Ok, so what's the straight dope on the whole "Splenda is practically DDT" crap?

[Jenaroph]

So a friend on Facebook posted a story about how Splenda is like a couple atoms away from being DDT and is horribly horribly dangerous, destroys your red blood cells, kills all your gut flora, kicks all your puppies, etc. Given that he's a Mona Vie distributor (I keep him around for the highly amusing rah rah go team glurgy one-liners he posts from time to time) I take everything health-related he posts with a mountain of salt, but it turns out there are so many anti-Splenda pages out there I can't find a cite that treats the question rationally.

Now I understand there are studies that show that artificial sweeteners don't actually seem to help people lose weight. That's apparently one of the least of their concerns, because SPLENDA IS ALMOST DDT! IT WILL KILL YOU!

Here's (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/26/major-media-finally-exposes-splendas-lies.aspx)an example of the type of hysterical article I'm talking about. It makes a lot of scary claims and has links to anecdotes and studies that are then deliberately misinterpreted but offers no explanation of the mechanisms involved. What exactly about Splenda is supposed to be so dangerous?

[Johnny L.A.]

So a friend on Facebook posted a story about how Splenda is like a couple atoms away from being DDT...

Splenda is:

C12H19Cl3O8

DDT is:

C14H9Cl5

Looks like 2 fewer carbon, 10 more hydrogen, 2 fewer chlorine, and 8 oxygen. So if I'm reading that right, Splenda is 14 atoms different from DDT.

[Skald the Rhymer]

So a friend on Facebook posted a story about how Splenda is like a couple atoms away from being DDT and is horribly horribly dangerous, destroys your red blood cells, kills all your gut flora, kicks all your puppies, etc. Given that he's a Mona Vie distributor (I keep him around for the highly amusing rah rah go team glurgy one-liners he posts from time to time) I take everything health-related he posts with a mountain of salt, but it turns out there are so many anti-Splenda pages out there I can't find a cite that treats the question rationally.

Now I understand there are studies that show that artificial sweeteners don't actually seem to help people lose weight. That's apparently one of the least of their concerns, because SPLENDA IS ALMOST DDT! IT WILL KILL YOU!

Here's (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/26/major-media-finally-exposes-splendas-lies.aspx)an example of the type of hysterical article I'm talking about. It makes a lot of scary claims and has links to anecdotes and studies that are then deliberately misinterpreted but offers no explanation of the mechanisms involved. What exactly about Splenda is supposed to be so dangerous?

I can't address most of the issues you discuss in your post. But I will comment on artificial sweeteners not helping people lose weight. This will be true if the person takes the lack of sugar in his colas, tea, coffee, and so forth as license to eat more in other ways. If I go to McDonald's and order a pair of Big Macs, a large order of fries, and a cinna-melt for lunch every day, it's not going to matter that I put Splenda rather than sugar in my coffee.

[Johnny L.A.]

Consider: Salt (NaCl) is one atom away from both a deadly gas and a violently-reactive metal. :eek:

Note: I don't know how the various ions in DDT, Splenda, or salt react on their own.

[Johnny L.A.]

Here's (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/04/26/major-media-finally-exposes-splendas-lies.aspx)an example of the type of hysterical article I'm talking about.
The title of the article says 'Made from Sugar, but is Closer to DDT'.

Here's a comparison of Sucrose, Sucralose, and DDT (in that order):

C12H22O11
C12H19Cl3O8
C14H9Cl5

Sugar and Splenda have the same number of carbon atoms. The number of hydrogen atoms in Splenda is closer to the number of hydrogen atoms in sugar than it is to the number of hydrogen atoms in DDT. Sucralose and DDT to both have Chlorine atoms, which are not in sugar. But DDT doesn't have oxygen. Also, the number of oxygen atoms plus the number of chlorine atoms in sucralose is the same as the number of oxygen atoms in sucrose.

So I think that sucralose is closer to sugar than to DDT, and that the title of the linked article incorrect.

[asterion]

Splenda is:

C12H19Cl3O8

DDT is:

C14H9Cl5

Looks like 2 fewer carbon, 10 more hydrogen, 2 fewer chlorine, and 8 oxygen. So if I'm reading that right, Splenda is 14 atoms different from DDT.
Funny, but of course the connections matter far more. Splenda is sucrose that has been tri-chlorinated (there were some descriptions in previous threads on the subject and more information in the Wikipedia page and presumably patents.) DDT is a diphenyl that has been heavily chlorinated (p-Cl on the phenyls and a trichloromethane on the linking methyne.)

[Martin Hyde]

The SD is there have been various studies and neither sucralose or aspartame have been shown to be meaningfully harmful.

Honestly this issue comes up a lot because, as you note, there is a very large movement of people who seem to think artificial sweeteners are literally some sort of poisonous warfare agent that have, through corruption and/or lax oversight been allowed to go onto the market.

If you look at this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sugar_substitute) catch-all Wiki page on sweeteners you will note that pretty much all of the major ones have been studied not dozens but hundreds of times by health agencies spanning the globe and no materially adverse effects have ever been linked to human beings.

Unfortunately I think part of the fear is spurred on because of grave misunderstandings that have come about in the past.

For example an artificial sweetener anyone alive in the 70s may remember, saccharin, was widely assumed to be bad for you for a long time. In the 70s Canada banned it for human consumption based on laboratory tests done on animals. The FDA in America was moving to do the same, but Congress stepped in and blocked it. For ever onward people have fueled their conspiracy theory fires against artificial sweeteners based on this action.

In truth, the study linking saccharin to cancer was done on laboratory rats and subsequent research has shown that it causes bladder cancer in rats through a mechanism that does not apply to the human body. Something many people need to remember is, just because rats are commonly used to test thing on, and just because they are mammals, there is not a 1:1 relationship between how things affect different species and how things affect us. There are many mammals that can and do eat things that would cause serious adverse effects in humans and vice versa.

So even the one artificial sweetener that has been genuinely banned by some countries, extensive subsequent research and the WHO has concluded it is safe for human consumption.

When it comes to the mainstream sweeteners used in consumer food products today (sucralose/Splenda and aspartame/NutraSweet) about the worst thing you can genuinely find is a few studies have shown they can cause cancer in rats. However again, both substances have been vetted and OKayed by hundreds of scientists and health organizations all over the world. As has been shown with saccharin just because something is a carcinogen in rats does not make it a carcinogen in humans. Further, the dosage in these studies that have found any problems with rats is insane. For example a study showed that Splenda can kill good gut bacteria in rats. The dosage for that study was the equivalent of consuming something like 10,000 packets of Splenda or many, many thousands of sodas or coffees worth of Splenda in a single day, every day for a period of time. I would posit far worse side effects would present if a human was consuming that much coffee or soda per day and from things other than the sweetener, think about how much caffeine would come with that many coffees or sodas.

[Johnny L.A.]

Funny, but of course the connections matter far more.

Yes, I was being facetious. The molecules are completely different shapes.

[Johnny L.A.]

The SD is there have been various studies and neither sucralose or aspartame have been shown to be meaningfully harmful.

NB: Cecil Adams on aspartame (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1233/did-aspartame-nutrasweet-cause-gulf-war-syndrome).

[Derleth]

SPLENDA IS ALMOST DDT! IT WILL KILL YOU!Actual DDT won't usually kill you. You'd think they'd come up with a more deadly toxin to falsely associate Splenda with.

Seriously: DDT isn't all that toxic to humans. You can literally eat the stuff and not suffer ill effects: (http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm)In one study involving humans, 17 people ate 35 mg/man daily (about 0.5 mg/kg daily) for 18 months suffering no ill-effect(25). In another study volunteers ate 0.31 to 0.61 mg/kg daily without any noticeable effects(26).I'm not saying DDT is harmless. It will, eventually, kill a human if they eat or otherwise come into contact with enough of it. On the other hand, the stuff we spray around our homes to kill roaches is more toxic than DDT, and we don't have massive problems keeping that under control.

Also, Dr. Joseph Mercola, owner of the webpage you linked to, is a scammer and a quack who has been warned by the FDA at least once in his slimy career. (http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html)

[Johnny L.A.]

Seriously: DDT isn't all that toxic to humans.

Thanks for mentioning that. I'd heard it before, but had forgotten.

[jz78817]

hell, water is one oxygen atom away from being a highly corrosive, unstable oxidizer (hydrogen peroxide, or H2O2.)

[Jenaroph]

Thanks guys, especially those who posted the chemical formulas and their comparisons. That's the kind of thing that's getting lost amid the screamy blog posts.


For example an artificial sweetener anyone alive in the 70s may remember, saccharin, was widely assumed to be bad for you for a long time. In the 70s Canada banned it for human consumption based on laboratory tests done on animals. The FDA in America was moving to do the same, but Congress stepped in and blocked it. For ever onward people have fueled their conspiracy theory fires against artificial sweeteners based on this action.

In truth, the study linking saccharin to cancer was done on laboratory rats and subsequent research has shown that it causes bladder cancer in rats through a mechanism that does not apply to the human body. Something many people need to remember is, just because rats are commonly used to test thing on, and just because they are mammals, there is not a 1:1 relationship between how things affect different species and how things affect us. There are many mammals that can and do eat things that would cause serious adverse effects in humans and vice versa.

So even the one artificial sweetener that has been genuinely banned by some countries, extensive subsequent research and the WHO has concluded it is safe for human consumption.
Your post as a whole is a great summation of the problem. I'm just old enough to remember the saccharin scare. If I remember correctly, those studies like the Splenda studies also used far far more saccharin than a human would ever take in per day. The banning of saccharin, and later reading about the subsequent questioning of the results, is one of the main sources of my own skepticism when it comes to health studies and is why I ask questions like this. One study showing a health effect shouldn't be grounds for changing your lifestyle, it should be grounds for more study.

[Johnny L.A.]

hell, water is one oxygen atom away from being a highly corrosive, unstable oxidizer (hydrogen peroxide, or H2O2.)

And water has exactly the same molecular structure as DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS)! :eek:

[panache45]

And water has exactly the same molecular structure as DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS)! :eek:

Yes, I caught my neighbor spraying some on his lawn, and explained to him that it eventually finds its way into the water supply . . . and there's no way to filter it out.

[Rysdad]

And water has exactly the same molecular structure as DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS)! :eek:

I use it as a solvent.

[njtt]

Thanks guys, especially those who posted the chemical formulas and their comparisons. That's the kind of thing that's getting lost amid the screamy blog posts.

Your post as a whole is a great summation of the problem. I'm just old enough to remember the saccharin scare. If I remember correctly, those studies like the Splenda studies also used far far more saccharin than a human would ever take in per day. The banning of saccharin, and later reading about the subsequent questioning of the results, is one of the main sources of my own skepticism when it comes to health studies and is why I ask questions like this. One study showing a health effect shouldn't be grounds for changing your lifestyle, it should be grounds for more study.

I think you are probably confusing saccharine with cyclamate. I do not think saccharine ever was banned (it was already in much too wide use for that to economically and politically viable), but cyclamate, though in most respects (probably including safety) a much better sweetener, suffered the fate you describe.

[Martin Hyde]

No, saccharin genuinely had a scare in the 1970s (in fact all the way back to Theodore Roosevelt people were wary of it, T.R. himself defended its use, though, and was a consumer himself) that lead to it being banned in some places. Saccharin was never banned here but the FDA was essentially going to up until Congress stepped in and stopped them because it would have been injurious to various industries.

I believe that after subsequent studies showed it was essentially harmless, very few countries ban saccharin today. Canada is the only one I know of and even they are considering lifting the ban (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/securit/addit/sweeten-edulcor/saccharin_qa-qr-eng.php), which by all accounts was probably an incident of jumping the gun in any case since the only negative studies were on laboratory rats and the science hadn't linked it to issues in humans.

[Martin Hyde]

The cyclamate ban and the saccharin scare are actually related, by the way. The original study which showed rats getting bladder cancer actually involved rats that were consuming a mixture of both cyclamate and saccharin.

I believe at the time cyclamate was being produced under patent by Abbott Labs, whereas saccharin was produced by a wider range of companies and was generally a more widely use product (it had been around since the 19th century, cyclamate was from the 1940s iirc.)

Cyclamate got the ban in the United States because of the study, when the FDA moved to follow suit and ban saccharin is when Congress stepped in and said no.

What's amusing is on the basis of the rat study cyclamate was banned in the United States and they tried to ban saccharin. Canada banned saccharin based on the study but cyclamate is still widely used in food products in Canada and was never banned.

I personally find sucralose to be the best artificial sweetener. I remember cyclamate from my childhood and I actually found its after taste worse than that of saccharin. I thought aspartame had a better taste than both, but my understanding is it breaks down when heated and thus isn't very useful in anything that is baked. Sucralose tastes better than any of the previous ones listed and can also be used for baking, so I consider it the king of artificial sweeteners.

There was a run of diet beverages that came out awhile back that touted being made with sucralose (under brand name Splenda) and I found them much better than other diet sodas, but unfortunately it seems like they don't offer them anymore.

[Balthisar]

DDT isn't all that dangerous.

[DHMO]

And water has exactly the same molecular structure as DHMO (http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html#DANGERS)! :eek:
Awwww... that was gonna be my line! :(

So a friend on Facebook posted a story about how Splenda is like a couple atoms away from being DDT and is horribly horribly dangerous, destroys your red blood cells, kills all your gut flora, kicks all your puppies, etc.
<snip>
Now I understand there are studies that show that artificial sweeteners don't actually seem to help people lose weight. That's apparently one of the least of their concerns, because SPLENDA IS ALMOST DDT! IT WILL KILL YOU!

My wife gets a lot of emails from her cousins about the latest big bad corporate attack on the little guy, how they are poisoning us with some chemical that is "one atom [or molecule]" away from some highly toxic substance.

As has already been mentioned, it is extemely relevant to note whether the ion behaves the same as the atom. Chlorine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine) gas (Cl2) is highly toxic, Sodium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium) metal (Na) is extremely reactive, and sodium chloride (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt) (NaCl) is table salt. More than three-fouths of our atmosphere (78%) is Nitrogen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen) Gas (N2). Nitrogen is used in a variety of situations where an inert gas is required, because under most conditions, it does not react. But many high explosives derive their power from their Nitrogen content (TNT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNT_(explosive))—2,4,6-trinitrotoluene, is a chemical compound with the formula C6H2(NO2)3CH3; Hydrazine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrazine), N2H4, is a rocket fuel, among other uses; Nitroglycerine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitroglycerin), C3H5N3O9 is the active ingredient in Dynamite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite).)

Coal, which is mostly pure Carbon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon), burns, but is not usually unstable. Diamond and graphite are other forms of nearly pure Carbon, which are not considered particularly dangerous. But take one atom of Carbon and one atom of Nitrogen, and you get Cyanide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyanide) (CN).

If people are going to get their panties in a twist with "OMG!!!11!!! It's only a few atoms different from [some highly gross substance]!!11!!:eek:" it would behoove them to have at least a rudimentary understanding of what the Hell they are talking about.

[Malacandra]

I use it as a solvent.

Careful, I burned myself on gaseous DHMO the other day - oddly, though, the best treatment I had at the time was the liquid form. Have to be careful though, that stuff's bad shit if it gets into your lungs.

What you should beware of, of course, is alcohol, C2H5OH. It's not even one atom away from dimethyl ether, CH3.O.CH3. No-one around here's crazy enough to drink ether, are they, even mixed with water? :eek:

[Hari Seldon]

Chocolate is a deadly poison. As little as a quarter pound can kill a dog! (True.)

But seriously, you cannot prove to me that if I use Splenda instead of sugar in my morning pot of tea and make no other change in my diet it won't help weight loss (as well as help with my mild diabetes). You can't tell me that if, on a hot summer afternoon, after I've spent an hour working in the garden I drink a glass of diet root beer (the only diet soda I like) and make no other change in my diet it won't help with weight loss. Not a lot obviously, since a couple spoons full of sugar are under 50 calories, but every bit helps.

[Malacandra]

Chocolate is a deadly poison. As little as a quarter pound can kill a dog! (True.)

But seriously, you cannot prove to me that if I use Splenda instead of sugar in my morning pot of tea and make no other change in my diet it won't help weight loss (as well as help with my mild diabetes). You can't tell me that if, on a hot summer afternoon, after I've spent an hour working in the garden I drink a glass of diet root beer (the only diet soda I like) and make no other change in my diet it won't help with weight loss. Not a lot obviously, since a couple spoons full of sugar are under 50 calories, but every bit helps.

That it does - a 12oz can of sugary soda typically contains ~140 Cals of sugar. Cut out three of those a day and it's getting near to a pound of fat in a week. It all adds up.

[Jman]

DHMO can certainly be tricky stuff. I used to actually SUBMERGE myself in it for two hours a day in high school, and I ingested it at regular intervals during the submerging. Luckily, I avoided serious side effects, and I did have the benefits....I lost weight and had nothing but lean muscle mass growth. Powerful stuff. And, though I'm ashamed, I've begun the submergings again, on a slightly more limited basis, as I attempt to lose weight again. Whew. Glad I got that off my chest.

As to artificial sweeteners not aiding in weight loss: Anecdotally...I drink a lot of diet pop (soda/soft drink, whatever), and I have noticed if I sprinkle in regular glasses of water between cans of Diet Coke, I have FAR less of a sweet tooth during the day. When I drink Diet Coke basically all day (I used to drink about 5-6 cans a day...I've now cut back to about 3), I crave sweets and fat like nothing else.

[MsRobyn]

Actual DDT won't usually kill you. You'd think they'd come up with a more deadly toxin to falsely associate Splenda with.

Seriously: DDT isn't all that toxic to humans. You can literally eat the stuff and not suffer ill effects: (http://www.pan-uk.org/pestnews/Actives/ddt.htm)I'm not saying DDT is harmless. It will, eventually, kill a human if they eat or otherwise come into contact with enough of it. On the other hand, the stuff we spray around our homes to kill roaches is more toxic than DDT, and we don't have massive problems keeping that under control.

Also, Dr. Joseph Mercola, owner of the webpage you linked to, is a scammer and a quack who has been warned by the FDA at least once in his slimy career. (http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html)

AIUI, the relative lack of toxicity to humans is partly why it was so desirable for insect control. It's fatal to bugs, relatively safe for humans, and its usage was only stopped when it turned out that DDT wouldn't degrade (at least, not all that quickly), and indeed, caused some serious environmental problems.

[Derleth]

AIUI, the relative lack of toxicity to humans is partly why it was so desirable for insect control. It's fatal to bugs, relatively safe for humans, and its usage was only stopped when it turned out that DDT wouldn't degrade (at least, not all that quickly), and indeed, caused some serious environmental problems.Also, it was getting so it wasn't all that harmful to mosquitoes, either. Places where DDT had seen heavy use were breeding crops of DDT-resistant mosquitoes, reducing its effectiveness compared to other chemicals and control methods, which is a major reason we stopped using it.

[Mangetout]

I believe it's safe to generalise that any article claiming that substance X is this many atoms/molecules away from substance Y, where substance Y is scary or poisonous, they're talking bollocks.

Does the term 'one molecule/atom away from...' ever turn up in serious scientific or respectable journalistic contexts?

[asterion]

Well, if you count isotope studies and isotope effects, then maybe. Or maybe the substitution of a different element in the same period, such as a switch to selenium in this paper (discussed in this blog post (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/2011/04/15/selenium_in_a_drug_structure_why_not.php).) And there are a number of drugs where the only difference is small changes in a functional group, such as codeine and morphine, where the only difference is a methyl group present in codeine.

But I agree, for your formulation above, it'll always be non-scientific scaremongering.

[what do I type here]

My argument is, if Splenda is so harmful, why does the FDA let us have it? Or is that naive?

It's illogical to believe that the same agency that drags its heels on approving potentially life-saving drugs based on the argument "we can't prove that it's harmless" would then turn around and approve a sweetener and justify it by saying "we can't prove that it's harmful."

[Jackmannii]

Obviously, you are unaware of the FDA AMA NWO BIG PHARMA DEPOPULATION AGENDA (http://www.conspiracy.me/?p=58517).

Though I am confused about why these entities want to kill off most of the world's people, when there is so much more profit and fun to be had controlling and deceiving a maximal number of humans.

I guess I'm hopelessly naive.

[LSLGuy]

It's not quite so illogical as that. Foods & drugs are regulated very differently. And the burden of proof can, in many cases run the other way.

But overall, the FDA seems generally capable. If Splenda was going to be producing chrnic health problems in thousands of people I think we'd have seen it by now.



What I don't understand is why anyone would want an artificial sweetener in the first place. Just don't eat sweet stuff and you'll be both healthier & happier.

[Martin Hyde]

It's not quite so illogical as that. Foods & drugs are regulated very differently. And the burden of proof can, in many cases run the other way.

But overall, the FDA seems generally capable. If Splenda was going to be producing chrnic health problems in thousands of people I think we'd have seen it by now.

What I don't understand is why anyone would want an artificial sweetener in the first place. Just don't eat sweet stuff and you'll be both healthier & happier.

People like sweet stuff. Happier is very subjective, and you do not have to abstain from sweets to be healthy.

[Mangetout]

Though I am confused about why these entities want to kill off most of the world's people...

1. Destroy Customers
2. ?
3. Profit!

[groman]

Also, organic chemistry does not work that way.

Even if it was zero atoms away from DDT, it wouldn't mean much.

For instance:

THC is C21H30O2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol)

and 0 atoms away is

Progesterone C21H30O2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progesterone)

[Malacandra]

Also, organic chemistry does not work that way.

Even if it was zero atoms away from DDT, it wouldn't mean much.

For instance:

THC is C21H30O2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetrahydrocannabinol)

and 0 atoms away is

Progesterone C21H30O2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progesterone)

Am I on ignore or something (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=13749446&postcount=22)?

[Jenaroph]

But seriously, you cannot prove to me that if I use Splenda instead of sugar in my morning pot of tea and make no other change in my diet it won't help weight loss (as well as help with my mild diabetes). You can't tell me that if, on a hot summer afternoon, after I've spent an hour working in the garden I drink a glass of diet root beer (the only diet soda I like) and make no other change in my diet it won't help with weight loss. Not a lot obviously, since a couple spoons full of sugar are under 50 calories, but every bit helps.Well, sure. But the point of the studies that do say they don't seem to help with weight loss is, people who drink diet sodas tend to take in more calories elsewhere. So they ARE making changes in their diet, just not conscious ones.

As a sugar substitute for people who are diabetic, they're clearly invaluable. If you're on a weight loss diet that you're being highly conscientious about, they're probably a good way to have a treat without getting extra calories. But if you're casually hoping to drop weight just by switching from regular to diet soda it might not work because you may end up taking in the extra calories anyway if you're not paying attention to what you snack on otherwise.

[Skammer]

DHMO can certainly be tricky stuff. I used to actually SUBMERGE myself in it for two hours a day in high school, and I ingested it at regular intervals during the submerging. Luckily, I avoided serious side effects, and I did have the benefits....I lost weight and had nothing but lean muscle mass growth. Powerful stuff. And, though I'm ashamed, I've begun the submergings again, on a slightly more limited basis, as I attempt to lose weight again. Whew. Glad I got that off my chest.

As to artificial sweeteners not aiding in weight loss: Anecdotally...I drink a lot of diet pop (soda/soft drink, whatever), and I have noticed if I sprinkle in regular glasses of water between cans of Diet Coke, I have FAR less of a sweet tooth during the day. When I drink Diet Coke basically all day (I used to drink about 5-6 cans a day...I've now cut back to about 3), I crave sweets and fat like nothing else. You're taking a risk. My dog was killed by accidental exposure to a pool of DHMO. :(

[Chronos]

Quoth jz78817:hell, water is one oxygen atom away from being a highly corrosive, unstable oxidizer (hydrogen peroxide, or H2O2.) Oh, you can go a lot further than that. The very air we breathe is zero atoms away from being a highly corrosive, unstable oxidizer.

Quoth DHMO himself:Nitrogen is used in a variety of situations where an inert gas is required, because under most conditions, it does not react. But many high explosives derive their power from their Nitrogen contentIndeed, these are actually the same fact. To put it simply, nitrogen really, really likes to be in its elemental, N2 form. If it is in that form, it's really hard to get it into some other form, so it's fairly inert. If it's in some other form, then it'll really easily (and energetically) revert to the elemental form. It's like a big heavy rock held high up in the air, versus a big heavy rock sitting on the ground.

[dzero]

I say let the idiots who don't know enough about chemistry and biology to realize that 3D structure trumps 2D chemical formulae, scare themselves to death by any and all available means - hopefully before they can breed.

[asterion]

Quoth jz78817:Oh, you can go a lot further than that. The very air we breathe is zero atoms away from being a highly corrosive, unstable oxidizer.

Quoth DHMO himself:Indeed, these are actually the same fact. To put it simply, nitrogen really, really likes to be in its elemental, N2 form. If it is in that form, it's really hard to get it into some other form, so it's fairly inert. If it's in some other form, then it'll really easily (and energetically) revert to the elemental form. It's like a big heavy rock held high up in the air, versus a big heavy rock sitting on the ground.

It seems like I am always having to run a battery of experiments every time I'm working with a molecule with nitro groups or just several nitrogens. DSC, TSC, and RC1 mostly. And, of course, formation of N2 is the main driving force in several reactions, such as the Mitsonobu and AIBN as a radical initiator. By the way, I really, really hate DEAD.