenda good forever, I am declaring it good enough for now.) > > > > If it turns out, in some number of years (as it has not yet, in some number of years) that Splenda has a negative effect, that will be too bad. I spend about 35 years of my life living mainly on pasta with meat and cheese on it. I still am completely addicted to pasta -- even though I haven't eaten any in five years. I can pull up the sensory memories of it and revel in what I have lost. I've got a messed up thyroid because of years of grains. It is unequivocal that pasta is damaging to the human body {sob} and so there is no hard choice to avoid it (and grains) completely (read " The Vegetarian Myth " by Lierre -- fantastic book!) Pasta was a " good for you " food that turns out to have done huge damage to my body. I cannot change what I did not know. So I give myself a huge " pass " for having done the damage to myself that I did. I had to live, I have to live -- and I do the best I can in making choices -- and then do not beat myself up for making the wrong one on the basis of what I knew -- or what was known -- back then. > > > > Splenda? May or may not be damaging -- may or may not be dangerous. Everything I've read (including the hysterical " anti " views of the sugar industry {eye roll}) lead me to conclude that for me, in my life, with the choices and changes I am making, with the ills and imbalances I am working to cure, with the much higher dangers on my list of dangers to confront? Splenda is an easy one. The only thing I drink besides water is Splenda-sweetened " koolaid " (Wyler's brand strawberry) -- and I'm more worried about the possible crap in the " koolaid " mix than I am about the Splenda! But I'm not willing to do without some flavor in my drink -- and tea hurts my stomach. > > > > Make your choices on the basis of what you can reasonably achieve. Do as much as you can, on the basis of your own life, your own research, and then applaud yourself for what you're able to do -- do NOT castigate yourself because " you're not doing enough " ! Make your decisions on the basis of what will have the greater effect and then give yourself the *grace* of NOT POSSIBLY being able to do it all. > > > > Yes? There is no perfection on this Earth. There is only: do what you can and call it enough. > > > > Elenor > > > > p.s., But that does mean you need to try to do what you can! > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 Gail wrote: " The article about defending splendid by Dr. Eades was a very shallow attempt to prove it's safety. Before one (especially a doctor) goes out to prove (or disprove) a point they should at least get some *weighty* facts, like clinical trials and data, to support it. There are far too many " MD's " now a days with such flighty attitudes about health concerns, much to their shame. " It's a blog entry, not a study or report of a clinical trial. It's a blog entry by a highly respected MD who has many, many years of treating many, many patients for many things, including thyroid and weight loss; and who has also spent many years reading medical studies, such as most MDs do NOT. It's a blog entry by an MD who has shown in all his writing to be a careful and thorough reader of medical studies. I object to your characterization, on the basis of a single blog entry, of Dr. Eades as shallow and flighty. You are wrong. He is neither. I provided the link to his blog because having read his *entire* blog including the comments and his answers to the comments, and all of his books, and having heard several podcast interviews done with him, I have found him to be an EXTREMELY reliable source of medical information, including how to read and understand the strong points and the gaps and weaknesses (and flat-out mis-characterizations) in actual medical studies (and the press reports on them). (Also, I don't find Wikipedia to be a " weighty " source of facts!) However, I'm with you on the dangers of aspartame! Elenor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 9, 2010 Report Share Posted April 9, 2010 might be time to take this to the OT group? =-) Re: Toxins Gail wrote:"The article about defending splendid by Dr. Eades was a very shallow attempt to prove it's safety. Before one (especially a doctor) goes out to prove (or disprove) a point they should at least get some *weighty* facts, like clinical trials and data, to support it. There are far too many "MD's" now a days with such flighty attitudes about health concerns, much to their shame."It's a blog entry, not a study or report of a clinical trial. It's a blog entry by a highly respected MD who has many, many years of treating many, many patients for many things, including thyroid and weight loss; and who has also spent many years reading medical studies, such as most MDs do NOT. It's a blog entry by an MD who has shown in all his writing to be a careful and thorough reader of medical studies. I object to your characterization, on the basis of a single blog entry, of Dr. Eades as shallow and flighty. You are wrong. He is neither. I provided the link to his blog because having read his *entire* blog including the comments and his answers to the comments, and all of his books, and having heard several podcast interviews done with him, I have found him to be an EXTREMELY reliable source of medical information, including how to read and understand the strong points and the gaps and weaknesses (and flat-out mis-characterizations) in actual medical studies (and the press reports on them).(Also, I don't find Wikipedia to be a "weighty" source of facts!)However, I'm with you on the dangers of aspartame!Elenor Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Hi Bee, We recently purchased a temperpedic mattress. It still has a weird smell and I'm not sure if it's toxins or if it could just be me detoxing in the night for other reasons. I notice my nose is really stuffy at night now and my throat gets really dry. These things always seem to happen to me when I sleep but not sure if the new mattress is making it worse. Is there anything I can do to help get rid of the smell? It's too cold to open windows yet but would plants help? Also, I was in a wedding this past weekend and painted my toe nails (with the least toxic nail polish I could find). I want to remove it now but don't want to use nail polish remover. Do you know of anything else that would work? Coconut oil possibly? Thanks! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 > > Hi Bee, > We recently purchased a temperpedic mattress. It still has a weird smell and I'm not sure if it's toxins or if it could just be me detoxing in the night for other reasons. I notice my nose is really stuffy at night now and my throat gets really dry. These things always seem to happen to me when I sleep but not sure if the new mattress is making it worse. > > Is there anything I can do to help get rid of the smell? It's too cold to open windows yet but would plants help? > Also, I was in a wedding this past weekend and painted my toe nails (with the least toxic nail polish I could find). I want to remove it now but don't want to use nail polish remover. Do you know of anything else that would work? Coconut oil possibly? > +++Hi , It is unfortunate you bought a temperpedic mattress since it contains many chemicals and is made out of synthetic plastic foam - see this: http://www.squidoo.com/chemicallysensitivepeople#module11203066 Hopefully, you can still return it. You can try coconut oil to remove the nail polish, but I doubt it will work. I think you should use nail polish remover and then scrub your fingers with a brush and soap afterwards. Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 Hi Bee, Oh no...I had no idea. I think we can return it though. It's actually not a full mattress...just a mattress pad. The brand isn't temperpedic but it's still the same type of foam. Would a down mattress pad be better? +++Hi , It is unfortunate you bought a temperpedic mattress since it contains many chemicals and is made out of synthetic plastic foam - see this: http://www.squidoo.com/chemicallysensitivepeople#module11203066 Hopefully, you can still return it. You can try coconut oil to remove the nail polish, but I doubt it will work. I think you should use nail polish remover and then scrub your fingers with a brush and soap afterwards. Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2011 Report Share Posted March 7, 2011 > > Hi Bee, > Oh no...I had no idea. I think we can return it though. It's actually not a full > mattress...just a mattress pad. The brand isn't temperpedic but it's still the > same type of foam. Would a down mattress pad be better? +++. Of course a down mattress pad, or a wool one, or another kind of natural fiber pad would be better. Bee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.