Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet
From: peterb (peterb_at_mytrashmail.com)
Date: 10/23/04
- Next message: Robert: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Previous message: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- In reply to: GMCarter: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Next in thread: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Reply: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 22 Oct 2004 22:47:33 -0700
GMCarter <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<qn9gn0t67vpt5fai63csg53mto3gm08fhc@4ax.com>...
> On 21 Oct 2004 12:51:11 -0700, peterb@mytrashmail.com (peterb) wrote:
>
> snip...
> >Didn't you spend weeks arguing that *everything* is toxic, citing
> >dose-dependent poisoning? You're off your leash and may need
> >re-neuturing.
>
> Plain, fresh water can be toxic.
The point is that toxicologists don't refer to water as a toxin even
though hyponatremia kills. WHY? Because it's__a__*NUTRIENT* Helium
is *NOT* a nutrient, can also kill, yet it is *ALSO* not referred to
as toxic. WHY??? Because it doesn't kill by poisoning, but rather by
asphyxiation, similiar to a bag over the head. And who's ever heard
of a toxic *BAG?* Besides, that would destroy the balloon industry,
since balloons are basically plastic bags. Plus they can come filled
with helium. So then you have two toxic substances combined into one,
and the paper bag people would probably get pretty upset, as well.
The classifications are therefore variable, depending on the nature of
the chemical (nutrient vs. non-nutrient), and whether or not the
substance in question impairs human physiology at the chemical level
(carbon monoxide vs. helium.) So let's summarize. Nutrients *CAN* be
toxic, yet are *NOT* toxins. A number of gases are classified as
toxic, yet *HELIUM*, which can kill you, and is *NOT* a nutrient, is
*ALSO* not classified as toxic. Confused? Just consider the two
lessons that one might take away from this:
1. Enjoy your exposure to man-made chemicals; casually observe that
even water can kill, therefore drinking water is optional, and
smoking, while optional, can be compensated for by a state of
dehydration, as the risk of drowning is greatly reduced, while the
risk of lung cancer (though technically elevated) is correspondingly
counterbalanced, just not in a disease-specific sort of way. Hey,
life's not perfect.
2. Toxicology is not a substitute for using your brain. If you avoid
man-made chemicals that impair your health, you'll live longer, or at
least reduce your chances for illness.
> A tablespoon poured down the nostril
> apocryphally can drown an individual, so mode of administration may be
> another factor.
>
> In addition, excessive consumption can be fatal. In a marvelous
> example of "military intelligence," a report below from the Journal of
> Military Medicine....can you say "electrolyte"?
>
> Of course, lack of water can equally be fatal.
>
> George M. Carter
>
> ***
> Drinking Too Much Water Can Kill You: Report
> July 02, 2002 05:32 PM ET
> By Alison McCook
>
>
> NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A new review of three deaths of US
> military recruits highlights the dangers of drinking too much water.
>
> The military has traditionally focused on the dangers associated with
> heat illness, which has killed a number of healthy, young enrollees,
> Colonel John W. Gardner of the Office of the Armed Forces Medical
> Examiner in Rockville, Maryland told Reuters Health. However, pushing
> the need to drink water too far can also have deadly consequences, he
> said.
>
> "The risk has always been not drinking enough," Gardner said. "And
> then people who aren't medically attuned get overzealous," inducing
> recruits to drink amounts of water that endanger their health, he
> added.
>
> "That's why we published this paper: to make it clear to people that
> overzealousness can be dangerous," Gardner explained.
>
> In September 1999, a 19-year-old Air Force recruit collapsed during a
> 5.8-mile walk, with a body temperature of 108 degrees Fahrenheit.
> Doctors concluded he had died of both heat stroke and low blood sodium
> levels as a result of overhydration.
>
> During January 2000, a 20-year-old trainee in the Army drank around
> 12 quarts of water during a 2- to 4-hour period while trying to
> produce a urine specimen for a drug test. She then experienced fecal
> incontinence, lost consciousness and became confused, then died from
> swelling in the brain and lungs as a result of low blood sodium.
>
> In March 2001, a 19-year-old Marine died from drinking too much water
> after a 26-mile march, during which he carried a pack and gear
> weighing more than 90 pounds. Although he appeared fine during the
> beginning stages of the 8-hour walk, towards the end he began vomiting
> and appeared overly tired. He was then sent to the hospital, where he
> fell into a coma, developed brain swelling and died the next day. It
> is unclear how much water he drank during the march, but Marines were
> given a "constant emphasis" on drinking water before and during the
> activity, Gardner writes in the latest issue of Military Medicine.
>
> In an interview with Reuters Health, Gardner explained that drinking
> too much water is dangerous because the body cannot excrete that much
> fluid. Excess water then goes to the bowel, which pulls salt into it
> from the body, diluting the concentration of salt in the tissues.
> Changing the concentration of salt, in turn, causes a shifting of
> fluids within the body, which can then induce a swelling in the brain.
> The swollen organ will then press against the bones of the skull, and
> become damaged. The researcher added that previous cases of water
> toxicity have been noted in athletes who consume excessive amounts in
> order to avoid heat stroke. In addition, certain psychiatric patients
> may drink too much water in an attempt to wash away their sins, or
> flush out poisons they believe have entered their bodies.
>
> In 1998, the Army released fluid replacement guidelines, which
> recommend a certain intake of water but limit it to 1 to 1-1/2 quarts
> per hour and 12 quarts per day. It takes a while for these guidelines
> to get "permeated out" to everybody, Gardner admitted. In the
> meantime, he suggested that bases take notice of the mistakes of
> others, and "not wait for somebody to die from (water toxicity)
> again," he said. "You can't prevent everything bad from happening,"
> Gardner noted. "But when it does, you have to learn from it."
>
> SOURCE: Military Medicine 2002;167:432-434.
- Next message: Robert: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Previous message: peterb: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- In reply to: GMCarter: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Next in thread: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Reply: Dunne E. Dawe: "Re: This negative aricle about Antioxidants appeared in the Lancet"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|