Mod parent and grandparent down. There is a whole series of articles starting with Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 1993, Volume 41, Number 5
Actually, the danger of sodium benzoate has been well established by a series of papers starting from the 90s. This was one of the first: Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst [commercialalert.org] (pdf warning) from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 1993, Volume 41, Number 5
Seriously, asshole, do your research before posting nonsense.
Did you RTFA? The new study has nothing to do with benzene since there was no vitamin C; it's about DIRECT damange to yeast cell mitochondrial DNA by the sodium benzoate. Thanks for posting something totally different; nothing but a mod-point grab from dumb moderators that also failed to RTFA.
Life expectancy has increased due to decrease in child mortality, not because we are leading healthier lives. Thanks for not addressing the specific danger discussed in the articles and instead indulging into intellectually lazy generalities that amount to no argument whatsoever.
You cretinous imbecile, there's neither acid in the fucking article; the study was on the direct effect of sodium benzoate on mitochondrial DNA in yeast cells!
Mod parent down, for he is factually wrong: the study discussed in the article had nothing to do with benzene as vitamin C was not present to react with the sodium benzoate and create it; the mitochondrial DNA damage was caused directly by the sodium benzoate!
The concentration of sodium benzoate in soft drinks is far higher than that in berries, so that is a meaningless comparison. Beyond the mitochondrial DNA damage, let's not forget this chemical's reaction with vitamin C content to produce benzene, a known carcinogen.
You completely fail to address the specific issue of sodium benzoate damage to mitochondrial DNA, and choose instead to engage in meaningless generalities which say nothing about this given danger. Care to explain yourself?
Forget Schneier, there's an extensive mathematical rebuttal to the technique showing it's complete and utter garbage: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601022
He doesn't present a rigorous mathematical counterargument to the linked paper, as noted in an addendum in it! This technique has no promise whatsoever.
Well, can you at least cite a reference to the electrical resistivity of such ribbons? Resistivity of individual carbon nanotubes is not acceptable as a bulk structure from them would not manage probably within an order of magnitude as low a resistivity.
The real scam here is the use of crops for production of biofuels, when the ethanol/butanol production density of algae is an order of magnitude higher, doesn't waste already depleted soils from food production, and doesn't rely nearly as much on chemicals such as pesticides produced from petroleum, the very industry whose reliance on we're supposedly trying to decrease.
Butanol from algae is closer to gasoline, and moreover, the amount produced per volume is an order of magnitude more than that of ethanol from plants--plus you're not wasting already depleted topsoils for uses other than food production, and you're not relying on chemicals for crop production that are derived from the very same oil industry you're trying to decrease reliance on. The algae is so much more efficient at biofuel production than land based plants, that any crop-derived fuel is simply unjustified.
Other plants can produce much more per acre. Then you have algae, which per volume can produce an order of magnitude more. There's no excuse for wasting the topsoils, already depleted, for things besides food production, especially when you're relying on the same petroleum industry you want to eliminate for all the chemicals used in crop production.
Two kinds of environmentalists, the ones that jump on the bandwagon as the next big way to make money and scam people, and the true believers, who are little more than Luddite technophobes at best, and fanatical misanthropes at worst. Fact: conservation is always at the expense of progress, and thus never justifiable. Energy supply is only artificially limited by political correctness: breeder reactors and the thorium fuel cycle can provide centuries of ever increasing energy use, far more than should be needed for ITER's offspring to be in full operation. But with 'green' sources, you could cover the planet with solar panels and windmills, and would still not be enough without restricting progress (which of course is the true agenda of the greens).
You're pretty stupid aren't you. Batteries are far from the only issue w.r.t. electric cars. There's simply not enough copper to wind large motors for every car on the road!
Quit spreading FUD, asshole! CERN's Waste Transmuter can deal with the waste very nicely. Just becuase a specific mode of recycling is suboptimal doesn't mean you can generalize. Oh wait, I forgot this is slashdot. The fact is, breeders, and then the thorium fuel cycle, allow the extension of nuclear energy far beyond the time when mineable uranium has been used up.
Your post is full of FUD. CERN's Waste Transmuter solves the issue of more dangerous isotopes produced in lengthened fuel cycles. Extraction from seawater is not needed as there's plenty of mineable thorium and there are practical fuel cycles for that.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, the whole fucking article is about the FDA being way off base with this number. RTFA next time before trolling.
Mod parent and grandparent down. There is a whole series of articles starting with Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst, Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 1993, Volume 41, Number 5
Actually, the danger of sodium benzoate has been well established by a series of papers starting from the 90s. This was one of the first: Benzene Production from Decarboxylation of Benzoic Acid in the Presence of Ascorbic Acid and a Transition-Metal Catalyst [commercialalert.org] (pdf warning) from Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, May 1993, Volume 41, Number 5
Seriously, asshole, do your research before posting nonsense.
Did you RTFA? The new study has nothing to do with benzene since there was no vitamin C; it's about DIRECT damange to yeast cell mitochondrial DNA by the sodium benzoate. Thanks for posting something totally different; nothing but a mod-point grab from dumb moderators that also failed to RTFA.
Life expectancy has increased due to decrease in child mortality, not because we are leading healthier lives. Thanks for not addressing the specific danger discussed in the articles and instead indulging into intellectually lazy generalities that amount to no argument whatsoever.
Mod parent up and grandparent down! This is a direct effect that has nothing to do with benzene creation in the presence of vitamin C!
You cretinous imbecile, there's neither acid in the fucking article; the study was on the direct effect of sodium benzoate on mitochondrial DNA in yeast cells!
The article is not about benzene; it is an additional effect directly from the sodium benzoate, you idiot! Ever RTFA before trolling?
Mod parent down, for he is factually wrong: the study discussed in the article had nothing to do with benzene as vitamin C was not present to react with the sodium benzoate and create it; the mitochondrial DNA damage was caused directly by the sodium benzoate!
The concentration of sodium benzoate in soft drinks is far higher than that in berries, so that is a meaningless comparison. Beyond the mitochondrial DNA damage, let's not forget this chemical's reaction with vitamin C content to produce benzene, a known carcinogen.
You completely fail to address the specific issue of sodium benzoate damage to mitochondrial DNA, and choose instead to engage in meaningless generalities which say nothing about this given danger. Care to explain yourself?
Forget Schneier, there's an extensive mathematical rebuttal to the technique showing it's complete and utter garbage: http://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0601022
He doesn't present a rigorous mathematical counterargument to the linked paper, as noted in an addendum in it!
This technique has no promise whatsoever.
This article represents the opinion of its author, not the IEEE in general. In either case, nice argumentum ad verecundiam, dummy!
I will bet my and my family's lives that fusors will never manage practical overunity generation.
Well, can you at least cite a reference to the electrical resistivity of such ribbons? Resistivity of individual carbon nanotubes is not acceptable as a bulk structure from them would not manage probably within an order of magnitude as low a resistivity.
Without actual numbers these statements are meaningless.
The real scam here is the use of crops for production of biofuels, when the ethanol/butanol production density of algae is an order of magnitude higher, doesn't waste already depleted soils from food production, and doesn't rely nearly as much on chemicals such as pesticides produced from petroleum, the very industry whose reliance on we're supposedly trying to decrease.
Butanol from algae is closer to gasoline, and moreover, the amount produced per volume is an order of magnitude more than that of ethanol from plants--plus you're not wasting already depleted topsoils for uses other than food production, and you're not relying on chemicals for crop production that are derived from the very same oil industry you're trying to decrease reliance on. The algae is so much more efficient at biofuel production than land based plants, that any crop-derived fuel is simply unjustified.
Other plants can produce much more per acre. Then you have algae, which per volume can produce an order of magnitude more. There's no excuse for wasting the topsoils, already depleted, for things besides food production, especially when you're relying on the same petroleum industry you want to eliminate for all the chemicals used in crop production.
Two kinds of environmentalists, the ones that jump on the bandwagon as the next big way to make money and scam people, and the true believers, who are little more than Luddite technophobes at best, and fanatical misanthropes at worst. Fact: conservation is always at the expense of progress, and thus never justifiable. Energy supply is only artificially limited by political correctness: breeder reactors and the thorium fuel cycle can provide centuries of ever increasing energy use, far more than should be needed for ITER's offspring to be in full operation. But with 'green' sources, you could cover the planet with solar panels and windmills, and would still not be enough without restricting progress (which of course is the true agenda of the greens).
You're pretty stupid aren't you. Batteries are far from the only issue w.r.t. electric cars. There's simply not enough copper to wind large motors for every car on the road!
Quit spreading FUD, asshole! CERN's Waste Transmuter can deal with the waste very nicely. Just becuase a specific mode of recycling is suboptimal doesn't mean you can generalize. Oh wait, I forgot this is slashdot. The fact is, breeders, and then the thorium fuel cycle, allow the extension of nuclear energy far beyond the time when mineable uranium has been used up.
Your post is full of FUD. CERN's Waste Transmuter solves the issue of more dangerous isotopes produced in lengthened fuel cycles. Extraction from seawater is not needed as there's plenty of mineable thorium and there are practical fuel cycles for that.
Heh, hydrogen. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas.