What is Thimerosal

     The other day I was idly browsing my facebook feed and encountered an image regarding the presence and safety of mercury in vaccines.

      The image is in two parts; both are satirical. The top half was created in favor of the anti-vaccination movement declaring that the presence of mercury in vaccines is dangerous. The bottom section is an equally sarcastic rebuttal to the former; stating that the original author has no idea what he is talking about. The image itself is actually terribly incorrect on a few points; though it does invite a few interesting question for discussion. What is thimerosal? What is it for? Does it contain mercury? Is it dangerous? Am I an ignorant idiot? Let us find the answers for ourselves.

      I will start by going over the image itself first and then digging into the real meat of the subject. The second section of the image states “This is how I would normally handle chlorine... but when it is in the form of table salt, it is completely safe.” True to what is meant to be implied chlorine is pretty dangerous. Chlorine is gaseous under normal temperature and pressure; it is irritating to the lungs at 15 parts per million (ppm) and lethal at 50 ppm. Thus the reason the scientist is carefully holding that beaker away from his face; though I do feel the need to comment on his lack of a respirator and hazmat suit.

      The second half of that statement, regarding table salt, has a few misleading points. It correctly says that when chlorine is in the form of table salt, sodium chloride, it is completely safe. In fact, it is not only completely safe but even necessary for the human body to survive.

      The reason for this is simple: notice the chemical name of table salt, sodium chloride. Particularly, notice the 'ide' part of chloride. Chloride is completely safe for humans; whereas chlorine is deadly. The difference between the two is small, yet significant. When chlorine gains an extra electron it has an over all negative charge; this makes the anion of chlorine, chloride. Anions cannot freely exist: they must bond with another element to maintain chemical balance. That negative charge from the extra electron cannot just hang out by itself. Certain other elements tend to get a positive charge; sodium is one of these.

      There is an important distinction to make here. Chlorine is not simply present in table salt; it is in an entirely different form. Additionally, sodium chloride does not break down into its' base elements in the human body. If the second author of the image is correct then mercury must be in a different, safe, form when present in thimerosal and it must be stable when metabolized in the human body.

      Now we can dig into what thimerosal actually is. Thimerosal is a compound used as a preservative in vaccines; it is created by reacting ethylmercuric chloride with thiosalicylic acid. When present in the body, especially the bloodstream, thimerosal breaks down back into thiosalicylate and ethylmercuric chloride.

      Thiosalicylate can be dismissed easily enough. It is not dangerous to the human body and is only used as a reactant to create other compounds (like thimerosal) and as a dye. On the other hand ethylmercuric chloride is quite a bit nastier. You may be thinking, 'Hey, we just talked about chloride! That stuff is good for us!' This is absolutely correct; however the important part of this particular molecule is the ethylmercuric bit. I looked up ethylmercuric chloride on the website of a scientific chemical supplier. The notable part of the entry is in the safety and documentation section of the webpage. Out of the list of warning labels I found H300, H310, and H330 to be of particular interest. Those abbreviations are the supplier's codes for hazards: fatal if swallowed, fatal in contact with skin, and fatal if inhaled, respectivally. The Center for Disease Control states that ethylmercuric compounds are safe. Out of the two sources here, I think I would rather trust the one that does not have a vested interest in proving that ethylmercuric chloride is safe.

      Mercury, in any organic form, is dangerous to the human body. When it is absorbed into the bloodstream mercury is carried into the brain. Once there, it wrecks havoc on the nerve cells; causing headaches, memory loss, sensory impairment, lack of coordination, and death. Naturally the dose makes the poison here; although many people would rather avoid the 'mild' symptoms as well.

      The estimated lethal dose (obviously, nobody can really test this legally) of organic mercuric compounds, such as ethyl mercuric chloride, is 20 milligrams (0.000705479 oz.). For the average adult weighing 72 kilograms (157 lbs) the lethal dose is 1,440 milligrams (0.05 oz.) of mercury. Not something any sane person should want in their body in any amount.

      The natural reaction upon learning this information is to ask how much mercury is actually in thimerosal and how much is actually being injected with vaccines. Checking the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for thimerosal tells us that the compound is 49.55% mercury by weight, a little bit less than half. Finding how much thimerosal is in a vaccine shot is a rather difficult question to answer as it happens. Just by browsing the Center for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration websites I found answers ranging from less than 1 microgram all the way up to 125 micrograms. Other sources claim amounts around 300 micrograms; some vaccine critics claim as much as 900 micrograms. My personal opinion is that more mercury is bad; I would just as soon avoid any amount of it at all. However, the purpose of this post is not to recommend or discourage the use of vaccines; only to inform on what thimerosal is and to try and discourage some bad science.

      Finally, we are ready to answer our questions from earlier. What is thimerosal? A compound made out of thiosalicylic acid and ethylmercuric chloride. What is it for? As a preservative in vaccines. Does it contain mercury? Yes, in the organic form of ethylmercuric chloride. Is it dangerous? Yes. Am I an ignorant idiot? We do not know. Perhaps that is a discussion for another time.

      Hopefully I have given you, the reader, a bit more knowledge on the subject. Thimerosal is indeed not mercury. However it does contain mercury and, most importantly, breaks down into that same compound in the human body. Perhaps the original image is correct: knowing a few basic chemistry concepts before commenting on them is a good idea. I would like to add that it is a good idea to discuss differences of opinion with well thought debate rather than a single sentence captioning a picture. Otherwise, you too run the risk of looking like an ignorant idiot.

WORKS CITED

“Thimerosal.” Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 12^Th ed. 1993. Print.

“Ethylmercuric Chloride.” Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 12^Th ed. 1993. Print.

“Thiosalicylic Acid.” Hawley's Condensed Chemical Dictionary. 12^Th ed. 1993. Print.

Emsley, John. The Elements 3^rd ed. New York: Oxford University Press Inc., 1998. Print.

Newton, David E. Chemical Elements: From Carbon to Krypton Vol. 1. Farmington Hills: UXL, an Imprint of Gale. 1999. Print.

Newton, David E. Chemical Elements: From Carbon to Krypton Vol. 2. Farmington Hills: UXL, an Imprint of Gale. 1999. Print.

Brown, Theodore L., Lemay, H. Eugene jr., Burson, Bruce E. Chemistry: The Central Science. 10^Th ed. Upper Saddle River: Peorson Education inc. 2006. Print.

“Ethyl Mercuric Chloride” Sigma-Aldrich. Sigma-Aldrich, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.

“Thimerosal in Flu Vaccine” CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.

“Frequently Asked Questions about Thimerosal.” CDC. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d. Web. 18 May 2016.

Religion Versus Science

Religion versus Science

The debate between religion and science has been raging for several decades yet neither side shows any sign of relenting. This particular discussion can be difficult for many christians and other theists to participate in because they do not wish to disagree with science; which has several laws explaining nature. All too often I see or hear a Naturalist cite science in a debate against religion. The opposing party typically shrinks away muttering something about faith. This is not the way these discussions should end, however. The word “science” has been stolen by naturalists to mean something completely different from the actual definition. When used with the proper definition religion is a perfectly viable scientific theory on the origin of the universe.

A quick clarification should be inserted before I begin: when i say that religion does not contradict science I do not refer to all religions. There are religions that directly and purposefully deny known and proven scientific laws. Those are not included in my blanket definition of religion for this discussion. I am mainly referring to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and other reasonable religions when I mention religion or theism here.

I will start by giving the proper definition of science.

Science (noun): A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws. (Science. n.d. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/science?s=t)

Another dictionary gives a similar definition:

Science (noun) Knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation. (Science. n.d. In Merriam-Webster Online. Retrieved from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science)

Read those definitions carefully. Personally, I cannot find anything denouncing the existence of a supernatural being. Nor do I see anything claiming that the world was created without a god. This is because science is a process of gathering knowledge and not a worldview of its own. To summarize: science does not give facts or truth; science tells us how to find truth for ourselves. Naturalists have stolen the word “science” and twisted it to represent their worldviews which allow for no spiritual aspect to the universe.

 

Naturalism has been mentioned a few times now; it deserves a proper definition as well.

Naturalism (noun) Philosophy: the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual. (Naturalism. n.d. In Dictionary.com. Retrieved from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/naturalism?s=t)

This is a blanket term for several worldviews that disallow the existence of a deity of any sort. Atheism, Secularism, Hedonism, Existentialism, Nazism, and Nihilism and some of the bigger systems under naturalism. Going into detail on these would divert from the purpose of this post; I will instead focus on their important common feature. All of these worldviews deny the existence any supernatural or spiritual being.

The equivalent blanket term for worldviews that believe part of reality is spiritual is theism. Since theistic worldviews require the existence of God, (or gods, in some cases,) and naturalist worldviews require the absence of God the two are entirely incompatible. You cannot believe God exists and believe that God does not exist at the same time. That would violate the law of noncontradiction. This is an important law of classical logic; especially when looking at religions and worldviews. The law of noncontradiction is as follows:

Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time.

This basically means that two opposing statements cannot both be true simultaneously.

You cannot be a married bachelor. I cannot be a living cadaver. My roommate cannot be a decent person, (that last one is a joke,). Theism and naturalism cannot both be true without violating the law of noncontradiction.  

Now we reach the heart of the matter. We know that science is a process by which one discovers truth. We also know that science does not represent a worldview of its own. finally, we know that naturalism denies the existence of spiritual aspects of reality while theism affirms that same existence. Religion actually upholds science as an explanation of God’s creation. We (theists) embrace all scientific laws. I challenge any naysayer to find a scientific law that contradicts the existence of God. I can issue this challenge with confidence because comparing science and religion is like comparing a violin to a piano. The two are completely different. Both are amazing and beautiful on their own, together they complement and complete each other, becoming greater than the sum of their parts.

Naturalism denies the existence of any deity. It believes in a reality that is entirely physical. However, naturalism and science are also two completely different things; precisely like theism and science. Any scientific argument that invalidates theism can invalidate naturalism at the same time.

Since our definition have been cleared up a bit we can safely state that the religion versus science debate will never end because it is entirely invalid. The two relate to, but do not compete with each other. Theism’s theory on the origin of the universe is perfectly viable scientifically.. It has a well explained, fleshed out theory on the creation of reality. That is as much, if not more, than any naturalist worldview can claim.

References

Catholic Church. Catechism of the Catholic Church. 2nd ed. Vatican: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997

Gottlieb, P. Aristotle on Non-Contradiction (2011) Retrieved from

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradiction/

Plantinga, A. Science or naturalism? The contradictions of richard Dawkins (2012) Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/04/12/3475939.htm

Shook, J. Naturalism and Science (2007) Retrieved from

http://www.naturalisms.org/science.htm

The Return

I'm coming back. Hopefully within a few days definitely by the end of next week. I have a slew of topics to hit, mostly philosophical in nature. Worry not, I still plan on involving logic and reason in everything I write.

Diet Soft Drinks: Healthier?

First off, the proper term is actually soft drink. Alcoholic beverages were historically named hard, so the obvious choice for this new bubbly beverage was soft. Soda is a shortened form of soda water, which itself was a simplified way of referring to the sodium carbonate that was once used. Pop was used to describe corked soft drinks (the cork popped when opened). Both terms just grew into use as a generic term for the same thing. That said, I still call it pop, merely because that's what I've called it my entire life.

In my articles about artificial sweeteners, I mentioned that diet pop contains aspartame and sometimes sucralose, which are both bad. This statement appears to contradict the 'proven' fact that diet soft drinks lead to weight loss. The first thing I'd like to point out is the people you see drinking diet soft drinks. As a general rule, the people drinking diet pops are the unhealthy, obese people. You might say that those people are drinking diet because they need to be healthier or lose weight, but what if it's the other way around? What if they are overweight and unhealthy because they are drinking diet?

The brain is wired up in a way so that when it consumes something extremely fatty or sweet, it prepares the body to receive and absorb a large amount of calories. But since artificial sweeteners lack the calories present in regular sugar, the body is prepared for no reason. It basically then whines at your brain that it isn't receiving the calories it's expecting. This causes a craving for more sugars or fats. You then eat more and more food to try and satisfy this craving. And when the body absorbs more food then it needs (remember, actual hunger didn't start the cycle, drinking diet pop did), it stores the extras in fats. This fat builds up, which leads to obesity and even diabetes. Aspartame and sucralose in particular also cause the body to store more nutrience than normal in fat, due to that whole issue where the two substances act as a neurotoxin.

So why do people seem to lose weight when they drink diet soft drinks? Let's say that Tim wants to lose fifty pounds. He stops eating fast food and switches to a diet that is based around whole, natural foods. He becomes more active and hits the gym regularly. He also switches from regular pop to diet. Now, let us also say that Tim's friend Bill also wants to lose fifty pounds. However, the only thing Bill does is to switch to diet soft drinks. Who is more likely to reach their goal? Probably not Bill.

Note that I am not saying that regular soft drinks are much better; they just aren't worse. More on that next week.

What is science?

Okay, first an introduction: I've been encountering a lot of people (from both viewpoints) who think that science and religion are complete opposites. This is completely and utterly false.

Religion is a collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and moral values. No matter what the belief is, it falls under this category, whether Atheism(yes, believing there is no God is a belief system), Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, or other.

Science, on the other hand, is a system of building and organizing information. It proves this information by experimentation.

You'll notice that neither definition has anything stating that the other is false. Of course, I didn't go into detail regarding individual religious beliefs, that would take a very long time. Regardless of this, most religions only disprove each other, not science. I have disregarded some minor sects that try to contradict science, such as dadaism. I don't count as a regular religion, however, as they were created for the sole purpose of fighting logic and reason.

Now to the heart of the matter. Science is being declared to disprove religion; most commonly through the theory of evolution. First off, that is only a theory. It requires just as much faith as the most convoluted cult. It does have a basis in fact. Micro-evolution is easily true. Macro-evolution on the other hand has yet to be concretely proven. If something does not have concrete proof, it falls under the belief category(skip to the last paragraph of this post for an explanation of macro and micro evolution).  I can find just as much truth in any other religion. This is because every religion is based off of the beliefs that someone came up with after observing fact.

Therefore, science does not contradict nor disprove religion. It actually compliments it in most places. Neither does religion shackle science; if nothing else, it gives it purpose.

Macro and Micro Evolution

I'll make this quick. Micro evolution involves relatively minor genetic changes, such as a mutation, to change creature into another, similar creature; for example, a regular carrier pigeon becoming a separate and distinct species of pigeon. Macro evolution states that if one pigeon can become another, then it is reasonable that a pigeon could become an eagle, given enough time. Sure, that is reasonable, but it has not been proven. 

Chlorine Talk: Acids

Now that we know about chlorine's role as an oxidizer and a disinfectant, it's time to learn about the remainder of it's uses.

Some of you may have heard of chlorine gas, which was used in World War I by both sides against entrenched enemy soldiers. Since chlorine gas is heavier than air, it would sink to the bottom of the trenches, where soldiers would inhale it. Due to chlorine's afore mentioned oxidizing powers, it reacts with the water in their lungs and turned into hydrochloric acid, the strongest acid known to man. I don't believe I need to explain why having acid in your lungs is a bad thing. Now, when you smell the chlorine coming out of your pool, don't worry; while that is chlorine gas, it's not going to kill you. Chlorine gas, (the lethal poison, not gaseous chlorine) is made with a few other key ingredients, and not just be evaporating chlorine; it can be smelled at 3 PPM (Parts Per Million), starts causing coughing and/or vomiting at about 30 PPM, and doesn't cause lung damage until 60 PPM. And even that can be healed. The concentration doesn't become lethal until 1000 PPM.

Back to hydrochloric acid or HCl. But first, we need to know exactly what an acid is. An acid is any substance that is willing to take electrons from another substance that is willing to give electrons. This means that an acid will react with specific substances, known as bases. Lye(Drano) is a commonly known base. During the reaction, the acid and base mix themselves together to create a new substance. And of course, some acids are strong enough to react with materials that aren't normally a base, such as pouring muratic acid (a mix of 30% HCl and 70% water) on concrete. The concrete melts away and mixes with the acid, leaving behind a watery-ish residue that won't react with more concrete.  HCl is also used in toilet bowl cleaner (~3% HCl) and many other solvents.

Other than in chemicals, chlorine is also used in the construction of a lot of plastics, chiefly PVC (Polyvinyl Chloride) and any vinyl materials.

Random Fact: Brain Freeze

I decided to start a new series of posts based on random ideas that will make a small, yet informative post. Look for more random facts in the future!

As you all should know, brain freeze is a small, short lived headache that results from consuming cold food or beverages (e.g. ice cream) really fast. This headache is caused by rapid cooling and rewarming of the blood vessels in the roof of your mouth; heat expansion/contraction causes the blood vessels to dilate, which is detected by the trigeminal nerve, which sends the pain signal back to the brain. This is all pretty simple, just like stubbing your toe; toe gets stubbed, the nerves relay the pain signal back to the brain and you feel said pain in your toe. "But why is pain from the roof of my mouth being felt in my forehead?" An excellent question. See, the trigeminal nerve is one of the primary nerves for detecting facial pain, as a result of this, the brain gets confused and thinks the pain is coming from your forehead.

Incidentally, the same expansion/contraction of blood vessels is what makes your face turn red after being outside on a cold day; this occurrence just doesn't cause pain.