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.

Chlorine Talk: Oxidizers

So now that I've glanced over one of the most common applications of chlorine, I thought I'd provide a bit more information on the chemical nature of chlorine itself.

Chlorine is a part of a group of chemicals called oxidizers. Basically, this means that in a chemical reaction, chlorine pulls electrons off of surrounding elements, just like oxygen does in a fire. In fact, fire is nothing more than oxygen pulling electrons from fuel (like wood) when exposed to a heat source greater than the fuel's flash point, which is a term that refers to the temperature at which our fuel is no longer stable and becomes combustible. Charcoal has a high flash point, which is why lighter fluid (which has a low flash point) is used to heat the charcoal up to its own flash point and burn of its own accord, rather than with the support of the lighter fluid. A flame is the result of some of the heat (energy) from the combustion being transferred to the electrons that the oxygen pulled off the fuel. These electrons then release the energy in the form of light. 

So now we know what an oxidizer does and that oxygen is usually the oxidizer regarding fire. Chlorine can act as an oxidizer instead of oxygen. For example, hydrogen can burn in chlorine. The hydrogen acts as the fuel (and it's very good at this, just look at the Hindenburg), and the chlorine is the oxidizer. Incidentally, the result of this reaction  produces gaseous hydrogen chloride, also known as hydrochloric acid, which I shall discuss in further detail in another post.

As an oxidizer, chlorine is not flammable by itself, but it can cause other materials to combust. So if I were to hold a flame up to some pure chlorine, it would not ignite; however, if I held a flame up to some hair spray (outside of the can, of course) it would instantly combust (that's right, hair spray is quite flammable) which is why hair spray cans have flammability warnings on them.

Oxidizers are also important in explosives, which work in much the same way as fire does; instead of burning over a period of time, explosives release their energy all at once. 

Finally, oxidizers are one of the primary culprits behind corrosion. Oxidizers, again, usually oxygen, reacts with a metal, such as iron, to produce a salt and iron oxide, which is brittle and easily snapped. When a bit of metal oxides to much, it snaps, which can cause structures to collapse. This is what caused the silver bridge to collapse in 1967.

Chlorine Talk: Pools

A few posts ago, I mentioned that chlorine is toxic. I believe it is high time that that mentioning was expanded upon.

Chlorine is an atom found naturally throughout nature, usually a part of a larger molecule, like salt. It's also used heavily by man, in anything from corrosive agents, to disinfectants, and even weapons.

The one thing people think of most often when chlorine is mentioned is swimming pools. Chlorine is being used as a disinfectant to kill off bacteria and pathogens in this particular case. It does this by breaking down into hypochlorous acid and an hypochlorite ion. Both of these substances attack the lipids that hold cell walls together, resulting in the death of the cell. Imagine the cell as a tent, and the lipids as the poles that are holding that tent up. Once you remove those, the tent collapses. Luckily for us, our skin cells aren't quite as vulnerable to chlorine, even though it isn't exactly good for you. Oftentimes, chlorine is supplemented or replaced by chloramines, which kill off pathogens in almost exactly the same way, but are in a more stable form. This is seen as superior to pure chlorine (often called free chlorine) as free chlorine tends to evaporate before killing off much bacteria. As good as this sounds, chloramines are even more irritating to the human body than free chlorine is. Anybody who has gone swimming in a few different chlorine pools can tell that there are slight differences in the color of the water, the intensity of the smell, and how irritable the water is; these differences are due to difference amounts of chloramines being used by different pool owners.
My personal opinion is that chlorine pools don't necessarily need to be avoided, just be sure to shower afterward. Even diluted, chlorine and it's byproducts are pretty harsh chemicals. That's why your skin gets dry and your eyes red after a long swim.

 For those of you who own a swimming pool of your own, I recommend you switch to a copper ionizing system, which is often bundled together with a salt water system. A copper ionizing system works by running water from the pump between two copper plates that have a low electrical voltage running between them. This process is called electrolysis, it's the same thing that made the Statue of Liberty green (That's right, green wasn't the original color). That electrical current causes a small amount of copper ions to mix in the water. This copper is toxic to pathogens and algae, which keeps your pool clean. Don't worry, copper isn't toxic to humans or animals, not unless consumed at enormous levels that wouldn't ever be caused by the little bit of electrolysis that occurs in a pool system.

Salt water systems are often advertised as chlorine free filtration systems. This is completely untrue. As I mentioned before, chlorine is found naturally in salt. Salt water systems merely extract the chlorine needed from salt dissolved in the water. The salt merely acts as a sort of stabilizer, as the filter only takes as much as is needed to clean the pool. A salt water filter is better than a traditional chlorine system just because it only uses free chlorine without any chloramine added. The free chlorine levels found in a salt water pool are usually much lower than the concentrations in a traditional pool anyway. Without having a decent stabilizer (like salt) to keep the chlorine in the water, pool owners have to dump more chlorine in their pool to keep it clean.

Killer Cell Phones? Not.

According to a recent report by the World Health Organization (WHO), cell phones are a possible (note their use of the word possible) carcinogen, or cause of cancer. The WHO report states that radio and electromagnetic waves emitted by cell phones are a possible cause of brain cancer.

ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM

So first we need to know exactly what electromagnetic radiation is. Simple put, electromagnetic radiation is light. Not just visible light, mind you, but also radio waves, ultraviolet rays, infrared light, etc. First we'll need a bit of a description of light itself.
Light functions as either a wave or a particle; but for our current intents and purposes, we can just consider it to be a wave. A wave has two parts, frequency and wavelength, which are inversely proportional to each other according to the following equation f = c / λ.  f stands for the frequency, c is the speed of light in a vacuum (which is constant), and λ represents wavelength. This equation merely shows that as the wavelength gets bigger, frequency will decrease, and vice versa. now it's time for a diagram!

Right, so now some of you might be asking what all those numbers mean. The top section of the diagram is the wavelength/frequency. Frequency is how close together each oscillation is and wavelength is how tall. This picture doesn't show it, but as the frequency gets lower (further apart; I know, that means the number is getting higher. I didn't make up the system, don't judge me.) on the right side, the waves should be getting much taller (higher wavelength).The set of measurements below that wave are the wavelength measurements, in meters. So gamma rays are around 0.0001 nanometers (0.000000000039 inches). The rest of the graph just shows where each of our commonly used wavelengths are located on the electromagnetic spectrum, the bottom bit shows visible light.

ELECTROMAGNETIC RADIATION

Now a short segment on radiation. Radiation is defined by any set of energetic particles, energy, or waves traveling through a medium or space. This includes both light and sound, but usually just refers to visible and non-visible light. There are two types of radiation; ionizing and non-ionizing. Ionizing radiation is the stuff you always hear about on TV, the stuff emitted by nuclear waste that causes cancer. This type of radiation has enough power to remove electrons from cells, which can damage cells and DNA; when DNA is damaged enough like that, it causes cancer. Non-ionizing radiation is any radiation that doesn't have enough energy to change atoms; meaning that it is completely harmless. The only ionizing electromagnetic radiation is found on the short wavelength end of the scale, namely gamma rays, X-rays, and ultraviolet light. 

So now that we have an idea on what electromagnetic radiation is, what's causing it in cell phones, and why is it deadly? Any electronic device emits an electromagnetic field (EMF) as a result of the electrons flowing through it. There's nothing we can do about it short of putting our phones in a Faraday cage (which doesn't allow any electromagnetic signals to pass through it) which would negate the purpose of a cell phone. You may as well keep a rock in your pocket instead. Now that we know the cause, we need to know the effect. According to the WHO, cell phones are emitting an EMF on the microwave scale, same thing your countertop  microwave uses to heat up food. I'm sure most people reading this have been sunburned at least once. This was caused by electromagnetic radiation in the ultraviolet spectrum, emitted by the sun. But has anybody been sunburnt by any regular household light bulb? No, because they don't emit ultraviolet waves and visible light doesn't have a high enough frequency to be harmful. Microwaves(wavelength between 1 meter [3.28 feet] and 1 mm [0.039 inches], about the same as radio waves) and radio waves have an even lower frequency than visible light, they aren't ionizing. In fact, microwaves are technically a type of radio wave. The sun itself emits both microwave and radio radiation. I can't find any numbers on this radiation (it's apparently hard to measure what radiation is coming from the sun and what's coming from other sources), but I'm willing to guess that the giant ball of fire in the sky is emitting more microwaves and radio waves than your relatively puny cell phone.

I started talking about microwaves and bunched radio waves in there without explaining why. Radio waves are the wavelength used by cell phones to communicate with cell towers, satellites, etc. Now, I am no expert on this subject, so if concrete evidence contradicts my work, you should probably ditch that phone of yours. I'm just explaining how the WHO's hypothesis doesn't make scientific sense to me. 

Chrome

I've noticed that a lot of the page-hits on this blog are from Internet Explorer. I'm sure some of you have your reasons for using Internet Explorer, but most only do so because it comes preinstalled on all Windows computers. I recommend you download Google Chrome and use it for at least one day. If you don't like it, switch back; however, I can guarantee that Chrome will make your browsing experience faster and more secure. Mozilla Firefox, Opera, and Apple's Safari are also all good, fast, secure browsers as well, Chrome just so happens to be my favorite.

Soy: A Return

Now that I've explained what soy contains and how it hurts your body, you may be wondering why it's being put into much of our food. The answer is simple: cold, hard cash. Soybeans are easily one of the cheapest, if not the cheapest commodity from which a cooking oil can be derived. When this oil is extracted from the soybean, a byproduct is produced called soy lecithin. While a lot of food contains actual soybean oil, or fermented soy products like soy sauce, many of our processed foods only contain this soy lecithin.

 LECITHINS

Lecithin is a generic term used to describe any fatty acids or substances found within plant or animal tissue. Lecithins contain a variety of chemical terms, including choline, glycolipids, and glycerol. 

Choline (no, not chlorine, I didn't make a typo) is a nutrient necessary throughout life to keep the body healthy. It is used in the construction of cell walls; which, as you can imagine, are pretty important. 

 Glycolipids simply provide energy. They often have carbohydrates attached. Carbohydrates are another energy source. 

Glycerol forms the backbone of triglycerids and can be used as a sweetener. This is why the fat is the sweetest part of a steak, it's high in glycerol.

Triglycerids have two functions; they transport fatty molecules to your cells and serve as an energy source in their own right. In fact, they contain twice as much energy as carbohydrates or proteins. 

All these substances are necessary for life, so what's the big problem?  There is no issue here, until you consider all the phytoestrogens and trypsin inhibitors present in soy to begin with. Also, as I mentioned before, soy lecithin is a byproduct of the process used to extract oil from soybeans. But exactly what is a byproduct? A byproduct is the mysterious sludge in the bottom of the tank that nobody knows what to do with; at least, until someone figured out that it helped to hold food together and bread to rise. Now it's used as an additive in everything from candy bars to muffins and much of what lies in between. Unfortunately for consumers, byproducts tend to not only contain good stuff, but bad as well. Soy lecithin is contaminated with solvents and pesticides left over from the oil extracting process. To make matters worse, soy lecithin is bleached to avoid discoloring in the foods we eat. 

So why is this bad? Well, you wouldn't down a mixture of paint thinner, Raid, and bleach, would you? Essentially the same thing, just taken at lower doses and disguised with other flavors.

Soy: Pure Protein or Pure Poison?

Soy is used as an ingredient in many packaged foods today. It's said to be healthier than dairy products; as a result soy milk, soy butter, and soy yogurt have emerged as "healthy alternatives". But is soy actually better for you? Soy advocates often point out that Asian people have been eating soy for ages and are extremely healthy. In truth, a typical Asian diet consists of a lot of rice, meat, and fresh vegetables. Soy is merely a side dish in Asian food.In fact, Asians typically consume about 10 grams (2 teaspoons) of soy a day. It just seems rather illogical to say that Asians are healthy because of such a small portion of beans; rather than because of all the fresh, unprocessed meat and vegetables. 

Soy is proclaimed as a food that can replace meat. We need to eat meat because it contains amino acids which our bodies require to produce proteins. Without proteins, our bodies grow sick and die.  Soy contains a HUGE amount of amino acids, which is why it's used as a meat 'replacement'. I'll prove that soy causes more problems than it fixes, and that these amino acids are essentially useless when consumed from a soy product.

 PHYTOESTROGEN

Soy contains phytoestrogen, which simulates the effects of the hormone estrogen. Estrogen is produced naturally by several organs; the addition of more estrogen or phytoestrogen leads something called estrogen dominance, estrogen and other hormones are completely unbalanced. Nobody disputes the fact that such an overabundance of estrogen is a cause of several health problems, including Uturine Fibroids, Breast Cancer, and Infertility. Estrogen is one of the main ingredients used in birth control pills, which you wouldn't give to young children for obvious reasons. Feeding an infant the recommended dose of soy formula is the equivalent of feeding them 4 birth control pills. Even adults don't take that many at once. 

PHYTATES

  

Phytates are found naturally in all grains, seeds, nuts, and legumes (like soybeans!). Phytates are a type of enzyme inhibitor. Now, an enzyme is a substance that speeds up chemical reactions. So in this case, enzymes in your stomach are speeding up the breakdown of food. Phytates inhibit this process; which, of course, is not a good thing. If your food is not broken down properly, your body can't absorb any minerals from the food during digestion. 

Some phytates are removed from these foods simply by cooking them. Many more are removed by either soaking said foods in an acidic medium or by fermenting them in a lactic acid. 

Now, an acidic medium is not necessarily a substance that will burn through concrete. About 30 ml (two tablespoons) mixed with some warm water will do just fine. The phytates in most foods are found mostly on the outer shell, or bran. The acidic water eats through this bran and removes most of the nasty phytates. The few that remain are insignificant. 

Unfortunately, soy contains so many phytates, soaking it just doesn't solve the problem. By the time the acid has burned away enough phytates, there isn't any soy left! Fermentation is the only viable option to eating soy. 

Fermenting your phytate infested foods in lactic acid is more effective still. Instead of using acid to burn off phytates, fermentation utilizes bacteria which eat away the phytates. As these bacteria consume they phytates, they increase the acidity of the substance they're in, which kills off any harmful organisms that would normally cause the fermenting food to rot. Common examples of fermentation are yogurt and sauerkraut. 

Fermenting soy only removes the phytates, not any of the other problem substances that I have mentioned or will mention. Fermented soy products should only be consumed as a minor condiment, not a main course. 

TRYPSIN INHIBITORS 

A trypsin inhibitor is, you guessed it, any substances that inhibits trypsin. But what exactly is trypsin? Trypsin is an enzyme used in digestion; it's necessary for the absorption of protein. This enzyme is similar to the other enzymes we discussed, but is used in the intestines, rather than the stomach. A deficiency in trypsin causes digestive cramps, diarrhea, bleeding, and could lead to problems with your pancreas. Soy contains an incredible amount of trypsin inhibitors, which keep trypsin from working and give you all those problems I just described. That is, simply put, not good. 

The raw soybean contains these trypsin inhibitors, which is why raw soybeans are toxic to humans and other mammals. Cooking or fermenting soy does remove enough of the trypsin inhibitors to keep any drastic health issue from immediately occurring, as long as the soy is consumed in small enough quantities. 

Hey, wait a second... Aren't we eating soy as a source of protein? How effective is that protein if soy also contains trypsin inhibitors, which prevent the absorption of  proteins? It isn't effective at all. Most of that valuable protein is completely worthless to you, now that your trypsin is being suppressed. 

So now to reiterate a bit. Soy is not good. Soy contains high levels of phytoestrogen, phytates, and trypsin inhibitors, which are also not good. As I mentioned a couple of times, fermented soy products aren't nearly as bad as the rest, as long as they are used conservatively. For example, a small amount of soy sauce (which is fermented!) in your soup won't hurt you at all. 

Artificial Sweeteners 3

One more thing. A lot of these artificial sweeteners were discovered by some guy accidentally tasting it. In chemistry, it's a very, very bad idea to taste whatever you're working on, unless you test it first. These men are lucky they didn't accidentally invent a new chemical weapon. Also, as they weren't actively trying to make a new artificial sweetener, their discoveries probably shouldn't be used as such. Just sayin'.

Artificial Sweeteners 2

SUCRALOSE

Sucralose, more commonly known as Splenda® is the most common artificial sweetener used in baking today. It was discovered in 1976 by a researcher who was asked to test a substance he was working on. This researcher thought his supervisor told him to taste the substance; when he did so, he discovered that it tasted extremely sweet.


Splenda® is said to be safe because the FDA says it doesn't break down at all. However, the inventors of Splenda® have actually stated that about 15% of sucrolose consumed is absorbed into the body and that they can't guarantee how much of chlorine out of that 15% remains in your system. 


Sucralose is part of a chemical group known as organochlorides. Organochlorides are a group of substances that contain carbon and at least one chlorine atom. Some common organochlorides include carbon tetrachloride, trichlorethelene, and methylene chloride. Each of these substances is deadly if ingested, and each contains at least one chlorine atom. Chlorine is like mother nature's assault rifle; a truly nasty element used in chemical weapons, bleach, hydrochloric acid (the most potent acid known to man), and insecticides. What sucralose really is is a sucrose molecule forced to give up three hydroxyl (oxygen and hydrogen) groups and replace them with chlorine, as is shown with this picture: 

I suppose I should explain exactly what these diagrams mean. These diagrams are a method of mapping out the atoms within a molecule and the bonds between them. Each atom is represented by a letter; the lines show which atoms are connected to each other. The 'O's stand for oxygen, the 'H's for hydrogen, and 'Cl' stands for chlorine. These diagrams don't show this very well, but you can see that the molecules are nearly identical, if you reverse one of drawings. 


"Hold on Eric, isn't chlorine in table salt?" Yes, table salt, sodium chloride, does contain chlorine. But salt isn't an organochloride; when sodium and chlorine combine to make salt, there is no carbon present, which means it isn't classified as an organochloride. Table salt and and sucralose are about as similar as a tree and a laptop computer. 


Our cellular metabolism, the process by which our bodies burn food for energy, is designed to use organic molecules containing carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, as well as a number of other nutritional elements. Since sucralose is an organic molecule it is the perfect system to deliver chlorine, which would normally pass through the digestive system, throughout our cells. Then chlorine acts as a preservative on your cells. This may sound like a good thing until you consider that preservatives work by killing all living cells to prevent bacterial decay; your cells will be perfectly preserved, but completely dead. 


Fortunately, our liver acts like airport security for your body. It prevents toxins like chlorine from killing our precious cells. But the liver can only handle so much, especially when your body's metabolism is already being attacked by that 15% of consumed sucralose we discussed earlier. Under great stress of this sort, the body's liver is destroyed; other internal organs follow. Under 'normal' consumption, the chlorine takes the slower route through the bloodstream. Organocarbons are extremely damaging to the brain and nervous system, exactly where a lot of your blood flows. This messes up your genetics and immune system, potentially causing cancer, immune system destruction, and birth defects. 

Artificial Sweeteners 1

Everybody knows that eating to much sugar leads to obesity and other health problems, right? Or does it? Are artificial sweeteners like Splenda® and that stuff they stick in diet pop actually better for you than regular sucrose sugar?

The answer to this question requires a bit of chemistry talk. Don't worry, I'll talk you through it! The term 'sugar' refers to any substance that has a sweet flavor, usually sucrose, lactose, and fructose. Sucrose is regular table sugar taken from a sugarcane plant, lactose is the sweet component of milk, and fructose is sugar found in fruit. Artificial sweeteners are sugars that are completely made within a laboratory, not created via a refining process like table sugar (sucrose) is.

Now for a bit of history regarding artificial sweeteners.

The first artificial sweetener is called sugar of lead. See, lead has a naturally sweet taste to it. Of course, I've never actually tasted it myself. As you might guess, sugar of lead is gained by cooking or eating food in/on lead dishes. As you also might guess, sugar of lead is just as toxic as regular lead. Don't try it. Please.

There have been a few other artificial sweeteners between the ban of sugar of lead and the use of modern sweeteners, but I won't go over them now. Most of them have been banned since they were discovered to cause cancer or other diseases.

The two biggest modern artificial sweeteners are aspartame and sucralose.

ASPARTAME

Aspartame was discovered by a chemist who was in the process of creating an anti-ulcer drug. Aspartame was a byproduct in his creation; he discovered its sweetness when he licked a finger he had unknowingly coated with aspartame. Aspartame isn't used for baking, as it breaks down and looses its sweetness when it hits about 30°C  (86°F). Instead, aspartame was recently used in cold beverages, like diet pop.

The FDA holds that aspartame is completely safe. This is true, until you consider the products from breaking down aspartame. Aspartame breaks down into aspartic acid, phenylalanine, and methanol.

Aspartic acid sounds bad, but it is just an animo acid found in our bodies and used to create other, essential animo acids. Phenylalanine is another animo that our body manufactures and uses naturally.

Methanol, on the other hand, is highly toxic in humans; as little as 10 ml (2.03 tsp) can cause permanent blindness, 30 ml (6.03 tsp) and above gradually increases the risk of fatality. In contrast, the minimum lethal dose of pure arsenic is about 70-200 ml (14.20-40.58 tsp). The FDA states that aspartame is completely safe; they are completely correct, unless it is heated to 30°C (86°F) and breaks down into toxic components. The internal human body temperature is about 37°C (98.6°F), which is well above the breakdown point of aspartame. After this breakdown occurs, toxic substances are absorbed into the bloodstream and carried straight to your brain, effectively acting like a neurotoxin. Since the FDA finally recognized the lethal effects of aspartame, they have removed it from the public eye and have mostly replaced it with sucralose.

Metric

I am going to use metric for all my posts. Even though I grew up with English and often still use it through habit, metric makes much more sense mathematically. Rather than having to memorize a series of arbitrary conversion ratios (e.g. 12 inches to the foot, 4 quarts to the gallon), I merely have to remember that there are 10 millimeters in a centimeter, 10 grams in a dekagram, etc. As for the names, I only have to memorize 13 prefixes for metric, but English requires the knowledge of at least 15 terms, plus whatever I couldn't think of off the top of my head. For all those who don't know metric, I will provide the appropriate English measurements in parentheses. 

For example, the moon is a maximum of about 406,700 km (252,712 miles) from the earth. So worry not, I won't have a post filled with terms you don't understand, at least not without explaining said terms.

Movie Misconceptions 2

Time for another common movie misconception! Fans of scifi movies and TV series will recall that spacecraft always have their engine running. You might say "Well, yeah Eric, if they stop their engines, they will stop moving." This statement is completely true when considering gravity and air resistance. See, according to Newton's first law, an object won't change velocity until acted upon by another force. This means that an object in motion will not slow down until something forces it to stop. When you roll a ball on the floor, it stops rolling after a few feet, assuming it doesn't hit a wall. This ball slows down and stops due to the forces of gravity and air resistance acting on it. A spaceship is subject to the same laws of physics; however, as I pointed out in the last post, gravity and air resistance aren't present in enough force in space to make a difference.

With this knowledge, we now know that a spacecraft won't slow down or speed up if the pilot shuts off the engines. But what would really happen if the engines are run constantly? The ship would continually accelerate until something, like a planet, forced it to slow down. I personally doubt that this ship will ever reach or surpass the speed of light, but that's another post. 

Movie Misconceptions 1

In many scifi movies, large spaceships are seen as slower and less maneuverable than their smaller counterparts. (Think Star Destroyer vs. Millennium Falcon.) When you really think about it, that doesn't make sense at all. The only time a smaller ship might be more maneuver when one is on-planet; as air resistance and gravity would have less of an effect on the smaller ship. Since there is no atmosphere in space, (that's why they call it 'space'. dur hur...) there isn't any air resistance, which is what makes large aircraft and watercraft slower and less maneuverable. Without gravity and air resistance, a large spacecraft should be just as fast and maneuverable as a small one with a comparable engine. As, according to Newton's first law, a body remains in a state of constant velocity until acted upon by an outside force. In our spaceship example, air resistance and gravity are the outside forces causing the larger vessel to loose speed and maneuverability. Since these forces aren't really present in space, the larger spacecraft will not loose speed or maneuverability. Quite the opposite in fact. A larger vessel can support a larger engine/generator/power supply thing, thus meaning it gains more thrust. Without the outside forces of air resistance and gravity acting against this thrust, the larger spaceship will possess an even greater top speed than the smaller vessel.

Hello World!

So, I figured I'd start a blog to rant on and share thoughts online or whatever. It'll probably end up that nobody else reads it and I'm talking to an empty room... *sigh*

Anyway, be prepared for topics on just about anything: from science to video game reviews and everything in between. Plus some stuff outside that domain. Basically whatever pops into my head; as long as I can turn into a  decent discussion. Worry not, you won't have to read about how hungry I am.