The Chronicles of the Chronicle Flask: 2016

2016 is limping to its painful conclusion, still tossing out last-minute nasty surprises like upturned thumb tacks in the last few metres of a marathon. But the year hasn’t been ALL bad. Some fun, and certainly interesting, things happened too. No, really, they did, honestly.

So with that in mind, let’s have a look back at 2016 for the Chronicle Flask….

January kicked off with a particularly egregious news headline in a well-known broadsheet newspaper: Sugar found in ketchup and Coke linked to breast cancer. Turns out that the sugar in question was fructose. Yes, the sugar that’s in practically everything, and certainly everything that’s come from a plant. So why did the newspaper in question choose ketchup and Coke for their headline instead of, oh, say, fruit juice or honey? Surely not just in an effort to sell a few more newspapers after the overindulgent New Year celebrations. Surely.

octarineThere was something more lighthearted to follow when IUPAC  verified the discoveries of elements 113, 115, 117 and 118. This kicked off lots of speculation about the elements’ eventual names, and the Chronicle Flask suggested that one of them should be named Octarine in honour of the late Sir Terry Pratchett. Amazingly, this suggestion really caught everyone’s imagination. It was picked up in the national press, and the associated petition got over 51 thousand signatures!

In February I wrote a post about the science of statues, following the news that a statue to commemorate Sir Terry Pratchett and his work had been approved by Salisbury City Council. Did you know that there was science in statues? Well there is, lots. Fun fact: the God of metalworking was called Hephaestus, and the Greeks placed dwarf-like statues of him near their Hearths – could this be where the fantasy trope of dwarves as blacksmiths originates?

MCl and MI are common preservatives in cosmetic products

MCl and MI are common preservatives in cosmetic products

My skeptical side returned with a vengeance in March after I read some online reviews criticising a particular shampoo for containing a substance known as methylchloroisothiazolinone. So should you be scared of your shampoo? In short, no. Not unless you have a known allergy or particularly sensitive skin. Otherwise, feel free to the pick your shampoo based on the nicest bottle, the best smell, or the forlorn hope that it will actually thicken/straighten/brighten your hair as promised, even though they never, ever, ever do.

Nature Chemistry published Another Four Bricks in the Wall in April – a piece all about the potential names of new elements, partly written by yours truly. The month also brought a sinus infection. I made the most of this opportunity by writing about the cold cure that’s 5000 years old. See how I suffer for my lovely readers? You’re welcome.

In May I weighed in on all the nonsense out there about glyphosate (and, consequently, learned how to spell and pronounce glyphosate – turns out I’d been getting it wrong for ages). Is it dangerous? Nope, not really. The evidence suggests it’s pretty harmless and certainly a lot safer than most of its alternatives.

may-facebook-postSomething else happened in May: the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page received this message in which one of my followers told me that my post on apricot kernels had deterred his mother from consuming them. This sort of thing makes it all worthwhile.

In June the names of the new elements were announced. Sadly, but not really very surprisingly, octarine was not among them. But element 118 was named oganesson and given the symbol Og. Now, officially, this was in recognition of the work of Professor Yuri Oganessian, but I for one couldn’t help but see a different reference. Mere coincidence? Surely not.

July brought another return to skepticism. This time, baby wipes, and in particular a brand that promise to be “chemical-free”. They’re not chemical-free. Nothing is chemical-free. This is a ridiculous label which shouldn’t be allowed (and yet, inexplicably, is still in use). It’s all made worse by the fact that Water Wipes contain a ‘natural preservative’ called grapefruit seed extract which, experiments have shown, only actually acts as a preservative when it’s contaminated with synthetic substances. Yep. Turns out some of Water Wipes claims are as stinky as the stuff they’re designed to clean up.

Maria Lenk Aquatic Enter, Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

Maria Lenk Aquatic Enter, Tuesday, Aug. 9, 2016. (AP Photo/Matt Dunham)

August brought the Olympics, and speculation was rife about what, exactly, was causing the swimming pools to turn such strange shades of green. Of course, the Chronicle Flask knew the correct solution…

August also saw MMS and CD reared their ugly heads on social media again. CD (chlorine dioxide) is, lest we forget, a type of bleach solution which certain individuals believe autistic children should be made to drink to ‘cure’ them. Worse, they believe such children should be forced to undergo daily enemas using CD solutions. I wrote a summary page on MMS (master mineral solution) and CD, as straight-up science companion to the commentary piece I wrote in 2015.

mugsSeptember took us back to pesticides, but this time with a more lighthearted feel. Did you know that 99.99% of all the pesticides you consume are naturally-occurring? Well, you do if you regularly read this blog. The Chronicle Flask, along with MugWow, also produced a lovely mug. It’s still for sale here, if you need a late Christmas present… (and if you use the code flask15 you’ll even get a discount!)

In October, fed up with endless arguments about the definition of the word ‘chemical’ I decided to settle the matter once and for all. Kind of. And following that theme I also wrote 8 Things Everyone Gets Wong About ‘Scary’ Chemicals for WhatCulture Science.

Just in case that wasn’t enough, I also wrote a chapter of a book on the missing science of superheroes in October. Hopefully we should see it in print in 2017.

Sparklers are most dangerous once they've gone out.

Sparklers are most dangerous once they’ve gone out.

I decided to mark Fireworks Night in November by writing about glow sticks and sparklers. Which is riskier? The question may not be as straightforward as you’d imagine. This was followed by another WhatCulture Science piece, featuring some genuinely frightening substances: 10 Chemicals You Really Should Be Scared Of.

And that brings us to December, and this little summary. I hope you’ve enjoyed the blog this year – do tell your friends about it! Remember to follow @ChronicleFlask on Twitter and like fb.com/chronicleflask on Facebook – both get updated more or less daily.

Here’s wishing all my lovely readers a very Happy New Year – enjoy a drop of bubbly ethanol solution and be careful with the Armstrong’s mixture…. 

See you on the other side!

new-year-1898553_960_720

10 Chemicals You Really SHOULD Be Scared Of

Some chemicals really ARE scary...

Some chemicals really ARE scary…

People are increasingly worried about chemicals these days (even if they don’t quite know what the word means), but most of that fear is unfounded. The ingredients in cosmetics and foods are actually pretty harmless on the whole, certainly in the quantities you usually meet them.

This is because we’ve had decades of extensive testing and health and safety regulations – the truly nasty stuff simply isn’t allowed anymore. Even, sometimes, in fairly-obviously dangerous things like rat poison.

But the nasty stuff exists. Oh yes it does. You might be unlikely to come across it, but it’s still out there. Locked away. (Or not.)

So, come with me as I take you on a tour of 10 chemicals you really SHOULD be scared of…

Click to continue reading this article at WhatCulture Science

Glow sticks or sparklers: which is riskier?

by Unknown artist,print,(circa 1605)

Remember, remember the 5th of November… (Image by Unknown artist, circa 1605)

It’s fireworks night in the UK – the day when we celebrate a small group of terrorists nearly managing to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605 by, er, setting fire to stuff. No, it makes perfect sense, honestly, because…. look, it’s fun, all right?

Anyway, logical or not, Brits light fireworks on this day to mark the occasion. Fireworks, of course, are dangerous things, and there’s been more than one petition to ban their sale to members of the general public because of safety concerns. It hasn’t happened yet, but public firework displays, rather than private ones at home, are more and more popular.

Which brings me to this snippet from a letter a friend of mine recently received.

screen-shot-2016-11-04-at-21-51-33

In case you can’t read it, it says:

“NO SPARKLERS PLEASE – with so many children runni[ng] around, we believe it is too dangerous fro children to be [words missing] lighted sparklers around.
Last year we had a few incidents of children drinking the [words missing] glowsticks – please advise against this.”

Now there are some words missing here, but it’s fairly clear that sparklers are prohibited at this event, and it seems to be suggesting that children have managed to get into, and swallow, the contents of glowsticks. But they, by contrast, haven’t been banned. Indeed, parents are merely being asked to “advise” against it.

Hmmm.

Does this seem like an appropriate response? Well, let’s see…

1024px-sparklers_moving_slow_shutter_speedWhat are these things? Let’s begin with sparklers. They’re hand-held fireworks, usually made of a stiff metal wire, about 20 cm long, the end of which is dipped in a thick mixture of metallic particles, fuel and an oxidising agent. The metal particles are most commonly magnesium and/or iron. The fuel usually involves charcoal, and the oxidiser is likely to be potassium nitrate. Sometimes metal salts are also added to produce pretty colours.

Sparklers are designed to burn hot and fast. The chemical-dipped end can reach temperatures between 1000-1600 oC, but the bit you hold doesn’t have time to heat up before the firework goes out (although gloves are still recommended). The sparks, likewise, are extremely hot but burn out in seconds. This makes sparklers relatively safe, if they’re held well way from the face and body, and if the hot end isn’t touched.

If. Every year there are injuries. Sparkler injuries aren’t recorded separately from other firework injuries in the UK, but the data we do have suggest we might be looking at a few thousand A&E admissions each year, and probably a lot more minor injuries which are treated at home.

Sparklers are most dangerous once they've gone out.

Sparklers are most dangerous after they’ve gone out.

The biggest danger comes from people, usually children, picking up ‘spent’ sparklers. The burny end takes a long time to cool down, but once the sparkles are finished and it’s stopped glowing it’s impossible to judge how hot it is just by looking.

The burns caused by picking up hot sparklers are undoubtedly very, very nasty, but they’re also relatively easy to avoid. Supply buckets of cold water, and drill everyone to put their spent sparklers into the buckets as soon as they go out. Hazard minimised. Well, assuming everyone follows instructions of course, which isn’t always a given. Other risks are people getting poked with hot sparkers – which can be avoided by insisting sparkler-users stand in a line, facing the same way, with plenty of space in front of them – and people lighting several sparklers at once and getting a flare. Again, fairly easily avoided in a public setting, where you can threaten and nag everyone about safety and keep an eye on what they’re doing.

Although I do understand the instinct to simply ban the potentially-dangerous thing, and thus remove the risk, the idea does worry me a little bit. I was born in the 70s and I grew up with fire. I remember the coal truck delivering coal to us and our neighbours. I was taught how to light a match at an early age, and cautioned not to play with them (and then I did, obviously, because in those days it was usual for kids to spend hours and hours entirely unsupervised – but fortunately I emerged unscathed). Pretty much everyone kept a supply of candles in a drawer, in case the lights went out. And bonfires were a semi-regular event – this being long before garden waste collections.

These days things are very different. It’s not unusual to meet a child who, by age 11, has never lit a match. If their home oven and hob are electric, they may never have seen a flame outside of yearly birthday cake candles. But so what? You may be thinking. Aren’t fewer burns and house fires a good thing?

Of course they are, but people who’ve never dealt with fire tend to panic when faced with it. If the only flame you’ve ever met is a birthday cake candle, your instinct might well be to blow when faced with something bigger. This can be disastrous – it can make the fire worse, and it can spread hot embers to other nearby flammable items.

I’m personally of the opinion that children ought to be taught to handle fire safely, how to safely extinguish a small fire, when to call in the experts, and not to disintegrate into hysterics the presence of anything warmer than a cup of tea. Sparklers, I think, can be part of that. Particularly if they’re used in a well-supervised setting, with plenty of safety measures and guidance on-hand. (As opposed to, say, picking them up for the first time at university with some drunk mates, setting fire to half a dozen at once and immediately dropping them.)

Now. Onto glowsticks. They’re pretty neat, aren’t they? We’ve already established that I’m quite old, and I remember these appearing in shops for the first time, sometime in the very early 90s, and being utterly mesmerised by that eerie, cold light.

phenyl_oxalate_ester

Diphenyl oxalate (trademark name Cyalume)

They work thanks to two chemicals. Usually, these are hydrogen peroxide (H2O2 – also used to bleach hair, as a general disinfectant, and as the subject of a well-known punny joke involving two scientists in a bar) and another solution containing a phenyl oxalate ester and a fluorescent dye.

These two solutions are separated, with the hydrogen peroxide in a thin-walled, sealed glass vial which is floating in the mixture of ester and dye solution. The whole thing is then sealed in a tough, plastic coating. When you bend the glowstick the glass breaks, the chemicals mix, and a series of chemical reactions happen which ultimately produce light.

How Light Sticks work (from HowStuffWorks.com - click image for more)

How Light Sticks work (from HowStuffWorks.com – click image for more)

Which is all very well. Certainly nice and safe, you’d think. Glowsticks don’t get hot. The chemicals are all sealed in a tube. What could go wrong?

I thought that too, once. Until I gave some glowsticks to some teenagers and they, being teenagers, immediately ripped them apart. You see, it’s actually not that difficult to break the outer plastic coating, particularly on those thin glow sticks that are often used to make bracelets and necklaces. Scissors will do it easily, and teeth will also work, with a bit of determination.

How dangerous is that? Well… it’s almost impossible to get into a glowstick without activating it (the glass vial will break), so it’s less the reactants we need to worry about, more the products.

And those are? Firstly, carbon dioxide, which is no big deal. We breathe that in and out all the time. Then there’s some activated fluorescent dye. Now, these vary by colour and by manufacturer, but as a general rule they’re not something anyone should be drinking. Some fluorescent dyes are known to cause adverse reactions such as nausea and vomiting, and if someone turns out to be allergic to the dye the consequences could be serious. This is fairly unlikely, but still.

Another product of the chemical reactions is phenol, which is potentially very nasty stuff, and definitely not something anyone should be getting on their skin if they can avoid it, let alone drinking.

Inside every activated glowstick are fragments of broken glass.

Inside every activated glowstick are fragments of broken glass.

And then, of course, let’s not forget the broken glass. Inside every activated glowstick are fragments of broken glass – it’s how they’re designed to work. If you break the plastic coating, that glass is exposed. If someone drinks the solution inside a glow stick they could, potentially, swallow that glass. Do I need to spell out the fact that this would be a Bad Thing™?

The thing with hazards is that, sometimes, something that’s obviously risky actually ends up being pretty safe. Because people take care over it. They put safety precautions in place. They write risk assessments. They think.

Whereas something that everyone assumes is safe can actually be more dangerous, precisely because no one thinks about it. How many people know that glowsticks contain broken glass, for instance? Probably not the writer of that letter back there, else they might have used stronger language than “please advise against this.”

So glowsticks or sparklers? Personally, I’d have both. Light on a dark night, after all, is endlessly fascinating. But I’d make sure the sparkler users had buckets of water, cordons and someone to supervise. And glowstick users also ought to be supervised (at least by their parents), warned in the strongest terms not to attempt to break the plastic, and all efforts should be made to ensure that the pretty glowy things don’t fall into the hands of a child still young enough to immediately stuff everything into his or her mouth.

The most important thing about managing risks is not to eliminate every potentially hazardous thing, but rather to understand and plan for the dangers.


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. In need of a groovy new mug? Check out this page.


All comments are moderated. Abusive comments will be deleted, as will any comments referring to posts on this site which have had comments disabled.

 

8 Things Everyone Gets Wrong About ‘Scary’ Chemicals

scaryChemicals. The word sounds a little bit scary, doesn’t it? For some it probably conjures up memories of school, and that time little Joey heated something up to “see what would happen” and you all had to evacuate the building. Which was actually good fun – what’s not to love about an unplanned fire drill during lesson time?

But for others the word has more worrying associations. What about all those lists of additives in foods, for starters? You know, the stuff that makes it all processed and bad for us. Don’t we need to get rid of all of that? And shouldn’t we be buying organic food, so we can avoid ….

….Read the rest of this article at WhatCulture Science.


This is my first article for WhatCulture Science – please do click the link and read the rest!


Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter. In need of a groovy new mug? Check out this page.

MMS and CD chemistry – the facts

The TL:DR version.

The TL:DR version.

About a year ago I wrote a post on the subject of MMS and CD. Many people have since praised that post, but others have complained that it’s rather long (it is) and contains too much opinion.

I believe that anyone that wants them should have easy access to the facts on this subject, and not just the information provided by proponents of MMS/CD use.

With this in mind I’ve written this post as a summary of the basics. I ask only that you credit me if you use this to write an article. A mention of my Twitter account, @chronicleflask, or a link to this page will suffice.

What is MMS?

miracle-mineral-solution-220

MMS is usually sold as water purification drops

MMS stands for ‘master mineral solution’ or sometimes ‘miracle mineral solution’. It is a 22.4% solution of sodium chlorite in water. Sodium chlorite has the chemical formula NaClO2. So, MMS is 22.4 grams of NaClO2 dissolved in 100 mls of water. Sodium chlorite/MMS does not, on its own, act as a bleach.

Sodium chlorite’s LD50 (for rats) is 350 mg/kg. This means that, on average, if you feed rats 350 mg of it per kg of body weight, half the rats will die. If we assume its toxicity is similar in humans (and there’s no reason it should not be) that means that 5.25 grams would probably be enough to kill an average 4-year-old child weighing about 15 kg.

MMS is usually sold as ‘water purification drops’. Search for ‘sodium chlorite water purification’ in Google and you will quickly find it (usually alongside an ‘activator’ solution). Bottles for sale are usually 4 oz, or 114 mls. One quarter of one of these bottles would probably be lethal to a 15 kg 4-year-old.

What is CD (or CDS)?

CD is chlorine dioxide (and CDS stands for chlorine dioxide solution). Chlorine dioxide is ClO2. It is a bleach, used industrially to bleach wood pulp. It is also used to purify water and kill pathogens on certain foodstuffs. It is considered more effective than plain chlorine for water purification – it’s less corrosive and is particularly good at destroying legionella bacteria, as well as many viruses and protozoa.

Chlorine dioxide is more toxic than sodium chlorite. It’s LD50 is 292 mg/kg (the lower the number, the more toxic something is). For this reason, the concentrations used in food/water applications are very low. The US Environmental Protection Agency have set a maximum level of 0.8 mg/L chlorine dioxide in drinking water. That’s 0.00008 grams per 100 ml of water.

What’s the connection between MMS and CDS?

The chemistry of sodium chlorite (the substance in MMS) with acids.

The chemistry of sodium chlorite (the substance in MMS) with acids.

Chlorine dioxide evaporates quickly from solution, which means CD solutions cannot be stored – they have be made freshly as they’re needed. When sodium chlorite is mixed with an acid, usually citric acid (the acid in oranges and lemons), it forms chlorine dioxide. In short:

MMS + acid = CDS.

The chemistry behind this is complicated. It’s simpler if the acid used is hydrochloric acid (HCl), and this particular method of ‘activation’ is sometimes recommended by proponents of MMS/CD use.

If sodium chlorite is mixed with citric acid is used the reaction doesn’t happen in one step. Rather, chlorous acid (HClO2) forms, which ultimately breaks down to form ClO2. Several reactions are involved in this process. The concentration of chlorine dioxide in a solution made in this way is likely to be lower than if hydrochloric acid is used. However, it’s important to realise the the resulting solution is a mixture of harmful substances. Less chlorine dioxide does not necessarily mean safer.

How much chlorine dioxide forms when MMS is ‘activated’?

It’s not possible to answer this precisely, because it depends on several different factors. To begin with, it depends on whether hydrochloric acid or another acid (such as citric acid) is used. It further depends on temperature, and how much acid is added. We have no way of knowing exactly what someone mixing up these solutions at home is doing.

A document on acidified sodium chlorite published by the Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) suggests that, at a pH of 2.3, a 50 ppm solution of sodium chlorite would produce 16 ppm chlorous acid (less at higher pHs). Starting with a 22.4% solution (as in MMS), and allowing for the stoichiometry suggested by the equations above, this could produce something in the region of 36 g of chlorine dioxide per litre of water.

The US EPA’s recommended safe limit for chlorine dioxide is 0.0008 grams per litre of water. Compare this to 36 grams per litre. Even if only a fraction is converted to chlorine dioxide, the resulting mixture is likely to be tens of thousands in excess of safe limits.

How are CD solutions used in food & drink production?

Very dilute solutions, with just a few ppm of chlorine dioxide, are used as sprays or dipping solutions for poultry, meats, vegetables fruit and seafood. However, in these applications the chlorine dioxide evaporates from the food long before anyone eats it – it’s not present in the final food product. Chlorine dioxide is also used in water treatment plants, but the concentration in the final water supply is strictly controlled so that it’s less than the recommended safe limits.

How are CD solutions used as ‘alternative treatments’?

There are groups of people who believe that drinking CD solutions, or using them to perform enemas can cure any and all diseases, illnesses and conditions. However, there is no evidence that CDS is at all efficacious, and no reasonable mechanism has ever been given for its supposed mode of action. Jim Humble, who coined the name MMS ten years ago and sparked the use of these ‘treatments’, claimed that he worked with the Red Cross to successfully treat a group of malaria patients in Uganda. The Red Cross strenuously deny these claims. Other commentators have explained very clearly why Humble’s claims are impossible.

There is a large group online, led by Kerri Rivera, who believe that CD solutions can cure autism. This is not true. Autism is a neurodevelopment disorder. There is no cure, although certain therapies may help those on the autistic spectrum to manage better in day-to-day life. The cause of autism is unclear, but it appears to have a strong genetic basis.

Humble and Rivera advocate drinking CD solutions and/or using them in enemas. Protocols for such treatments involve adding drops of CDS to water, milk or other liquids.

The number of drops used varies. Humble reportedly used 18 drops at a time in his malaria treatment. Usually this is added to further liquid, for example in a 250 ml bottle. Assuming a drop is 0.1 mls, this could be as much as 0.065 g of chlorine dioxide in 250 mls, or 0.26 grams per litre. Once again, US EPA’s recommended safe limit for chlorine dioxide is 0.00008 grams per litre.

The amounts recommended by MMS/CD protocols are likely to be at least 3000 times safe limits, and may be considerably more. Protocols exist which recommend drinking these mixtures every one or two hours, eight times a day or even more.

What would happen if someone drank a CD solution?

It would be ironic if it weren't so tragic.

Chlorine dioxide exposure may actually cause delays in the development of the brain.

It would depend on the concentration. The very low levels used in normal water purification are not harmful (that’s why safe limits exist), however drinking large amounts (such as those usually recommended in MMS/CD protocols) would cause irritation to the mouth, oesophagus, and stomach. There is no evidence that chlorine dioxide causes cancer. The ATSDR‘s (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry) entry for chlorine dioxide says that “studies in rats have shown that exposure of pregnant animals to chlorine dioxide or exposure of pups shortly after birth can cause delays in the development of the brain” (see also PMID: 2213920).

Why are CDS enemas used, and what would be the effect?

Rivera in particular advocates CDS enemas to kill the ‘parasites’ which she and her followers believe cause autism. There is no evidence for the existence of these ‘parasites’. Photos published online which purport to show them have been condemned as actually showing intestinal lining and mucus, excreted as the direct result of harsh enema procedures.

Enemas, regardless of the liquid used, have risks. Repeated enemas can cause electrolyte imbalance, rupture of the bowel and damage to the rectal tissues. Enemas with CDS are likely to be particularly dangerous since it is corrosive. Proponents of CDS use claim it is ‘selective’ and only kills ‘harmful’ bacteria and parasites. This is not possible; chlorine dioxide is a strong oxidising agent and damages all cells it comes into contact with, regardless of the nature of those cells.

Children have thinner tissues than adults. The risks of regular enemas, particularly with a corrosive agent such as chlorine dioxide, and particularly when carried out at home by someone with no medical training, are likely to be considerably higher for children.

Is there any way to tell if someone has been using CDS in high concentrations?

Unless someone admits to using CDS, there isn’t really any way to tell. For this reason there are very few reported cases of harm caused by CDS, as users tend to be extremely secretive. Unless an enema causes major trauma (which is a real risk) the symptoms are likely to be fairly vague gastrointestinal distress, which could be caused by any number of other things. There is no routine medical test to measure chlorine dioxide or chlorite in the body. There is a special test to measure chlorite in tissues, blood, urine, and feces, but the test cannot tell the extent of the exposure or whether harmful effects will occur. This test wouldn’t be performed unless exposure was expected. In other words, unless someone admits to using CDS on themselves or their child, it’s unlikely anyone will ever find out.

Has MMS/CDS been in the news?

Yes, on several occasions:

If there’s no cure for autism/cancer/some other condition, mightn’t it be worth trying…?

Medicine is all about risks vs. benefits. The benefit of using a particular treatment must always exceed the risk of using that treatment. In this case, there are no proven benefits of using MMS/CDS. There are considerable risks, as described above. The only thing MMS/CDS will do is make you feel sick and generally more unwell than you (or your child) might already. So no, it isn’t worth trying. Please don’t.


Comments will be left open on this page for as long as it takes for me to tire of dealing with “you’re a pharma shill!”, “this is all lies!”, “watch this YouTube video that proves it works!” and “I drink it every day and I’m fine!” type comments. Annnnd that’s it. The most recent “you’re clearly paid off by corporations” comment has been deleted. Comments have been closed. Don’t go and comment on other pages: your comment will not be approved.

Like the Chronicle Flask’s Facebook page for regular updates, or follow @chronicleflask on Twitter.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Should you be scared of your shampoo?

I was doing some grocery shopping online recently (I have small children, I’ve started to view traditional supermarket shopping in the same way as beating my carpets with a stick and washing clothes in a stream) when I came across some reviews for a particular brand of shampoo.

Most of the reviews were positive, but some were not. In particular, there were a few one star ones complaining about ingredients called methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone.

273px-Methylchloroisothiazolinone_structure.svg

methylchloroisothiazolinone

What, you may be wondering, are these monstrosities? Surely with names that long they must be huge great big molecules? Actually no, they’re quite small. Methylchloroisothiazolinone (shown in the graphic) has a mere four carbon atoms and an interesting assortment of other elements. They’re part of a group of compounds called isothiazolinones, which are heterocyclic molecules that include a five-membered ring which contains nitrogen, sulfur and a C=O group.

Not surprisingly considering the unwieldy name, methylchloroisothiazolinone is often shortened to MCI. Likewise, the chemically-similar methylisothiazolinone (imagine the molecule above without the -Cl bit) goes by the moniker MI, or sometimes MIT.

MCl and MI are common preservatives in cosmetic products

MCl and MI are common preservatives in cosmetic products.

Why are these things in shampoo? Well, they are very effective preservatives. They’re antibacterial and antifungal, and work against both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria, as well as yeast and fungi. This is a good thing, because some of these microbes are pretty nasty. The bacteria, for example, include such lovelies as Nocardia (associated with a particular type of respiratory disease), Staphylococcus (associated with various infections) and Listeria (most famous for causing gastrointestinal distress). It may be a small risk, but showers are warm, moist environments – basically the perfect breeding ground for these sorts of things. If these microbes start growing in your shampoo, shower gel and so on, they would then end up on your hair and skin, possibly be inhaled, and might even make their way into your bloodstream if you had a small cut somewhere.

Yuck.

So, that’s why these chemicals are there. That all sounds good, right? Why are people complaining?

The dose makes the poison is an important principle in toxicology (image credit: Lindsay Labahn, click for link)

The dose makes the poison is an important principle in toxicology (image credit: Lindsay Labahn, click for link)

Well, because they also have their hazards. Now, before I go any further, we should remember a very important principle of toxicology, which is that “the dose makes the poison“. Everything, I really mean EVERYTHING, is dangerous if you’re exposed to too much of it. Oxygen is quite crucial if you want to carry on living, for example, but breathe in too much of it for too long and you’re at risk of developing visual disturbances, tinnitus, nausea and muscle spasms. Too much could even be lethal. Similarly, a pinch of salt is quite nice on chips, but try and drink say, seawater, and you’ll soon regret it. Even plain water can be dangerous if you consume too much in too short a time, particularly if you’re also exercising hard.

Many chemicals that are used industrially have scary lists of associated hazards, but it’s important to remember that these warnings are usually aimed at people who use said chemical in an industrial setting. In other words, they might be handling kilograms or even tonnes of the stuff, all day every day, as opposed to the teeny tiny quantity you’re likely to meet a few times a week.

I could pick literally any ingredient in that shampoo bottle and proclaim that it’s dangerous. This would be perfectly true, but also meaningless. A more pertinent question is: is it dangerous in the quantity that you usually use?

Are methylchloroisothiazolinone and methylisothiazolinone in shampoo dangerous? There’s no evidence that they bioaccumulate (build up in the body) or that they’re linked to any kind of cancer (phew). In 2002, there was an in vitro (i.e. outside of living organisms) study of the neurotoxicity of MI which showed that mature neurons in tissue culture could be killed by 4-12 ppm solutions of the chemical. But these experiments were performed on rat brain cells in culture. Lots of things will damage cells in a petri dish: it doesn’t mean that we necessarily have to worry about them in every day life. A shampoo solution pouring straight into your brain might well be harmful, but I suggest that if that’s happening in the shower you have bigger problems. Namely, major head trauma.

However, in high concentrations, MI and MCl are definitely skin and membrane irritants, which can cause chemical burns. They’re known chemical ‘sensitisers‘. This means that exposure to them, even at fairly low levels, might cause an allergic reaction.

6575860-3x2-940x627

A patient who presented to a medical centre following a severe reaction to methylisothiazolinone in a wipe (SA Government – click image for source).

This is where we get into difficult territory, because exactly how a particular individual is going to respond to something like this can be hard to predict. For example, I’ve never had a nasty reaction to methylchloroisothiazolinone. Give me an aspirin, on the other hand, and I’m likely to be in trouble. Allergies are specific to individuals. But there is no doubt that some people do have nasty reactions to MCI and MI; some sources have suggested it might be as many as 15% of the population (and that this number might, worryingly, have increased in recent years).

These chemicals are, or at least have been, also used as preservatives in other products such as sunscreens, moisturisers and wipes (baby wipes, facial wipes and moist toilet tissue, for example), which is a particular concern because you don’t wash off the the residue from these products – that generally being the point of using them – so it lingers on the skin.

A 2014 report from the International Journal of Toxicology concluded that although MI and MCI are sensitisers at concentrations of 50 ppm and above, they weren’t at concentrations of 15 ppm (and below). And therefore they, “may be safely used in ‘rinse-off’ products at a concentration not to exceed 15 ppm and in ‘leave-on’ cosmetic products at a concentration not to exceed 7.5 ppm”.

However, also in 2014, the European Commission Scientific Committee on Consumer Safety argued that: “For leave-on cosmetic products (including ‘wet wipes’), no safe concentrations of MI for induction of contact allergy or elicitation have been adequately demonstrated.”

People have been particularly worried about children, especially with respect to baby wipes. This is not unreasonable, since not only is the contact dermatitis that can occur painful and unpleasant, but once sensitisation has occurred it can’t be reversed: anyone affected will have to read labels extremely carefully for ever after. As a result, consumer groups have campaigned to have MI and MCI removed from any product that’s left on the skin over the last few years.

I happen to have three different brands of baby wipes in my house at the moment (small children you see), and a quick glance at the ingredients tells me that MI and MCI aren’t in any of them, and nor are they ingredients in the packet of flushable moist toilet tissue in the bathroom. This is hardly a comprehensive survey of course, but it suggests that these substances might be falling out of favour. Big companies aren’t really out to get us: pictures of people with nasty skin lesions after using their products doesn’t do them any favours.

Some consumers have complained about the use of MI and MCl in products.

Some consumers have complained about the inclusion of MI and MCl in products.

Do you really need to worry? Were these consumers right to highlight the fact that the shampoo contains MI and MCI in their reviews? Well, if you know you have sensitive skin then these substances probably are best avoided. But is shampoo likely to cause sensitisation if you’re fortunate enough to be blessed with the sort of skin that generally doesn’t erupt into a rash if the wind so much as changes? No one can say for certain, but it seems unlikely because you wash it off: these substances are only in contact with your skin for a few seconds.

So, whilst it doesn’t hurt to be aware of such things, there’s probably no need to panic and throw out all your shampoo just in case. On the other hand, if you’ve been wondering why your skin seems to be permanently irritated, it might be worth checking a few ingredients labels.

Follow The Chronicle Flask on Facebook and @chronicleflask on Twitter for regular updates.

Are you ok? You look a little flushed.

PrintYesterday was World Toilet Day (yes, really). This is actually an admirable campaign by WaterAid to raise awareness of the fact that one in three people around the world don’t have access to a safe and private toilet. This, of course, leads to unsanitary conditions which results in the spread of infection and disease. You’ve probably never given it a second thought, but loos literally save lives.

portaloo

Has the TARDIS’ replicator function gone funny?

So, with the topic of toilets in mind, I started thinking about chemical loos. If you live in the UK, the name Portaloo ® will probably spring to mind. This has practically become a generic word for a portable toilet, but it is (like Hoover, Sellotape and others) actually a brand name. I’m told that in America they call them porta-pottys or honey-buckets, which I rather like. In any case, all the chemicals and plastic make them seem like modern inventions, surely?

Actually, not at all. The idea of a self-contained, moveable toilet that you can pick up and take from place to place may be newer, but people have been using chemical toilets for hundreds of years. For example after, ahem, ‘business’ had been completed in an an old-fashioned wooden outhouse – basically a tall box built over a hole in the ground – the user would sprinkle a little lye or lime down the hole to help with the smell.

SodiumHydroxide

Don’t get sodium hydroxide on the toilet seat.

Both of these are strongly basic chemicals. Lye is either sodium hydroxide or potassium hydroxide, and lime is calcium oxide. Both mix with water to form extremely corrosive, alkaline solutions and, incidentally, give out a lot of heat in the process. Both are very damaging to skin. These were the days before health and safety; whatever you did, you had to try not to spill it on the seat.

Urea, a key chemical in urine, reacts with strong alkalis in a process known as alkaline hydrolysis. This produces ammonia, which is pretty stinky (if rather tough on the lungs), so if nothing else that helped to cover up other smells. Ammonia also kills some types of bacteria (which is one reason it’s popular in cleaning products). Flies generally don’t like high concentrations of it either, so that’s another plus.

Alkalis also have another effect in that decomposition of human waste is pH dependent; it works better in acidic conditions. Adding lye or lime raises the pH and slows down this decomposition. On top of this (literally) both lime and lye are hygroscopic: they absorb water. This keeps moisture down and allows a solid ‘crust’ to form on the surface of the waste, making it difficult for any volatile, smelly chemicals to escape. Lovely.

Bleach and ammonia could result in a rocket up your...

Bleach and ammonia could result in a rocket up your…

One word of caution: it’s very, very important you don’t try to clean such an outhouse with any kind of bleach. Bleach, which contains sodium hypochlorite, reacts with ammonia to form hydrogen chloride, chlorine gas and chloramine. None of which are good for your health. Even more dramatically (if this is more dramatic than death – you decide) if there’s lots of ammonia you might get liquid hydrazine, which is used in rocket fuels because it’s explosive. Who knew that toilet chemistry could also be rocket science?

But you don’t find buckets of lye in modern chemical toilets (although, apparently, there are still some people out there using it). So what’s in there? At one time, formaldehyde, otherwise known as methanal, was common. You probably recognise it as embalming fluid; the stuff that Damien Hirst floated that shark in. It’s an extremely effective preservative. Firstly, it kills most bacteria and fungi and destroys viruses, and secondly it causes primary amino groups in proteins to cross-link with other nearby nitrogen atoms, denaturing the proteins and preventing them from breaking down.

shark

Don’t worry, this won’t appear in your chemical toilet.

Interestingly, whilst definitely toxic in high concentrations, formaldehyde is a naturally-occuring chemical. It’s found in the bloodstream of animals, including humans, because it’s involved in normal metabolism. It also appears in fruits and vegetables, notably pears, grapes and shiitake mushrooms. The dose, as they say, makes the poison. I mention this because there are certain campaigners out there who insist it must be completely eliminated from everything, something which is entirely unecessary not to mention probably impossible (just for the hell of it, I’m also going to point out here that an average pear contains considerably more formaldehyde than a dose of vaccine).

All that said, because formaldehyde is extremely toxic in high concentrations, and because it can interfere with the breakdown processes in sewage plants (because it destroys bacteria), formaldehyde isn’t used in toilets so much anymore. In fact, many of the mixtures on sale are explicitly labelled “formaldehyde-free”. Modern formulations are enzyme-based and break down waste by biological activity. They are usually still dyed blue (if you work your way though the colour spectrum, it’s probably the least offensive colour), but usually using food-grade dye. As a result, what’s left afterwards is classed as sewage rather than chemical waste, making it easier to deal with.

Toilet twinning So, this has been brief tour around the fascinating world of toilet chemistry. You’d never have guessed there was so much to it, would you? Now, have you considered twinning your toilet?

Elements, compounds and misleading mercury

Elemental mercury isn't the same as mercury in compounds.

Elemental mercury isn’t the same as mercury in compounds.

Today I read an interesting article about some recent research carried out at the University of Illinois where they demonstrated that the best way to convince parents to vaccinate their children might be to show them the results of the diseases the vaccines prevent. (This, by the way, contradicts some research published in 2014 which showed that this tactic didn’t work. For an excellent discussion of the two, see here.)

Then, because I am just one of those people who can’t resist poking at ulcers with my tongue (you know what I mean) I had a quick look at some of the comments regarding that article. Reassuringly, most people were weighing in on the “yeah, vaccinate!” side of the argument. But not surprisingly there was also a small group of people posting the traditional anti-vaccine arguments. And then, this appeared:

mercury ppm

This is thoroughly silly, and I’ll tell you why.

Well, it did make be go “hmmmmm”, but for the reason you might imagine.

No, you see, what I thought was: “hmmmmm, someone else who has, possibly deliberately, failed to understood the difference between elements and compounds, and how chemical bonding changes properties.”

Allow me to start at the beginning. If you went to a school in the UK (and I would hope it’s similar elsewhere in the world) you learned about elements, compounds and mixtures when you were about 13 years old – if not before. You might have forgotten it since, but I can absolutely, categorically guarantee you that lesson happened. In fact, it was probably a few lessons.

iron sulfide experiment

The much-loved reaction between iron and sulfur.

One experiment much beloved of chemistry teachers since year dot is to take a mixture of sulfur (a yellow powder) and some iron filings (grey) and show that they can be separated with a magnet. Then heat the mixture up so that the two react, with a rather beautiful red glow, to form iron sulfide. This is a blackish solid which is in theory not magnetic (but in practice almost always is) and demonstrate that now the two elements cannot be separated.

Thus we have demonstrated that elements (the iron and the sulfur) have different properties to the compound they formed (iron sulfide), and also that mixtures can be separated fairly easily, whereas breaking compounds up into their constituent elements is much harder. Lovely. Job done.

And yet… so many people seem to have been asleep that day. Or perhaps just didn’t grasp it well enough to continue to apply the principle to other things.

pouring mercury

Elemental mercury

For example, mercury. Mercury, the element (the runny, silvery stuff that you used to find in thermometers) is a heavy metal. Like most of its compatriots, such as cadmium, lead and arsenic, it’s toxic. It can be absorbed through the skin and mercury vapour can be inhaled, so containers need to be tightly sealed. The increasing awareness of the toxicity of mercury is why older readers might remember seeing it ‘in the flesh’, so to speak, at school, whereas younger ones will not – these days it’s rarely even used in thermometers for fear of breakages.

That said, it does occur naturally in the environment, particularly as the result of volcanic eruptions – and very low levels aren’t considered harmful. The dose, as they say, makes the poison. It also occurs as the result of industrial processes, particularly coal-fired power plants and gold production, and occupational exposure is a genuine concern. In particular, chronic exposure is known to cause cogitative impairment. It might the source of the ‘mad dentist’ myth. It’s almost certainly the origin of the phrase ‘mad as a hatter‘.

So in summary, don’t mess about with elemental mercury; it’s not good for your health.

However, as I took some pains to establish, elements and compounds are different things. So what about compounds which contain mercury?

The compound thiomersal

The compound thiomersal

This is where vaccines come in. There is a substance that used to be used as a preservative in (some) vaccines called thiomersal (or thimerosal, in the U.S). You may have heard its name; it comes up quite a lot. Incidentally, it hasn’t just been used in vaccines, but also in various other things including skin-test antigens and tattoo inks.

Now, to be clear, thiomersal IS potentially toxic, however it’s quickly metabolised in the body to ethyl mercury (C2H5Hg+) and thiosalicylate and, although ethyl mercury does, clearly, still contain atoms of mercury, it does not bioaccumulate. In other words, your body gets rid of it. At very low doses (such as those in vaccines) there is no good evidence that thiomersal is harmful.

Still, due to continuing public health concerns, thiomersal has been phased out of most U.S. and European vaccines. In the UK, thiomersal is no longer used in any of the vaccines routinely given to babies and young children in the NHS childhood immunisation programme. And at the moment, all routinely recommended vaccines for U.S. infants are available only as thimerosal-free formulations or contain only trace amounts of thimerosal (≤1 than micrograms mercury per dose).

Let me just say that again. The evidence suggests it’s safe, but it’s been removed anyway as a precaution. If you live in the UK, it’s not in your child’s vaccines, and that includes the new nasal-spray vaccine for flu which has been rolled out over the last few years. If you live in the U.S. it’s probably not, and thimerosal (thiomersal) free versions exist. It does turn up most often in flu vaccines (hence the meme image at the start) but thiomersal-free versions of those also exist in the U.S.

So chances are it’s not in your vaccines. Not in there. Got it? Ok.

ethyl vs methyl mercury

methyl mercury (left) is not the same as ethyl mercury (right)

Now, you may have heard about mercury in seafood. It is an issue, particularly for women who are pregnant, trying to become pregnant or breastfeeding, and is the reason such women are advised not to eat shark and swordfish, and to keep their tuna consumption low. But here’s the thing: it’s a different kind of mercury. In this case, it’s methyl mercury (remember, thiomersal breaks down to ethyl mercury, which is not the same).

Methyl mercury is more toxic than ethyl mercury. Methyl mercury binds to parts of amino acids much more readily than its ethyl cousin, and it’s able to pass through the blood brain barrier and into nerve cells where it causes damage. In addition, ethyl mercury is much more quickly eliminated from the body than methyl mercury. Because of all this, methyl mercury does bioaccumulate (build up in the body), and that’s why large top-of-the-food-chain fish like shark and tuna can have significant levels of it, and why certain groups of people should be careful about eating them.

The FDA’s action level (the limit at or above which FDA will take legal action) for methyl mercury in fish is 1000 ppb (1 ppm). But remember, that’s for the much more dangerous methyl mercury, not ethyl mercury. I’ve been unable to find an equivalent figure for the UK, but I’d imagine it’s similar.

So, where does the 200 ppb mercury figure in the image at the top come from? Well the Environmental Protection Agency does indeed set a ‘maximum contaminant level goal’ for inorganic mercury of 0.002 mg/L or 2 ppb in water supplies. Methyl and ethyl mercury are not inorganic mercury; compounds that fall into this category include mercuric chloride, mercuric acetate and mercuric sulfide, which largely get into water as the result of industrial contamination.

In summary, that meme image at the start is basically comparing apples and oranges. The EPA limit isn’t relevant to vaccines, because it’s for inorganic mercury, which the substance in vaccines isn’t. While we’re about it, the levels applied to fish don’t apply either, because that’s methyl mercury, not ethyl mercury. They’re not the same thing. And all that aside, it’s highly unlikely (if you live in the UK, no chance at all) that there are 50,000 ppb of ethyl mercury in your flu vaccine anyway. AND, let’s not forget, there’s no evidence that the tiny quantities of thiomersal used in vaccines are harmful in the first place.

Phew.

You may note that I’ve studiously avoided the word ‘autism’ in this post so far. But yes, that’s the big concern; that exposure to thiomersal in vaccines could cause autism. Despite multiple, huge, studies in several countries looking for possible links between vaccines and autism, none have been found. Vaccines don’t cause autism. It’s time we stopped wasting enormous amounts of time and resources on this non-link and spent it instead on finding out what does cause it. Wouldn’t that be far more useful and interesting?

Now… if you’re hardcore anti-vaccine and you’ve read this far, and you’re about to hit the comment button and tell me that all this research is just Big Pharma covering things up so they can make money from the ‘million(/billion/trillion) dollar vaccine industry’, just wait a moment.

Stop.

Think about this: how much money could the medical industry make from people actually catching measles, mumps, polio, TB, whooping cough and all the others? Just think of all the money they could make selling antivirals and antibiotics, all the money to be made from painkillers, antipyretics, drugs to treat respiratory symptoms of one kind or another, and everything else? Believe me, it would be much, much more than they make from a single 2 ml dose of vaccine. Why ‘cover up’ research that’s, if anything, reducing their profits?

All these diseases are horrible, and some can be fatal or have genuinely life-changing consequences. That’s proven. Please vaccinate your children, and yourself.

—-

Follow The Chronicle Flask on Facebook for regular updates.

 

 

 

But no one wants to research that; they can’t make any money from it…

A couple of my recent posts have focused on potentially dangerous ‘alternative’ treatments for medical conditions. Invariably, such posts generate comments along the lines of “I’ve been using it for years and I’m FINE” and the other favourite “ahhh but They don’t want to research it because it’s cheap and They can’t make any money from it!” (‘They’ is usually the eponymous ‘Big Pharma’).

It’s hard to argue with the first one. The friend of a friend of your uncle’s dishwasher repair main who’s smoked 40 a day for years without ever even getting a case of the sniffles doesn’t believe all that stuff about smoking being bad for you either. No one ever believes the thing they’re doing will turn out to be bad for them. Until, that is, they start getting nasty shooting pains in their left arm.

olaparib

Olaparib costs £49,000 per patient.

The other one though, well, let’s have a look at that. It’s a really common argument, especially from Americans who tend to be much more aware of the cost of medication than Brits. We on this side of the pond are somewhat shielded from the realities of specific costs by the way the National Health Service works. However, some recent decisions by NICE (The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence) have raised the issue of the price of medication in the minds of people over here as well. For example, just a few days ago it was widely reported in the press that NICE had turned down a drug called olaparib (Lynparza) – a targeted treatment for ovarian cancer – because its price tag of more than £49,000 per patient per year was considerably higher than NICE’s upper limit of of £20,000 to £30,000.

£49,000 is a lot of money, no question about it. In some places you could buy a house for that kind of money. At the very least, you could buy a big chunk of a house. For the average household it’s almost double a year’s salary. How could a year’s worth of a drug possibly be worth so much money? Surely the pharmaceutical company (AstraZeneca in this case) are having a bit of a laugh with this price tag? All the way to the bank?

Why ARE medicines so expensive?

Why ARE medicines so expensive?

Well, how much does it cost to develop a drug? A study by the Centre for the Study of Drug Development at Tufts University in Massachusetts reported that the average cost for drugs developed between 1995 and 2007 was $2.6 billion (*see update below) which, based on 2007 exchange rates, is very roughly £1.3 billion. Of course, these figures are from a few years ago – it will be more in today’s market.

Why so much? Well, it takes on average about 12 years to get a drug from the laboratory to the market (and many potential drugs fall by the wayside during the various testing processes). There are a lot of people involved, from researchers in the lab to people running clinical trials to chemical engineers who have work out how to get a small-scale lab production up to something much larger to the people who design and produce the packaging. Even if you just start adding up 12 years worth of salaries (the average salary of a chemical engineer is something like £35,000, for example), you quickly get into big numbers, and that doesn’t take the cost of offices, factories, equipment, raw materials and so on into account.

Back to olaparib and its £49,000 a year price tag. There are about 7000 ovarian cancer diagnoses in the UK each year, but it’s a very specific treatment that would probably only apply to about 450 women each year and it’s estimated to extend life by about a year so, sadly, each patient would probably only be taking it for one year. It’s difficult to get specific figures about development costs, but let’s estimate it took about £1.5 billion to develop it (probably a conservative estimate), and let’s give it 20 years to break even, since after 20 years drugs go off-patent (which means other companies can produce them), and profits immediately drop).

Are pharmaceutical companies really ripping us off?

Are pharmaceutical companies really ripping us off?

Based on those rough numbers, each year the pharmaceutical company would need to make about £75 million. Divide by 450 patients and you get (rounding up a bit) £170 thousand per patient per year – more than three times the price tag NICE was working with. To stress: this is just to cover development costs. I’m not adding any profit on here. Even if you allow for the fact that AstraZeneca are selling the drug in other countries (in the US and Europe in particular), it’s hard to see how their profit margins can be anything more than pretty small.

You might say, so what? This is someone’s life we’re talking about here. Life is priceless. Yes, of course. But unless they can break even, and in fact make some kind of profit, no pharmaceutical company is ever going to invest time in drug development. No one runs a business to deliberately make a loss. Not for long, in any case.

turpentine

Don’t let anyone convince you to swallow this stuff.

There are plenty of people out there claiming that some cheap, every-day substance can cure cancer (could be anything from a type of bleach to turpentine to baking soda, depending on the day of the week), but that ‘Big Pharma’ deliberately suppress these treatments, and/or refuse to research them, because they can’t make thousands selling them, and they would rather push their expensive (but, you know, tested) drugs.

Well no, the pharmaceutical companies can’t sell these kinds of ‘alternative’ treatments, because they’re controlled by extremely strict regulations and they can’t claim something works without rock-solid evidence. But don’t be taken in by the argument that it’s impossible to make a lot of money from selling this kind of stuff. Of course it’s possible: buy it in huge bulk, put it in small bottles with expensive-looking packaging, and the markup can be comfortably generous. Hey, if it’s possible to make money selling ‘ghost turds‘, then it’s possible to make money out of anything. And if you don’t want to actually sell it (which might upset the regulatory authorities) there are book sales, public appearances and private consultation fees. Oh yes, don’t let anyone convince you there’s not plenty of money to be made.

Besides which, it’s simply not true that medical researchers aren’t interested in ‘cheap’ substances. To quote the comedian Dara Ó Briain:

“Oh, herbal medicine’s been around for thousands of years!” Indeed it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became ‘medicine’.

Except we shouldn’t be using the past tense; scientists continue to research this kind of thing all the time. Despite what the conspiracists might say, the people who work in these fields are genuinely interested in making people better. If they really thought baking soda could somehow cure a particular cancer, they’d be on it like a shot. Even if you don’t believe they’d do it for ‘the public good’, it’d be worth it for the prestige alone. Someone who managed to prove something like that would almost certainly be up for a Nobel Prize. The company they worked for would be using it in their marketing material forever more. You can’t buy publicity that good. (For more about this, check out this excellent article by Steven Novella.)

beetroot juice

Recent research suggests that beetroot juice could help treat high blood pressure.

Just to prove that research into simple, inexpensive stuff truly does happen, here are some examples (public health warning: I’m not advocating you experiment with any of these, I’m merely listing them to make the point. Discuss it with your doctor before you try anything):

Believe it or not, doctors like medicines that work.

Believe it or not, doctors like medicines that work.

These are just five examples. I’m certain there are many more. Researchers do look at well-known, relatively inexpensive substances if they think they might have a genuine therapeutic effect. That’s the sort of thing scientists do. The difference is that real scientists don’t rely on testimonials – the word of people who’ve “been taking it for years and never been healthier!” – they design proper, rigorous trials.

Sometimes these trials are promising, sometimes they’re not, but the substances that do turn out to be promising invariably find their way into medicine sooner or later because, essentially, doctors like medicine that works.

* Update: June 2015
After I wrote this post I came across this article on theconversation.com. It casts some doubt on the US$2.6 billion figure from The Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, and makes some interesting points about its calculation. In particular, it points out that more than once source has suggested the figure may be over-inflated. This could well be the case, in which case my rough estimate calculations might be off by some margin, but it’s impossible to be more accurate because pharmaceutical companies are pretty cagy about their actual costs. It is certainly the case that a number of pharmaceutical companies have existing, profitable medicines which are reaching the end of their patent lifetime and, it appears, not enough to replace them, leading to some recent mergers and acquisitions activity. A few have run into trouble: Glaxo Smith Kline issued a profit warning last year, as did the French group Sanofi SA. On the other hand, others have been doing extremely well. So are they genuinely over-charging for drugs? It’s a very difficult question, but I think it’s still safe to say that drug development is a very expensive business

Follow The Chronicle Flask on Facebook for regular updates

Is a noxious gas really being added to your food?

Daniel Rutherford named nitrogen "noxious air".

Daniel Rutherford named nitrogen “noxious air”.

Today I’m writing about a potentially dangerous, but surprisingly rarely discussed, substance. It’s a gas at room temperature, with a molecular mass of 28. It sits next to oxygen in the periodic table, but these two could not be more different. When it was discovered by Daniel Rutherford in 1972 he named it ‘noxious air’. Other scientists called it ‘burnt air’, ‘mephitic air’, and ‘azote’ – from the Greek word meaning lifeless – because animals died when they were exposed to it. Today we call it nitrogen.

Let me tell you more. It’s an industrial chemical which is used to make fertilisers and explosives, and to fill tyres. Does that sound like something that you should be exposed to on a daily basis?

Nitrogen is used to fill aeroplane and car tyres.

Nitrogen is used to fill aeroplane and car tyres.

Well I’ve got news for you, you are. Nitrogen is in the air around us. That’s right, this gas which, let me reiterate, was discovered when it was found to kill small animals, is all around us. The concentration of it is fairly stable now, but it has increased dramatically in Earth’s past.

NitrogenRencer

A nitrogen molecule. Not actual size.

Breathing air with more than about 0.8 bar partial pressure will make you really ill or even kill you and yet, pure nitrogen is regularly used to package our foods. Those salad bags you thought were so fresh and healthy? Full of pure nitrogen. That nitrogen is obtained by a process known as fractional distillation. Petrol, diesel and bitumen – the stuff used to cover our roads – are produced by exactly the same method.

Nitrogen is invisible, tasteless and odourless, and companies don’t have to label it on their packaging. Some of the more reputable manufacturers do state that their food is ‘packaged in a protective atmosphere’, but since there is no regulation to force companies to include this label, its absence is no guarantee. You could be eating nitrogen-drenched lettuce right now, and you’d have no idea. And for those salad-dodgers out there breathing a sigh of relief, crisps (chips, for my American readers) are also packaged in this stuff.

Nitrogen can be used in food preparation.

Nitrogen is often used in over-priced food preparation.

It gets worse. When it’s cooled nitrogen becomes a liquid, and this form is also used in food preparation. Some chefs have famously used it to make gourmet ice-cream. But in its liquid form nitrogen is even more dangerous. It’s extremely volatile. Exposure to liquid nitrogen causes severe and painful burns which can leave permanent scars. People who need to handle it should wear thick, industrial-strength gloves and eye protection. It’s so dangerous that one Australian liquor authority recently ordered bars to stop serving drinks containing liquid nitrogen after a patron became seriously ill.

Surely we should be asking the question: should something this harmful REALLY be involved in food preparation at all, anywhere in the world?

Screen Shot 2015-03-31 at 23.20.43

The Food Doll. She knows about this stuff.

Health food campaigners and ‘wellness warriors’ are increasingly setting their sites on this new menace. In an interview, ‘Food Doll’ Eyna Noscience said, “During my research into this stuff I found out that food companies sometimes mix it with carbon dioxide, and we all know that’s killing the ozone layer. We should all be campaigning for better labelling.”

She went on to add: “It’s a pnictogen. I don’t know what that means, but it sounds suspiciously like carcinogen to me. Nothing that unpronounceable can be good for you, right? I always say, if you can’t read it, you shouldn’t be eating it. Or breathing it.”

The spectrum of nitrogen. It's totally irrelevant but it is pretty.

The spectrum of nitrogen. It’s totally irrelevant but it is pretty.

Great-student-demonstration-slogans-ladynottingham-17775214-500-334

Cease the Ugly Nitrogen Terror campaigners staged a peaceful demonstration, and were arrested for “offensive slogans” (not shown).

Despite clearly knowing nothing whatsoever about anything, it’s possible that Eyna Noscience has a point. Perhaps consumers should have the choice over whether they want to buy products saturated with nitrogen? The organisation Cease the Ugly Nitrogen Terror certainly think so. They recently held a peaceful demonstration outside a well-known supermarket in London. Several of their supporters, who were holding placards bearing the initials of the organisation, were arrested for allegedly “offensive slogans”. Clearly yet another example of the food industry having far too much power.

What do you think? Should nitrogen be banned from foods? Leave your comments below.

GNU Terry Pratchett.

—————–

Note: now, in case it’s not entirely obvious, this post is a joke (I say this because some people have asked me, believe it or not). But truth, as they say, is stranger than fiction. After I wrote this I found out that the ‘Food Babe’, aka Vani Hari, had actually written a post (she has since deleted it, but the internet is great for making it difficult to hide such things) in which she demonstrated a fabulous misunderstanding of chemistry and physics. In particular (from here, 6th paragraph):

“The air you are breathing on an airplane is recycled from directly outside of your window. That means you are breathing everything that the airplanes gives off and is flying through. The air that is pumped in isn’t pure oxygen either, it’s mixed with nitrogen, sometimes almost at 50%. To pump a greater amount of oxygen in costs money in terms of fuel and the airlines know this! The nitrogen may affect the times and dosages of medications, make you feel bloated and cause your ankles and joints swell.”

I don’t know about everyone else, but personally I’d be a bit worried about a 50% oxygen atmosphere, particularly in an aeroplane. Let’s just hope she’s wrong, eh?