It looks like your everyday china is fiestaware. In my humble opinion it is the best in the world aesthetics and function.

Michael

It looks like Fiestaware, but it isn’t. It’s everyday ceramic dishware. I guess it’s a modern day knockoff of Fiestaware.

I don’t think so. I’m not a believer in the notion that seeds or pips are the cause of appendicitis. I think those are old wive’s tales. I could be wrong, but my medical education leads me to believe otherwise.

MRE

Thanks for asking!

A lot of the controversy surrounding sucralose stems from the fact that it was discovered while trying to create a new insecticide. The two chemists, Hough and Phadnis were looking for a new insecticide product. The younger Phadnis accidently tasted the end product and discovered it to be incredibly sweet. Since sugars are incredibly more profitable than insecticides, the silly insecticide search was canned and a new fake sweetener was “discovered”…yea, real smart scientists. The claim that it is made from sugar is a misconception about the final product. That’s where most scientists confuse facts and theories then approve substances based upon theories and bad science.

Sucralose is made when sugar is treated with trityl chloride, acetic anhydride, hydrogen chlorine, thionyl chloride, and methanol in the presence of dimethylformamide, 4-methylmorpholine, toluene, methyl isobutyl ketone, acetic acid, benzyltriethlyammonium chloride, and sodium methoxide, making it unlike anything found in nature. The Splenda Web site even states that “although sucralose has a structure like sugar and a sugar-like taste, it is not natural.” The product Splenda is also not actually calorie-free. Sucralose does have calories, but because it is 600 times sweeter than sugar, very small amounts are needed to achieve the desired sweetness. The first two ingredients in Splenda are dextrose and maltodextrin, which are used to increase bulk and are carbohydrates that are not free of calories. One cup of Splenda contains 96 calories and 32 grams of carbohydrates, which is substantial for people with diabetes but unnoticed due to the label claiming that it’s a no calorie sweetener.

The name sucralose is another misleading factor. The suffix -ose is used to name sugars, not additives. Sucralose sounds very close to sucrose, table sugar, and can be confusing for consumers. The name would have been trichlorogalactosucrose, but the FDA did not believe that it was necessary to use this so sucralose was allowed. “Let’s not confuse consumers with the facts. We know better…we are scientists!”

The presence of chlorine is thought to be the most dangerous component of sucralose. Chlorine is considered a carcinogen and has been used in poisonous gas, disinfectants, pesticides, and plastics. The digestion and absorption of sucralose is not clear due to a lack of long-term studies on humans. The majority of studies were done on animals for short lengths of time. The alleged symptoms associated with sucralose are gastrointestinal problems (bloating, gas, diarrhea, nausea), skin irritations (rash, hives, redness, itching, swelling), wheezing, cough, runny nose, chest pains, palpitations, anxiety, anger, moods swings, depression, and itchy eyes. The only way to be sure of the safety of sucralose is to have long-term studies on humans done.

Basic, advanced, organic chemistry, physiology, biochemistry, and human pathology taught me the vast difference between “ionic bonds”, table salt, and “covalent bonds”, when chlorine is combined with carbon: Organochlorine…used in Agent Orange; which can cause Hodgkins and non-Hodgkins lymphoma, diabetes, and some forms of cancer. Ionic bonds are usually safe for human consumption, whereas, covalent bonds are deadly….The ionic bond found between a sodium atom, and a chloride atom is safe. The covalent bond between the carbons in sugar and a chlorine atom, making an organochlorine, like in Splenda, is deadly. Atoms act vastly different when they form different bonds. The chloride ion is abundant in nature, and is essential for life. The chlorine molecule, two chlorine atoms, is used to make insecticides, pesticides, herbicides, clean pools, destroy the ozone layer, and is a powerful oxidant…you better be getting a lot of antioxidants if you consume the chlorine in Splenda. It is absorbed and is broken down in the body. How could you taste it if it didn’t react chemically on your tongue????

Saying Splenda is similar to sugar, and safe, is like saying riding in an airplane and wing-walking are the same and equally safe.

By the way, Splenda was released for consumption on April 1, 1998…the day reserved to embarrass the gullible.

drfitness

I appreciate the info. You are right, of course, about the difference between ionic and covalent bonds. But, I’m still not convinced that sucralose in the quantities consumed by the average consumer is all that dangerous. I am in total agreement that it would be better to avoid it altogether, but if one is comparing the danger of eating 10 teaspoons of sugar per day or 1/600th times that amount of sucralose (which calculates to about 8/100ths of a gram), I would choose the sucralose every time.

But, as I say, I appreciate the info. It’s always good to know the risk side of the equation when making risk/reward decisions.

I go to NYC often, but I’ve been to SUNY Downstate only twice. Next time I’m there, I’ll take you up on your offer.

Sounds delicious. I, too, love caviar. It just never occurs to me to buy it because it costs so much. If your mother ever reveals the secret as to how she makes the La Tortilla wraps crispy, please let me know first.

Happy Thanksgiving to you, too. And thanks.