John Cuthber

The free acid is at least as toxic as the salt. A quick lookont google tells me that the stuff isn't very toxic. Sodium oxalate has an LD50 (measured in mice) of about 5g/kg. If you weigh 70Kg that suggests it would take 350g to have a 50:50 chance of killing you. It's silly to try to extrapolate like that because you are not the same as your bodyweight in mice, but it suggests that you are unlikely to kill yourself with this stuff by accident.There's some evidence of someone being harmed (but not killed) at about a tenth of that. Are you likely to accidentally eat an ounce of the stuff? (Incidentally, lanthanum chloride is roughly as toxic)

Lets have a look at what some of those stats mean. For example this " Among women without risk factors for breast cancer who were under 55 years of age, the relative risk associated with consumption of 15 g of alcohol or more per day was 2.5 (95 percent confidence limits, 1.5 and 4.2)." is a long winded way of saying women who drink 2 units of alcohol a day or more are 2.5 times more likely to get breast cancer. This http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/detection/probability-breast-cancer tells me that the risk for women in the US up to 55 years of age is about 1 in 50 Unfortunately, we don't have the original data of proper demographics but I think it's reasonable to say that many women drink. I'm going to guess (and I accept that it's nothing more than that) that they drink, on average 2 units a day (It's probably less- but I have no data and the assumption makes the maths easy). If those assumptions were right then you could compare two women, one drinks nothing, the other has a couple of units a day. The first has a risk of breast cancer of rougly 2% The second has a risk of roughly 5%. So even the drinker has a 95% chance of "getting away with it" . You don't have to be that keen on drinking to ignore a risk that's fairly small, only likely to trouble you when you get "old" and also relatively easily treated. Just to repeat myself- so I don't get shouted at for doing ropey stats; I know that assumption I made are bad. If anyone wishes to do a better analysis I'd like to see it. However I think it will still support my suggestion that people don't see that sort of risk as big (men generally don't even know that are at risk from breast cancer) and they don't see doubling that risk as a major issue.

How will you tell? I mean, what criteria will you use to make the decision? Will you think that I have "wised up" if I decide to ignore , for example, the fact that my sat-nav works, and accept your model of the universe, even though it's not mechanically stable? If so, you need to check out the meaning of the word. For example from http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wise "Showing good judgement or the benefit of experience." My experience tells me the exact opposite of what you are saying so, if I'm to be wise I have to ignore you. Of course there's the other meaning "Disrespectful" By that definition I think you should agree that we are already a bunch of "Wise guys".

It's certainly an interesting question. It's also difficult, partly for scientific reasons but also because practically everyone has a biassed opinion on it. Governments, for example, have to balance the benefits of tax revenue from the harm done by damage to health. And, whatever this thread finds, there's no question that alcohol is toxic. We might as well accept that at the start. For example, according to the World Health Organisation, alcohol kills about 2.5 million people each year. That's roughly twice the number killed by road accidents or roughly par with the deaths from HIV/AIDS. They also say "The Global Information System on Alcohol and Health (GISAH) is an essential tool for assessing and monitoring the health situation and trends related to alcohol consumption, alcohol-related harm, and policy responses in countries. The harmful use of alcohol results in the death of 2.5 million people annually. There are 60 different types of diseases where alcohol has a significant causal role. It also causes harm to the well-being and health of people around the drinker." There is a clear analogy with smoking and, indeed, with other recreational drug use. Fundamentally, who has the right to say what drugs I take? I'm an adult, I can choose to take up hazardous activities if I like. On the other hand, does the state (who will pay for my healthcare if I misjudge that risk or if I'm unlucky) have the right to decide or at least strongly influence that decision? Hopefully, in this case the state acts as a proxy for the society, so it's our decision. The medical authorities also have a slightly double edged role in this. It's clear that too much alcohol is bad for people. However there is evidence that it is associated with a reduced risk of cardiovascular illness. If that were a rare complaint it would be easy to write off any advantage, but it's one of the world's biggest killers. Even a small reduction of incidence would be beneficial to the health of the world.

OK, so the latest crop of questionable or simply not true stuff is... "I provided source to back this up that was considerably more than mere public opinion.....or are you forgetting about that one John?" No, I remembered it and I pointed out that it referred to particular group's opinion of alcohol exposure in another specific group. It's intelectually dishonest to pretend that that extrapolates to everyone. "Alcohol is a toxin that kills cells such as microorganisms" So is penicillin. So what: the question is do traces of it harm otherwise healthy humans? "which is why we use it to preserve food and sterilise skin, needles etc." Yes, specifically at concentrations of about 70%- because, with less than that, it doesn't work properly. Not many people drink 70% alcohol. "Alcohol kills humans too. " Undoubtedly- but as far as I know there has never been a single case of a death attributed to the use of mouthwash. It's noteworthy that electricity kills people too, but I don't hear much talk of banning it. "A dose only four times as high as the amount that would make blood levels exceed drink-driving limits in the UK can kill. " or not, I'm pretty sure I have survived that sort of level quite often. On the other hand people who are perfectly sober still kill people with cars- nobody is banning cars. "Any food or drink contaminated with the amount of acetaldehyde that a unit of alcohol produces would be immediately banned as having an unacceptable health risk." I have watched the staff in a food flavouring factory mixing 100Kg of acetaldehyde into a food flavouring product (the other dominant component was ethyl isobutyrate IIRC) Last time I checked 100 Kg was more than (about) 8 grams. I already explained that acetaldehyde is added to some foods and present naturally in others. Why did you cite this rather silly assertion? " Although most people do not become addicted to alcohol on their first drink, a small proportion do." At best, that's a minority opinion and, if Nutt seriously believes it then it will colour his judgement. that may explain the other odd things he has written. "The supposed cardiovascular benefits of a low level of alcohol intake in some middle-aged men cannot be taken as proof that alcohol is beneficial. To do that one would need a randomised trial where part of this group drink no alcohol," So, since that "no exposure" group doesn't exist, he has proposed an impossible experiment. Where's the point in that? There's nothing wrong with epidemiology as a means to find information. It is, for example the reason why things like asbestos, lead and tobacco are regulated. "Population observations suggested that HRT was beneficial for post-menopausal women, but when controlled trials were conducted it was found to cause more harm than good." Those population studies were small and showed and apparent small effect. Most population studies get the right answer - of course. Just because something failed one time among many does not mean it is always wrong. This is particularly important where that alternative- a proper trial- is impossible (for the reasons given above). Frankly I have seldom seen such a shoddy report. I don't know if the science is good and has been misquoted or if it's absurdly biassed in the first place. "For all other diseases associated with alcohol there is no evidence of any benefit of low alcohol intake" For most illnesses there will be no effect. However the one disease where alcohol has been found to be beneficial is cardiovascular disease. Heres another datum that puts that difference in context. "According to the World Health Organization, chronic diseases are responsible for 63% of all deaths in the world, with cardiovascular disease as the leading cause of death." So the learned prof is saying that, since alcohol is only beneficial in the world's leading cause of death, it isn't helpful. Are you sure you really want to be on his side in a discussion? BTW, soft drinks in pubs and bars are not generally cheaper than beer. It's not just duty that sets the price of products, it's the market. Since you probably already knew that (ever bought a coke in a bar?) there was no good reason for you to introduce it. You do seem to have introduced a lot of things that have no relevance to the thread. MMR, IPA, and chlorhexidine. Perhaps that's because , as you said "Not that I have ever looked at the active ingredients" Well, basicaly I think you should go away and not come back until you have learned to find out what you are talking about before you post. That way you will avoid such howlers as "I believe some medical scientists have discovered that the isopropyl alcohol used in mouth washes may be a carcinogen."; "no doubt some products use isopropyl alcohol"; "Recent studies have indicated that there is no safe level of consumption of alcoholic beverages.";"Perhaps it is not so much the chlorohexidine as the perhaps unavoidable impurities in it"; "But it does not change the fact that medical authorities now regard alcohol containing mouth washes carcinogenic and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption in general. "Consider if your mouth wash contains both ethanol and chlorohexidine. "; "John Cuthber do you still insist on dismissing this as an totally unsubstantiated opinion?"; "But in digging around on this subject I have also found that there has never been a long term study, over decades, to provide better evidence that there is a real causal link." and so on. And it's not just in this thread is it? You did much the same here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/62131-cleaning-silver/ There's an old adage that you have two ears and one mouth because you should listen twice as much as you talk. You might want to think bout that before you post next time.

Your determination to do things the hard way is commendable (within limits). Bar keeper's friend is for sale as a cleaning product. If you are young enough to worry about bars then the only concern people will have is that people that young don't usually do a lot of cleaning up. It's probably horribly impure, but I have not checked.* Practically pure oxalic acid is for sale on ebay. You might want to add sodium oxalate to ppt the Ln salts, rather than adding the free acid but that's no problem as long as you have sodium bicarbonate, carbonate or hydroxide. If you plan to buy the acid, you might just as well buy the salt. I'm not sure so check on this. * I checked: it's not worth it. http://www.barkeepersfriend.com/files/file/Bar-Keepers-Friend_Powder-MSDS-2011.pdf

Well, according to all the dieticians, I'm dead. I don't eat fruit except some tomato based goo in things like pasta dishes. I don't eat vegetables except potatoes, nuts and cereals (and I consider coffee and cocoa beans to be nuts). About my only concession to "health food" is that I choose wholemeal versions of bread and pasta where I can. I do drink milk (full cream of course) and fruit juice and, recently, take vitamin pills. I'm not a big fan of beer but I drink practically everything else- particularly whisk(e)y. I seem to have survived to 46 in better health than many, I'm not overweight and I have low blood pressure. Annoying isn't it?

Do you realise how difficult it is to separate the rare earths?

I don't think the number of images is the problem here. On the bright side, at least you posted it in speculations.

OOps! Never mind, quick everyone! start running Westward. That will spin the universe round to the East and centrifugal force* will redistribute the water. * I know there's some debate about the existence of centrifugal force, but in this thread it's really not the issue is it?

WTF does the MMR farce have to do with this? Also, where you say "I didn't say this John" yes you did. This "Both positions seems to be based on small scale and short term research." and this "Because all the pages I found about the active ingredients of listerine stated that the main active ingredient is non edible alcohol." which are the things I say that you said, are direct quotes from you in this thread. I still maintain that it is impossible to prove that there is no safe dose for alcohol. I am not commenting on whether the statement is true- just on the fact that you can't prove it. To prove it you would need a non-exposed population. However as alcohol is present naturally in some foods there is no such population. However there is evidence (as I have shown) the moderate alcohol consumption is associated with longer life. Incidentally, I never said it was cause and effect. I think it is, but I'm well enough aware of the difference between correlation and causation. Incidentally Re "Where exactly have I made such an argument John?" you said this "But it does not change the fact that medical authorities now regard alcohol containing mouth washes carcinogenic and that there is no safe level of alcohol consumption in general. " Do you have any actual evidence for that? At best you have one report that some people in Australia think some of that is true, in the particular instance of teenage drinkers Re "For example the alcoholic essences in the baking isles of supermarkets were being used a cheap source of alcohol by youths but governments have since extended that tax to these items. With the result that the manufactures no longer use ethanol as a base for these essences. Is my recollection correct here?" Nope, your recollection is wrong. The last peppermint extract I bought (a few months ago) contains ethanol as its major ingredient. Re "In which case manufactures of mouth washes would use alternative alcohols if they could. Probably why mouth washes are rather expensive. " I have not checked in detail, but a quick look suggests that the alcohol free version is the same price, so it's not alcohol duty that determines the retail price. (why didn't you check that?)

What I actually said was this "Studies on alcohol and health are notoriously difficult to do and these seem to be trying to prove a negative- which is a logical impossibility. Can you cite a reference for them please? " I pointed out that trying to prove a negative is impossible- and it is. I asked for evidence. You have yet to provide any. I have not altered my position at all- it remains that of science in general. I don't believe things just because someone tells me something unless they have some sort of evidence. This assertion of yours "Both positions seems to be based on small scale and short term research." seems to be a matter of opinion. I cited a study that followed over a thousand people for twenty years. How long a study would it take to convince you? And, re "Because all the pages I found about the active ingredients of listerine stated that the main active ingredient is non edible alcohol." 1 you should have checked wiki, or the msds, as cited by someone earlier. http://www.esciencelabs.com/files/chatcher/Listerine.pdf Also, if your source says something that makes no sense, you should find a better source.

"What the hell is non edible alcohol exactly? " I don't know. If you also don't know what it means, why did you introduce it? Were you not able to find some data that you did understand? Also where you have said " Here they seem to be saying that moderate alcohol consumption is only a health benefit when the risk of coronory heart disease is greatest in older men." you need to realise that while it may seem to you that they are saying that, to the rest of us they are saying what they actually said. Specifically, they said "that health benefits only come with moderate drinking and are greatest for older men. And even moderate drinking is not recommended for women who are pregnant or thinking of becoming pregnant, or for people who are under 21." Anyway, I'm not sure if it's worth responding to your post because, as doG has pointed out, you keep moving the goalposts and pretending that you were right in the first place. I'm feeling optimistic so here goes "So it is possible that the link between moderate alcohol consumption and lower risk of heart disease is not a causal one, but rather a coincidence." Or perhaps not. Again, I see Occam sharpening his razor. The reports I cited did say that they had tried to account for some other factors. BTW, are you going to apologise for ludicrously misrepresenting what I said?

The effect of excess auxins (strictly speaking synthetic auxin mimics) is well documented and used in products like this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_Orange Probably not quite the effect you want. In essence the trees can't grow faster than they can get the energy and CO2 to grow with.

Strictly speaking the chemistry is perfectly possible. He explicitly states that we can use electricity to provide the energy. I don't think it will be more efficient than using hydrogen as a fuel though. Capturing CO2 from the air is expensive in energy terms. Perhaps more importantly, as someone who lives in Europe, I'd not be happy seeing it covered with wind turbines. What he means by "Methylal" and "Ethylal" is anyone's guess. Probably not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimethoxymethane and the corresponding diethoxy compound.

By replying at all we afforded this idea more respect than it is due. I predict that Steve will not come back and answer the questions we have posed (because he clearly can't) so I guess the best thing to do is let this thread die.

LOL At best this needs to me moved to "Speculations".

There are at least 3 different "Norths". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grid_north

That one doesn't , but some do. H3O+ ClO4- is a solid that melts arond 50C.

I don't think it's practical for a home chemist to try to separate Pr from Nd.

Yes.

"John Cuthber do you still insist on dismissing this as an totally unsubstantiated opinion?" Since I never did, your question makes no sense. And, re you assertion, "I could equally say that you position that there is or may be a safe level of alcohol consumption is equally unsubstantiated opinion most likely being generated by the alcoholic beverage industry." You could say that, but you would be wrong so I suggest that you shouldn't say it. Anyway, in answer to the question "So where are your direct medical scientific sources that support your position that there is or may be a safe level of alcohol consumption?" This "compared to moderate drinkers, abstainers had a more than 2 times increased mortality risk, heavy drinkers had 70% increased risk, and light drinkers had 23% increased risk. " from here http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1530-0277.2010.01286.x/abstract Or " After 12 years of follow-up per subject (21,716 man years of follow-up in all), 159 men have died, 74 from CHD. Incidence rates of overall mortality were lowest for moderate drinkers in each of three age groups." from http://www.jsad.com/jsad/article/Alcohol_Consumption_and_Mortality_in_an_American_Male_Population_Recoverin/1772.html seem fairly typical. Incidentally, in order to avoid the forum being sued for slander perhaps we should clarify a few things. Listerine does not contain isopropanol. It also does not contain chlorhexidine. All the ingredients (at least all those listed in WIKI) are also present in foods. And, while we are at it. I already said that alcohol is toxic and a carcinogen. So is the primary metabolite, acetaldehyde. However to put that into context, both materials are added to food and drinks. I'm sure we all know about alcohol in drinks. Acetaldehyde is used as a flavouring - notably for orange flavoured food and drink. It's also present in the natural products. There really is a difference in risk between teenagers drinking and people using mouthwash.

Strictly speaking an ammonia complex of NI3

There's a theoretical risk of cancer from the tiny amount of alcohol absorbed while using a mouthwash. However we know that, in practice, even people who drink a lot don't generally get the cancers associated with alcohol consumption. Has anyone checked the effect of the reduction in oral bacterial count on the incidence of buccal cancers?

Yes, but only very slightly.